A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
EDITED BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND AMERICA.
VOLUME V
ST. AUGUSTIN:
ANTI-PELAGIAN WRITINGS.
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
SAINT AUGUSTIN’S ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS.
translated by
PETER HOLMES, D.D., F.R.A.S.,
DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE COUNTESS OF ROTHES,
AND CURATE OF PENNYCROSS, PLYMOUTH;
and
REV. ROBERT ERNEST WALLIS, Ph.d.,
INCUMBENT OF CHRIST CHURCH, COXLEY, SOMERSET.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED, AND AN INTRODUCTION PREFIXED, BY
BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, D.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, N.J.
Contents.
__________
preface to the american edition.
prefatory note by the american reviser.
introduction to augustin’s anti-pelagian writings. By the Rev. Professor B.B. Warfield, D.D.
dedication of vol. i. of edinburgh edition.
dedication of vol. ii. of edinburgh edition.
preface to vol. i. of edinburgh edition.
preface to vol. ii. of edinburgh edition.
“on the merits and remission of sins, and on the baptism of infants.”
Three Books. Written A.D. 412.
(De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, et de Baptismo Parvulorum.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Peccatorum Meritis,” etc.
The Treatise itself.
“on the spirit and the letter.” One Book. Written A.D. 412.
(De Spiritu et Litterâ.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Spiritu et litterâ.”
The Treatise itself.
“on nature and grace.” One Book. Written A.D. 415.
(De Naturâ et Gratiâ, contra Pelagium.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Naturâ et Gratiâ.”
Introductory Note.
The Treatise itself.
“on man’s perfection in righteousness.” One Book. Written about the end of 415.
(De Perfectione Justiciæ Hominis.)
Preface to the treatise.
The Treatise itself.
“on the proceedings of pelagius.” One Book. Written early in 417.
(De Gestis Pelagii.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Gestis Pelagii.”
Preface to the treatise.
The Treatise itself.
“on the grace of christ, and on original sin.” Two Books. Written in 418.
(De Gratiâ Christi, et de Peccato Originali, contra Pelagium.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Gratiâ Christi,” and “De Peccato Originali.”
Book I. On the Grace of Christ.
Book ii. On Original Sin.
“on marriage and concupiscence.” Two Books. Written early in 419 and 420.
(De Nuptiis et Concupiscientiâ.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Nuptiis et Concupiscientiâ.”
Advertisement to the Reader.
A Letter from Augustin to the Count Valerius.
Book I.
Preliminary Notes to the Second Book.
Book ii.
“on the soul and its origin.” Four Books. Written late in 419.
(De Animâ et ejus Origine.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Animâ et ejus Origine.”
Advertisement to the Reader.
Book I. Addressed to Renatus.
Book ii. Addressed to the Presbyter Peter.
Book III. Addressed to Vincentius Victor.
Book IV. Addressed to Vincentius Victor.
*“Against two letters of the pelagians.” Four Books. Written in 420 or a Little Later.
(Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum.”
Book I.
Book ii.
Book III.
Book IV.
“on grace and free will.” One Book. Written in 426 or 427.
(De Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio.”
Two Letters from Augustin to Valentinus and the Monks of Adrumetum, and forwarded with the Following Treatise.
The Treatise itself.
*“on rebuke and grace.” One Book. Written in 426 or 427.
(De Correptione et Gratiâ.)
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations” on “De Correptione et Gratiâ.”
The Treatise itself.
*“on the predestination of the saints.” One Book. Written in 428 or 429.
(De Prædestinatione Sanctorum.)
*“on the gift of perseverance.” One Book. Written in 428 or 429.
(De Dono Perseverantiæ.)
Note.—The treatises marked wth an asterisk above were translated by Dr. Wallis; the others by Dr. Holmes.
Preface to the American Edition.
————————————
“This volume contains all the Anti-Pelagian writings of Augustin, collected by the Benedictine editors in their tenth volume, with the exception only of the two long works Against Julian, and The Unfinished Work, which have been necessarily excluded on account of their bulk. The translation here printed is that of the English version of Augustin’s works, published by Messrs. T. and T. Clark at Edinburgh. This translation has been carefully compared with the Latin throughout, and corrected on every page into more accurate conformity to its sense. But this has not so altered its character that it ceases to be the Edinburgh translation,—bettered somewhat, but still essentially the same. The excellent translation of the three treatises, On the Spirit and the Letter, On Nature and Grace, and On the Proceedings of Pelagius, published in the early summer of this year by two Oxford scholars, Messrs. Woods and Johnston (London: David Nutt), was unfortunately too late in reaching America to be of any service to the editor.
“What may be called the explanatory matter of the Edinburgh translation, has been treated here even more freely than the text. The headings to the chapters have been added to until nearly every chapter is now provided with a caption. The brackets which distinguished the notes added by the translator from those which he translated from the Benedictine editor, have been generally removed, and the notes themselves often verbally changed, or otherwise altered. A few notes have been added,—chiefly with the design of rendering the allusions in the text intelligible to the uninstructed reader; and the more lengthy of these have been enclosed in brackets, and signed with a W. The result of all this is, that it is unsafe to hold the Edinburgh translators too closely responsible for the unbracketed matter; but that the American editor has not claimed as his own more than is really his.
“In preparing an Introductory Essay for the volume, two objects have been kept in view: to place the necessary Prolegomena to the following treatises in the hands of the reader, and to furnish the English reader with some illustrations of the Anti-Pelagian treatises from the other writings of Augustin. In the former interest, a brief sketch of the history of the Pelagian controversy and of the Pelagian and Augustinian systems has been given, and the occasions,
objects, and contents of the several treatises have been briefly stated. In the latter, Augustin’s letters and sermons have been as copiously extracted as the limits of space allowed. In the nature of the case, the sources have been independently examined for these materials; but those who have written of Pelagianism and of Augustin’s part in the controversy with it, have not been neglected. Above others, probably special obligations ought to be acknowledged to the Benedictine preface to their
tenth volume, and to Canon Bright’s Introduction to his edition of Select Anti-Pelagian Treatises. The purpose of this essay will be subserved if it enables the
“References to the treatises in the essay, and cross-references in the treatises themselves, have been inserted wherever they seemed absolutely necessary; but they have been often omitted where otherwise they would have been inserted because it has been thought that the Index of Subjects will suffice for all the needs of comparison of passages that are likely to arise. In the Index of Texts, an asterisk marks some of those places where a text is fully explained; and students of the history of Biblical Interpretation may find this feature helpful to them. It will not be strange, if, on turning up a few passages, they will find their notion of the power, exactness, and devout truth of Augustin as an interpreter of Scripture very much raised above what the current histories of interpretation have taught them.”
The above has been prepared by Dr. Warfield. I need only add that the present volume contains the most important of the doctrinal and polemical works of Augustin, which exerted a powerful influence upon the Reformers of the sixteenth century and upon the Jansenists in the seventeenth. They constitute what is popularly called the Augustinian system, though they only represent one side of it. Enough has been said on their merits in the Prolegomena to the first volume, and in the valuable Introductory Essay of Dr. Warfield, who has been called to fill the chair of systematic theology once adorned by the learning and piety of the immortal Hodges, father and son.
The remaining three volumes will contain the exegetical writings of the great Bishop of Hippo.
Philip Schaff.
New York, September, 1887.
introductory essay on augustin and the pelagian controversy.
by professor benjamin b. warfield, D.D.
A Select Bibliography of the Pelagian Controversy.
(Adapted from Dr. Schaff’s Church History, vol. iii.)
————————————
I. Three works of Pelagius, printed among the works of Jerome (Vallarsius’ edition, vol. xi.): viz., the Expositions on Paul’s Epistles, written before 410 (but somewhat, especially in Romans, interpolated); the Epistle to Demetrias, 413; and the Confession of Faith, 417, addressed to Innocent I. Copious fragments of other works (On Nature, In Defence of Free Will, Chapters, Letter to Innocent) are found quoted in Augustin’s refutations; as also of certain works by Cœlestius (e.g., his Definitions, Confession to Zosimus), and of the writings of Julian. Here also belong Cassian’s Collationes Patrum, and the works of the other semi-Pelagian writers.
II. Augustin’s anti-Pelagian treatises; also his work On Heresies, 88, 428; many of his letters, as e.g., those numbered by the Benedictines, 140, 157, 178, 179, 190, 191, 193, 194; and many of his letters, as e.g., 155, 163, 165, 168, 169, 174, 176, 293, 294, etc. Jerome’s Letter to Ctesiphon (133), and his three books of Dialogue against the Pelagians (vol. ii. of Vallarsius); Paulus Orosius’ Apology against Pelagius; Marius Mercator’s Commonitoria; Prosper of Aquitaine’s writings as also those of such late writers as Avitus, Cæsarius, Fulgentius, who bore the brunt of the semi-Pelagian controversy.
III. The collections of Acta of the councils and other public documents, in Mansi and in the appendix to the Benedictine edition of Augustin’s anti-Pelagian writings (vol.x.).
IV. Literature.—A. Special works on the subject: Gerh. Joh. Vossius, Hist. de Controversiis quas Pelagius ejusque reliquiæ moverunt, 1655; Henr. Norisius, Historia Pelagiana, etc., 1673; Garnier, Dissert. vii. quibus integra continuentur Pelagianorum Hist. (in his edition of Marius Mercator, I. 113); the Præfatio to vol. x. of the Benedictine edition of Augustin’s works; Corn. Jansenius, Augustinus sive doctrina S. Augustini, etc., adversus Pelagianos et Massilienses, 1640; Jac. Sirmond, Historia Prædestinatiana, 1648; Tillemont, Mémoires xiii. 1-1075; Ch. Wilh. Fr. Walch, Ketzerhìstorie, Bd. iv. and v., 1770; Johann Geffken, Historia semi-pelagianismi antiquissima, 1826; G. F. Wiggers, Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, 1821–1833 (Part I. dealing with Pelagianism proper, in an E. T. by Professor Emerson, Andover, 1840); J.L. Jacobi, Die Lehre des Pelagius, 1842; P. Schaff, The Pelagian Controversy, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, May, 1884; Theod. Gangauf, Metaphysische Psychologie des Heiligen Augustinus, 1852; Julius Müller, Die Christliche Lehre von der Sünde, 5th edition 1866 (E. T. by Urwick, Edinburgh); Do., Der Pelagianismus, 1854; F. Wörter, Der Pelagianismus u. s. w. 1866; Mozley, On the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, 1855; Nourrisson, La philosophie de S. Augustin, 1868; Bright, Select anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine, 1880; William Cunningham (not to be confounded with the Scotch professor of that name), S. Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought, being the Hulsean Lectures for 1885; James Field Spalding, The Teaching and Influence of St. Augustine, 1886; Hermann Reuter, Augustinische Studien, 1887.
B. The appropriate section in the Histories of Doctrine, as for example those of Münchner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hagenbach (also E. T.), Neander (also E. T.), Baur, Beck, Thomasius, Harnack (vol. ii. in the press); and in English, W. Cunningham, Shedd, etc.
C. The appropriate chapters in the various larger church histories, e.g., those of Schröckh, Fleury, Gieseler (also E. T.), Neander (also E.T.), Hefele (History of the Councils, also E. T.), Kurtz (also E. T.); and in English, Schaff, Milman, Robertson, etc.
Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy.
by professor benjamin b. warfield, D.D.
————————————
I. The Origin and Nature of Pelagianism.
It was inevitable that the energy of the Church in intellectually realizing and defining its doctrines in relation to one another, should first be directed towards the objective side of Christian truth. The chief controversies of the first four centuries and the resulting definitions of doctrine, concerned the nature of God and the person of Christ; and it was not until these theological and Christological questions were well upon their way to final settlement, that the Church could turn its attention to the more subjective side of truth. Meanwhile she bore in her bosom a full recognition, side by side, of the freedom of the will, the evil consequences of the fall, and the necessity of divine grace for salvation. Individual writers, or even the several sections of the Church, might exhibit a tendency to throw emphasis on one or another of the elements that made up this deposit of faith that was the common inheritance of all. The East, for instance, laid especial stress on free will: and the West dwelt more pointedly on the ruin of the human race and the absolute need of God’s grace for salvation. But neither did the Eastern theologians forget the universal sinfulness and need of redemption, or the necessity, for the realization of that redemption, of God’s gracious influences; nor did those of the West deny the self-determination or accountability of men. All the elements of the composite doctrine of man were everywhere confessed; but they were variously emphasized, according to the temper of the writers or the controversial demands of the times. Such a state of affairs, however, was an invitation to heresy, and a prophecy of controversy; just as the simultaneous confession of the unity of God and the Deity of Christ, or of the Deity and the humanity of Christ, inevitably carried in its train a series of heresies and controversies, until the definitions of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the person of Christ were complete. In like manner, it was inevitable that sooner or later some one should arise who would so one-sidedly emphasize one element or the other of the Church’s teaching as to salvation, as to throw himself into heresy, and drive the Church, through controversy with him, into a precise definition of the doctrines of free will and grace in their mutual relations.
This new heresiarch came, at the opening of the fifth century, in the person of the British monk, Pelagius. The novelty of the doctrine which he taught is repeatedly asserted by Augustin On the Merits and Remission of Sins, iii. 6, 11, 12; Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iv. 32; Against Julian, i. 4; On Heresies, 88; and often elsewhere. Jerome found roots for the theory in Origen and Rufinus (Letter 133, 3), but this is a different matter. Compare On Original Sin, 25. Preface to Book iv. of his work on Jeremiah. Latin Christianity, i. 166, note 2. Trois Prem. Siécles, ii. 375. De Natura Deorum, iii. 36. History of the Councils of the Church (E.T.), ii. 446, note 3. Compare the excellent statement in Thomasius’ Dogmengeschichte, i. 483.
Genetically speaking, Pelagianism was the daughter of legalism; but when it itself conceived, it brought forth an essential deism. It is not without significance that its originators were “a certain sort of monks;” that is, laymen of ascetic life. From this point of view the Divine law is looked upon as a collection of separate commandments, moral perfection as a simple complex of separate virtues, and a distinct value as a meritorious demand on Divine approbation is ascribed to each good work or attainment in the exercises of piety. It was because this was essentially his point of view that Pelagius could regard man’s powers as sufficient to the attainment of sanctity,—nay, that he could even assert it to be possible for a man to do more than was required of him. But this involved an essentially deistic conception of man’s relations to his Maker. God had endowed His creature with a capacity (possibilitas) or ability (posse) for action, and it was for him to use it. Man was thus a machine, which, just because it was well made, needed no Divine interference for its right working; and the Creator, having once framed him, and endowed him with the posse, henceforth leaves the velle and the esse to him.
At this point we have touched the central and formative principle of Pelagianism. It lies in the assumption of the plenary ability of man; his ability to do all that righteousness can demand,—to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection. This is the core of the whole theory; and all the other postulates not only depend upon it, but arise out of it. Both chronologically and logically this is the root of the system.
When we first hear of Pelagius, he is already advanced in years, living in Rome in the odour of sanctity, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 46; On the Merits and Remission of Sins, iii. 1; Epistle 186, etc. On Nature and Grace, 1. Epistle to Demetrias, 16. Do. 2 and 19. On the Gift of Perseverance, 53. On Nature and Grace, 49.
There were three specially important corollaries which flowed from this assertion of human ability, and Augustin himself recognized these as the chief elements of the system. On the Gift of Perseverance, 4; Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iii. 24; iv. 2 sq.
It was upon this last point that the greatest stress was laid in the controversy, and Augustin was most of all disturbed that thus God’s grace was denied and opposed. No doubt the Pelagians spoke constantly of “grace,” but they meant by this the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and
by Christ’s holy example. On the Spirit and the Letter, 4; On Nature and Grace, 53; On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 20, 22, 38; On the Grace of Christ, 2, 3, 8, 31, 42, 45; Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iv. 11; On Grace and Free Will, 23-26, and often. On Original Sin, 14. On Original Sin, 14. On Original Sin, 14. The Unfinished Work, iii. 82. Do. i. 91; compare do. i. 48, 60; ii. 20. “There is nothing of sin in man, if there is nothing of his own will.” “There is no original sin in infants at all.” On Original Sin, 30. On the Grace of Christ, 43. The Unfinished Work, i. 91; compare 69.
The peculiar individualism of the Pelagian view of the world comes out strongly in their failure to perceive the effect of habit on nature itself. Just as they conceived of virtue as a complex of virtuous acts, so they conceived of sin exclusively as an act, or series of disconnected acts. They appear not to have risen above the essentially heathen view which had no notion of holiness apart from a series of acts of holiness, or of sin apart from a like series of
sinful acts. Dr. Matheson finely says (Expositor, i. ix. 21), “There is the same difference between the Chrstian and Pagan idea of prayer as there is between the Christian and Pagan idea of sin. Paganism knows nothing of sin, it knows only sins: it has no conception of the principle of evil, it comprehends only a succession of sinful acts.” This is Pelagianism too. Compare Schaff, Church History, iii. 804; and Thomasius’ Dogmengeschichte, i. 487-8.
In defending their theory, as we are told by Augustin, there were five claims that they especially made for it. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iii. 25, and iv. at the beginning. This belongs to the earlier Pelagianism; Julian was ready to admit that death came from Adam, but not sin.
The teachings of the Pelagians, it will be readily seen, easily welded themselves into a system, the essential and formative elements of which were entirely new in the Christian Church; and this startlingly new reading of man’s condition, powers, and dependence for salvation, it was, that broke like a thunderbolt upon the Western Church at the opening of the fifth century, and forced her to reconsider, from the foundations, her whole teaching as to man and his salvation.
II. The External History of the Pelagian Controversy.
Pelagius seems to have been already somewhat softened by increasing age when he came to Rome about the opening of the fifth century. He was also constitutionally averse to controversy; and although in his zeal for Christian morals, and in his conviction that no man would attempt to do what he was not persuaded he had natural power to perform, he diligently propagated his doctrines privately, he was careful to rouse no opposition, and was content to make what progress he
could quietly and without open discussion. His methods of work sufficiently appear in the pages of his “Commentary on the Epistles of Saint Paul,” which was written and published during these years, and which exhibits learning and a sober and correct but somewhat shallow exegetical skill. In this work, he manages to give expression to all the main elements of his system, but always introduces them indirectly, not as the true exegesis, but by way of objections to the ordinary teaching, which
were in need of discussion. The most important fruit of his residence in Rome On Original Sin, 13. Early in 412, or, less probably, according to the Ballerini and Hefele 411.
Paulinus’ charge consisted of seven items, See On Original Sin, 2, 3, 12; On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 23. They are also given by Marius Mercator (Migne, xlviii. 69, 70), and the fifth item (on the salvation of unbaptized infants) omitted,—though apparently by an error. Preserved by Augustin, On Original Sin, 3, 4.
Meanwhile Pelagius was living quietly in Palestine, whither in the summer of 415 a young Spanish presbyter, Paulus Orosius by name, came with letters from Augustin to Jerome, and was invited, near the end of July in that year, to a diocesan synod, presided over by John of Jerusalem. There he was asked about Pelagius and Cœlestius, and proceeded to give an account of the condemnation of the latter at the synod of Carthage, and of Augustin’s literary refutation of
the former. Pelagius was sent for, and the proceedings became an examination into his teachings. The chief matter brought up was his assertion of the possibility of men living sinlessly in this world; but the favour of the bishop towards him, the intemperance of Orosius, and the difficulty of communication between the parties arising from difference of language, combined so to clog proceedings that nothing was done; and the whole matter, as Western in its origin, was referred to the Bishop of
Rome for examination and decision. An account of this synod is given by Orosius himself in his Apology for the Freedom of the Will.
Soon afterwards two Gallic bishops,—Heros of Arles, and Lazarus of Aix,—who were then in Palestine, lodged a formal accusation against Pelagius with the metropolitan, Eulogius of Cæsarea; and he convened a synod of fourteen bishops which met at Lydda (Diospolis), in December of the same year (415), for the trial of the case. Perhaps no greater ecclesiastical farce was ever enacted than this synod exhibited. A full account and criticism of the proceedings are given by Augustin in his On the Proceedings of Pelagius. On Original Sin, 13, at the end. Augustin’s Sermons (Migne, v. 1511).
However obtained, the acquittal of Pelagius was yet an accomplished fact. Neither he nor his friends delayed to make the most widely extended use of their good fortune. Pelagius himself was jubilant. Accounts of the synodal proceedings were sent to the West, not altogether free from uncandid alterations; and Pelagius soon put forth a work In Defence of Free-Will, in which he triumphed in his acquittal and “explained his explanations” at the synod. Nor were the
champions of the opposite opinion idle. As soon as the news arrived in North Africa, and before the authentic records of the synod had reached that region, the condemnation of Pelagius and Cœlestius was re-affirmed in two provincial synods,—one, consisting of sixty-eight bishops, met at Carthage about midsummer of 416; and the other, consisting of about sixty bishops, met soon afterwards at Mileve (Mila). Thus Palestine and North Africa were arrayed against one another, and it became of great
importance to obtain the support of the Patriarchal See of Rome. Both sides made the attempt, but fortune favored the Africans. Each of the North-African synods sent a synodal letter to Innocent I., then Bishop of Rome, engaging his assent to their action: to these, five bishops, Aurelius of Carthage and Augustin among them, added a third “familiar” letter of their own, in which they urged upon Innocent to examine into Pelagius’ teaching, and provided him with the material on which he might
base a decision. The letters reached Innocent in time for him to take advice of his clergy, and send favorable replies on Jan. 27, 417. In these he expressed his agreement with the African decisions, asserted the necessity of inward grace, rejected the Pelagian theory of infant baptism, and declared Pelagius and Cœlestius excommunicated until they should return to orthodoxy. In about six weeks more he was dead: but Zosimus, his successor, was scarcely installed in his place before Cœlestius
appeared at Rome in person to plead his cause; while shortly afterwards letters arrived from Pelagius addressed to Innocent, and by an artful statement of his belief and a recommendation from Praylus, lately become bishop of Jerusalem in John’s stead, attempting to enlist Rome in his favour. Zosimus, who appears to have been a Greek and therefore inclined to make little of the merits of this Western controversy, went over to Cœlestius at once, upon his profession of willingness to anathematize
all doctrines which the pontifical see had condemned or should condemn; and wrote a sharp and arrogant letter to Africa, proclaiming Cœlestius “catholic,” and requiring the Africans to appear within two months at Rome to prosecute their charges, or else to abandon them. On the arrival of Pelagius’ papers, this letter was followed by another (September, 417), in which Zosimus, with the approbation of the clergy, declared both Pelagius and Cœlestius to be orthodox, and severely rebuked the
Africans for their hasty judgment. It is difficult to understand Zosimus’ action in this matter: neither of the confessions presented by the accused teachers ought to have deceived him, and if he was seizing the occasion to magnify the Roman see, his mistake was dreadful. Late in 417, or early in 418, the African bishops assembled at Carthage, in number more than two Compare Canon Bright’s Introduction in his Select Anti-Pelagian Treatises, p. xli. See above, p. xv., and the passages in Augustin cited in note 3.
The appeal to the civil power, by whomsoever made, was, of course, indefensible, although it accorded with the opinions of the day, and was entirely approved by Augustin. But it was the ruin of the Pelagian cause. Zosimus found himself forced either to go into banishment with his wards, or to desert their cause. He appears never to have had any personal convictions on the dogmatic points involved in the controversy, and so, all the more readily, yielded to the necessity
of the moment. He cited Cœlestius to appear before a council for a new examination; but that heresiarch consulted prudence, and withdrew from the city. Zosimus, possibly in the effort to appear a leader in the cause he had opposed, not only condemned and excommunicated the men whom less than six months before he had pronounced “orthodox” after a ‘mature consideration of the matters involved,’ but, in obedience to the imperial decree, issued a stringent paper which condemned Pelagius and the
Pelagians, and affirmed the African doctrines as to corruption of nature, true grace, and the necessity of baptism. To this he required subscription from all bishops as a test of orthodoxy. Eighteen Italian bishops refused their signature, with Julian of Eclanum, henceforth to be the champion of the Pelagian party, at their head, and were therefore deposed, although several of them afterwards recanted, and were restored. In Julian, the
But Pelagianism did not so die as not to leave a legacy behind it. “Remainders of Pelagianism” Prosper’s phrase. Augustin gives their teaching carefully in his On the Predestination of the Saints, 2.
The Augustinian opposition was at first led by the vigorous controversialist, Prosper of Aquitaine, and, in the next century, by the wise, moderate, and good Cæsarius of Arles, who brought the contest to a conclusion in the victory of a softened Augustinianism. Already in 431 a letter was obtained from Pope Cœlestine, designed to close the controversy in favor of Augustinianism, and in 496 Pope Gelasius condemned the writings of Faustus in the first index of forbidden books; while, near the end of the first quarter of the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas was appealed to for a renewed condemnation. The end was now in sight. The famous second Synod of Orange met under the presidency of Cæsarius at that ancient town on the 3d of July, 529, and drew up a series of moderate articles which received the ratification of Boniface II. in the following year. In these articles there is affirmed an anxiously guarded Augustinianism, a somewhat weakened Augustinianism, but yet a distinctive Augustinianism; and, so far as a formal condemnation could reach, semi-Pelagianism was suppressed by them in the whole Western Church. But councils and popes can only decree; and Cassian and Vincent and Faustus, despite Cæsarius and Boniface and Gregory, retained an influence among their countrymen which never died away.
III. Augustin’s Part in the Controversy.
Both by nature and by grace, Augustin was formed to be the champion of truth in this controversy. Of a naturally philosophical temperament, he saw into the springs of life with a vividness of mental perception to which most men are strangers; and his own experiences in his long life of resistance to, and then of yielding to, the drawings of God’s grace, gave him a clear apprehension of the great evangelic principle that God seeks men, not men God, such as no sophistry
could cloud. However much his philosophy or theology might undergo change in other particu Compare his work written this year, On Several Questions to Simplicianus. For the development of Augustin’s theology, see the admirable statement in Neander’s Church History, E.T., ii. 625 sq. On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 46. On the Merits and Remission of Sins, iii. 12.
It appears from these facts, given us by himself, that Augustin was not only ready for, but was looking for, the coming controversy. It can scarcely have been a surprise to him when Paulinus accused Cœlestius (412); and, although he was not a member of the council which condemned him, it was inevitable that he should at once take the leading part in the consequent controversy. Cœlestius and his friends did not silently submit to the judgment that had been passed
upon their teaching: they could not openly propagate their heresy, but they were diligent in spreading their plaints privately and by subterraneous whispers among the people. Epistle 157, 22. On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 46. Sermon 176, 2. Sermon 174. Do.
It was not long, however, before the controversy was driven out of the region of sermons into that of regular treatises. The occasion for Augustin’s first appearance in a written document bearing on the controversy, was given by certain questions which were sent to him for answer by “the tribune and notary” Marcellinus, with whom he had cemented his intimacy at Carthage, the previous year, when this notable official was presiding, by the emperor’s orders, over the
great conference of the catholics and Donatists. The mere fact that Marcellinus, still at Carthage, where Cœlestius had been brought to trial, wrote to Augustin at Hippo for written answers to important questions connected with the Pelagian heresy, speaks volumes for the prominent position he had already assumed in the controversy. The questions that were sent, concerned the connection of death with sin, the transmission of sin, the possibility of a sinless life, and especially infants’ need of
baptism. On the Merits and Remission of Sins, iii. 1. On the Merits and Remission of Sins, i. 1. Compare Epistle 139. On the prominence of infant baptism in the controversy, and why it was so, see Sermon 165, 7 sq. “What do you say? ‘Just this,’ he says, ‘that God creates every man immortal.’ Why, then do infant children die? For if I say, ‘Why do adult men die?’ you would say to me, ‘They have sinned.’ Therefore I do not argue about the adults: I cite infancy as a witness against you,” and so on, eloquently developing the argument.
After these books were completed, Augustin came into possession of Pelagius’ Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, which was written while he was living in Rome (before 410), and found it to contain some arguments that he had not treated,—such arguments, he tells us, as he had not imagined could be held by any one. On the Merits and Remission of Sins, iii. 1. Letter 139, 3. Letter 140. See chaps. 1 and 5.
Augustin was now to learn that one service often entails another. Marcellinus wrote to say that he was puzzled by what had been said in the second book of this work, as to the possibility of man’s attaining to sinlessness in this life, while yet it was asserted that no man ever had attained, or ever would attain, it. How, he asked, can that be said to be possible which is, and which will remain, unexampled? In reply, Augustin wrote, during this same year (412), and sent
to his noble friend, another work, which he calls On the Spirit and the Letter, from the prominence which he gives in it to the words of Sermon 163 treats the text similarly. See this prayer beautifully illustrated from Scripture in On the Merits and Remission of Sins, ii. 5.
By this work, Augustin completed, in his treatment of Pelagianism, the circle of that triad of doctrines which he himself looked upon as most endangered by this heresy, See above, p. xv. As quoted above, p. xx.
After the publication of these treatises, the controversy certainly did not lull; but it relapsed for nearly three years again, into less public courses. Meanwhile, Augustin was busy, among other most distracting cares ( Epistle 146. See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 50, 51, 52.
If he was anxious to avoid personal controversy with Pelagius himself in the hope that he might even yet be reclaimed, Augustin was equally anxious to teach the truth on all possible occasions. Pelagius had been intimate, when at Rome, with the pious Paulinus, bishop of Nola; and it was understood that there was some tendency at Nola to follow the new teachings. It was, perhaps, as late as 414, when Augustin made reply in a long letter, Epistle 149. See especially 18 sq. Epistle 121.
Among the most remarkable of the controversial sermons that were preached about this time, especial mention is due to two that were delivered at Carthage, midsummer of 413. The former of these Sermon 293. Sermon 176, 2.
Three days afterwards, The inscription says, “V Calendus Julii,” i.e., June 27; but it also says, “In natalis martyris Guddentis,” whose day appears to have been July 18. Some of the martyrologies assign 28th of June to Gaudentius (which some copies read here), but possibly none to Guddene. Sermon 294. The passage is quoted at length in On the Merits and Remission of Sins, iii. 10. Compare Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iv. 23.
Augustin himself gives us a view of the progress of the controversy at this time in a letter written in 414. Epistle 157, 22. Epistle 156, among Augustin’s Letters. Epistle, 157, 22.
To the number of those who had been rescued from Pelagianism by his efforts, Augustin was now to have the pleasure of adding two others, in whom he seems to have taken much delight. Timasius and James were two young men of honorable birth and liberal education, who had, by the exhortation of Pelagius, been moved to give up the hope that they had in this world, and enter upon the service of God in an ascetic life. Epistles 177, 6; and 179, 2. Epistle 168. On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 48. On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 47; and Epistle 186, 1. Compare On Nature and Grace, 7; and Epistle 186, 1. Epistle 169, 13. On Nature and Grace, 1. Sallust’s Jugurtha, prologue.
The treatise On Nature and Grace was as yet unfinished, when the over-busy For Augustin’s press of work just now, see Epistle 169, 1 and 13. The argument occurs in Pelagius’ Commentary on Paul, written before 410, and is already before Augustin in On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, etc., iii. 5. Epistle 166. An almost contemporary letter to Oceanus (Epistle 180, written in 416) adverts to the same subject and in the same spirit, showing how much it was in Augustin’s thoughts. Compare Epistle 180, 2 and 5. Epistle 172.
Meanwhile, however, Augustin was ignorant of what was going on in the East, and had his mind directed again to Sicily. About a year had passed since he had sent thither his long letter to Hilary. Now his conjecture that Cœlestius was in some way at the bottom of the Sicilian outbreak, received confirmation from a paper which certain catholic brethren brought out of Sicily, and which was handed to Augustin by two exiled Spanish bishops, Eutropius and Paul. This
paper bore the title, Definitions Ascribed to Cœlestius, and presented internal evidence, in style and thought, of being correctly so ascribed. See On the Perfection of Man’s Righteousness, 1.
Tidings were now (416) beginning to reach Africa of what was doing in the East. There was diligently circulated everywhere, and came into Augustin’s hands, an epistle of Pelagius’ own “filled with vanity,” in which he boasted that fourteen bishops had approved his assertion that “man can live without sin, and easily keep the commandments if he wishes,” and had thus “shut the mouth of opposition in confusion,” and “broken up the whole band of wicked conspirators
against him.” Soon afterwards a copy of an “apologetical paper,” in which Pelagius used the authority of the Palestinian bishops against his adversaries, not altogether without disingenuousness, was sent by him to Augustin through the hands of a common acquaintance, Charus by name. It was not accompanied, however, by any letter from Pelagius; and Augustin wisely refrained from making public use of it. Towards midsummer Orosius came with more authentic information, and bearing letters from
Jerome and Heros and Lazarus. It was apparently before his coming that a controversial sermon was preached, only a fragment of which has come down to us. Migne’s Edition of Augustin’s Works, vol. v. pp. 1719-1723. Compare the words of Cicero quoted above, p. xiv. Compare the similar words in Epistle 177, 3, which was written, not only after what had occurred in Palestine was known, but also after the condemnatory decisions of the African synods.
The coming of Orosius must have dispelled any lingering hope that the meaning of the council’s finding was that Pelagius had really recanted. Councils were immediately assembled at Carthage and Mileve, and the documents which Orosius had brought were read before them. We know nothing of their proceedings except what we can gather from the letters which they sent Epistles 175 and 176 in Augustin’s Letters. Epistle 177. The other bishops were Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius.
At about this same time (417), the tireless bishop sent a short letter Epistle 178. Epistle 179.
Thus we see the great bishop sitting in his library at Hippo, placing his hands on the two ends of the world. That nothing may be lacking to the picture of his universal activity, we have another letter from him, coming from about this same time, that exhibits his care for the individuals who had placed themselves in some sort under his tutelage. Among the refugees from Rome in the terrible times when Alaric was a second time threatening the city, was a family of
noble women,—Proba, Juliana, and Demetrias, See vol. i. of this series, p. 459, and the references there given. Compare Canon Robertson’s vivid account of them in his History of the Christian Church, ii. 18, 145. Epistle 188. Compare On the Grace of Christ, 40. In the succeeding sections, some of its statements are examined.
With the opening of 417, came the answers from Innocent to the African letters. Epistles 181, 182, 183, among Augustin’s Letters.
About the same time with Innocent’s letters, the official proceedings of the synod of Diospolis at last reached Africa, and Augustin lost no time (early in 417) in publishing a full account and examination of them, thus providing us with that inestimable boon, a full contemporary history of the chief events connected with the controversy up to this time. This treatise, which is addressed to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, opens with a brief explanation of Augustin’s delay heretofore, in discussing Pelagius’ defence of himself in Palestine, as due to his not having received the official copy of the Proceedings of the Council at Diospolis (1–2a). Then Augustin proceeds at once to discuss at length the doings of the synod, point by point, following the official record step by step (2b-45). He treats at large here eleven items in the indictment, with Pelagius’ answers and the synod’s decision, showing that in all of them Pelagius either explained away his heresy, taking advantage of the ignorance of the judges of his books, or else openly repudiated or anathematized it. When the twelfth item of the indictment was reached (41b-43), Augustin shows that the synod was so indignant at its character (it charged Pelagius with teaching that men cannot be sons of God unless they are sinless, and with condoning sins of ignorance, and with asserting that choice is not free if it depends on God’s help, and that pardon is given according to merit), that, without waiting for Pelagius’ answer, it condemned the statement, and Pelagius at once repudiated and anathematized it (43). How could the synod act in such circumstances, he asks, except by acquitting the man who condemned the heresy? After quoting the final judgment of the synod (44), Augustin briefly characterizes it and its effect (45) as being indeed all that could be asked of the judges, but of no moral weight to those better acquainted than they were with Pelagius’ character and writings. In a word, they approved his answers to them, as indeed they ought to have done; but they by no means approved, but both they and he condemned, his heresies as expressed in his writings. To this statement, Augustin appends an account of the origin of Pelagianism, and of his relations to it from the beginning, which has the very highest value as history (46–49); and then speaks of the character and doubtful practices of Pelagius (50–58), returning at the end (59–65) to a thorough canvass of the value of the acquittal which he obtained by such doubtful practices at the synod. He closes with an indignant account of the outrages which the Pelagians had perpetrated on Jerome (66).
This valuable treatise is not, however, the only account of the historical origin of Pelagianism that we have, from Augustin’s hands. Soon after the death of Innocent (March 12, 417), he found occasion to write a very long letter Epistle 186, written conjointly with Alypius. The book given him by Timasius and James, to which On Nature and Grace is a reply. Compare also Innocent’s letter (Epistle 181) to the Carthaginian Council, chap. 4, which also Neander, History of the Christian Church, E.T., ii. 646, quotes in this connection, as showing that Innocent “perceived that this dispute was connected with a different way of regarding the relation of God’s providence to creation.” As if Augustin did not see this too!
The sharpest period of the whole conflict was now drawing on. The book addressed to Dardanus, in which the Pelagians are confuted, but not named, belongs about at this time. Compare Retractations, ii. 49. Sermon 131, preached at Carthage.
The “great African Council” met at Carthage, on the 1st of May, 418; and, after its decrees were issued, Augustin remained at Carthage, and watched the effect of the combination of which he was probably one of the moving causes. He had now an opportunity to betake himself once more to his pen. While still at Carthage, at short notice, and in the midst of much distraction, he wrote a large work, in two books which have come down to us under the separate titles of
On the Grace of Christ, and On Original Sin, at the instance of another of those ascetic families which formed so marked a feature in those troubled times. Pinianus and Melania, the daughter of Albina, were husband and wife, who, leaving Rome amid the wars with Alaric, had lived in continence in Africa for some time, but now in Palestine had separated, he to become head of a monastery, and she an inmate of a convent. While in Africa, they had lived at Sagaste under the tutelage of
Alypius, and in the enjoyment of the friendship and instruction of Augustin. After retiring to Bethlehem, like the other holy ascetics whom he had known in Africa, they kept up their relations with him. Like the others, also, they became acquainted with Pelagius in Palestine, and were well-nigh deceived by him. They wrote to Augustin that they had begged Pelagius to condemn in writing all that had been alleged against him, and that he had replied in the presence of them all, that “he
anathematized the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God whereby Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners is not necessary, not only for every hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives,” and asserted that “those who endeavor to disannul it are worthy of everlasting punishment.” On the Grace of Christ, 2. The so-called Confession of Faith sent to Innocent after the Synod of Diospolis, but which arrived after Innocent’s death. On Original Sin, 1. Do., 5. On the Grace of Christ, 55.
The first book, On the Grace of Christ, begins by quoting and examining Pelagius’ anathema of all those who deny that grace is necessary for every action (2 sq.). Augustin confesses that this would deceive all who were not fortified by knowledge of Pelagius’ writings; but asserts that in the light of them it is clear that he means that grace is always necessary, because we need continually to remember the forgiveness of our sins, the example of Christ, the
teaching of the law, and the like. Then he enters (4 sq.) upon an examination of Pelagius’ scheme of human
The object of the second book—On Original Sin—is to show, that, in spite of Pelagius’ admissions as to the baptism of infants, he yet denies that they inherit original sin and contends that they are born free from corruption. The book opens by pointing out that there is no question as to Cœlestius’ teaching in this matter (2–8), as he at Carthage refused to condemn those who say that Adam’s sin injured no one but himself, and that infants are born in the same
state that Adam was in before the fall, and openly asserted at Rome that there is no sin ex traduce. As for Pelagius, he is simply more cautious and mendacious than Cœlestius: he deceived the Council at Diospolis, but failed to deceive the Romans (5–13), and, as a matter of fact (14–18), teaches exactly what Cœlestius does. In support of this assertion, Pelagius’ Defence of Free Will is quoted, wherein he asserts that we are born neither good nor bad, “but with a capacity for
either,” and “as without virtue, so without vice; and previous to the action of our own proper will, that that alone is in man which God has formed” (14). Augustin also quotes Pelagius’ explanation of his anathema against those who say Adam’s sin injured only himself, as meaning that he has injured man by setting a bad “example,” and his even more sinuous explanation of his anathema against those who assert that infants are born in the same condition that Adam was in before he fell, as meaning
that they are infants and he was a man! (16–18). With this introduction to them, Augustin next treats of Pelagius’ subterfuges (19–25), and then animadverts on
What Augustin means by writing to Pinianus and his family that he was more oppressed by work at Carthage than anywhere else, may perhaps be illustrated from his diligence in preaching while in that capital. He seems to have been almost constantly in the pulpit, during this period “of the sharpest conflict with them,” On the Gift of Perseverance, 55. Compare, below, pp. lv-lviii. Neander, in the second volume (E.T.) of his History of the Christian Church, discusses the matter in a very fair spirit. English version, Sermon 26.
Augustin was not less busy with his pen, during these months, than with his voice. Quite a series of letters belong to the last half of 418, in which he argues to his distant correspondents on the same themes which he was so iterantly trying to make clear to his Carthaginian auditors. One of the most interesting of these was written to a fellow-bishop, Optatus, on the origin of the soul. Epistle 190.
This letter was written not long after the issue of Zosimus’ Tractoria, demanding the signature of all to African orthodoxy; and Augustin sends Optatus “copies of the recent letters which have been sent forth from the Roman see, whether specially to the African bishops or generally to all bishops,” on the Pelagian controversy, “lest perchance they had not yet reached” his correspondent, who, it is very evident, he was anxious should thoroughly realize “that the authors, or certainly the most energetic and noted teachers,” of these new heresies, “had been condemned in the whole Christian world by the vigilance of episcopal councils aided by the Saviour who keeps His Church, as well as by two venerable overseers of the Apostolical see, Pope Innocent and Pope Zosimus, unless they should show repentance by being convinced and reformed.” To this zeal we owe it that the letter contains an extract from Zosimus’ Tractoria, one of the two brief fragments of that document that have reached our day.
There was another ecclesiastic in Rome, besides Zosimus, who was strongly suspected of favoring the Pelagians,—the presbyter Sixtus, who afterwards became Pope Sixtus III. But when Zosimus sent forth his condemnation of Pelagianism, Sixtus sent also a short letter to Africa addressed to Aurelius of Carthage, which, though brief, indicated a considerable vigor against the heresy which he was commonly believed to have before defended, See Epistle 194, 1. See Epistle 191, 1. Epistle 191. Epistle 194. It appears to have been first reported to Augustin, by Marius Mercator, in a letter received at Carthage. See Epistle 193, 3. As, for example, in On the Merits and Remission of Sins, etc., i.
By the same messenger who carried this important letter to Sixtus, Augustin sent also a letter to Mercator, Epistle 193. Compare On Dulcitius’ Eight Questions, 3. That is, On the Merits and Remission of Sins, etc., ii. 30 sq.
It was probably at the very end of 418 that Augustin wrote a letter of some length Epistle 196.
At the beginning of 419, a considerable work was published by Augustin on one of the more remote corollaries which the Pelagians drew from his teachings. It had come to his ears, that they asserted that his doctrine condemned marriage: “if only sinful offspring come from marriage,” they asked, “is not marriage itself made a sinful thing?” The book which Augustin composed in answer to this query, he dedicated to, and sent along with an explanatory letter to, the
Comes Valerius, a trusted servant of the Emperor Honorius, and one of the most steady opponents at court of the Pelagian heresy. Augustin explains On Marriage and Concupiscence, i. 2. Compare the Benedictine Preface to The Unfinished Work.
Towards the end of the same year (419), Augustin was led to take up again the vexed question of the origin of the soul,—both in a new letter to Optatus, Epistle 202, bis. Compare Epistle 190.
The controversy now entered upon a new stage. Among the evicted bishops of Italy who refused to sign Zosimus’ Epistola Tractoria, Julian of Eclanum was easily the first, and at this point he appears as the champion of Pelagianism. It was a sad fate that arrayed this beloved son of his old friend against Augustin, just when there seemed to be reason to hope that the controversy was at an end, and the victory won, and the plaudits of the world were greeting
him as the saviour of the Church. Compare Epistle 195. Julian afterwards repudiated this letter, perhaps because of some falsifications it had suffered; it seems to have been certainly his. Compare Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iii. 24: and see above, p. xv.
Augustin felt a strong desire to see the whole work of Julian against his book On Marriage and Concupiscence before he undertook a reply to the excerpts sent him by Valerius; but he did not feel justified in delaying obedience to that officer’s request, and so wrote at once two treatises, one an answer to these excerpts, for the benefit of Valerius, constituting the second book of his On Marriage and Concupiscence; and the other, a far more elaborate examination of the letters sent by Boniface, which bears the title, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians. The purpose of the second book of On Marriage and Concupiscence, Augustin himself states, in its introductory sentences, to be “to reply to the taunts of his adversaries with all the truthfulness and scriptural authority he could command.” He begins (2) by identifying the source of the extracts forwarded to him by Valerius, with Julian’s work against his first book, and then remarks upon the garbled form in which he is quoted in them (3–6), and passes on to state and refute Julian’s charge that the catholics had turned Manicheans (7–9). At this point, the refutation of Julian begins in good earnest, and the method that he proposes to use is stated; viz., to adduce the adverse statements, and refute them one by one (10). Beginning at the beginning, he quotes first the title of the paper sent him, which declares that it is directed against “those who condemn matrimony, and ascribe its fruit to the Devil” (11), which certainly, says Augustin, does not describe him or the catholics. The next twenty chapters (10–30), accordingly, following Julian’s order, labour to prove that marriage is good, and ordained by God, but that its good includes fecundity indeed, but not concupiscence, which arose from sin, and contracts sin. It is next argued, that the doctrine of original sin does not imply an evil origin for man (31–51); and in the course of this argument, the following propositions are especially defended: that God makes offspring for good and bad alike, just as He sends the rain and sunshine on just and unjust (31–34); that God makes everything to be found in marriage except its flaw, concupiscence (35–40); that marriage is not the cause of original sin, but only the channel through which it is transmitted (41–47); and that to assert that evil cannot arise from what is good leaves us in the clutches of that very Manicheism which is so unjustly charged against the catholics—for, if evil be not eternal, what else was there from which it could arise but something good? (48–51). In concluding, Augustin recapitulates, and argues especially, that shameful concupiscence is of sin, and the author of sin, and was not in paradise (52–54); that children are made by God, and only marred by the Devil (55); that Julian, in admitting that Christ died for infants, admits that they need salvation (56); that what the Devil makes in children is not a substance, but an injury to a substance (57–58); and that to suppose that concupiscence existed in any form in paradise introduces incongruities in our conception of life in that abode of primeval bliss (59–60).
The long and important treatise, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, consists of four books, the first of which replies to the letter sent to Rome, and the other three to that sent to Thessalonica. After a short introduction, in which he thanks Boniface for his kindness, and gives reasons why heretical writings should be answered (1–3), Augustin begins at once to rebut the calumnies which the letter before him brings against the catholics (4–28). These are
seven in number: 1. That the catholics destroy free will; to which Augustin replies that none are “forced into sin by the necessity of their flesh,” but all sin by free will, though no man can have a righteous will save by God’s grace, and that it is really the Pelagians that destroy free will by exaggerating it (4–8); 2. That Augustin declares that such marriage as now exists is not of God (9); 3. That sexual desire and intercourse are made a device of the Devil, which is sheer Manicheism
(10–11); 4. That the Old-Testament saints are said to have died in sin (12); 5. That Paul and the other apostles are asserted to have been polluted by lust all their days; Augustin’s answer to which includes a running commentary on
The second, third, and fourth books deal with the letter to Rufus in a somewhat similar way, the second and third books being occupied with the calumnies brought against the catholics, and the fourth with the claims made by the Pelagians. The second begins by repelling the charge of Manicheism brought against the catholics (1–4), to which the pointed remark is added, that the Pelagians cannot hope to escape condemnation because they are willing to condemn another
heresy; and then defends (with less success) the Roman clergy against the charge of prevarication in their dealing with the Pelagians (5–8), in the course of which all that can be said in defence of Zosimus’ wavering policy is said well and strongly. Next the charges against catholic teaching are taken up and answered (9–16), especially the two important accusations that they maintain fate under the name of grace (9–12), and that they make God an “accepter of persons” (13–16). Augustin’s
replies to these charges are in every way admirable. The charge of “fate” rests solely on the catholic denial that grace is given according to preceding merits; but the Pelagians do not escape the same charge when they acknowledge that the “fates” of baptized and unbaptized infants do differ. It is, in truth, not a question of “fate,” but of gratuitous bounty; and “it is not the catholics that assert fate under the name of grace, but the Pelagians that choose to call divine grace by the
name of ‘fate’” (12). As to “acceptance of persons,” we must define what we mean by that. God certainly does not accept one’s “person” above another’s; He does not give to one rather than to another because He sees something to please Him in one rather than another: quite the opposite. He gives of His bounty to one while giving all their due to all, as in the parable ( To wit: Cyprian’s testimony on original sin (20-24), on gratuitous grace (25-26), on the imperfection of human righteousness (27-28), and Ambrose’s testimony on original sin (29), on gratuitous grace (30), and on the imperfection of human righteousness (31).
These books were written late in 420, or early in 421, and Alypius appears to have conveyed them to Italy during the latter year. Before its close, Augustin, having obtained and read the whole of Julian’s attack on the first book of his work On Marriage and Concupiscence, wrote out a complete answer to it, Compare Epistle 207, written probably in the latter half of 421. That is, Chyrsostom. Compare On Rebuke and Grace, 44, and the footnote there.
After the completion of this important work, there succeeded a lull in the controversy, of some years duration; and the calm refutation of Pelagianism and exposition of Christian grace, which Augustin gave in his Enchiridion, See vol. iii. of this series, pp. 227 sq. Now a portion of Tunis. Epistle 194. Epistle 214. Epistle 215, 2 sq.
The one request that Augustin made, on sending this work to Valentinus, was that Florus, through whom the controversy had arisen, should be sent to him, that he might converse with him and learn whether he had been misunderstood, or himself had misunderstood Augustin. In due time Florus arrived at Hippo, bringing a letter Epistle 216. On Rebuke and Grace, 1. Retractions, ii. 67. Compare On Rebuke and Grace, 5 sq. On the importance of this treatise for Augustin’s doctrine of predestination, see Wiggers’ Augustinianism and Pelagianism, E.T. p. 236, where a sketch of the history of this doctrine in Augustin’s writings may be found.
It was not long afterwards (about 427) when Augustin was called upon to attempt to reclaim a Carthaginian brother, Vitalis by name, who had been brought to trial on the charge of teaching that the beginning of faith was not the gift of God, but the act of man’s own free will (ex propria voluntatis). This was essentially the semi-Pelagian position which was subsequently to make so large a figure in history; and Augustin treats it now as necessarily implying
the basal idea of Pelagianism. In the important letter which he sent to Vitalis, Epistle 217.
It is not without significance, that the error of Vitalis took a semi-Pelagian form. Pure Pelagianism was by this time no longer a living issue. Augustin was himself, no doubt, not yet done with it. The second book of his treatise On Marriage and Concupiscence, which seems to have been taken to Italy by Alypius, in 421, received at once the attention of Julian, and was elaborately answered by him, during that same year, in eight books addressed to Florus.
But Julian was now in Cilicia, and his book was slow in working its way westward. It was found at Rome by Alypius, apparently in 427 or 428, and he at once set about transcribing it for his friend’s use. An opportunity arising to send it to Africa before it was finished, he forwarded to Augustin the five books that were ready, with an urgent request that they should receive his immediate attention, and a promise to send the other three as soon as possible. Augustin gives an account of his
progress in his reply to them in a letter written to Quodvultdeus, apparently in 428. Epistle 224. The account given of Pelagianism is as follows: “They are in such degree enemies of the grace of God, by which we have been predestined into the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ unto Himself ( Compare Epistles 225, 1, and 156. It is, of course, not certain that this is the same Hilary that wrote to Augustin from Sicily, but it seems probable. In Letters 225 and 226.
Augustin’s answer to these appeals was a work in two books, On the Predestination of the Saints, the second book of which is usually known under the separate title of The Gift of Perseverance. The former book begins with a careful discrimination of the position of his new opponents: they have made a right beginning in that they believe in original sin, and acknowledge that none are saved from it save by Christ, and that God’s grace leads men’s wills, and
without grace no one can suffice for good deeds. These things will furnish a good starting-point for their progress to an acceptance of predestination also (1–2). The first question that needs discussion in such circumstances is, whether God gives the very beginnings of faith (3 sq.); since they admit that what Augustin had previously urged sufficed to prove that faith was the gift of God so far as that the increase of faith was given by Him, but not so far but that the beginning of faith may
be understood to be man’s, to which, then, God adds all other gifts (compare 43). Augustin insists that this is no other than the Pelagian assertion of grace according to merit (3), is opposed to Scripture (4–5), and begets arrogant boasting in ourselves (6). He replies to the objection that he had himself once held this view, by confessing it, and explaining that he was converted from it by
The purpose of the second book, which has come down to us under the separate title of On the Gift of Perseverance, is to show that that perseverance which endures to the end is as much of God as the beginning of faith, and that no man who has been “called according to God’s purpose,” and has received this gift, can fall from grace and be lost. The first half of the treatise is devoted to this theme (1–33). It begins by distinguishing between temporary
perseverance, which endures for a time, and that which continues to the end (1), and affirms that the latter is certainly a gift of God’s grace, and is, therefore, asked from God which would otherwise be but a mocking petition (2–3). This, the Lord’s Prayer itself might teach us, as under Cyprian’s exposition it does teach us,—each petition being capable of being read as a
These books were written in 428–429, and after their completion the unfinished work against Julian was resumed. Alypius had sent the remaining three books, and Augustin slowly toiled on to the end of his reply to the sixth book. But he was to be interrupted once more, and this time by the most serious of all interruptions. On the 28th of August, 430, with the Vandals thundering at the gates of Hippo, full of good works and of faith, he turned his face away from the
strifes—whether theological or secular—of earth, and entered into rest with the Lord whom he loved. The last work against Julian was already one of the most considerable in size of all his books; but it was never finished, and retains until to-day the significant title of The Unfinished Work. Augustin had hesitated to undertake this work, because he found Julian’s arguments too silly either to deserve refutation, or to afford occasion for really edifying discourse. And certainly the
result falls below Augustin’s usual level, though this is not due, as is so often said, to failing powers and great age; for nothing that he wrote surpasses in mellow beauty and chastened strength the two books, On the Predestination of the Saints, which were written after four books of this work were completed. The plan of the work is to state Julian’s arguments in his own words, and follow it with his remarks; thus giving it something of the form of a dialogue. It follows Julian’s
work, book by book. The first book states and answers certain calumnies which Julian had brought against Augustin and the catholic faith on the ground of their confession of original sin. Julian had argued, that, since God is just, He cannot impute another’s sins to innocent infants; since sin is nothing but evil will, there can be no sin in infants who are not yet in the use of their will; and, since the freedom of will that is given to man consists in the capacity of both sinning and not
sinning, free will is denied to those who attribute sin to nature. Augustin replies to these arguments, and answers certain objections that are made to his work On Marriage and Concupiscence, and then corrects Julian’s false explanations of certain Scriptures from
Although the great preacher of grace was taken away by death before the completion of this book, yet his work was not left incomplete. In the course of the next year (431) the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemned Pelagianism for the whole world; and an elaborate treatise against the pure Pelagianism of Julian was already in 430 an anachronism. Semi-Pelagianism was yet to run its course, and to work its way so into the heart of a corrupt church as not to be easily displaced; but Pelagianism was to die with the first generation of its advocates. As we look back now through the almost millennium and a half of years that has intervened since Augustin lived and wrote, it is to his Predestination of the Saints,—a completed, and well-completed, treatise,—and not to The Unfinished Work, that we look as the crown and completion of his labours for grace.
IV. The Theology of Grace.
The theology which Augustin opposed, in his anti-Pelagian writings, to the errors of Pelagianism, is, shortly, the theology of grace. Its roots were planted deeply in his own experience, and in the teachings of Scripture, especially of that apostle whom he delights to call “the great preacher of grace,” and to follow whom, in his measure, was his greatest desire. The grace of God in Jesus Christ, conveyed to us by the Holy Spirit and evidenced by the love that He
sheds abroad in our hearts, is the centre around which this whole side This is a necessary limitation, for there is another side—a churchly side—of Augustin’s theology, which was only laid alongside of, and artificially combined with, his theology of grace. This was the traditional element in his teaching, but was far from the determining or formative element. As Thomasius truly points out (Dogmengeschichte, i. 495), both his experience and the Scriptures stood with him above tradition. It is only one of the strange assertions in Professor Allen’s Continuity of Christian Thought, that he makes “the Augustinian theology rest upon the transcendence of Deity as its controlling principle” (p. 3), which is identified with “a tacit assumption of deism” (p. 171), and explained to include a “localization of God as a physical essence in the infinite remoteness,” “separated from the world by infinite reaches of space.” As a matter of mere fact,
Augustin’s conception of God was that of an immanent Spirit, and his tendency was consequently distinctly towards a pantheistic rather than a deistic view of His relation to His creatures. Nor is this true only “at a certain stage of his career” (p. 6), which is but Professor Allen’s attempt to reconcile fact with his theory, but of his whole life and all his teaching. He, no doubt, did not so teach the Divine immanence as to make God the author of the form as well as the matter
of all acts of His creatures, or to render it impossible for His creatures to turn from Him; this would be to pass the limits that separate the conception of Christian immanence from pure pantheism, and to make God the author of sin, and all His creatures but manifestations of Himself.
The necessity of grace to man, Augustin argued from the condition of the race as partakers of Adam’s sin. God created man upright, and endowed him with human faculties, including free On Rebuke and Grace, 27, 28. On Rebuke and Grace, 29, 31 sq. On Rebuke and Grace, 28. On Rebuke and Grace, 28. On the City of God, xiii. 2, 12, 14; On the Trinity, iv. 13. On the Merits and Remission of Sins, i. 15, and often. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iv. 7; On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, iii. 14, 15. On Marriage and Concupiscence, ii. 57; On the City of God, xiv. 1. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iv. 7. On Original Sin, 42. Retractations, ii. 24. Against Julian, iv. 3, 25, 26. Compare Thomasius’ Dogmengeschichte, i. 501 and 507. On the Spirit and the Letter, 58. On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, ii. 30. On Rebuke and Grace, 11. On the Spirit and the Letter, 58. On the Grace of Christ, 4 sq. On the Predestination of the Saints, 10. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, i. 5. Epistle 215, 4 and often. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, i. 7. Compare i. 5, 6.
In its nature, grace is assistance, help from God; and all divine aid may be included under the term,—as well what may be called natural, as what may be called spiritual, aid. Sermon 26. On Nature and Grace, 62. On the Grace of Christ, 13. On Rebuke and Grace, 2 sq. On the Spirit and Letter, 52; On Grace and Free Will, 1 sq. On the Spirit and Letter, 60, and often. On Nature and Grace, 4, and often. On the Grace of Christ, 27, and often. On the Grace of Christ, 34, and often. On Grace and Free Will, 21. On Grace and Free Will, 30, and often. On the Gift of Perseverance, 16; Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, ii. 15. Epistle to Optatus, 190. On the Predestination of the Saints, 17, 18.
The effects of grace are according to its nature. Taken as a whole, it is the recreative principle sent forth from God for the recovery of man from his slavery to sin, and for his reformation in the divine image. Considered as to the time of its giving, it is either operating or co-operating grace, i.e., either the grace that first enables the will to choose the good, or the grace that co-operates with the already enabled will to do the good;
and it is, therefore, also called either prevenient or subsequent grace. On Grace and Free Will, 17; On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 34, and often. Compare Thomasius’ Dogmengeschichte, i. 510. On Rebuke and Grace, 40, 45; On the Predestination of the Saints, 13. On Rebuke and Grace, 40. On the Gift of Perseverance, 56.
Now, Augustin argues, since grace certainly is gratuitous, and given to no preceding merits,—prevenient and antecedent to all good,—and, therefore, sovereign, and bestowed only on those whom God selects for its reception; we must, of course, believe that the eternal God has foreknown all this from the beginning. He would be something less than God, had He not foreknown that He intended to bestow this prevenient, gratuitous, and sovereign grace on some men, and had
He not foreknown equally the precise individuals on whom He intended to bestow it. To foreknow is to prepare beforehand. And this is predestination. On the Predestination of the Saints, 36 sq. On the Gift of Perseverance, 41 sq., 47. On Rebuke and Grace, 39. Compare 14. On the Gift of Perseverance, 29; Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, ii. 9 sq.
When Augustin comes to speak of the means of grace, i.e., of the channels and circumstances of its conference to men, he approaches the meeting point of two very dissimilar streams of his theology,—his doctrine of grace and his doctrine of the Church,—and he is sadly deflected from the natural course of his theology by the alien influence. He does not, indeed, bind the conference of grace to the means in such a sense that the grace must be given at the
exact time of the application of the means. He does not deny that “God is able, even when no man rebukes, to correct whom He will, and to lead him on to the wholesome mortification of repentance by the most hidden and most mighty power of His medicine.” On Rebuke and Grace, 1. On the Predestination of the Saints, 17, 18; if the gospel is not preached at any given place, it is proof that God has no elect there. On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, etc., ii. 37. On Rebuke and Grace, 23. Do., 20. On the Soul and its Origin, i. 11; ii. 17. On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, etc., ii. 46. On Augustin’s teaching as to baptism, see Rev. James Field Spalding’s The Teaching and Influence of Augustin, pp. 39 sq.
The saddest corollary that flowed from this doctrine was that by which Augustin was forced to assert that all those who died unbaptized, including infants, are finally lost and depart into eternal punishment. He did not shrink from the inference, although he assigned the place of lightest punishment in hell to those who were guilty of no sin but original sin, but who had departed this life without having washed this away in the “laver of regeneration.” This is the dark
side of his soteriology; but it should be remembered that it was not his theology of grace, but the universal and traditional belief in the necessity of baptism for remission of sins, which he inherited in common with all of his time, that forced it upon him. The theology of grace was destined in
Thus, although Augustin’s theology had a very strong churchly element within it, it was, on the side that is presented in the controversy against Pelagianism, distinctly anti-ecclesiastical. Its central thought was the absolute dependence of the individual on the grace of God in Jesus Christ. It made everything that concerned salvation to be of God, and traced the source of all good to Him. “Without me ye can do nothing,” is the inscription on one side of it; on
the other stands written, “All things are yours.” Augustin held that he who builds on a human foundation builds on sand, and founded all his hope on the Rock itself. And there also he founded his teaching; as he distrusted man in the matter of salvation, so he distrusted him in the form of theology. No other of the fathers so conscientiously wrought out his theology from the revealed Word; no other of them so sternly excluded human additions. The subjects of which theology treats, he declares,
are such as “we could by no means find out unless we believed them on the testimony of Holy Scripture.” On the Soul and its Origin, iv. 14. On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, etc., ii. 59. On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, i. 29. Compare On the Spirit and the Letter, 63. On the subject of this whole section, compare Reuter’s Augustinische Studien, which has come to hand only after the whole was already in type, but which in all essential matters—such as the formative principle, the sources, and the main outlines of Augustin’s theology—is in substantial agreement with what is here said.
Dedication of Volume I. Of the Edinburgh Edition.
————————————
TO The Right Reverend The Lord Bishop OF Exeter.
My Dear Lord,—I gladly avail myself of your permission to dedicate this volume to you. In the course of a professional life of nearly the third of a century, which has not been idly spent, I have never failed to find pleasure in theological pursuits. In the intervals of most pressing labour, these have often tended to refresh and comfort one’s wearied spirit. If this confession of my own experience should have any weight with any one in our sacred calling to combine the hard work which we owe to others while ministering to their wants, with “that diligent attendance to reading” which we require for ourselves, to inform our minds and refresh our spirits, I shall have accomplished my only purpose in making it. Your Lordship, I am sure, will entirely approve of such a combination of employments in your clergy. I well remember your recommendation of theological study to us at the opening of Bishop Phillpott’s Library at Truro; and how you counselled us the more earnestly to pursue it, from the danger there is, in these busy times, of merging the acquisition of sacred learning in the active labours of our holy vocation. That the divine blessing may crown the work which you are so diligently prosecuting in the several functions of your high office, is the earnest wish, my dear Lord, of your faithful servant,
Peter Holmes.
Mannamead, Plymouth, March 10, 1872.
Dedication of Volume II. Of the Edinburgh Edition.
————————————
TO The Rev. C. T. Wilkinson, M.A.,
Vicar OF ST. Andrews With Pennycross, Plymouth.
My Dear Vicar,—I have great pleasure in associating your name with my own in this volume. We are officially connected in the sacred ministry of the Church, and I think I may, not unsuitably, extend our relations in this little effort to strengthen the defences of the great doctrine of Grace committed to our care and advocacy. Never was this portion of revealed truth more formidably assailed than at the present day. Rationalism, as its primary dogma, asserts the perfectibility of our nature, out of its own resources; and with a versatility and power of argument and illustration, which gathers help from every quarter in literature and philosophy, it opposes “the truth as it is in Jesus.” This truth, which implies, as its cardinal points, the ruin of man’s nature in the sin of the first Adam, and its recovery in the obedience of the second Adam, is vindicated with admirable method and convincing force in the Anti-Pelagian treatises of the great Doctor of the Western Church. Some of these treatises appear for the first time in our language in this volume; and you will, I am sure, admire the acuteness with which Saint Augustin tracks out and refutes the sophistries of the rationalists of his own day, as well as the profound knowledge and earnest charity with which he enforces and recommends the Catholic verity.
In identifying you thus far with myself in this undertaking, I not only gratify my own feelings of sincere friendship, but with a confidence which I believe I do not over-estimate, I assume, what I highly prize, your agreement with me in accepting and furthering the principles set forth in this volume.
With sincere sympathy for you in your important work at Plymouth, and best wishes for the divine blessing upon it, believe me, yours very faithfully,
Peter Holmes.
Mannamead, Plymouth, June 24, 1874.
Preface to Volume I. Of the Edinburgh Edition.
————————————
Contents.—§ 1. The Latin Titles of the Treatises contained in this Volume; on the Preface of the Benedictine Edition. § 2. Notice of Pelagius and his Opinions. § 3. Of Cœlestius and his Doctrine, in Seven Propositions. § 4. On Augustin as compared with other Doctors of the Church; his Estimate of Pelagius and Cœlestius. § 5. The Different Fortunes of these Two Men at First. § 6. St. Jerome differs from St. Augustin as to the Origin of Pelagianism; East and West, their Doctrinal Characteristics—how Agreeing, how Varying. § 7. On the Conduct of Augustin and Pelagius; Partisanship of their Followers and Critics. § 8. Paramount Influence of St. Augustin in Ancient and Modern Times, and in Various Parts of Christendom. § 9. Reason of this Influence; Augustin true to Scripture and Human Experience; in Favourable Contrast to Pelagius as to the Scientific Depth and Accuracy of his Doctrine. § 10. Rationalism and Revelation; Pelagius’ Views Isolated and Incoherent; Augustin an Excellent Guide in Scripture Knowledge. § 11. Popularity and Permanence of Pelagianism; Consentient with Man’s Natural Feelings; Elevating Influence of Divine Grace, its Ultimate Triumph in Everlasting Glory. § 12. Original Text from which this Translation is made; Works useful in the Pelagian Controversy.
§ 1. The reader has in this volume, translated for the first time in English, five of the fifteen treatises of St. Augustin on the Pelagian heresy. They are here arranged in the same order (the chronological one) in which they are placed in the tenth volume of the Benedictine edition, and are therefore St. Augustin’s earliest contributions to the great controversy. These are their Latin titles:
De peccatorum meritis et remissione, et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum; libri tres, scripti anno Christi 412.
De Spiritu et littera ad eumdem; liber unus, scriptus sub finem anni 412.
De natura et gratia contra Pelagium, ad Timasium et Jacobum; liber unus, scriptus anno Christi 415.
De perfectione justitiæ hominis; [Epistola seu] liber ad Eutropium et Paulum, scriptus circiter finem anni 415.
De gestis Pelagii ad Aurelium episcopum; liber unus, scriptus sub initium anni 417.
The Benedictine editors have enriched their edition with prefaces (“Admonitiones”) and critical and explanatory notes, and, above all, with the appropriate extracts from St. Augustin’s Retractations, It is satisfactory to observe how brief and scanty are his “retractations” on the topics treated in the present volume.
§ 2. The Pelagian heresy is so designated after Pelagius, a British monk. (Augustin calls him Brito, so do Prosper and Gennadius; by Orosius he is called Britannicus noster, and by Mercator described as gente Britannus. This wide epithet is somewhat restricted by Jerome, who says of him, Habet progeniem Scotiæ gentis de Britannorum vicinia; leaving it uncertain, however, whether he deemed Scotland his native country, or Ireland. His monastic
character is often referred to both by Augustin and other writers, and Pope Zosimus describes him as Laicum virum ad bonam frugem longa erga Deum servitute nitentem. It is, after all, quite uncertain what part of “Britain” gave him birth; among other conjectures, he has been made a native of Wales, attached to a monastery at Bangor, and gifted with the Welsh name of Morgan, of which his usual designation of Pelagius is supposed to be simply the Greek version,
Πελαγιος.) It was at the beginning of the fifth century that he became conspicuous. He then resided at Rome, known by many as an honourable and earnest man, seeking in a
§ 3. He had an early associate in Cœlestius, a native of Campania, according to some, or as others say, of Ireland or of Scotland. This man, who is said to have been highly connected, began life as an advocate, but, influenced by the advice and example of Pelagius, soon became a monk. He excelled his master in boldness and energy; and thus early precipitated the new doctrine into a formal dogmatism, from which the caution and subtler management of Pelagius might have saved it. In the year A.D. 412 (Pelagius having just left him at Carthage to go to Palestine), Cœlestius was accused before the bishop Aurelius of holding and teaching the following opinions:
1. Adam was created mortal, and must have died, even if he had not sinned; 2. Adam’s sin injured himself only, and not mankind; 3. Infants are born in the state of Adam before he fell; 4. Mankind neither died in Adam, nor rose again in Christ; 5. The Law, no less than the Gospel, brings men to the kingdom of heaven; 6. There were sinless men before the coming of Christ. Marius Mercator mentions a seventh opinion broached by Cœlestius, to the effect that “infants, though they be unbaptized, have everlasting life.”
§ 4. Augustin, who had for some time been occupied in the Donatist controversy, had as yet taken no personal part in the proceedings against Cœlestius. Soon, however, was his attention directed to the new opinions, and he wrote the first two treatises contained in this volume, in the year when Cœlestius was excommunicated. At first he treated Pelagius, as has been said, with deference and forbearance, hoping by courtesy to recall him from danger. But as the heresy
developed, Augustin’s opposition was more directly and vigorously exhibited. The gospel was being fatally tampered with, in its essential facts of human sin and divine grace; so, in the fulness of his own absolute loyalty to the entire volume of evangelical truth, he concentrated his best efforts in opposition to the now formidable heresy. It is perhaps not too much to say, that St. Augustin, the greatest doctor of the Catholic Church, effected his greatness mainly by his labours against
Pelagianism. Other Christian writers besides Augustin have achieved results of decisive influence on the Church and its deposit of the Christian faith. St. Athanasius, “alone against the world,” has often been referred to as a splendid instance of what constancy, aided by God’s grace and a profound knowledge of theology, could accomplish; St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Leo of Rome, might be also quoted as signal proofs of the efficacy of catholic truth in opposition to popular heresy: these
men, under God, saved the Creed from the ravages of Arianism, and the subtler injuries of Nestorius and Eutyches. Then, again, in the curious learning of the primitive Irenæus; in the critical skill, and wide knowledge, and indomitable labours of Origen; in the catechetical teaching of the elder Cyril; in the chaste descriptive power of Basil; in the simplicity and self-denial of Ambrose; in the fervid eloquence of the “golden-mouthed” Chrysostom; in the great learning of Jerome; in the
scholastic accuracy of Damascene; and in the varied sacred gifts of other Christian worthies, from the impetuous Tertullian and the gentle Cyprian, with all the Gregories of manifold endowments, down to the latest period of patristic wisdom, graced by our own Anselm and the unrivalled preacher Bernard,—in all these converging lines of diverse yet compatible accomplishments, the Church of Christ has found, from age to age, ample reinforcements against the attacks of heretical hostility. And in
our great Bishop of Hippo one may trace, operating on various occasions in his various works, the manifold characteristics which we have just enumerated of his brother saints,—with this difference, that in no one of them are found combined the many traits which constitute his greatness. We have here to do only with his anti-Pelagian writings. Upon the whole, perhaps, these exhibit most of his wonderful resources of Christian character. In many respects, one is reminded by him of the
great apostle, whom he reverenced, and whose profound doctrines he republished and vindicated. He has himself, in several of his works, especially in his Confessions, admitted us to a view of the sharp convulsions and bitter conflicts through which he passed, before his regeneration, into the Christian life, animated by the free and sovereign grace of God, and adorned with his unflagging energies in works of faith and love. From the depths of his own consciousness he instinctively felt
the dangers of Pelagianism, and he put forth his strength, as God enabled him, to meet the evil; and the reader has in this volume samples in great variety of the earnestness of his conflict with De Peccato originali, [xii.] 13. See below.
§ 5. The difference in the characters of the two leaders in this heresy contributed to different results in their earlier proceedings. We have seen the disastrous issue to Cœlestius at Carthage, from his outspoken and unyielding conduct. The more reserved Pelagius, resorting to a dexterous management of sundry favourable circumstances, obtained a friendly hearing on two public occasions—at Jerusalem, in the summer of A.D. 415, and again at the
end of that year, in a council of fourteen bishops, at Diospolis, the ancient Lydda. In the last treatise of this volume, [i.e. On the Proceedings of Pelagius.]
§ 6. St. Jerome as well as St. Augustin engaged in this controversy, and experienced in the East some loss and much danger from the rougher followers of Pelagius. See the Proceedings of Pelagius, c. 66.
§ 7. Much has been written on the conduct of the two leading opponents in this controversy. Sides (as usual) have been taken, and extreme opinions of praise and of blame have been freely bestowed on both Augustin and Pelagius. It is impossible, even were it desirable, in this limited space to enter upon a question which, after all, hardly rises above the dignity of mere personalities. The orthodox bishop and the heretical monk have had their share of censure as to
their mode of conducting the controversy. Augustin has been taxed with intolerance, Pelagius with duplicity. We are perhaps not in a position to form an impartial judgment on the case. To begin with, the evidence comes all from one side; and then the critics pass their sentence according to the suggestions of modern prejudice, rather than by the test of ancient contemporary facts, motives, and principles of action. A good deal of obloquy has been cast on Augustin, as if he were responsible for
the Rescript of Honorius and its penalties; but this is (to say the least) a conclusion which outruns the premises. We need say nothing of the peril which seriously threatened true religion when the half-informed bishops of Palestine, and the vacillating Pope, all gave their hasty and ill-grounded approval to Pelagius, as a justification of Augustin. He deeply felt the seriousness of the crisis, and he unsheathed “the sword of the Spirit,” and dealt with it trenchant blows, every one of which
struck home with admirable precision; but it is not proved that he ever wielded the civil sword of pains and penalties. Of all theological writers in ancient, medieval, or earlier modern times, For some time Augustin abstained from mentioning the name of Pelagius, to save him as much as he could from exposure, and to avoid the irritation which might urge him to heresy from obstinacy. Augustin recognised early enough the motive which influenced Pelagius at first. The latter dreaded the Antinomianism of the day, and concentrated his teaching in a doctrine which was meant as a protest against it. “We would rather not do injustice to our friends,” says
Augustin, as he praises their “strong and active minds;” and he goes on to commend Pelagius anonymously for “the zeal which he entertains against those who find a defence for their sins in the infirmity of human nature.” See the third treatise of this volume, On Nature and Grace, ch. 6, 7.
§ 8. But whatever estimate we may form on the score of their personal conduct, there can be no doubt of the bishop’s superiority over the monk, when we come to gauge the value of their principles and doctrines, whether tested by Scripture or by the great facts of human nature. Concerning the test of Scripture, our assertion will be denied by no one. No ancient Christian writer approaches near St. Augustin in his general influence on the opinions and belief of the Catholic Church, in its custody and interpretation of Holy Scripture; and there can be no mistake either as to the Church’s uniform guardianship of the Augustinian doctrine, taken as a whole, or as to its invariable resistance to the Pelagian system, whenever and however it has been reproduced in the revolutions of human thought. There cannot be found in all ecclesiastical history a more remarkable fact than the deference shown to the great Bishop of Hippo throughout Christendom, on all points of salient interest connected with his name. Whatever basis of doctrine exists in common between the great sections of Catholicism and Protestantism, was laid at first by the genius and piety of St. Augustin. In the conflicts of the early centuries he was usually the champion of Scripture truth against dangerous errors. In the Middle Ages his influence was paramount with the eminent men who built up the scholastic system. In the modern Latin Church he enjoys greater consideration than either Ambrose, or Hilary, or Jerome, or even Gregory the Great; and lastly, and perhaps most strangely, he stands nearest to evangelical Protestantism, and led the van of the great movement in the sixteenth century, which culminated in the Reformation. How unique the influence which directed the minds of Anselm, and Bernard, and Aquinas, and Bonaventure, with no less power than it swayed the thoughts of Luther, and Melanchthon, and Zuingle, and Calvin!
§ 9. The key to this wonderful influence is Augustin’s knowledge of Holy Scripture, and its profound suitableness to the facts and experience of our entire nature. Perhaps to no one, not excepting St. Paul himself, has it been ever given so wholly and so deeply to suffer the manifold experiences of the human heart, whether of sorrow and anguish from the tyranny of sin, or of spiritual joy from the precious consolations of the grace of God. Augustin speaks with
authority here; he has traversed all the ground of inspired writ, and shown us how true is its portraiture of man’s life. And, to pass on to our last point, he has threaded the mazes of human consciousness; and in building up his doctrinal system, has been, in the main, as true to the philosophy of fact as he is to the statements of revelation. He appears in as favourable a contrast to his opponent in his philosophy as in his Scripture exegesis. We cannot, however, in the limits of this
Preface, illustrate this criticism with all the adducible proofs; but we may quote one or two weak points which radically compromise Pelagius as to the scientific bearings of his doctrine. By science we mean accurate knowledge, which stands the test of the widest induction of facts. Now, it has been frequently remarked that Pelagius is scientifically defective in the very centre of his doctrine,—on the freedom of the will. His theory, especially in the hands of his vigorous followers, Cœlestius
and Julianus, We make this qualification, because Pelagius himself seems to have recognised to some extent the power of habit and its effect upon the will, in his Letter to Demetrias, 8. See Dr. Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. iii. p. 804. Aristotle, Ethic. Nicom. ii. 2, 3, 6; Butler, Analogy, i. 5.
§ 11. But Rationalism is not always so exaggerated as this: in its ordinary development, indeed, it stops short of open warfare with Revelation, and (at whatever cost of logical consistency) it will accommodate its discussions to the form of Scripture. This adaptation gives it double force: there is its own intrinsic principle of uncontrolled liberty in will and action, and there is “the form of godliness,” which has weight with unreflective Christians. Hence Pelagianism
was undoubtedly popular: it offered dignity to human nature, and flattered its capacity; and this it did without virulence and with sincerity, under the form of religion. This acquiescence of matter and manner gave it strength in men’s sympathies, and has secured for it durability, seeing that there is plenty of it still amongst us; as indeed there always has been, and ever will be, so long as the fatal ambition of Eden (
§ 12. This translation has been made from the (Antwerp) Benedictine edition of the works of St. Augustin, tenth volume, compared with the beautiful reprint by Gaume. (Although left to his own resources in making his version, the Translator has gladly availed himself of the learned aid within his reach. He may mention the Kirchengeschichte both of Gieseler and Neander [Clark’s transl. vol. iv.]; Wiggers’ Versuch einer
pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus [1st part]; Shedd’s Christian Doctrine; Cunningham’s Historical Theology; Short’s Bampton Lectures for 1846 [Lect. vii.]; Professor Bright’s History of the Church from A.D. 313 to A.D. 451; Bishop Forbes’ Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles [vol. i.]; Canon Robertson’s History of the Christian Church, vol. i. pp. 376–392;
and especially Professor Mozley’s Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, ch. iii. iv. vi.; and Dr. Philip Schaff’s excellent History of the Christian Church [Clark, Edinburgh 1869 [Revised edition. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1884.]
Peter Holmes.
Preface to Volume II. Of the Edinburgh Edition.
————————————
This volume contains a translation of the three following treatises by St. Augustin on the Pelagian controversy:—
De Gratia Christi, et De Peccato originali contra Pelagium et Cœlestium, ad Albinam, Pinianum, et Melaniam; libri duo, scripti anno Christi 418.
De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ ad Valerium Comitem; libri duo, scriptus alter circiter initium anni 419; alter anno Christi 420.
De Animâ et ejus origine, contra Vincentium Victorem; libri quatuor, scriptus sub finem anni Christi 419.
These, with the contents of our former volume, comprise eight of the fifteen works contributed by the great author to the defence of the Catholic faith against Pelagius and his most conspicuous followers. The prefaces and chapter headings, which have been, as heretofore, transferred to their proper places in this volume from the Benedictine edition of the original, will afford the reader preliminary help enough, and thus render more than a few general prefatory remarks unnecessary here.
The second book in the first of these treatises adds some facts to the historical information contained in our preceding volume; Pelagius is shown to be at one, in the main, with Cœlestius, the bolder but less specious heretic. They were condemned everywhere—even at Rome by Pope Zosimus, who had at first shown some favour to them. These authoritative proceedings against them gave a sensible check to their progress in public; there is, however, reason to believe that the opinions, which the Pelagian teachers had with great industry, and with their varied ability, propounded, had created much interest and even anxiety in private society. The early part of the first of the following treatises throws some light on this point, and on the artful methods by which the heretics sought to maintain and extend their opinions; it affords some evidence also of the widespread influence of St. Augustin. The controversy had engaged the attention of a pious family in Palestine; Pelagius was in the neighbourhood; and when frankly questioned by the friends, he strongly protested his adherence to the doctrine of Grace. “I anathematize,” he exclaimed with suspicious promptitude, “the man who holds that the grace of God is not necessary for us at every moment and in every act of our lives: and all who endeavour to disannul it, deserve everlasting punishment.” It was an act of astonishing duplicity, which Augustin, to whom the case was referred, soon detected and exposed. It is satisfactory to find that the worthy Christians to whom the Saint addressed his loving labour were confirmed in their simple faith; and in one of the last of his extant letters, towards the close of his days on earth, the venerable St. Jerome, in the course of the following year, united the gratitude of Albina, Pinianus, and Melania, with his own to his renowned brother in the west, whom he saluted as “the restorer of the ancient faith.” “Macte virtute,” said the venerable man, “in orbe celebraris; et, quod signum majoris est gloriæ, omnes heretici detestantur.” [Go on and prosper; the whole world endows thee with its praise, and all heretics with their hatred.]
In the latter part of the first treatise in this volume, one of the most formidable of the Pelagian objections to the Catholic doctrine of original sin is thrown out against marriage: “Surely that could not be a holy state, instituted of God, which produced human beings in sin!” Augustin in a few weighty chapters removes the doubts of his perplexed correspondents, and reserves his strength for the full treatment of the subject in the second treatise, here translated, On Marriage and Concupiscence. It is a noble monument of his firm grasp of Scripture truth, his loyal adherence to its plain meaning, and his delicate and, at the same time, intrepid handling of a subject, which could only be touched by a man whose mind possessed a deep knowledge of human nature—both in its moral and its physiological aspects, and in its relations to God as affected by its creation, its fall, and its redemption.
This treatise introduces us to a change of circumstances. The preceding one was, as we have seen, addressed to a small group of simple believers in sacred truth, who were not personally known to the author, and, though zealous in the maintenance of the faith, occupied only a private place in society; but the present work was written at the urgent request of a nobleman in high office as a minister of state, and well known to the writer. It is pleasant to trace a similar
earnestness, in such dissimilar ranks, in the defence of the assailed faith: and it illus
In the last and longest work, translated for this volume, we come upon a change, both of subject and circumstances, as complete as that we have just noticed. Vincentius Victor, whose unsafe opinions are reviewed, was a young African of great ability and rhetorical accomplishment. His fluent tongue had fairly bewitched not only crowds of thoughtless hearers, but staid persons, whose faith should have been proof against a seductive influence which was soon shown to be transient and flimsy. The young disputant seems to have been more of a schismatic in the Donatist party, than a heretic with Pelagius; showy, however, and unstable, and hardly weighing the consequence of his own opinions, he began to air his metaphysics, and soon fell into strange errors about the nature and origin of the human soul. In his youthful arrogance he happened to censure Augustin for his cautious teaching on so profound a subject; kindly does the aged bishop receive the criticism, show its unreasonableness, and point out to his rash assailant some serious errors which he was propounding at random. He also reproves one of Victor’s friends, who happened to be a presbyter, for allowing himself to be misled by the young man’s eloquent sophistry; and in the latter half of his treatise, with fatherly love and earnestness, he advises Victor to renounce his dangerous errors, some of which were rankly Pelagian, and something worse. The result of Augustin’s admonitions—adorned as they were with great depth and width of reflection and knowledge (extending this time even to physical science, on some facts of which he playfully comments with the ease of a modern experimenter), with loving consideration for his opponent’s inexperience, kindly deference to his undoubted abilities, and a pious desire to win him over to the cause of truth and godliness—was entirely satisfactory. We find from the Retractations (ii. 56), that Victor in time abjured all his errors, and doubtless, like another Apollos, ably employed his best powers in the service of true religion. This was a real trophy, great among the greatest of Augustin’s achievements for faith and charity. For so great a soul to stoop to the level of so captious a spirit, and with industrious love and patience to trace out and refute all its ambitious error, was “a labour of love” indeed. He remembered the wise counsel of the apostle: “Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother;” and he reaped the victory the Saviour promised: “Thou hast gained thy brother.”
The translation, as in the former volume of the Anti-Pelagian writings of our author, has been made from the tenth volume of the Antwerp reprint of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustin’s works.
Peter Holmes.
[Volume III. of the Edinburgh edition appeared without dedication or preface, in 1876. It contained translations of Augustin’s treatises on Grace and Free-Will, Rebuke and Grace, The Predestination of the Saints, The Gift of Perseverance, and of his work Against Two Letters of the Pelagians. Of these, only the first was from the pen of Dr. Holmes, the rest being the work of Dr. Robert Ernest Wallis, whose name has been accordingly placed on the general titlepage of this revision.—W.]
a treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 23,
On the Following Treatise,
“De Peccatorum Meritis Et Remissione.”
————————————
A Necessity arose which compelled me to write against the new heresy of Pelagius. Our previous opposition to it was confined to sermons and conversations, as occasions suggested, and according to our respective abilities and duties; but it had not yet assumed the shape of a controversy in writing. Certain questions were then submitted to me [by our brethren] at Carthage, to which I was to send them back answers in writing; I accordingly
wrote first of all three books, under the title “On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,” in which I mainly discussed the baptism of infants because of original sin, and the grace of God by which we are justified, that is, made righteous; but [I remarked] no man in this life can so keep the commandments which prescribe holiness of life, as to be beyond the necessity of using this prayer for his sins: “Forgive us our trespasses.” See See Book ii. ch. 50.
A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In Three Books,
Addressed to Marcellinus, a.d. 412.
————————————
Book I.
In which he refutes those who maintain, that Adam must have died even if he had never sinned; and that nothing of his sin has been transmitted to his posterity by natural descent. He also shows, that death has not accrued to man by any necessity of his nature, but as the penalty of sin; He then proceeds to prove that in Adam’s sin his entire offspring is implicated, showing that infants are baptized for the express purpose of receiving the remission of original sin.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Introductory, in the Shape of an Inscription to His Friend Marcellinus.
Howeverabsorbing and intense the anxieties and annoyances in the whirl and warmth of which we are engaged with sinful men This is probably an allusion to the Donatists, who were then fiercely assailing the Catholics; [and over the conference between whom and the Catholics, Marcellinus had presided the previous year (411).—W.] [Flavius Marcellinus, a “tribune and notary,” a Christian man of high character and devout mind, who was much interested in theological discussions. He was appointed by Honorius to preside over the commission of inquiry into the disputes between the Catholics and Donatists in 411, and held the famous conference between the parties, that met in Carthage on the 1st, 3d, and 8th of June, 411. He discharged this whole business with singular patience, moderation, and
good judgment; which appears to have cemented the intimate friendship between him and Augustin. Augustin’s treatise on The Spirit and Letter is also addressed to him, and he undertook the City of God on his suggestion. See below, p. 80.—W.]
Chapter 2 [II.]—If Adam Had Not Sinned, He Would Never Have Died.
They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the law, which says: “On the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die,”
Chapter 3 [III.]—It is One Thing to Be Mortal, Another Thing to Be Subject to Death.
Nor was there any reason to fear that if he had happened to live on here longer in his natural body, he would have been oppressed with old age, and have gradually, by increasing age, arrived at death. For if God granted to the clothes and the shoes of the Israelites that “they waxed not old” during so many years,
Chapter 4 [IV.]—Even Bodily Death is from Sin.
But in addition to the passage where God in punishment said, “Dust thou art, unto dust shalt thou return,”
Chapter 5 [V.] —The Words, Mortale (Capable of Dying), Mortuum (Dead), and Moriturus (Destined to Die).
Now previous to the change into the incorruptible state which is promised in the resurrection of the saints, the body could be mortal (capable of dying), although not destined to die (moriturus); just as our body in its present state can, so to speak, be capable of sickness, although not destined to be sick. For whose is the flesh which is
Chapter 6 [VI.]—How It is that the Body Dead Because of Sin.
One wonders that anything is required clearer than the proof we have given. But we must perhaps be content to hear this clear illustration gainsaid by the contention, that we must understand “the dead body” here Respiramus.
Chapter 7 [VII.]—The Life of the Body the Object of Hope, the Life of the Spirit Being a Prelude to It.
Although I am much afraid that so clear a matter may rather be obscured by exposition, I must yet request your attention to the luminous statement of the apostle. “But if Christ,” says he, “be in you, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness.”
Chapter 8 [VIII.]—Bodily Death from Adam’s Sin.
When to the like purport he says: “By man came death, by man also the resurrection of the dead,”
Chapter 9 [IX.]—Sin Passes on to All Men by Natural Descent, and Not Merely by Imitation.
You tell me in your letter, that they endeavour to twist into some new sense the passage of the apostle, in which he says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;”
Chapter 10.—The Analogy of Grace.
No doubt all they imitate Adam who by disobedience transgress the commandment of God; but he is one thing as an example to those who sin because they choose; and another thing as the progenitor of all who are born with sin. All His saints, also, imitate Christ in the pursuit of righteousness; whence the same apostle, whom we have already quoted, says: “Be ye imitators of me, as I am also of Christ.”
Chapter 11 [X.]—Distinction Between Actual and Original Sin. See below, Book iii. c. vii.; also in the De Nuptiis, c. v.; also Epist. 186, and Serm. 165.
Again, in the clause which follows, “In which all have sinned,” how cautiously, rightly, and unambiguously is the statement expressed! For if you understand that sin to be meant which by one man entered into the world, “In which [sin] all have sinned,” it is surely clear enough, that the sins which are peculiar to every man, which they themselves commit and which belong simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one sin, in and by which all have sinned, means
another thing; since all were that one man. If, however, it be not the sin, but that one man that is understood, “In which [one man] all have sinned,” what again can be plainer than even this clear statement? We read, indeed, of those being justified in Christ who believe in Him, by reason of the secret communion and inspiration of that spiritual grace which makes every one who cleaves to the Lord “one spirit” with Him, This was the Pelagian term, expressive of their dogma that original sin stands in the following [or “imitation”] of Adam, instead of being the fault and corruption of the nature of every man who is naturally engendered of Adam’s offspring; which doctrine is expressed by Augustin’s word, propagatio, “propagation.”
Chapter 12.—The Law Could Not Take Away Sin.
Observe also what follows. Having said, “In which all have sinned,” he at once added, “For until the law, sin was in the world.”
Chapter 13 [XI.]—Meaning of the Apostle’s Phrase “The Reign of Death.”
“Nevertheless,” says he, “death reigned from Adam even unto Moses,” Reatus peccati. Comp. Epist. 157, n. 19. [Some few Greek copies have come down to us (e.g. 67**) which omit the “not,” but no Latin copy (unless d* be an exception), although other Latin writers (e.g. Ambrosiaster) testify to their former existence.—W.]
Chapter 14.—Superabundance of Grace.
“But,” says he, “not as the offence so also is the free gift. For if, through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by One Man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”
Chapter 15 [XII.]—The One Sin Common to All Men.
But observe more attentively what he says, that “through the offence of one, many are dead.” For why should it be on account of the sin of one, and not rather on account of their own sins, if this passage is to be understood of imitation, and not of propagation? See note to last word of ch. 11.
Chapter 16 [XIII.]—How Death is by One and Life by One.
And from this we gather that we have derived from Adam, in whom we all have sinned, not all our actual sins, but only original sin; whereas from Christ, in whom we are all justified, we obtain the remission not merely of that original sin, but of the rest of our sins also, which we have added. Hence it runs: “Not as by the one that sinned, so also is the free gift.” For the judgment, certainly, from one sin, if it is not remitted—and that the original sin—is capable of drawing us into condemnation; whilst grace conducts us to justification from the remission of many sins,—that is to say, not simply from the original sin, but from all others also whatsoever.
Chapter 17.—Whom Sinners Imitate.
“For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of righteousness shall reign in life by one, even Jesus Christ.” See above, ch. 9.
Chapter 18.—Only Christ Justifies.
“Therefore as by the offence of one upon all men to condemnation, even so by the justification of One upon all men unto justification of life.” Sanctus sanctorum.
Chapter 19 [XV.]—Sin is from Natural Descent, as Righteousness is from Regeneration; How “All” Are Sinners Through Adam, and “All” Are Just Through Christ.
Now if it is imitation only that makes men sinners through Adam, why does not imitation likewise alone make men righteous through Christ? “For,” he says, “as by the offence of one upon all men to condemnation; even so by the justification of one upon all men unto justification of life.” The word is “all” in
Chapter 20.—Original Sin Alone is Contracted by Natural Birth.
“Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.”
Chapter 21 [XVI.]—Unbaptized Infants Damned, But Most Lightly; See Augustin’s Enchirid. c. 93, and Contra Julianum, v. 11.
It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that
Chapter 22 [XVII.]—To Infants Personal Sin is Not to Be Attributed.
They, therefore, who say that the reason why infants are baptized, is, that they may have the remission of the sin which they have themselves committed in their life, not what they have derived from Adam, may be refuted without much difficulty. For whenever these persons shall have reflected within themselves a little, uninfluenced by any polemical spirit, on the absurdity of their statement, how unworthy it is, in fact, of serious discussion, they will at once change their opinion. But if they will not do this, we shall not so completely despair of men’s common sense, as to have any fears that they will induce others to adopt their views. They are themselves driven to adopt their opinion, if I am not mistaken, by their prejudice for some other theory; and it is because they feel themselves obliged to allow that sins are remitted to the baptized, and are unwilling to allow that the sin was derived from Adam which they admit to be remitted to infants, that they have been obliged to charge infancy itself with actual sin; as if by bringing this charge against infancy a man could become the more secure himself, when accused and unable to answer his assailant! However, let us, as I suggested, pass by such opponents as these; indeed, we require neither words nor quotations of Scripture to prove the sinlessness of infants, so far as their conduct in life is concerned; this life they spend, such is the recency of their birth, within their very selves, since it escapes the cognizance of human perception, which has no data or support whereon to sustain any controversy on the subject.
Chapter 23 [XVIII.]—He Refutes Those Who Allege that Infants are Baptized Not for the Remission of Sins, But for the Obtaining of the Kingdom of Heaven. See below, c. 26; also De Peccato orig. c. 19–24; also Serm. 294.
But those persons raise a question, and appear to adduce an argument deserving of consideration and discussion, who say that new-born infants receive baptism not for the remission of sin, but that, since their procreation is not spiritual, they may be created in Christ, and become partakers of the kingdom of heaven, and by the same means children and heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. And yet, when you ask them, whether those that are not baptized, and are not
made joint-heirs with Christ and partakers of the kingdom of heaven, have at any rate the blessing of eternal life in the resurrection of the dead, they are extremely perplexed, and find no way out of their difficulty. For what Christian is there who would allow it to be said, that any one could attain to eternal salvation without being born again in Christ,—[a result] which He meant to be effected through baptism, at the very time when such a sacrament Lavacrum.
Chapter 24 [XIX.]—Infants Saved as Sinners.
And let no one suppose that infants ought to be brought to baptism, on the ground that, as they are not sinners, so they are not righteous; how then do some remind us that the Lord commends this tender age as meritorious; saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven?”
Chapter 25.—Infants are Described as Believers and as Penitents. Sins Alone Separate Between God and Men.
Some one will say: How then are mere infants called to repentance? How can such as they repent of anything? The answer to this is: If they must not be called penitents because they have not the sense of repenting, neither must they be called believers, because they likewise have not the sense of believing. But if they are rightly called believers, See below, c. 26 and 40; also Book iii. c. 2; also Epist. 98, and Serm. 294.
Chapter 26 [XX.]—No One, Except He Be Baptized, Rightly Comes to the Table of the Lord.
Now they take alarm from the statement of the Lord, when He says, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;”
Chapter 27.—Infants Must Feed on Christ.
Will, however, any man be so bold as to say that this statement has no relation to infants, and that they can have life in them without partaking of His body and blood—on the ground that He does not say, Except one eat, but “Except ye eat;” as if He were addressing those who were able to hear and to understand, which of course infants cannot do? But he who says this is inattentive; because, unless all are embraced in the statement, that
without the body and the blood of the Son of man men cannot have life, it is to no purpose that even the elder age is solicitous of it. For if you attend to the mere words, and not to the meaning, of the Lord as He speaks, this passage may very well seem to have been spoken merely to the people whom He happened at the moment to be addressing; because He does not say, Except one eat; but Except ye eat. What also becomes of the statement which He makes in the same context on this
very point: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world?” Generant et generantur;
Chapter 28.—Baptized Infants, of the Faithful; Unbaptized, of the Lost.
Hence also that other statement: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; while he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Chapter 29 [XXI.]—It is an Inscrutable Mystery Why Some are Saved, and Others Not.
Now there is much significance in that He does not say, “The wrath of God shall come upon him,” but “abideth on him.” For from this wrath (in which we are all involved under sin, and of which the apostle says, “For we too were once by nature
Chapter 30.—Why One is Baptized and Another Not, Not Otherwise Inscrutable.
Now those very persons, who think it unjust that infants which depart this life without the grace of Christ should be deprived not only of the kingdom of God, into which they themselves admit that none but such as are regenerated through baptism can enter, but also of eternal life and salvation,—when they ask how it can be just that one man should be freed from original sin and another not, although the condition of both of them is the same, might answer their own
question, in accordance with their own opinion of how it can be so frequently just and right that one should have baptism administered to him whereby to enter into the kingdom of God, and another not be so favoured, although the case of both is alike. For if the question disturbs him, why, of the two persons, who are both equally sinners by nature, the one is loosed from that bond, on whom baptism is conferred, and the other is not released, on whom such grace is not bestowed; why is he not
similarly disturbed by the fact that of two persons, innocent by nature, one receives baptism, whereby he is able to enter into the kingdom of God, and the other does not receive it, so that he is incapable of approaching the kingdom of God? Now in both cases one recurs to the apostle’s outburst of wonder “O the depth of the riches!” Again, let me be informed, why out of the body of baptized infants themselves, one is taken away, so that his understanding undergoes no change from a wicked life,
Chapter 31 [XXII.]—He Refutes Those Who Suppose that Souls, on Account of Sins Committed in Another State, are Thrust into Bodies Suited to Their Merits, in Which They are More or Less Tormented.
Perhaps, however, the now exploded and rejected opinion must be resumed, that souls which once sinned in their heavenly abode, descend by stages and degrees to bodies suited to their deserts, and, as a penalty for their previous life, are more or less tormented by corporeal chastisements. To this opinion Holy Scripture indeed presents a most manifest contradiction; for when recommending divine grace, it says: “For the children being not yet born, neither having
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger.”
Chapter 32.—The Case of Certain Idiots and Simpletons.
Now a good deal may be said of men’s strange vocations,—either such as we have read about, or have experienced ourselves,—which go to overthrow the opinion of those persons who think that, previous to the possession of their bodies, men’s souls passed through certain lives peculiar to themselves, in which they must come to this, and experience in the present life either good or evil, according to the difference of their individual deserts. My anxiety, however, to
bring this work to an end does not permit me to dwell longer on these topics. But on one point, which among many I have found to be a very strange one, I will not be silent. If we follow those persons who suppose that souls are oppressed with earthly bodies in a greater or a less degree of grossness, according to the deserts of the life which had been passed in celestial bodies previous to the assumption of the present one, who would not affirm that those had sinned previous to this life with
an especial amount of enormity, who deserve so to lose all mental light, that they are born with faculties akin to brute animals,—who are (I will not say most slow in intellect, for this is very commonly said of others also, but) so silly as to make a show of their fatuity for the amusement of clever people, even with idiotic gestures, We here follow the reading cerriti; other readings are,—curati (with studied folly), cirrati (with effeminate foppery), and citrati (decking themselves with citrus leaves). That is, “fools,” from the Greek μωρός
Chapter 33.—Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer Even of Infants.
Let us therefore give in and yield our assent to the authority of Holy Scripture, which knows not how either to be deceived or to deceive; and as we do not believe that men as yet unborn have done any good or evil for raising a difference in their moral deserts, so let us by no means doubt that all men are under sin, which came into the world by one man and has passed through unto all men; and from which nothing frees us but the grace of God through our Lord Jesus
Christ. [XXIII.] His remedial advent is needed by those that are sick, not by the whole: for He came not to call the righteous, but sinners; and into His kingdom shall enter no one that is not born again of water and the Spirit; nor shall any one attain salvation and eternal life except in His kingdom,—since the man who believes not in the Son, and eats not His flesh, shall not have life, but the wrath of God remains upon him. Now from this sin, from this sickness, from this wrath of God (of
which by nature they are children who have original sin, even if they have none of their own on account of their youth), none delivers them, except the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world;
Chapter 34 [XXIV.]—Baptism is Called Salvation, and the Eucharist, Life, by the Christians of Carthage.
The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain
either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration?”
Chapter 35.—Unless Infants are Baptized, They Remain in Darkness.
“I am come,” says Christ, “a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.”
Chapter 36.—Infants Not Enlightened as Soon as They are Born.
Some, however, understand that as soon as children are born they are enlightened; and they derive this opinion from the passage: “That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world.”
Chapter 37.—How God Enlightens Every Person.
That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world,”
Chapter 38.—What “Lighteth” Means.
But why, after saying, “which lighteth every man,” should he add, “that cometh into the world,” ῝Ο [scil. τὸ φῶς] φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
Chapter 39 [XXVI.]—The Conclusion Drawn, that All are Involved in Original Sin.
It would be tedious, were we fully to discuss, at similar length, every testimony bearing on the question. I suppose it will be the more convenient course simply to collect the passages together which may turn up, or such as shall seem sufficient for manifesting the truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and, in the form of a servant, became obedient even to the death of the cross,
Chapter 40 [XXVII.]—A Collection of Scripture Testimonies. From the Gospels.
This reasoning will carry more weight, after I have collected the mass of Scripture testimonies which I have undertaken to adduce. We have already quoted: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Chapter 41.—From the First Epistle of Peter.
See with what earnestness the apostles declare this doctrine, when they received it. Peter, in his first Epistle, says: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to His abundant mercy, who hath regenerated us unto the hope of eternal life, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to an inheritance immortal, and undefiled, flourishing, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be
revealed in the last time.”
Chapter 42.—From the First Epistle of John.
Moreover, from John’s Epistle I meet with the following words, which seem indispensable to the solution of this question: “But if,” says he, “we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
Chapter 43.—From the Epistle to the Romans.
Let me now request your attention to the testimony of the Apostle Paul on this subject. And quotations from him may of course be made more abundantly, because he wrote more epistles, and because it fell to him to recommend the grace of God with especial earnestness, in opposition to those who gloried in their works, and who, ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, submitted not to the righteousness of God. [This is the reading of the Vulgate, as well as of the Greek; but Augustin, following an Old Latin reading, actually has propositum, instead of remissionem.—W.]
Chapter 44.—From the Epistles to the Corinthians.
Likewise to the Corinthians he says: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”
Chapter 45.—From the Epistle to the Galatians.
Likewise to the Galatians the apostle writes: “Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world.”
Chapter 46.—From the Epistle to the Ephesians.
To the Ephesians he addresses words of the same import: “And you when ye were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit of him that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of
wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ; by whose grace ye are saved.”
Chapter 47.—From the Epistle to the Colossians.
To the Colossians he addresses these words: “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption in the remission of our sins.” Exuens se carnem.
Chapter 48.—From the Epistles to Timothy.
And then to Timothy he says: “This is a faithful saying, Humanus sermo.
Chapter 49.—From the Epistle to Titus.
Then again he writes to Titus as follows: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
Chapter 50.—From the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Although the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews is doubted by some, Amongst the Latins, as Jerome tells us in more than one passage (see his Commentaries, on
Chapter 51.—From the Apocalypse.
The Revelation of John likewise tells us that in a new song these praises are offered to Christ: “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
Chapter 52.—From the Acts of the Apostles.
To the like effect, in the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Peter designated the Lord Jesus as “the Author of life,” upbraiding the Jews for having put Him to death in these words: “But ye dishonoured and denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and ye killed the Author of life.”
Chapter 53.—The Utility of the Books of the Old Testament.
Under so great a weight of testimony, who would not be oppressed that should dare lift up his voice against the truth of God? And many other testimonies might be found, were it not for my anxiety to bring this tract to an end,—an anxiety which I must not slight. I have deemed it superfluous to quote from the books of the Old Testament, likewise, many attestations to our doctrine in inspired words, since what is concealed in them under the veil of earthly promises
is clearly revealed in the preaching of the New Testament. Our Lord Himself briefly demonstrated and defined the use of the Old Testament writings, when He said that it was necessary that what had been written concerning Himself in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, should be fulfilled, and that this was that Christ must suffer, and rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
See
Chapter 54.—By the Sacrifices of the Old Testament, Men Were Convinced of Sins and Led to the Saviour.
And yet it is perhaps better to advance a few testimonies out of the Old Testament also, which ought to have a supplementary, or rather a cumulative value. The Lord Himself, speaking by the Psalmist, says: “As for my saints which are upon earth, He hath caused all my purposes to be admired in them.” See There seems to be here some omission.—Benedictine Note.
Chapter 55 [XXVIII.]—He Concludes that All Men Need the Death of Christ, that They May Be Saved. Unbaptized Infants Will Be Involved in the Condemnation of the Devil. How All Men Through Adam are Unto Condemnation; And Through Christ Unto Justification. No One is Reconciled with God, Except Through Christ.
In such circumstances, no man of those who have come to Christ by baptism has ever been regarded, according to sound faith and the true doctrine, as excepted from the grace of forgiveness of sins; nor has eternal life been ever thought possible to any man apart from His kingdom. For this [eternal life] is ready to be revealed at the last time, Malè credentium.
Chapter 56.—No One is Reconciled to God Except Through Christ.
Taking into account all the inspired statements which I have quoted,—whether I regard the value of each passage one by one, or combine their united testimony in an accumulated witness or even include similar passages which I have not adduced,—there can be nothing discovered, but that which the catholic Church holds, in her dutiful vigilance against all profane novelties: that every man is separated from God, except those who are reconciled to God through Christ
the Mediator; and that no one can be separated from God, except by sins, which alone cause separation; that there is, therefore, no reconciliation except by the remission of sins, through the one grace of the most merciful Saviour,—through the one sacrifice of the most veritable Priest; and that none who are born of the woman, that trusted the serpent and so was corrupted through desire,
Chapter 57 [XXIX.]—The Good of Marriage; Four Different Cases of the Good and the Evil Use of Matrimony.
The good, then, of marriage lies not in the passion of desire, but in a certain legitimate and honourable measure in using that passion, appropriate to the propagation of children, not the gratification of lust. [The editions, but apparently no Mss., add here the somewhat sententious words: “Voluntas ista, non voluptas illa, nuptialis est,”—which may, perhaps, be rendered: “Wedded desire is willingness, not wantonness.”—W.]
Chapter 58 [XXX.]—In What Respect the Pelagians Regarded Baptism as Necessary for Infants.
Let us now examine more carefully, so far as the Lord enables us, that very chapter of the Gospel where He says, “Except a man be born again,—of water and the Spirit,— he shall not enter into the kingdom of God.”
Chapter 59.—The Context of Their Chief Text.
“Now there was,” we read, “a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he
enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is
born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto Him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of
man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
Chapter 60 [XXXI.]—Christ, the Head and the Body; Owing to the Union of the Natures in the Person of Christ, He Both Remained in Heaven, and Walked About on Earth; How the One Christ Could Ascend to Heaven; The Head, and the Body, the One Christ.
Now when Nicodemus understood not what was being told him, he inquired of the Lord how such things could be. Let us look at what the Lord said to him in answer to his inquiry; for of course, as He deigns to answer the question, How can these things be? He will in fact tell us how spiritual regeneration can come to a man who springs from carnal generation. After noticing briefly the ignorance of one who assumed a superiority over others as a teacher, and having blamed
the unbelief of all such, for not This was the error which was subsequently condemned in the heresy of Nestorius.
Chapter 61 [XXXII.]—The Serpent Lifted Up in the Wilderness Prefigured Christ Suspended on the Cross; Even Infants Themselves Poisoned by the Serpent’s Bite.
And since this great and wonderful dignity can only be attained by the remission of sins, He goes on to say, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
Chapter 62 [XXXIII.]—No One Can Be Reconciled to God, Except by Christ.
He then proceeds thus, saying: “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Chapter 63 [XXXIV.]—The Form, or Rite, of Baptism. Exorcism.
What shall I say of the actual form of this sacrament? I only wish some one of those who espouse the contrary side would bring me an infant to be baptized. What does my exorcism work in that babe, if he be not held in the devil’s family? The man who brought the infant would certainly have had to act as sponsor for him, for he could not answer for himself. How would it be possible then for him to declare that he renounced the devil, if there was no devil in him? that he was converted to God, if he had never been averted from Him? that he believed, besides other articles, in the forgiveness of sins, if no sins were attributable to him? For my own part, indeed, if I thought that his opinions were opposed to this faith, I could not permit him to bring the infant to the sacraments. Nor can I imagine with what countenance before men, or what mind before God, he can conduct himself in this. But I do not wish to say anything too severe. That a false or fallacious form of baptism should be administered to infants, in which there might be the sound and semblance of something being done, but yet no remission of sins actually ensue, has been seen by some amongst them to be as abominable and hateful a thing as it was possible to mention or conceive. Then, again, in respect of the necessity of baptism to infants, they admit that even infants stand in need of redemption,—a concession which is made in a short treatise written by one of their party,—but yet there is not found in this work any open admission of the forgiveness of a single sin. According, however, to an intimation dropped in your letter to me, they now acknowledge, as you say, that a remission of sins takes place even in infants through baptism. No wonder; for it is impossible that redemption should be understood in any other way. Their own words are these: “It is, however, not originally, but in their own actual life, after they have been born, that they have begun to have sin.”
Chapter 64.—A Twofold Mistake Respecting Infants.
You see how great a difference there is amongst those whom I have been opposing at such length and persistency in this work,—one of whom has
Chapter 65 [XXXV.]—In Infants There is No Sin of Their Own Commission.
Will this also be questioned, and must we spend time in discussing it, in order to prove and show how that by their own will—without which there can be no sin in their own life—infants could never commit an offence, whom all, for this very reason, are in the habit of calling innocent? Does not their great weakness of mind and body, their great ignorance of things, their utter inability to obey a precept, the absence in them of all perception and impression of law, either natural or written, the complete want of reason to impel them in either direction,—proclaim and demonstrate the point before us by a silent testimony far more expressive than any argument of ours? The very palpableness of the fact must surely go a great way to persuade us of its truth; for there is no place where I do not find traces of what I say, so ubiquitous is the fact of which we are speaking,—clearer, indeed, to perceive than any thing we can say to prove it.
Chapter 66.—Infants’ Faults Spring from Their Sheer Ignorance.
I should, however, wish any one who was wise on the point to tell me what sin he has seen or thought of in a new-born infant, for redemption from which he allows baptism to be already necessary; what kind of evil it has in its own proper life committed by its own mind or body. If it should happen to cry and to be wearisome to its elders, I wonder whether my informant would ascribe this to iniquity, and not rather to unhappiness. What, too, would he say to the fact
that it is hushed from its very weeping by no appeal to its own reason, and by no prohibition of any one else? This, however, comes from the ignorance in which it is so deeply steeped, by reason of which, too, when it grows stronger, as it very soon does, it strikes its mother in its little passion, and often her very breasts which it sucks when it is hungry. Well, now, these small freaks are not only borne in very young children, but are actually loved,—and this with what affection except that
of the flesh, Carnali. See above, ch. 32.
Chapter 67 [XXXVI.]—On the Ignorance of Infants, and Whence It Arises.
Yes, let us consider that darkness of their rational intellect, by reason of which they are even completely ignorant of God, whose sacraments they actually struggle against, while being baptized. Now my inquiry is, When and whence came they to be immersed in this darkness? Is it then the fact that they incurred it all here, and in this their own proper life forgat God through too much negligence, after a life of wisdom and religion in their mother’s womb?
Let those say so who dare; let them listen to it who wish to; let them believe it who can. I, however, am sure that none whose minds are not blinded by an obstinate adherence to a foregone conclusion can possibly entertain such an opinion. Is there then no evil in ignorance,—nothing which needs to be purged away? What means that prayer “Remember not the sins of my youth and of my ignorance?”
Chapter 68 [XXXVII.]—If Adam Was Not Created of Such a Character as that in Which We are Born, How is It that Christ, Although Free from Sin, Was Born an Infant and in Weakness?
Some one will ask, If this nature is not pure, but corrupt from its origin, since Adam was not created thus, how is it that Christ, who is far more excellent, and was certainly born without any sin of a virgin, nevertheless appeared in this weakness, and came into the world in infancy? To this question our answer is as follows: Adam was not created in such a state, because, as no sin from a parent preceded him, he was not created in sinful flesh. We, however, are
in such a condition, because by reason of his preceding sin we are born in sinful flesh. While Christ was born in such a state, because, in order that He might for sin condemn sin, He assumed the likeness of sinful flesh.
Chapter 69 [XXXVIII.]—The Ignorance and the Infirmity of an Infant.
But not to dwell on this, that was at least possible to them which has actually happened to many animals, the young of which are born small, and do not advance in mind (since they have no rational soul) as their bodies grow larger, and yet, even when most diminutive, run about, and recognize their mothers, and require no external help or care when they want to suck, but with remarkable ease discover their mothers’ breasts themselves, although these are concealed from ordinary sight. A human being, on the contrary, at his birth is furnished neither with feet fit for walking, nor with hands able even to scratch; and unless their lips were actually applied to the breast by the mother, they would not know where to find it; and even when close to the nipple, they would, notwithstanding their desire for food, be more able to cry than to suck. This utter helplessness of body thus fits in with their infirmity of mind; nor would Christ’s flesh have been “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” unless that sinful flesh had been such that the rational soul is oppressed by it in the way we have described,—whether this too has been derived from parents, or created in each case for the individual separately, or inspired from above,—concerning which I forbear from inquiring now.
Chapter 70 [XXXIX.]—How Far Sin is Done Away in Infants by Baptism, Also in Adults, and What Advantage Results Therefrom.
In infants it is certain that, by the grace of God, through His baptism who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, it is brought to pass that the sinful flesh is done away. This result, however, is so effected, that the concupiscence which is diffused over and innate in the living flesh itself is not removed all at once, so as to exist in it no longer; but only that that might not be injurious to a man at his death, which was inherent at his birth. For
should an infant live after baptism, and arrive at an age capable of obedience to a law, he finds there somewhat to fight against, and, by God’s help, to overcome, if he has not received His grace in vain, and if he is not willing to be a reprobate. For not even to those who are of riper years is it given in baptism (except, perhaps, by an unspeakable miracle of the almighty Creator), that the law of sin which is in their members, warring against the law of their mind, should be entirely
extinguished, and cease to exist; but that whatever of evil has been done, said, or thought by a man whilst he was servant to a mind subject to its concupiscence, should be abolished, and regarded as if it had never occurred. The concupiscence itself, however, (notwithstanding the loosening of the bond of guilt in which the devil, by it, used to keep the soul, and the destruction of the barrier which separated man from his Maker,) remains in the contest in which we chasten our body and
bring it into subjection, whether to be relaxed for lawful and necessary uses, or to be restrained by continence.
Book II.
In which Augustin argues against such as say that in the present life there are, have been, and will be, men who have absolutely no sin at all. He lays down four propositions on this head: and teaches, first, that a man might possibly live in the present life without sin, by the grace of God and his own free will; he next shows that nevertheless in fact there is no man who lives quite free from sin in this life; thirdly, he sets forth the reason of this,—because there is no man who exactly confines his wishes within the limits of the just requirement of each case, which just requirement he either fails to perceive, or is unwilling to carry out in practice; in the fourth place, he proves that there is not, nor has been, nor ever will be, a human being—except the one mediator, Christ—who is free from all sin.
Chapter 1 [I.]—What Has Thus Far Been Dwelt On; And What is to Be Treated in This Book.
We have, my dearest Marcellinus, discussed at sufficient length, I think, in the former book the baptism of infants,—how that it is given to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the kingdom of God, or without that union with the Saviour Christ, wherein He has redeemed us by His blood. I undertake in the present book to discuss and explain the
question, Whether there lives in this world, or has yet lived, or ever will live, any one without any sin whatever, except “the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all;”
Chapter 2 [II.]—Some Persons Attribute Too Much to the Freedom of Man’s Will; Ignorance and Infirmity.
A solution is extremely necessary of this question about a human life unassailed by any deception or preoccupation of sin, in consequence even of our daily prayers. For there are some persons who presume so much upon the free determination of the human will, as to suppose that it need not sin, and that we require no divine assistance,—attributing to our nature, once for all, this determination of free will. An inevitable consequence of this is, that we ought not
to pray “not to enter into temptation,”—that is, not to be overcome of temptation, either when it deceives and surprises us in our ignorance, or when it presses and importunes us in our weakness. Now how hurtful, and how pernicious and contrary to our salvation in Christ, and how violently adverse to the religion itself in which we are instructed, and to the piety whereby we worship God, it cannot but be for us not to beseech the Lord for the attainment of such a benefit, but be
rather led to think that petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Lead us not into temptation,”
Chapter 3 [III.]—In What Way God Commands Nothing Impossible. Works of Mercy, Means of Wiping Out Sins.
Now these people imagine that they are acute (as if none among us knew it) when they say, that “if we have not the will, we commit no sin; nor would God command man to do what was impossible for human volition.” But they do not see, that in order to overcome certain things, which are the objects either of an evil desire or an ill-conceived fear, men need the
Chapter 4 [IV.]—Concupiscence, How Far in Us; The Baptized are Not Injured by Concupiscence, But Only by Consent Therewith.
Concupiscence, therefore, as the law of sin which remains in the members of this body of death, is born with infants. In baptized infants, it is deprived of guilt, is left for the struggle [of life], See above, Book i. chap. 70 (xxxix.) Originaliter, i.e. owing to birth-sin.
Chapter 5 [V.]—The Will of Man Requires the Help of God.
Now for the commission of sin we get no help from God; but we are not able to do justly, and to fulfil the law of righteousness in every part thereof, except we are helped by God. For as the bodily eye is not helped by the light to turn away therefrom shut or averted, but is helped by it to see, and cannot see at all unless it help it; so God, who is the light of the inner man, helps our mental sight, in order that we may do some good, not according to our own, but
according to His righteousness. But if we turn Da quod jubes; see the Confessions, Book x. chap. 26.
Chapter 6.—Wherein the Pharisee Sinned When He Thanked God; To God’s Grace Must Be Added the Exertion of Our Own Will.
Let us then drive away from our ears and minds those who say that we ought to accept the determination of our own free will and not pray God to help us not to sin. By such darkness as this even the Pharisee was not blinded; for although he erred in thinking that he needed no addition to his righteousness, and supposed himself to be saturated with abundance of it, he nevertheless gave thanks to God that he was not “like other men, unjust, extortioners, adulterers,
or even as the publican; for he fasted twice in the week, he gave tithes of all that he possessed.”
Chapter 7 [VI.]—Four Questions on the Perfection of Righteousness: (1.) Whether a Man Can Be Without Sin in This Life.
Now those who aver that a man can exist in this life without sin, must not be immediately opposed with incautious rashness; for if we should deny the possibility, we should derogate both from the free will of man, who in his wish desires it, and from the power or mercy of God, who by His help effects it. But it is one question, whether he could exist; and another question, whether he does exist. Again, it is one question, if he does not exist when he could
exist, why he does not exist; and another question, whether such a man as had never sinned at all, not only is in existence, but also could ever have existed, or can ever exist. Now, if in the order of this fourfold set of interrogative propositions, I were asked, [1st,] Whether it be possible for a man in this life to be without sin? I should allow the possibility, through the grace of God and the man’s own free will; not doubting that the free will itself is ascribable to God’s
grace, in other words, to the gifts of God,—not only as to its existence, but also as to its being good, that is, to its conversion to doing the commandments of God. Thus it is that God’s grace not only shows what ought to be done, but also helps to the possibility of doing what it shows. “What
Chapter 8 [VII.]—(2) Whether There is in This World a Man Without Sin.
[2nd.] If, however, I am asked the second question which I have suggested,—whether there be a sinless man,—I believe there is not. For I rather believe the Scripture, which says: “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.”
Chapter 9.—The Beginning of Renewal; Resurrection Called Regeneration; They are the Sons of God Who Lead Lives Suitable to Newness of Life.
And hence in the passage, “Whosoever is born of God doth not sin, and he cannot sin, for His seed remaineth in him,” See Donec etiam in re fiant.
Chapter 10 [VIII.]—Perfection, When to Be Realized.
Our full adoption, then, as children, is to happen at the redemption of our body. It is therefore the first-fruits of the Spirit which we now possess, whence we are already really become the children of God; for the rest, indeed, as it is by hope that we are saved and renewed, so are we the children of God. But inasmuch as we are not yet actually saved, we are also not yet fully renewed, nor yet also fully sons of God, but children of the world. We are therefore
advancing in renewal and holiness of life,—and it is by this that we are children of God, and by this also we cannot commit sin;—until at last the whole of that by which we are kept as yet children of this world is changed into this;—for it is owing to this that we are as yet able to sin. Hence it comes to pass that “whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;”
Chapter 11 [IX.]—An Objection of the Pelagians: Why Does Not a Righteous Man Beget a Righteous Man? [See below, c. 25; also De Nuptiis, i. 18; also contra Julianum, vi. 5.]
In vain, then, do some of them argue: “If a sinner begets a sinner, so that the guilt of original sin must be done away in his infant son by his receiving baptism, in like manner ought a righteous man to beget a righteous son.” Just as if a man begat children in the flesh by reason of his righteousness, and not because he is moved thereto by the concupiscence which is in his members, and the law of sin is applied by the law of his mind to the purpose of
procreation. His begetting children, therefore, shows that he still retains the old nature among the children of this world; it does not arise from the fact of his promotion to newness of life among the children of God. For “the children of this world beget and are begotten.”
Chapter 12 [X.]—He Reconciles Some Passages of Scripture.
The statement, therefore, “He that is born of God sinneth not,”
Chapter 13.—A Subterfuge of the Pelagians.
Daniel, indeed, after the prayer which he poured out before God, actually says respecting himself, “Whilst I was praying and confessing my sins, and the sins of my people, before the Lord my God.”
Chapter 14. —Job Was Not Without Sin.
But let us see what Job has to say of himself, after God’s great testimony of his righteousness. “I know of a truth,” he says, “that it is so: for how shall a mortal man be just before the Lord? For if He should enter into judgment with him, he would not be able to obey Him.”
Chapter 15.—Carnal Generation Condemned on Account of Original Sin.
He sets forth that this absolute weakness, or rather condemnation, of carnal generation is from the transgression of original sin, when, treating of his own sins, he shows, as it were, their causes, and says that “man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of wrath.” Of what wrath, but of that in which all are, as the apostle says, “by nature,” that is, by origin, “children of wrath,”
Chapter 16—Job Foresaw that Christ Would Come to Suffer; The Way of Humility in Those that are Perfect.
Now it is remarkable Quid quod. Qua se noverat injustum. Several Mss. have justum [q. d. “had discovered what his own righteousness was,”—i.e. nothing].
Chapter 17 [XII.]—No One Righteous in All Things. See below, chap. 23.
That illustrious testimony of God, therefore, in which Job is commended, is not contrary to the passage in which it is said, “In Thy sight shall no man living be justified;”
Chapter 18 [XIII.]—Perfect Human Righteousness is Imperfect.
There are then on earth righteous men, there are great men, brave, prudent, chaste, patient,
Chapter 19.—Zacharias and Elisabeth, Sinners.
Now what must we say of Zacharias and Elisabeth, who are often alleged against us in discussions on this question, except that there is clear evidence in the Scripture See above, Book i. c. 50.
Chapter 20.—Paul Worthy to Be the Prince of the Apostles, and Yet a Sinner.
What commendation, however, is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth which is not comprehended in what the apostle has said about himself before he believed in Christ? He said that, “as touching the righteousness which is in the law, he had been blameless.” [Augustin plays on the word “perfect.”—W.]
Chapter 21 [XIV.]—All Righteous Men Sinners.
In like manner, all who are described in the Scriptures as exhibiting in their present life good will and the actions of righteousness, and all who have lived like them since, although lacking the same testimony of Scripture; or all who are even now so living, or shall hereafter so live: all these are great, they are all righteous, and they are all really worthy of praise,—yet they are by no means without sin: inasmuch as, on the authority of the same Scriptures
which make us believe in their virtues, we believe also that in “God’s sight no man living is justified,”
Chapter 22 [XV.]—An Objection of the Pelagians; Perfection is Relative; He is Rightly Said to Be Perfect in Righteousness Who Has Made Much Progress Therein.
“Well, but,” they say, “the Lord says, ‘Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,’ See above, chap. 7. Ut sufferatis his antithesis here to ut diligat.
Chapter 23 [XXI.]—Why God Prescribes What He Knows Cannot Be Observed.
We must not deny that God commands that we ought to be so perfect in doing righteousness, as to have no sin at all. Now that cannot be sin, whatever it may be, unless God has enjoined that it shall not be. Why then, they ask, does He command what He knows no man living will perform? In this manner it may also be asked, Why He commanded the first human beings, who were only two, what He knew they would not obey? For it must not be pretended that He issued that command, that some of us might obey it, if they did not; for, that they should not partake of the fruit of the particular tree, God commanded them, and none besides. Because, as He knew what amount of righteousness they would fail to perform, so did He also know what righteous measures He meant Himself to adopt concerning them. In the same way, then, He orders all men to commit no sin, although He knows beforehand that no man will fulfil the command; in order that He may, in the case of all who impiously and condemnably despise His precepts, Himself do what is just in their condemnation; and, in the case of all who while obediently and piously pressing on in his precepts, though failing to observe to the utmost all things which He has enjoined, do yet forgive others as they wish to to be forgiven themselves, Himself do what is good in their cleansing. For how can forgiveness be bestowed by God’s mercy on the forgiving, when there is no sin? or how prohibition fail to be given by the justice of God, when there is sin?
Chapter 24.—An Objection of the Pelagians. The Apostle Paul Was Not Free From Sin So Long as He Lived.
“But see,” say they, “how the apostle says, ‘I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith, I have finished my course: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness;’
Chapter 25.—God Punishes Both in Wrath and in Mercy.
Although there are some men who are so eminent in righteousness that God speaks to them out of His cloudy pillar, such as “Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name,”
Chapter 26 [XVII.] — (3) See above, chs. 7 and 8.
[3d.] See above, chs. 7 and 8.
Chapter 27. See below, in ch. 33: also De Naturâ et Gratiâ, 29–32; and De Corrept. et Gratia, 10.
You cannot therefore attribute to God the cause of any human fault. For of all human offences, the cause is pride. For the conviction and removal of this a great remedy comes from heaven. God in mercy humbles Himself, descends from above, and displays to man, lifted up by pride, pure and manifest grace in very manhood, which He took upon Himself out of vast love for those who partake of it. For, not even did even this One, so conjoined to the Word of God that by
that conjunction he became at once the one Son of God and the same One the one Son of man, act by the antecedent merits of His own will. It behoved Him, without doubt, to be one; had there been two, or three, or more, if this could have been done, it would not have come from the pure and simple gift of God, but from man’s free will and choice. [Augustin appears to say, in this obscure passage, that had there been two persons, instead of two natures only, in our blessed Lord’s person, then no doubt salvation would have been due partly to a human cause.—W.]
Chapter 28 [XVIII.]—A Good Will Comes from God.
Men, however, are laboring to find in our own will some good thing of our own,—not given to us by God; but how it is to be found I cannot imagine. The apostle says, when speaking of men’s good works, “What hast thou that thou didst not receive? now, if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” See De Gratiâ Christi, 52; and De Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio.
Chapter 29.—A Subterfuge of the Pelagians.
Now, with reference to the passage of the apostle which I have quoted, some would maintain it to mean that “whatever amount of good will a man has, must be attributed to God on this account,—namely, because even this amount could not be in him if he were not a human being. Now, inasmuch as he has from God alone the capacity of being any thing at all, and of being human, why should there not be also attributed to God whatever there is in him of a good will, which could not exist unless he existed in whom it is?” But in this same manner it may also be said that a bad will also may be attributed to God as its author; because even it could not exist in man unless he were a man in whom it existed; but God is the author of his existence as man; and thus also of his bad will, which could have no existence if it had not a man in whom it might exist. But to argue thus is blasphemy.
Chapter 30.—All Will is Either Good, and Then It Loves Righteousness, or Evil, When It Does Not Love Righteousness.
Unless, therefore, we obtain not simply determination of will, which is freely turned in this direction and that, and has its place amongst those natural goods which a bad man may use badly; but also a good will, which has its place among those goods of which it is impossible to make a bad use:—unless the impossibility is given to us from God, I know not how to defend what is said: “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” For if we have from God a certain
free will, which may still be either good or bad; but the good will comes from ourselves; then that which comes from ourselves is better than that which comes from Him. But inasmuch as it is the height of absurdity to say this, they ought to acknowledge that we attain from God even a good will. It would indeed be a strange thing if the will could so stand in some mean as to be neither good nor bad; for we either love righteousness, and it is good, and if we love it more, more good,—if less, it
is less good; or if we do not love it at all, it is not good. And who can hesitate to affirm that, when the will loves not righteousness in any way at all, it is not only a bad, but even a wholly depraved will? Since therefore the will is either good or bad, and since of course we have not the bad will from God, it remains that we have of God a good will; else, I am ignorant, since our justification is from it, in what other gift from Him we ought to rejoice. Hence, I suppose, it is written,
“The will is prepared of the Lord;”
Chapter 31.—Grace is Given to Some Men in Mercy; Is Withheld from Others in Justice and Truth.
Forasmuch then as our turning away from God is our own act, and this is evil will; but our turning to God is not possible, except He rouses and helps us, and this is good will,—what have we that we have not received? But if we received, why do we glory as if we had not received? Therefore, as “he that glorieth must glory in the Lord,”
Chapter 32.—God’s Sovereignity in His Grace.
As to the reason why He wills to convert some, and to punish others for turning away,—although nobody can justly censure the merciful One in conferring His blessing, nor can any man justly find fault with the truthful One in awarding His punishment (as no one could justly blame Him, in the parable of the labourers, for assigning to some their stipulated hire, and to others unstipulated largess i.e., the soil of their hearts; see above, at the end of ch. 27.
Chapter 33.—Through Grace We Have Both the Knowledge of Good, and the Delight Which It Affords.
But when we pray Him to give us His help to do and accomplish righteousness, what else do we pray for than that He would open what was hidden, and impart sweetness to that which gave no pleasure? For even this very duty of praying to Him we have learned by His grace, whereas before it was hidden; and by His grace have come to love it, whereas before it gave us no pleasure,—so that “he who glorieth must glory not in himself, but in the Lord.” To be lifted up,
indeed, to pride, is the result of men’s own will, not of the operation of God; for to such a thing God neither urges us nor helps us. There first occurs then in the will of man a certain desire of its own power, to become disobedient through pride. If it were not for this desire, indeed, there would be nothing difficult; and whenever man willed it, he might refuse without difficulty. There ensued, however, out of the penalty which was justly due such a defect, that henceforth it became
difficult to be obedient unto righteousness; and unless this defect were overcome by assisting grace, no one would turn to holiness; nor unless it were healed by efficient grace would any one enjoy the peace of righteousness. But whose grace is it that conquers and heals, but His to whom the prayer is directed: “Convert us, O God of our salvation, and turn Thine anger away from us?”
Chapter 34 [XX.]—(4) That No Man, with the Exception of Christ, Has Ever Lived, or Can Live Without Sin. See above, chs. 7, 8, 26.
[4th.] There now remains our fourth point, after the explanation of which, as God shall help us, this lengthened treatise of ours may at last be brought to an end. It is this: Whether the man who never has had sin or is to have it, not merely is now living as one of the sons of men, but even could ever have existed at any time, or will yet in time to come exist? Now it is altogether most See above, chs. 8, 9.
Chapter 35 [XXI.]—Adam and Eve; Obedience Most Strongly Enjoined by God on Man.
When the first human beings—the one man Adam, and his wife Eve who came out of him—willed not to obey the commandment which they had received from God, a just and deserved punishment overtook them. The Lord had threatened that, on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, they should surely die.
Chapter 36 [XXII.]—Man’s State Before the Fall.
Before they had thus violated their obedience they were pleasing to God, and God was pleasing to them; and though they carried about an animal body, they yet felt in it no disobedience moving against themselves. This was the righteous appointment, that inasmuch as their soul had received from the Lord the body for its servant, as it itself obeyed the Lord, even so its body should obey Him, and should exhibit a service suitable to the life given it without
resistance. Hence “they were both naked, and were not ashamed.” i.e. “Parts of shame.”
Chapter 37 [XXIII.]—The Corruption of Nature is by Sin, Its Renovation is by Christ.
From this law of sin is born the flesh of sin, which requires cleansing through the sacrament of Him who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, that the body of sin might be destroyed, which is also called “the body of this death,” from which only God’s grace delivers wretched man through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Chapter 38 [XXIV.]—What Benefit Has Been Conferred on Us by the Incarnation of the Word; Christ’s Birth in the Flesh, Wherein It is Like and Wherein Unlike Our Own Birth.
He goes on to add, “And the Word was made Medietatem. De maternâ carne peccati, which is the reading of the best and oldest Mss. Another reading has, De naturâ carnis peccati (“of the nature of sinful flesh”); and a third, De materiâ carnis peccati (“of the matter of sinful flesh”). Compare Contr. Julianum, v. 9, and De Gen. ad. Lit. x. 18–20.
Chapter 39 [XXV.]—An Objection of Pelagians.
The answer, which we have already given, See above, c. 11. The allusion is to
Chapter 40.—An Argument Anticipated.
And let no one contend that the descendants of Abraham might fairly enough have paid tithes, although they had already paid tithes in the loins of their forefather, seeing that paying tithes was an obligation of such a nature as to require constant repetition from each several person, just as the Israelites used to pay such contributions every year all through life to their Levites, to whom were due various tithes from all kinds of produce; whereas baptism is a sacrament of such a nature as is administered once for all, and if one had already received it when in his father, he must be considered as no other than baptized, since he was born of a man who had been himself baptized. Well, whoever thus argues (I will simply say, without discussing the point at length,) should look at circumcision, which was administered once for all, and yet was administered to each person separately and individually. Just as therefore it was necessary in the time of that ancient sacrament for the son of a circumcised man to be himself circumcised, so now the son of one who has been baptized must himself also receive baptism.
Chapter 41.—Children of Believers are Called “Clean” By the Apostle. [See Gelasius, in his Treatise against the Pelagians.]
The apostle indeed says, “Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy;” See above, Book i. chs. 21–23.
Chapter 42.—Sanctification Manifold; Sacrament of Catechumens.
Our opinions on this point are strictly in unison with the apostle’s himself, who said, “From one all to condemnation,” and “from one all to justification of life.” See Catechumens received the sacramentum salis—salt placed in the mouth—with other rites, such as exorcism and the sign of the cross; the Lord’s Prayer and other invocations concluding the ceremony. See Canon 5 of the third Council of Carthage; also Augustin’s De Catechiz. Rud. 50; and his Confessions, i. 11, where (speaking of his own catechumenical course) he says: “I was now signed with the sign of His cross, and was seasoned with His
salt.” See below, Book iii. ch. 21; and his Sermons, xxix. 4.
Chapter 43 [XXVII.]—Why the Children of the Baptized Should Be Baptized.
If any man, however, is still perplexed by the question why the children of baptized persons are baptized, let him briefly consider this: Inasmuch as the generation of sinful flesh through the one man, Adam, draws into condemnation all who are born of such generation, so the generation of the Spirit of grace through the one man Jesus Christ, draws to the justification of eternal life all who, because predestinated, partake of this regeneration. But the sacrament
of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regenation: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”
Chapter 44.—An Objection of the Pelagians.
Nor do they fail to see this point, that his own sins are no detriment to the parent after his conversion; they therefore raise the question: “How much more impossible is it that they should be a hinderance to his son?” But they who thus think do not attend to this consideration, that as his own sins are not injurious to the father for the very reason that he is born again of the Spirit, so in the case of his son, unless he be in the same manner born again, the sins which he derived from his father will prove injurious to him. Because even renewed parents beget children, not out of the first-fruits of their renewed condition, but carnally out of the remains of the old nature; and the children who are thus the offspring of their parents’ remaining old nature, and are born in sinful flesh, escape from the condemnation which is due to the old man by the sacrament of spiritual regeneration and renewal. Now this is a consideration which, on account of the controversies that have arisen, and may still arise, on this subject, we ought to keep in our view and memory,—that a full and perfect remission of sins takes place only in baptism, that the character of the actual man does not at once undergo a total change, but that the first-fruits of the Spirit in such as walk worthily change the old carnal nature into one of like character by a process of renewal, which increases day by day, until the entire old nature is so renovated that the very weakness of the natural body attains to the strength and incorruptibility of the spiritual body.
Chapter 45 [XXVIII.]—The Law of Sin is Called Sin; How Concupiscence Still Remains After Its Evil Has Been Removed in the Baptized.
This law of sin, however, which the apostle also designates “sin,” when he says, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof,” We follow the reading, lex [scil. peccati] concupiscentialiter, etc.
Chapter 46. Compare Augustin’s Contra Julianum, vi. c. 22.
You must not be surprised at what I have said, that although the law of sin remains with its concupiscence, the guilt thereof is done away through the grace of the sacrament. For as wicked deeds, and words, and thoughts have already passed away, and cease to exist, so far as regards the mere movements of the mind and the body, and yet their guilt remains after they have passed away and no longer exist, unless it be done away by the remission of sins; so, contrariwise, in this law of concupiscence, which is not yet done away but still remains, its guilt is done away, and continues no longer, since in baptism there takes place a full forgiveness of sins. Indeed, if a man were to quit this present life immediately after his baptism, there would be nothing at all left to hold him liable, inasmuch as all which held him is released. As, on the one hand, therefore, there is nothing strange in the fact that the guilt of past sins of thought, and word, and deed remains before their remission; so, on the other hand, there ought to be nothing to create surprise, that the guilt of remaining concupiscence passes away after the remission of sin.
Chapter 47 [XXIX.]—All the Predestinated are Saved Through the One Mediator Christ, and by One and the Same Faith.
This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins. Now this same Lord of ours has never yet refused, at any period of the human race, nor to the last judgment will He ever refuse, this His healing to those whom, in His most sure foreknowledge and future loving-kindness, He has predestinated to reign with Himself to life eternal. For, previous to His birth in the flesh, and weakness in suffering, and power in His own resurrection, He instructed all who then lived, in the faith of those then future blessings, that they might inherit everlasting life; whilst those who were alive when all these things were being accomplished in Christ, and who were witnessing the fulfilment of prophecy, He instructed in the faith of these then present blessings; whilst again, those who have since lived, and ourselves who are now alive, and all those who are yet to live, He does not cease to instruct, in the faith of these now past blessings. It is therefore “one faith” which saves all, who after their carnal birth are born again of the Spirit, and it terminates in Him, who came to be judged for us and to die,—the Judge of quick and dead. But the sacraments of this “one faith” are varied from time to time in order to its suitable signification.
Chapter 48.—Christ the Saviour Even of Infants; Christ, When an Infant, Was Free from Ignorance and Mental Weakness.
He is therefore the Saviour at once of infants and of adults, of whom the angel said, “There is born unto you this day a Saviour;” Rather to Joseph, Mary’s husband;
Chapter 49 [XXX.]—An Objection of the Pelagians.
They therefore who say, “If through the sin of the first man it was brought about that we must die, by the coming of Christ it should be brought about that, believing in Him, we shall not die;” and they add what they deem a reason, saying, “For the sin of the first transgressor could not possibly have injured us more than the incarnation or redemption of the Saviour has benefited us.” But why do they not rather give an attentive ear, and an unhesitating belief, to
that which the apostle has stated so unambiguously: “Since by man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive?”
Chapter 50 [XXXI.]—Why It is that Death Itself is Not Abolished, Along with Sin, by Baptism.
He might, however, have also conferred this upon believers, that they should not even experience the death of their body. But if He had done this, there might no doubt have been added a certain felicity to the flesh, but the fortitude of faith would have been diminished; for men have such a fear of death, that they would declare Christians happy, for nothing else than their mere immunity from dying. And no one would, for the sake of that life which is to be so
happy after death, hasten to the grace of Christ by the power of his contempt of death itself; but with a view to remove the trouble of death, would rather resort to a more delicate mode of believing in Christ. More grace, therefore, than this has He conferred on those who believe on Him; and a greater gift, undoubtedly, has He vouchsafed to them! What great matter would it have been for a man, on seeing that people did not die when they became believers, himself also to believe that he was not
to die? How much greater a thing is it, how much braver, how much more laudable, so to believe, that although one is sure to die, he can still hope to live hereafter for evermore! At last, upon some there will be bestowed this blessing at the last day, that they shall not feel death itself in sudden change, but shall be caught up along with the risen in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, and so shall they ever live with the Lord. Augustin constantly quotes this text with the active participle sperantium, instead of sperandorum. The Greek ἐλπιζομένων is not always construed passively in the passage; some regard it as of the middle voice.
Chapter 51.—Why the Devil is Said to Hold the Power and Dominion of Death.
Hence the Lord Himself willed to die, “in order that,” as it is written of Him, “through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”
Chapter 52 [XXXII.]—Why Christ, After His Resurrection, Withdrew His Presence from the World.
Although, therefore, the Lord wrought many visible miracles in order that faith might sprout at first and be fed by infant nourishment, and grow to its full strength by and by out of this softness (for as faith becomes stronger the less does it seek such help); He nevertheless wished us to wait quietly, without visible inducements, for the promised hope, in order that “the just might live by faith;”
Chapter 53 [XXXIII.]—An Objection of the Pelagians.
But those persons who say, “If the death of the body has happened by sin, we of course ought not to die after that remission of sins which the Redeemer has bestowed upon us,” do not understand how it is that some things, whose guilt God has cancelled in order that they may not stand in our way after this life, He yet permits to remain for the contest of faith, in order that they may become the means of instructing and exercising those who are advancing in the
Chapter 54 [XXXIV.]—Why Punishment is Still Inflicted, After Sin Has Been Forgiven.
But, inasmuch as there are not wanting persons of such character, just as we say in answer to those who raise this question, that those things are punishments of sins before remission, which after remission become contests and exercises of the righteous; so again to such persons as are similarly perplexed about the death of the body, our answer ought to be so drawn as to show both that we acknowledge it to have accrued because of sin, and that we are not
discouraged by the punishment of sins having been bequeathed to us for an exercise of discipline, in order that our great fear of it may be overcome by us as we advance in holiness. For if only small virtue accrued to “the faith which worketh by love” in conquering the fear of death, there would be no great glory for the martyrs; nor could the Lord say, “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends;”
Chapter 55.—To Recover the Righteousness Which Had Been Lost by Sin, Man Has to Struggle, with Abundant Labour and Sorrow.
The flesh which was originally created was not that sinful flesh in which man refused to maintain his righteousness amidst the delights of Paradise, wherefore God determined that sinful flesh should propagate itself after it had sinned, and struggle for the recovery of holiness, in many toils and troubles. Therefore, after Adam was driven out of Paradise, he had to dwell over against Eden,—that is, over against the garden of delights,—to indicate that it is by
labours and sorrows, which are the very contraries of delights, that sinful flesh had to be educated, after it had failed amidst its first pleasures to maintain its holiness, previous to its becoming sinful flesh. As therefore our first parents, by their subsequent return to righteous living, by which they are supposed to have been released from the worst penalty of their sentence through the blood of the Lord, were still not deemed worthy to be recalled to Paradise during their life on earth,
so in like manner our sinful flesh, even if a man lead a righteous life in it after the remission of his sins, does not deserve to be immediately exempted from that death which it has derived from its propagation of sin. See also his treatise, De Naturâ et Gratiâ, ch. xxiii.
Chapter 56.—The Case of David, in Illustration.
Some such thought has occurred to us about the patriarch David, in the Book of Kings. After the prophet was sent to him, and threatened him with the evils which were to arise from the anger of God on account of the sin which he had committed, he obtained pardon by the confession of his sin, and the prophet replied that the shame and crime had been remitted to him; but yet, for all that, the evils with which God had threatened him followed in due course, so that he was
brought low by his son. Now why is not an objection at once raised here: “If it was on account of his sin that God threatened him, why, when the sin was forgiven, did He fulfil His threat?” except because, if the cavil had been raised, it would have been most correctly answered, that the remission of the sin was given that the man
Chapter 57 [XXXV.]—Turn to Neither Hand.
Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without faltering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. “Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left.” Same verse [in the Latin and Septuagint; the clause does not occur in the Hebrew]. [See the last note.]
Chapter 58 [XXXVI.]—“Likeness of Sinful Flesh” Implies the Reality.
It is no small concession to the authority and truthfulness of the inspired pages which those persons have made, who, although unwilling to admit openly in their writings that remission of sins is necessary for infants, have yet confessed that they need redemption. Nothing that they have said differs indeed from another word, even that which is derived from Christian instruction. Whilst by those who faithfully read, faithfully hear, and faithfully hold fast the
Holy Scriptures, it cannot be doubted that from that flesh, which first became sinful flesh by the choice of sin, and which has been subsequently transmitted to all through successive generations, there has been propagated a sinful flesh, with the single exception of that “likeness of sinful flesh,”
Chapter 59.—Whether the Soul is Propagated; On Obscure Points, Concerning Which the Scriptures Give Us No Assistance, We Must Be on Our Guard Against Forming Hasty Judgments and Opinions; The Scriptures are Clear Enough on Those Subjects Which are Necessary to Salvation.
Concerning the soul, indeed, the question arises, whether it, too, is propagated in the same way [as the flesh,] and bound by the same guilt, which is forgiven to it—for we cannot say that it is only the flesh of the infant, and not his soul also, which requires the help of a Saviour and Redeemer, or that the latter must not be included in that thanksgiving in the Psalms, where we read and repeat, “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits;
who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; who redeemeth thy life from destruction.” We follow the reading, per summam præscientiam. Non mereantur. He treats it in his Epistle, 166; in his work, De Animâ et ejus Origine; and in his De Libero Arbitrio, 42.
Book III.
In the Shape of a Letter Addressed to the Same Marcellinus.
In which Augustin refutes some errors of Pelagius on the question of the merits of sins and the baptism of infants—being sundry arguments of his which he had interspersed among his expositions of Saint Paul, in opposition to original sin.
To his beloved son Marcellinus, Augustin, bishop and servant of Christ and of the servants of Christ, sendeth greeting in the Lord.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Pelagius Esteemed a Holy Man; His Expositions on Saint Paul.
The questions which you proposed that I should write to you about, in opposition to those persons who say that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned, and that nothing of his sin has passed to his posterity by natural transmission; and especially on the subject of the baptism of infants, which the universal Church, with most pious and maternal care, maintains in constant celebration; and whether in this life there are, or have
been, or ever will be, children of men without any sin at all—I have already discussed in two lengthy books. And I venture to think that if in them I have not met all the points which perplex all men’s minds on such matters (an achievement which, I apprehend,—nay, which I have no doubt,—lies beyond the power either of myself, or of any other person), I have at all events prepared something in the shape of a firm ground on which those who defend the faith delivered to us by our fathers, against
the novel opinions of its opponents, may at any time take their stand, not unarmed for the contest. However, within the last few days I have read some writings by Pelagius,—a holy man, as I am told, who has made no small progress in the Christian life,—containing some very brief expository notes on the epistles of the Apostle Paul; [This commentary is also made known to us by Marius Mercator’s Commonitoria, cap. 2, and has been preserved for us among the works of Jerome (Vallarsius’ ed., tom. xi.), although probably not without alterations. It seems to have been composed before A.D. 410, at Rome.—W.]
Chapter 2 [II.]—Pelagius’ Objection; Infants Reckoned Among the Number of Believers and the Faithful.
In these terms, then, the argument is stated:—“But they who deny the transmission of sin endeavour to impugn it thus: If (say they) Adam’s sin injured even those who do not sin, therefore Christ’s righteousness also profits even those who do not believe; because ‘In like manner, nay, much more,’ he says, ‘are men saved by one, than they had previously perished by one.’” Now to this argument, I repeat, I advanced no reply in the two books which I previously addressed to
you; nor, indeed, had I proposed to myself such a task. But now I beg you first of all to observe, when they say, “If Adam’s sin injures even those who do not sin, then Christ’s righteousness also profits even those who do not believe,” how absurd and false they judge it to be, that the righteousness of Christ should profit even those who do not believe; and that thence they think to put together such an argument as this: That no more could the first man’s sin possibly do injury to infants who
commit no sin, than the righteousness of Christ can benefit any who do not believe. Let them therefore tell us what is the benefit of Christ’s
Chapter 3.—Pelagius Makes God Unjust.
We are driven at last to yield our assent on divine authority to that which we are unable to investigate with even the clearest intellect. It is well that they remind us themselves that Christ’s righteousness is unable to profit any but believers, while they yet allow that it somewhat profits infants; according to this (as we have already said) they must, without evasion, find room for baptized infants among the number of believers. Consequently, if they are not
baptized, they will have to rank amongst those who do not believe; and therefore they will not even have life, but “the wrath of God abideth on them,” inasmuch as “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him;”
Chapter 4.
To the other points which Pelagius makes them urge who argue against original sin, I have already, I think, sufficiently and clearly replied in the two former books of my lengthy treatise. Now if my reply should seem to any persons to be brief or obscure, I beg their pardon, and request the favour of their coming to terms with those who perhaps censure my treatise, not for being too brief, but rather as being too long; whilst any who still do not understand the
points which I cannot help thinking I have explained as clearly as the nature of the subject allowed me, shall certainly hear no blame or reproach from me for indifference, or want of understanding me. [Or, “because they lack my own faculty of understanding the subject.”].
Chapter 5 [III.]—Pelagius Praised by Some; Arguments Against Original Sin Proposed by Pelagius in His Commentary.
But we must not indeed omit to observe that this good and praiseworthy man (as they who know him describe him to be) has not advanced this argument against the natural transmission of sin in his own person, but has reproduced what is alleged by those persons who disapprove of the doctrine, and this, not merely so far as I have just quoted and confuted the allegation, but also as to those other points on which I have now further undertaken to furnish a reply. Now, after saying, “If (they say) Adam’s sin injured even those who do not sin, therefore Christ’s righteousness also profits even those who do not believe,”—which sentence, you will perceive from what I have said in answer to it, is not only not repugnant to what we hold, but even reminds us what we ought to hold,—he at once goes on to add, “Then they contend, if baptism cleanses away that old sin, those children who are born of two baptized parents must needs be free from this sin, for they could not have transmitted to their children what they did not possess themselves. Besides,” says he, “if the soul is not of transmission, but only the flesh, then only the latter has the transmission of sin, and it alone deserves punishment; for they allege that it would be unjust for the soul, which is only now born, and comes not of the lump of Adam, to bear the burden of so old an alien sin. They say, likewise,” says Pelagius, “that it cannot by any means be conceded that God, who remits to a man his own sins, should impute to him another’s.”
Chapter 6.—Why Pelagius Does Not Speak in His Own Person.
Pray, don’t you see how Pelagius has inserted the whole of this paragraph in his writings, not in his own person, but in that of others, knowing so well the novelty of this unheard-of doctrine, which is now beginning to raise its voice against the ancient ingrafted opinion of the Church, that he was ashamed or afraid to acknowledge it himself? And perhaps he does not himself think that a man is born without sin for whom he confesses that baptism to be necessary by
which comes the remission of sins; or that the man is condemned without sin who must be reckoned, when unbaptized, in the class of non-believers, since the gospel of course cannot deceive us, when it most clearly asserts, “He that believeth not shall be damned;”
Chapter 7 [IV.]—Proof of Original Sin in Infants.
Now, although I may not be able myself to refute the arguments of these men, I yet see how necessary it is to adhere closely to the clearest statements of the Scriptures, in order that the obscure passages may be explained by help of these, or, if the mind be as yet unequal to either perceiving them when explained, or investigating them whilst abstruse, let them be believed without misgiving. But what can be plainer than the many weighty testimonies of the divine
declarations, which afford to us the clearest proof possible that without union with Christ there is no man who can attain to eternal life and salvation; and that no man can unjustly be damned,—that is, separated from that life and salvation,—by the judgment of God? The inevitable conclusion from these truths is this, that, as nothing else is effected when infants are baptized except that they are incorporated into the church, in other words, that they are united with the body and members of
Christ, unless this benefit has been bestowed upon them, they are manifestly in danger of Pertinere ad.
Chapter 8.—Jesus is the Saviour Even of Infants.
And therefore, if there is an ambiguity in the apostle’s words when he says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men;” See
Chapter 9.—The Ambiguity of “Adam is the Figure of Him to Come.”
To me, however, no doubt presents itself about the whole of this passage, in which the apostle speaks of the condemnation of many through the sin of one, and the justification of many through the righteousness of One, except as to the words, “Adam is the figure of Him that was to come.” “Adam formam futuri;” see Comp. above, Book i. c. 13; Epist. 157; De Nuptiis, ii. 44; and Contra Julianum, vi. 8.
Chapter 10 [V.]—He Shows that Cyprian Had Not Doubted the Original Sin of Infants.
Accordingly, it is not without reason that the blessed Cyprian See Cyprian’s Epistle, 64 (ad Fidum): also Augustin, Epist. 166; De Nuptis, ii. 49; Contra Julianum, ii. 5; Ad Bonifacium, iv. 3; Sermons, 294. The word implies “of ripe age;” i.e., for “baptism.”
Chapter 11.—The Ancients Assumed Original Sin.
You see with what confidence this great man expresses himself after the ancient and undoubted rule of faith. In advancing such very certain statements, his object was by help of these firm conclusions to prove the uncertain point which had been submitted to him by his correspondent, and concerning which he informs him that a decree of a council had been passed, to the effect that, if an infant were brought even before the eighth day after his birth, no one should hesitate to baptize him. Now it was not then determined or confirmed by the council that infants were held bound by original sin as if it were new, or as if it were attacked by the opposition of some one; but when another controversy was being conducted, and the question was discussed, in reference to the law of the circumcision of the flesh, whether they ought to be baptized before the eighth day. None agreed with the person who denied this; because it was not an open question admitting of discussion, but was fixed and unassailable, that the soul would forfeit eternal salvation if it ended this life without obtaining the sacrament of baptism: but at the same time infants fresh from the womb were held to be affected only by the guilt of original sin. On this account, although remission of sins was easier in their case, because the sins were derived from another, it was nevertheless indispensable. It was on sure grounds like these that the uncertain question of the eighth day was solved, and the council decided that after a man was born, not a day ought to be lost in rendering him that succour which should prevent his perishing for ever. When also a reason was given for the circumcision of the flesh as being itself a shadow of what was to be, its purport was not that we should understand that baptism ought to be administered on the eighth day after birth, but rather that we are spiritually circumcised in the resurrection of Christ, who rose from the dead on the third day, indeed, after His passion, but among the days of the week, by which time is counted, on the eighth, that is, on the first day after the Sabbath.
Chapter 12 [VI.]—The Universal Consensus Respecting Original Sin.
And now, again, with a strange boldness in new controversy, certain persons are endeavouring to make us uncertain on a point which our forefathers used to bring forward as most certainly fixed, whenever they would solve such questions as seemed uncertain to some. When this controversy, indeed, first began, I am unable to say; but one thing I know, that even the holy Jerome, who is in our own day renowned for great industry and learning in ecclesiastical
literature, for the solution of sundry questions treated in his writings, makes use of the same most certain assumption without exhibition of proofs. For instance, in his commentary on the prophet Jonah, when he comes to the passage where the infants were mentioned as chastened by the fast, he says: St. Jerome, on Or “who have treated of both languages of the divine Scriptures.” Probably in the year 411, when a conference was held at Carthage with the Donatists. Augustin says that he then saw Pelagius; see his work, De Gestis Pelagii, c. 46.
Chapter 13 [VII.]—The Error of Jovinianus Did Not Extend So Far.
A few years ago there lived at Rome one Jovinian, [This “Christian Epicurus,” as he is called by the intemperate zeal of the asceticism of his day, was condemned as a heretic by councils at Rome and Milan in 390. According to Jerome, who wrote a book against him, he not only opposed asceticism, but also contended for the essential equality of all sins and of the punishments and rewards of the next world, and for the sinlessness of those baptized by the Spirit.—W.] See Jerome’s work Against Jovinian, ii. near the beginning.
Chapter 14.—The Opinions of All Controversialists Whatever are Not, However, Canonical Authority; Original Sin, How Another’s; We Were All One Man in Adam.
I have not quoted these words as if we might rely upon the opinions of every disputant as on canonical authority; but I have done it, that it may be seen how, from the beginning down to the present age, which has given birth to this novel opinion, the doctrine of original sin has been guarded with the utmost constancy as a part of the Church’s faith, so that it is usually adduced as most certain ground whereon to refute other opinions when false, instead of being
itself exposed to refutation by any one as false. Moreover, in the sacred books of the canon, the authority of this doctrine is vigorously asserted in the clearest and fullest way. The apostle exclaims: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men, in which all have sinned. Aliena.
Chapter 15 [VIII.]—We All Sinned Adam’s Sin.
“It is,” they say, “by no means conceded that God who remits to a man his own sins imputes to him another’s.” He remits, indeed, but it is to those regenerated by the Spirit, not to those generated by the flesh; but He imputes to a man no longer the sins of another, but only his own. They were no doubt the sins of another, whilst as yet they were not in existence who bore them when propagated; but now the sins belong to them by carnal generation, to whom they have not yet been remitted by spiritual regeneration.
Chapter 16.—Origin of Errors; A Simile Sought from the Foreskin of the Circumcised, and from the Chaff of Wheat.
“But surely,” say they, “if baptism cleanses the primeval sin, they who are born of two bap
Chapter 17 [IX.]—Christians Do Not Always Beget Christian, Nor the Pure, Pure Children.
With these and such like palpable arguments, should I endeavour, as I best could, to convince those persons who believed that sacraments of cleansing were superfluously applied to the children of the cleansed, how right is the judgment of baptizing the infants of baptized parents, and how it may happen that to a man who has within him the twofold seed—of death in the flesh, and of immortality in the spirit—that may prove no obstacle, regenerated as he is by the
Spirit, which is an obstacle to his son, who is generated by the flesh; and that that may be cleansed in the one by remission, which in the other still requires cleansing by like remission, just as in the case supposed of circumcision, and as in the case of the winnowing and thrashing. But now, when we are contending with those who allow that the children of the baptized ought to be baptized, we may much more conveniently conduct our discussion, and can say: You who assert that the children of
such persons as have been cleansed from the pollution of sin ought to have been born without sin, why do you not perceive that by the same rule you might just as well say that the children of Christian parents ought to have been born Christians? Why, therefore, do you rather maintain that they ought to become Christians? Was there not in their parents, to whom it is said, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?”
Chapter 18 [X.]—Is the Soul Derived by Natural Propagation?
Well, but “if the soul is not propagated, but the flesh alone, then the latter alone has propagation of sin, and it alone deserves punishment:” this is what they think, saying “that it is unjust that the soul which is only recently produced, and that not out of Adam’s substance, should bear the sin of another committed so long ago.” Now observe, I pray you, how the circumspect Pelagius felt the question about the soul to be a very difficult one, and acted accordingly,—for the words which I have just quoted are copied from his book. He does not say absolutely, “Because the soul is not propagated,” but hypothetically, If the soul is not propagated, rightly determining on so obscure a subject (on which we can find in Holy Scriptures no certain and obvious testimonies, or with very great difficulty discover any) to speak with hesitation rather than with confidence. Wherefore I too, on my side, answer this proposition with no hasty assertion: If the soul is not propagated, where is the justice that, what has been but recently created and is quite free from the contagion of sin, should be compelled in infants to endure the passions and other torments of the flesh, and, what is more terrible still, even the attacks of evil spirits? For never does the flesh so suffer anything of this kind that the living and feeling soul does not rather undergo the punishment. If this, indeed, is shown to be just, it may be shown, on the same terms, with what justice original sin comes to exist in our sinful flesh, to be subsequently cleansed by the sacrament of baptism and God’s gracious mercy. If the former point cannot be shown, I imagine that the latter point is equally incapable of demonstration. We must therefore either bear with both positions in silence, and remember that we are human, or else we must prepare, at some other time, another work on the soul, if it shall appear necessary, discussing the whole question with caution and sobriety.
Chapter 19 [XI.]—Sin and Death in Adam, Righteousness and Life in Christ.
What the apostle says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men, in which all have sinned;”
Chapter 20.—The Sting of Death, What?
But even in the passage to the Corinthians, where he had been treating fully of the resurrection, the apostle concludes his statement in such a way as not to permit us to doubt that the death of the body is the result of sin. For after he had said, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality: so when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality, then,” he added, “shall be brought to pass the
saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” and at last he subjoined these words: “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.” [This is only one of many examples of the care with which Augustin, writing for the popular eye, illustrates his exegetical points. “Of death” he thus shows is genitive of the object, not of the subject; giving to the phrase the meaning of “the sting which slays man.”—W.]
Chapter 21 [XII.]—The Precept About Touching the Menstruous Woman Not to Be Figuratively Understood; The Necessity of the Sacraments.
Let no one, then, on this subject be either deceived or a deceiver. The manifest sense of Holy Scripture which we have considered, removes all obscurities. Even as death is in this our mortal body derived from the beginning, so from the beginning has sin been drawn into this sinful flesh of ours, for the cure of which, both as it is derived by propagation and augmented by wilful transgression, as well as for the quickening of our flesh itself, our Physician came
in the likeness of sinful flesh, who is not needed by the sound, but only by the sick,—and who came not to call the righteous, but sinners. See Augustin’s work On the Sermon on the Mount, i. 16. See the Commentaries on St. Paul in Jerome’s works, vol. xi. (Vallarsius), the work of either Pelagius or one of his followers.
Chapter 22 [XIII.]—We Ought to Be Anxious to Secure the Baptism of Infants.
For this is the point aimed at by the controversy, against the novelty of which we have to struggle by the aid of ancient truth: that it is clearly altogether superfluous for infants to be baptized. Not that this opinion is avowed in so many words, lest so firmly established a custom of the Church should be unable to endure its assailants. But if we are taught to render help to orphans, how much more ought we to labour in behalf of those children who, though under the protection of parents, will still be left more destitute and wretched than orphans, should that grace of Christ be denied them, which they are all unable to demand for themselves?
Chapter 23.—Epilogue.
As for what they say, that some men, by the use of their reason, have lived, and do live, in this world without sin, we should wish that it were true, we should strive to make it true, we should pray that it be true; but, at the same time, we should confess that it is not yet true. For to those who wish and strive and worthily pray for this result, whatever sins remain in them are daily remitted because we sincerely pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors.”
a treatise on the spirit and the letter.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 37,
On the Following Treatise,
“De spiritu et littera.”
————————————
The person The Tribune Marcellinus with whose name are connected many other treatises of Augustin. In this work the author informs us that the occasion of its composition was furnished by this person, who mooted an inquiry touching a statement in the preceding books Concerning the Merits and the Remission of Sins. Those books, as we have already indicated, were published A.D., 412. Now in the Retractations there is placed after
these very books the present work Concerning the Spirit and the Letter,—not indeed, immediately next, but in the fourth place after,—so that it was written, no doubt, about the end of the same year, A.D. 412, some time previous to the death of Marcellinus, who was killed in the month or September of the following year, 413. This present work is also mentioned in the book On Faith and Works, c. 14; and in that On Christian Doctrine, iii. 33.
Compare the notes on p. 15 and p. 130. See chap. 36 [xxi.].
A Treatise on the spirit and the letter,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In One Book,
Addressed to Marcellinus, a.d. 412.
————————————
Marcellinus, in a letter to Augustin, had expressed some surprise at having read, in the preceding work, of the possibility being allowed of a man continuing if he willed it, by God’s help, without sin in the present life, although not a single human example anywhere of such perfect righteousness has ever existed. Augustin takes the opportunity of discussing, in opposition to the Pelagians, the subject of the aid of God’s grace; and he shows that the divine help to the working of righteousness by us does not lie in the fact of God’s having given us a law which is full of good and holy precepts; but in the fact that our will itself, without which we can do nothing good, is assisted and elevated by the Spirit of grace being imparted to us, without the aid of which the teaching of the law is “the letter that killeth,” because instead of justifying the ungodly, it rather holds them guilty of transgression. He begins to treat of the question proposed to him at the commencement of this work, and returns to it towards its conclusion; he shows that, as all allow, many things are possible with God’s help, of which there occurs indeed no example; and then concludes that, although a perfect righteousness is unexampled among men, it is for all that not impossible.
Chapter 1 [I.] —The Occasion of Writing This Work; A Thing May Be Capable of Being Done, and Yet May Never Be Done.
After reading the short treatises which I lately drew up for you, my beloved son Marcellinus, about the baptism of infants, and the perfection of man’s righteousness,—how that no one in this life seems either to have attained or to be likely to attain to it, except only the Mediator, who bore humanity in the likeness of sinful flesh, without any sin whatever,—you wrote me in answer that you were embarrassed by the point which I advanced in
the second book, On the Merits of Sins, etc., ii. 6, 7, 20.
Chapter 2 [II.]—The Examples Apposite.
Here, perhaps, you will say to me in answer, that the things which I have instanced as not having been realized, although capable of realization, are divine works; whereas a man’s being without sin falls in the range of a man’s own work,—that being indeed his very noblest work which effects a full and perfect righteousness complete in every part; and therefore that it is incredible that no man has ever existed, or is existing, or will exist in this life, who
has achieved such a work, if the achievement is possible for a human being. But then you ought to reflect that, although this great work, no doubt, belongs to human agency to accomplish, yet it is also a divine gift, and therefore, not doubt that it is a divine work; “for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.”
Chapter 3.—Theirs is Comparatively a Harmless Error, Who Say that a Man Lives Here Without Sin.
They therefore are not a very dangerous set of persons and they ought to be urged to show, if they are able, that they are themselves such, who hold that man lives or has lived here without any sin whatever. There are indeed passages of Scripture, in which I apprehend it is definitely stated that no man who lives on earth, although enjoying freedom of will, can be found without sin; as, for instance, the place where it is written, “Enter not into judgment with Thy
servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.”
Chapter 4.—Theirs is a Much More Serious Error, Requiring a Very Vigorous Refutation, Who Deny God’s Grace to Be Necessary.
They, however, must be resisted with the utmost ardor and vigor who suppose that without God’s help, the mere power of the human will in itself, can either perfect righteousness, or advance steadily towards it; and when they begin to be hard pressed about their presumption in asserting that this result can be reached without the divine assistance, they check themselves, and do not venture to utter such an opinion, because they see how impious and insufferable it is. But they allege that such attainments are not made without God’s help on this account, namely, because God both created man with the free choice of his will, and, by giving him commandments, teaches him, Himself, how man ought to live; and indeed assists him, in that He takes away his ignorance by instructing him in the knowledge of what he ought to avoid and to desire in his actions: and thus, by means of the free-will naturally implanted within him, he enters on the way which is pointed out to him, and by persevering in a just and pious course of life, deserves to attain to the blessedness of eternal life.
Chapter 5 [III.]—True Grace is the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Which Kindles in the Soul the Joy and Love of Goodness.
We, however, on our side affirm that the human will is so divinely aided in the pursuit of righteousness, that (in addition to man’s being created with a free-will, and in addition to the teaching by which he is instructed how he ought to live) he receives the Holy Ghost, by whom there is formed in his mind a delight in, and a love of, that supreme and unchangeable good which is God, even now while he is still “walking by faith” and not yet “by sight;”
Chapter 6 [IV.]—The Teaching of Law Without the Life-Giving Spirit is “The Letter that Killeth.”
For that teaching which brings to us the command to live in chastity and righteousness is “the letter that killeth,” unless accompanied with “the spirit that giveth life.” For that is not the sole meaning of the passage, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,”
Chapter 7 [V.]—What is Proposed to Be Here Treated.
We will, however, consider, if you please, the whole of this passage of the apostle and thoroughly handle it, as the Lord shall enable us. For I want, if possible, to prove that the apostle’s words, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,” do not refer to figurative phrases,—although even in this sense a suitable signification might be obtained from them,—but rather plainly to the law, which forbids whatever is evil. When I shall have proved this, it will
more manifestly appear that to lead a holy life is the gift of God,—not only because God has given a free-will to man, without which there is no living ill or well; nor only because He has given him a commandment to teach him how he ought to live; but because through the Holy Ghost He sheds love abroad in the hearts
Chapter 8.—Romans Interprets Corinthians.
Attend, then, carefully, to the apostle while in his Epistle to the Romans he explains and clearly enough shows that what he wrote to the Corinthians, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,”
Chapter 9 [VI].—Through the Law Sin Has Abounded.
The apostle, then, wishing to commend the grace which has come to all nations through Jesus Christ, lest the Jews should extol themselves at the expense of the other peoples on account of their having received the law, first says that sin and death came on the human race through one man, and that righteousness and eternal life came also through one, expressly mentioning Adam as the former, and Christ as the latter; and then says that “the law, however, entered, that
the offence might abound: but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Chapter 10.—Christ the True Healer.
Accordingly, the apostle shows that the same medicine was mystically set forth in the passion and resurrection of Christ, when he says, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of
His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him: knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth
unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Chapter 11 [VII.]—From What Fountain Good Works Flow.
This holy meditation preserves “the children of men, who put their trust under the shadow of God’s wings,”
Chapter 12.—Paul, Whence So Called; Bravely Contends for Grace.
Accordingly Paul, who, although he was formerly called Saul, See Augustin’s Confessions, viii. 4. See
Chapter 13 [VIII.]—Keeping the Law; The Jews’ Glorying; The Fear of Punishment; The Circumcision of the Heart.
Then comes what I mentioned above; then he shows what the Jew is, and says that he is called a Jew, but by no means fulfils what he promises to do. “But if,” says he, “thou callest thyself a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will, and triest the things that are different, being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou art thyself a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish,
a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore who teachest another, teachest thou not
Chapter 14.—In What Respect the Pelagians Acknowledge God as the Author of Our Justification.
“But,” say they, “we do praise God as the Author of our righteousness, in that He gave the law, by the teaching of which we have learned how we ought to live.” But they give no heed to what they read: “By the law there shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God.”
Chapter 15 [IX.]—The Righteousness of God Manifested by the Law and the Prophets.
Here, perhaps, it may be said by that presumption of man, which is ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishes to establish one of its own, that the apostle quite properly said, “For by the law shall no man be justified,”
Chapter 16 [X.]—How the Law Was Not Made for a Righteous Man.
Because “for a righteous man the law was not made;”
Chapter 17.—The Exclusion of Boasting.
Accordingly he says, “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.” [The allusion appears to be to the special workmen engaged in producing hammered or beaten (repoussé) work. For other special classes of silver workers, see Guhl and Koner: The Life of the Greeks and Romans, p. 449.—W.]
Chapter 18 [XI.]—Piety is Wisdom; That is Called the Righteousness of God, Which He Produces.
Now, this meditation makes a man godly, and this godliness is true wisdom. By godliness I mean that which the Greeks designate θεοσέβεια,—that very virtue which is commended to man in the passage of Job, where it is said to him, “Behold, godliness is wisdom.” Cultus Dei is Augustin’s Latin expression for the synonym. One of the suffrages of the Sursum Corda in the Communion Service [preserved also in the English service, which reads as follows: “Priest. Lift up your hearts. Answer. We lift them up to the Lord. Priest. Let us give thanks unto our Lord God. Answer. It is meet and right so to do.”—W.]
Chapter 19 [XII]—The Knowledge of God Through the Creation.
And then the apostle very properly turns from this point to describe with detestation those men who, light-minded and puffed up by the sin which I have mentioned in the preceding chapter, have been carried away of their own conceit, as it were, through empty space where they could find no resting-place, only to fall shattered to pieces against the vain figments of their idols, as against stones. For, after he had commended the piety of that faith, whereby, being
justified, we must needs be pleasing to God, he proceeds to call our attention to what we ought to abominate as the opposite. “For the wrath of God,” says he, “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood through the things that are
made, even His eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse: because, knowing God, they yet glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; and they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to four footed beasts, and to creeping things.”
Chapter 20.—The Law Without Grace.
Now why need I speak of what follows? For why it was that by this their impiety those men—I mean those who could have known the Creator through the creature—fell (since “God resisteth the proud”
Chapter 21 [XIII.]—The Law of Works and the Law of Faith.
The law, then, of deeds, that is, the law of works, whereby this boasting is not excluded, and the law of faith, by which it is excluded, differ from each other; and this difference it is worth our while to consider, if so be we are able to observe and discern it. Hastily, indeed, one might say that the law of works lay in Judaism, and the law of faith in Christianity; forasmuch as circumcision and the other works prescribed by the law are just those which the Christian
system no longer retains. But there is a fallacy
Chapter 22.—No Man Justified by Works.
What the difference between them is, I will briefly explain. What the law of works enjoins by menace, that the law of faith secures by faith. The one says, “Thou shalt not covet;”
Chapter 23 [XIV.]—How the Decalogue Kills, If Grace Be Not Present.
Although, therefore, the apostle seems to reprove and correct those who were being persuaded to be circumcised, in such terms as to designate by the word “law” circumcision itself and other similar legal observances, which are now rejected as shadows of a future substance by Christians who yet hold what those shadows figuratively promised; he at the same time nevertheless would have it to be clearly understood that the law, by which he says no man is
justified, lies not merely in those sacramental institutions which contained promissory figures, but also in those works by which whosoever has done them lives holily, and amongst which occurs this prohibition: “Thou shalt not covet.” Now, to make our statement all the clearer, let us look at the Decalogue itself. It is certain, then, that Moses on the mount received the law, that he might deliver it to the people, written on tables of stone by the finger of God. It is summed up in these ten
commandments, in which there is no precept about circumcision, nor anything concerning those animal sacrifices which have ceased to be offered by Christians. Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian,—whether it prohibit the making and worshipping of idols and of any other gods than the one true God, or the taking of God’s name in vain; or prescribe honour to parents; or give
warning against fornication, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, or coveting other men’s property? Which of these commandments would any one say that the Christian ought not to keep? Is it possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle describes as “the letter that killeth,” but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished? But then how can we think so, when in the law occurs this precept, “Thou shall not
covet,” by which very commandment, notwithstanding its being holy, just, and good, “sin,” says the apostle, “deceived me, and by it slew me?” See
Chapter 24.—The Passage in Corinthians.
In the passage where he speaks to the Corinthians about the letter that kills, and the spirit that gives life, he expresses himself more clearly, but he does not mean even there any other “letter” to be understood than the Decalogue itself, which was written on the two tables. For these are His words: “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of
stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; who hath made us fit, as ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of
Moses for the glory of his countenance, which was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more shall the ministration of righteousness abound in glory.
Chapter 25.—The Passage in Romans.
Now carefully consider this entire passage, and see whether it says anything about circumcision, or the Sabbath, or anything else pertaining to a foreshadowing sacrament. Does not its whole scope amount to this, that the letter which forbids sin fails to give man life, but rather “killeth,” by increasing concupiscence, and aggravating sinfulness by transgression, unless indeed grace liberates us by the law of faith, which is in Christ Jesus, when His love is “shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us?”
Chapter 26.—No Fruit Good Except It Grow from the Root of Love.
It is evident, then, that the oldness of the letter, in the absence of the newness of the spirit, instead of freeing us from sin, rather makes us guilty by the knowledge of sin. Whence it is written in another part of Scripture, “He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow,”
Chapter 27 [XV.]—Grace, Concealed in the Old Testament, is Revealed in the New.
This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament according to the most perfectly ordered dispensation of the ages, forasmuch as God knew how to dispose all things. And perhaps it is a part of this hiding of grace, that in the Decalogue, which was given on Mount Sinai, only the portion which relates to the Sabbath was hidden under a prefiguring precept. The Sabbath is a day of sanctification; and it is not without
significance that, among all the works which God accomplished, the first sound of sanctification was heard on the day when He rested from all His labours. On this, indeed, we must not now enlarge. But at the same time I deem it to be enough for the point now in question, that it was not for nothing that the nation was commanded on that day to abstain from all servile work, by which sin is signified; but because not to commit sin belongs to sanctification, that is, to God’s gift through the Holy
Spirit. And this precept alone among the others, was placed in the law, which was written on the two tables of stone, in a prefiguring shadow, under which the Jews observe the Sabbath, that by this very circumstance it might be signified that it was then the time for concealing the grace, which had to be revealed in the New Testament by the death of Christ,—the rending, as it were, of the veil.
Chapter 28 [XVI]—Why the Holy Ghost is Called the Finger of God.
“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
Chapter 29 [XVII.]—A Comparison of the Law of Moses and of the New Law.
Now, amidst this admirable correspondence, there is at least this very considerable diversity in the cases, in that the people in the earlier instance were deterred by a horrible dread from approaching the place where the law was given; whereas in the other case the Holy Ghost came upon them who were gathered together in expectation of His promised gift. There it was on tables of stone that the finger of God operated; here it was on the hearts of men.
There the law was given outwardly, so that the unrighteous might be terrified;
Chapter 30.—The New Law Written Within.
Now, observe how consonant this diversity is with those words of the apostle which I quoted not long ago in another connection, and which
Chapter 31 [XVIII.]—The Old Law Ministers Death; The New, Righteousness.
Now, since, as he says in another passage, “the law was added because of transgression,” See
Chapter 32 [XIX.]—The Christian Faith Touching the Assistance of Grace.
Let no Christian then stray from this faith, which alone is the Christian one; nor let any one, when he has been made to feel ashamed to
Chapter 33.—The Prophecy of Jeremiah Concerning the New Testament.
Observe this also in that testimony which was given by the prophet on this subject in the clearest way: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will consummate a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt. Because they continued not in my covenant, I also have rejected them, saith the Lord. But
this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Chapter 34.—The Law; Grace.
After saying, “Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt,” observe what He adds: “Because they continued not in my covenant.” He reckons it as their own fault that they did not continue in God’s covenant, lest the law, which they received at that time, should seem to be deserving of blame. For it was the very law that Christ “came not to destroy, but to fulfil.”
Chapter 35 [XX.]—The Old Law; The New Law.
The one was therefore old, because the other is new. But whence comes it that one is old and the other new, when the same law, which said in the Old Testament, “Thou shalt not
Chapter 36 [XXI.]—The Law Written in Our Hearts.
What then is God’s law written by God Himself in the hearts of men, but the very presence of the Holy Spirit, who is “the finger of God,” and by whose presence is shed abroad in our hearts the love which is the fulfilling of the law, See Retractations, ii. 37, printed at the head of this treatise.
Chapter 37 [XXII.]—The Eternal Reward.
He then went on to state the reward: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Chapter 38 [XXIII.]—The Re-Formation Which is Now Being Effected, Compared with the Perfection of the Life to Come.
But what is this change, and how great, in
Chapter 39 [XXIV]—The Eternal Reward Which is Specially Declared in the New Testament, Foretold by the Prophet.
Accordingly, in our prophet likewise, whose testimony we are dealing with, this is added, that in God is the reward, in Him the end, in Him the perfection of happiness, in Him the sum of the blessed and eternal life. For after saying, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people,” he at once adds, “And they shall no more teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least even unto the
greatest of them.”
Chapter 40.—How that is to Be the Reward of All; The Apostle Earnestly Defends Grace.
What then is the import of the “All, from the least unto the greatest of them,” but all that belong spiritually to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah,—that is, to the children of Isaac, to the seed of Abraham? For such is the promise, wherein it was said to him, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called; for they which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word
of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth,) it was said unto her, “The elder shall serve the younger.” See title of
Chapter 41.—The Law Written in the Heart, and the Reward of the Eternal Contemplation of God, Belong to the New Covenant; Who Among the Saints are the Least and the Greatest.
As then the law of works, which was written on the tables of stone, and its reward, the land of promise, which the house of the carnal Israel after their liberation from Egypt received, belonged to the old testament, so the law of faith, written on the heart, and its reward, the beatific vision which the house of the spiritual Israel, when delivered from the present world, shall perceive, belong to the new testament. Then shall come to pass what the apostle
describes: “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away,”
Chapter 42 [XXV.]—Difference Between the Old and the New Testaments.
I beg of you, however, carefully to observe, as far as you can, what I am endeavouring to prove with so much effort. When the prophet promised a new covenant, not according to the covenant which had been formerly made with the people of Israel when liberated from Egypt, he said nothing about a change in the sacrifices or any sacred ordinances, although such change, too, was without doubt to follow, as we see in fact that it did follow, even as the same prophetic
scripture testifies in many other passages; but he simply called attention to this difference, that God would impress His laws on the mind of those who belonged to this covenant, and would write them in their hearts,
Chapter 43 [XXVI.]—A Question Touching the Passage in the Apostle About the Gentiles Who are Said to Do by Nature the Law’s Commands, Which They are Also Said to Have Written on Their Hearts.
Now we must see in what sense it is that the apostle says, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts,”
Chapter 44.—The Answer Is, that the Passage Must Be Understood of the Faithful of the New Covenant.
Has the apostle perhaps mentioned those Gentiles as having the law written in their hearts who belong to the new testament? We must look at the previous context. First, then, referring to the gospel, he says, “It is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
Chapter 45.—It is Not by Their Works, But by Grace, that the Doers of the Law are Justified; God’s Saints and God’s Name Hallowed in Different Senses.
Now he could not mean to contradict himself in saying, “The doers of the law shall be justified,”
Chapter 46.—How the Passage of the Law Agrees with that of the Prophet.
If therefore the apostle, when he mentioned that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law, and have the work of the law written in their hearts, See
Chapter 47 [XXVII.]—The Law “Being Done by Nature” Means, Done by Nature as Restored by Grace.
Nor ought it to disturb us that the apostle described them as doing that which is contained in the law “by nature,”—not by the Spirit of God, not by faith, not by grace. For it is the Spirit of grace that does it, in order to restore in us the image of God, in which we were naturally created.
Chapter 48.—The Image of God is Not Wholly Blotted Out in These Unbelievers; Venial Sins.
According to some, however, they who do by nature the things contained in the law must not be regarded as yet in the number of those whom Christ’s grace justifies, but rather as among those some of whose actions (although they are those of ungodly men, who do not truly and rightly worship the true God) we not only cannot blame, but even justly and rightly praise, since they have been done—so far as we read, or know, or hear—according to the rule of righteousness;
though at the same time, were we to discuss the question with what motive they are done, they would hardly be found to be such as deserve the praise and defence which are due to righteous conduct. [XXVIII.] Still, since God’s image has not been so completely erased in the soul of man by the stain of earthly affections, as to have left remaining there not even the merest lineaments of it whence it might be justly said that man, even in the ungodliness of his life, does, or appreciates, some
things contained in the law; if this is what is meant by the statement that “the Gentiles, which have not the law” (that is, the law of God), “do by nature the things contained in the law,”
Chapter 49.—The Grace Promised by the Prophet for the New Covenant.
What then could the apostle have meant to imply by,—after checking the boasting of the Jews, by telling them that “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,”
Chapter 50 [XXIX.]—Righteousness is the Gift of God.
Let no man therefore boast of that which he seems to possess, as if he had not received it;
Chapter 51.—Faith the Ground of All Righteousness.
The righteousness of the law is proposed in these terms,—that whosoever shall do it shall live in it; and the purpose is, that when each has discovered his own weakness, he may not by his own strength, nor by the letter of the law (which cannot be done), but by faith, conciliating the Justifier, attain, and do, and live in it. For the work in which he who does it shall live, is not done except by one who is justified. His justification, however, is obtained by
faith; and concerning faith it is written, “Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring down Christ therefrom;) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is (says he), the word of faith which we preach: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.”
Chapter 52 [XXX.]—Grace Establishes Free Will.
Do we then by grace make void free will? God forbid! Nay, rather we establish free will. For even as the law by faith, so free will by grace, is not made void, but established.
Chapter 53 [XXXI.]—Volition and Ability.
Some one will ask whether the faith itself, in which seems to be the beginning either of salvation, or of that series leading to salvation which I have just mentioned, is placed in our power. We shall see more easily, if we first examine with some care what “our power” means. Since, then, there are two things,—will and ability; it follows that not every one that has the will has therefore the ability also, nor has every one that possesses the ability the will also;
for as we sometimes will what we cannot do, so also we sometimes can do what we do not will. From the words themselves when sufficiently considered, we shall detect, in the very ring of the terms, the derivation of volition from willingness, and of ability from ableness. [That is, in the Latin, “voluntas” (choice, will, volition) comes from velle (to wish, desire, determine), and “potestas” (power, ability) from “posse” (to be able).—W.]
Chapter 54.—Whether Faith Be in a Man’s Own Power.
Attend now to the point which we have laid down for discussion: whether faith is in our own power? We now speak of that faith which we employ when we believe anything, not that which we give when we make a promise; for this too is called faith. [That is, in Latin, faith (“fides”) is both active and passive, and means both trust and trustworthiness, both faith and faithfulness. This is also true in English, as Augustin’s own examples illustrate—W.]
Chapter 55 [XXXII.]—What Faith is Laudable.
Since faith, then, is in our power, inasmuch as every one believes when he likes, and, when he believes, believes voluntarily; our next inquiry, which we must conduct with care, is, What faith it is which the apostle commends with so much earnestness? For indiscriminate faith is not good. Accordingly we find this caution: “Brethren, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.”
Chapter 56.—The Faith of Those Who are Under the Law Different from the Faith of Others.
But there is yet another distinction to be observed,—since they who are under the law both attempt to work their own righteousness through fear of punishment, and fail to do God’s righteousness, because this is accomplished by the love to which only what is lawful is pleasing, and never by the fear which is forced to have in its work the thing which is lawful, although it has something else in its will which would prefer, if it were only possible, that to be lawful
See
Chapter 57 [XXXIII.]—Whence Comes the Will to Believe?
But it remains for us briefly to inquire, Whether the will by which we believe be itself the gift of God, or whether it arise from that free will which is naturally implanted in us? If we say that it is not the gift of God, we must
Chapter 58.—The Free Will of Man is an Intermediate Power.
Let us then, first of all, lay down this proposition, and see whether it satisfies the question before us: that free will, naturally assigned by the Creator to our rational soul, is such a neutral [“Media vis,” a “midway power,” as Dr. Bright translates it; i.e., it is indifferent in itself, and neither good nor bad, but may be used for either.—W.] Ex quibus.
Chapter 59.—Mercy and Pity in the Judgment of God.
This is the order observed in the psalm, where it is said: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His recompenses; who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with loving-kindness and tender mercy; who satisfieth thy desire with good things.” Non tributiones, sed retributiones.
Chapter 60 [XXXIV.]—The Will to Believe is from God.
Let this discussion suffice, if it satisfactorily meets the question we had to solve. It may be, however, objected in reply, that we must take heed lest some one should suppose that the sin would have to be imputed to God which is committed by free will, if in the passage where it is asked, “What hast thou which thou didst not receive?”
Chapter 61 [XXXV.]—Conclusion of the Work.
Let us at last bring our book to an end. I hardly know whether we have accomplished our purpose at all by our great prolixity. It is not in respect of you, [my Marcellinus,] that I have this misgiving, for I know your faith; but with reference to the minds of those for whose sake you wished me to write,—who so much in opposition to my opinion, but (to speak mildly, and not to mention Him who spoke in His apostles) certainly against not only the opinion of the great
Apostle Paul, but also his strong, earnest, and vigilant conflict, prefer maintaining their own views with tenacity to listening to him, when he “beseeches them by the mercies of God,” and tells them, “through the grace of God which was given to him, not to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God had dealt to every man the measure of faith.”
Chapter 62.—He Returns to the Question Which Marcellinus Had Proposed to Him.
But I beg of you to advert to the question which you proposed to me, and to what we have made out of it in the lengthy process of this discussion. You were perplexed how I could have said that it was possible for a man to be without sin, if his will were not wanting, by the help of God’s aid, although no man in the present life had ever lived, was living, or would live, of such perfect righteousness. Now, in the books which I formerly addressed to you, I set forth
this very question. I said: “If I were asked whether it be possible for a man to be without sin in this life, I should allow the possibility, by the grace of God, and his own free will; for I should have no doubt that the free will itself is of God’s grace,—that is, has its place among the gifts of God,—not only as to its existence, but also in respect of its goodness; that is, that it applies itself to doing the commandments of God. And so, God’s grace not only shows what ought to be done, but
also helps to the possibility of doing what it shows.” See his work preceding this, De Peccat. Meritis, ii. 7. Augustin, it would then seem had not met with the statement of Eusebius, as translated by Rufinus (Hist. vi. 24), to the effect that Gregory, bishop of Neocæsarea, in Pontus, once performed the miracle of removing a mountain or rock from its place; which Bede also mentions, Comment. on
Chapter 63.—An Objection.
But inasmuch as it may be said that the instances which I have been quoting are divine works, whereas to live righteously is a work that belongs to ourselves, I undertook to show that even this too is a divine work. This I have done in the present book, with perhaps a fuller statement than is necessary, although I seem to myself to have said too little against the opponents of the grace of God. And I am never so much delighted in my treatment of a subject as when
Scripture comes most copiously to my aid; and when the question to be discussed requires that “he that glorieth should glory in the Lord;” Compare
Chapter 64 [XXXVI.]—When the Commandment to Love is Fulfilled.
But somebody will perhaps think that we lack nothing for the knowledge of righteousness, since the Lord, when He summarily and briefly expounded His word on earth, informed us that the whole law and the prophets depend on two commandments;
Chapter 65.—In What Sense a Sinless Righteousness in This Life Can Be Asserted.
Forasmuch, however, as an inferior righteousness may be said to be competent to this life, whereby the just man lives by faith The Benedictine editor is not satisfied with the place of the lines in the parenthesis. He would put them in an earlier position, perhaps before the clause beginning with, “Only let us see to it,” etc.
Chapter 66.—Although Perfect Righteousness Be Not Found Here on Earth, It is Still Not Impossible.
But let objectors find, if they can, any man, while living under the weight of this corruption, in whom God has no longer anything to forgive; unless nevertheless they acknowledge that such an individual has been aided in the attainment of his good character not merely by the teaching of the law which God gave, but also by the infusion of the Spirit of grace—they will incur the charge of ungodliness itself, not of this or that particular sin. Of course they are not
at all able to discover such a man, if they receive in a becoming manner the testimony of the divine writings. Still, for all that, it must not by any means be said that the possibility is lacking to God whereby the will of man can be so assisted, that there can be accomplished in every respect even now in a man, not that righteousness only which is of faith,
a treatise on nature and grace.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 42,
On the Following Treatise,
“De natura et gratia.”
————————————
“At that time also there came into my hands a certain book of Pelagius’, in which he defends, with all the argumentative skill he could muster, the nature of man, in opposition to the grace of God whereby the unrighteous is justified and we become Christians. The treatise which contains my reply to him, and in which I defend grace, not indeed as in opposition to nature, but as that which liberates and controls nature, I have entitled On
Nature and Grace. In this work sundry short passages, which were quoted by Pelagius as the words of the Roman bishop and martyr, Xystus, were vindicated by myself In chap. 77.
Note on the Following Work.
————————————
In a letter (169th See vol. i. p. 543.
In the following year Augustin despatched this work, along with Pelagius’ own book, to John, bishop of Jerusalem, in order that that prelate might at length become acquainted with the views of the new heresiarch, accompanying the books with a letter to the bishop [179th]. In the course of this year 416, he had the same two treatises (his own and Pelagius’) forwarded to Pope Innocent, with a letter [177th] sent in the name of five bishops, to which Innocent returned an answer [183d]. It may be here stated, that in this last-mentioned letter [183, n. 5], and in the foregoing epistle [177, n. 6], there is honourable mention made of Timasius and Jacobus, as “conscientious and honourable young men, servants of God, who had relinquished the hope which they had in the world, and continued diligently to serve God.” The same persons are described in another epistle [179, n. 2] as “young men of very honourable birth, and highly educated;” and in the work On the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. xxiii. No. 47, they are called “servants of God, good, and honourable men.”
Julianus [who espoused the side of Pelagius], in his work addressed to Florus (book iv. n. 112, of the Imperfect Work), [i.e., the work of Augustin against Julianus, which was left incomplete at his death, and hence is called the Imperfect Work.—W.]
A Treatise on nature and grace, against pelagius;
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
Contained in One Book, addressed to timasius and jacobus.
written in the year of our lord 415.
————————————
He begins with a statement of what is to be investigated concerning nature and grace; he shows that nature, as propagated from the flesh of the sinful Adam, being no longer what God made it at first,—faultless and sound,—requires the aid of grace, in order that it may be redeemed from the wrath of God and regulated for the perfection of righteousness: that the penal fault of nature leads to a most righteous retribution: whilst grace itself is not rendered to any deserts of ours, but is given gratuitously; and they who are not delivered by it are justly condemned. He afterwards refutes, with answers on every several point, a work by Pelagius, who supports this self-same nature in opposition to grace; among other things especially, in his desire to recommend the opinion that a man can live without sin, he contended that nature had not been weakened and changed by sin; for, otherwise, the matter of sin (which he thinks absurd) would be its punishment, if the sinner were weakened to such a degree that he committed more sin. He goes on to enumerate sundry righteous men both of the Old and of the New Testaments: deeming these to have been free from sin, he alleged the possibility of not sinning to be inherent in man; and this he attributed to God’s grace, on the ground that God is the author of that nature in which is inseparably inherent this possibility of avoiding sin. Towards the end of this treatise there is an examination of sundry extracts from old writers, which Pelagius adduced in support of his views, and expressly from Hilary, Ambrose, and even Augustin himself.
Chapter 1 [I.]—The Occasion of Publishing This Work; What God’s Righteousness is.
The book which you sent to me, my beloved sons, Timasius and Jacobus, I have read through hastily, but not indifferently, omitting only the few points which are plain enough to everybody; and I saw in it a man inflamed with most ardent zeal against those, who, when in their sins they ought to censure human will, are more forward in accusing the nature of men, and thereby endeavour to excuse themselves. He shows too great a fire against this
evil, which even authors of secular literature have severely censured with the exclamation: “The human race falsely complains of its own nature!” See Sallust’s Prologue to his Jugurtha.
Chapter 2 [II.]—Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life.
Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the
mystery of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh.
Chapter 3 [III.]—Nature Was Created Sound and Whole; It Was Afterwards Corrupted by Sin.
Man’s nature, indeed, was created at first faultless and without any sin; but that nature of man in which every one is born from Adam, now wants the Physician, because it is not sound. All good qualities, no doubt, which it still possesses in its make, life, senses, intellect, it has of the Most High God, its Creator and Maker. But the flaw, which darkens and weakens all those natural goods, so that it has need of illumination and healing, it has not contracted from
its blameless Creator—but from that original sin, which it committed by free will. Accordingly, criminal nature has its part in most righteous punishment. For, if we are now newly created in Christ,
Chapter 4 [IV.]—Free Grace.
This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. “Being justified,” says the apostle, “freely through His blood.”
Chapter 5 [V.]—It Was a Matter of Justice that All Should Be Condemned.
The entire mass, therefore, incurs penalty and if the deserved punishment of condemnation were rendered to all, it would without doubt be righteously rendered. They, therefore, who are delivered therefrom by grace are called, not vessels of their own merits, but “vessels of mercy.”
Chapter 6 [VI.]—The Pelagians Have Very Strong and Active Minds.
If we are simply wise according to the Scriptures, we are not compelled to dispute against the grace of Christ, and to make statements attempting to show that human nature both requires no Physician,—in infants, because it is whole and sound; and in adults, because it is able to suffice for itself in attaining righteousness, if it will. Men no doubt seem to urge acute opinions on these points, but it is only word-wisdom,
Chapter 7 [VII.]—He Proceeds to Confute the Work of Pelagius; He Refrains as Yet from Mentioning Pelagius’ Name.
However ardent, then, is the zeal which the author of the book you have forwarded to me entertains against those who find a defence for their sins in the infirmity of human nature; not less, nay even much greater, should be our eagerness in preventing all attempts to render the cross of Christ of none effect. Of none effect, however, it is rendered, if it be contended that by any other means than by Christ’s own sacrament it is possible to attain to righteousness and everlasting life. This is actually done in the book to which I refer—I will not say by its author wittingly, lest I should express the judgment that he ought not to be accounted even a Christian, but, as I rather believe, unconsciously. He has done it, no doubt, with much power; I only wish that the ability he has displayed were sound and less like that which insane persons are accustomed to exhibit.
Chapter 8.—A Distinction Drawn by Pelagius Between the Possible and Actual.
For he first of all makes a distinction: “It is one thing,” says he, “to inquire whether a thing can be, which has respect to its possibility only; and another thing, whether or not it is.” This distinction, nobody doubts, is true enough; for it follows that whatever is, was able to be; but it does not therefore follow that what is able to be, also is. Our Lord, for instance, raised Lazarus; He unquestionably was able to do so. But inasmuch as He did not raise up
Judas Peter Lombard refers to this passage of Augustin, to show that God can do many things which He will not do. See his 1Sent. Dist. 43, last chapter.
Chapter 9 [VIII.]—Even They Who Were Not Able to Be Justified are Condemned.
See what he has said. I, however, affirm that an infant born in a place where it was not possible for him to be admitted to the baptism of Christ, and being overtaken by death, was placed in such circumstances, that is to say, died without the bath of regeneration, because it was not possible for him to be otherwise. He would therefore absolve him, and, in spite of the Lord’s sentence, open to him the kingdom of heaven. The apostle, however, does not absolve him,
when he says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; by which death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
Chapter 10 [IX.]—He Could Not Be Justified, Who Had Not Heard of the Name of Christ; Rendering the Cross of Christ of None Effect.
But they say: “He is not condemned; because the statement that all sinned in Adam, was not made because of the sin which is derived from one’s birth, but because of imitation of him.” If, therefore, Adam is said to be the author of all the sins which followed his own, because he was the first sinner of the human race, then how is it that Abel, rather than Christ, is not placed at the head of all the righteous, because he was the first righteous man? But I am not
speaking of the case of an infant. I take the instance of a young man, or an old man, who has died in a region where he could not hear of the name of Christ. Well, could such a man have become righteous by nature and free will; or could he not? If they contend that he could, then see what it is to render the cross of Christ of none effect,
Chapter 11 [X.]—Grace Subtly Acknowledged by Pelagius.
He then starts an objection to his own position, as if, indeed, another person had raised it, and says: “‘A man,’ you will say, ‘may possibly be [without sin]; but it is by the grace of God.’” He then at once subjoins the following, as if in answer to his own suggestion: “I thank you for your kindness, because you are not merely content to withdraw your opposition to my statement, which you just now opposed, or barely to acknowledge it; but you actually go so far as to approve it. For to say, ‘A man may possibly, but by this or by that,’ is in fact nothing else than not only to assent to its possibility, but also to show the mode and condition of its possibility. Nobody, therefore, gives a better assent to the possibility of anything than the man who allows the condition thereof; because, without the thing itself, it is not possible for a condition to be.” After this he raises another objection against. himself: “But, you will say, ‘you here seem to reject the grace of God, inasmuch as you do not even mention it;’” and he then answers the objection: “Now, is it I that reject grace, who by acknowledging the thing must needs also confess the means by which it may be effected, or you, who by denying the thing do undoubtedly also deny whatever may be the means through which the thing is accomplished?” He forgot that he was now answering one who does not deny the thing, and whose objection he had just before set forth in these words: “A man may possibly be [without sin]; but it is by the grace of God.” How then does that man deny the possibility, in defence of which his opponent earnestly contends, when he makes the admission to that opponent that “the thing is possible, but only by the grace of God?” That, however, after he is dismissed who already acknowledges the essential thing, he still has a question against those who maintain the impossibility of a man’s being without sin, what is it to us? Let him ply his questions against any opponents he pleases, provided he only confesses this, which cannot be denied without the most criminal impiety, that without the grace of God a man cannot be without sin. He says, indeed: “Whether he confesses it to be by grace, or by aid, or by mercy, whatever that be by which a man can be without sin,—every one acknowledges the thing itself.”
Chapter 12 [XI.]—In Our Discussions About Grace, We Do Not Speak of that Which Relates to the Constitution of Our Nature, But to Its Restoration.
I confess to your love, that when I read those words I was filled with a sudden joy, because he did not deny the grace of God by which alone a man can be justified; for it is this which I mainly detest and dread in discussions of this kind. But when I went on to read the rest, I began to have my suspicions, first of all, from the similes he employs. For he says: “If I were to say, man is able to dispute; a bird is able to fly; a hare is able to run; without mentioning at the same time the instruments by which these acts can be accomplished—that is, the tongue, the wings, and the legs; should I then have denied the conditions of the various offices, when I acknowledged the very offices themselves?” It is at once apparent that he has here instanced such things as are by nature efficient; for the members of the bodily structure which are here mentioned are created with natures of such a kind—the tongue, the wings, the legs. He has not here posited any such thing as we wish to have understood by grace, without which no man is justified; for this is a topic which is concerned about the cure, not the constitution, of natural functions. Entertaining, then, some apprehensions, I proceeded to read all the rest, and I soon found that my suspicions had not been unfounded.
Chapter 13 [XII.]—The Scope and Purpose of the Law’s Threatenings; “Perfect Wayfarers.”
But before I proceed further, see what he has said. When treating the question about the difference of sins, and starting as an objection to himself, what certain persons allege, “that some sins are light by their very frequency, their constant irruption making it impossible that they should be all of them avoided;” he thereupon denied that it was “proper that they should be censured even as light offences, if they cannot possibly be wholly avoided.” He of course
does not notice the Scriptures of the New Testament, wherein we learn We have read discimus, not dicimus.
Chapter 14 [XIII.]—Refutation of Pelagius.
But the truth is, the question which is proposed to him—“Are you even yourself without sin?”—does not really belong to the subject in dispute. What, however, he says,—that “it is rather to be imputed to his own negligence that he is not without sin,” is no doubt well spoken; but then he should deem it to be his duty even to pray to God that this faulty negligence get not the dominion over him,—the prayer that a certain man once put up, when he said: “Order my steps
according to Thy word, and let not any iniquity have dominion over me,”
Chapter 15 [XIV.]—Not Everything [of Doctrinal Truth] is Written in Scripture in So Many Words.
That, too, which is said to him, “that it is nowhere written in so many words, A man can be without sin,” he easily refutes thus: “That the question here is not in what precise words each doctrinal statement is made.” It is perhaps not without reason that, while in several passages of Scripture we may find it said that men are without excuse, it is nowhere found that any man is described as being without sin, except Him only, of whom it is plainly said, that “He
knew no sin.” See the De Peccat. Meritis et Remissione, ii. 8–10.
Chapter 16 [XV.]—Pelagius Corrupts a Passage of the Apostle James by Adding a Note of Interrogation.
Now that passage, in which the Apostle James says: “But the tongue can no man tame,”
Chapter 17 [XVI.]—Explanation of This Text Continued.
Accordingly, after emphatically describing the evil of the tongue—saying, among other things: “My brethren, these things ought not so to be” Ut lex imperet et fides impetret.
Chapter 18 [XVII.]—Who May Be Said to Be in the Flesh.
There is a passage which nobody could place against these texts with the similar purpose of showing the impossibility of not sinning: “The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed
Chapter 19.—Sins of Ignorance; To Whom Wisdom is Given by God on Their Requesting It.
He further treats of sins of ignorance, and says that “a man ought to be very careful to avoid ignorance; and that ignorance is blameworthy for this reason, because it is through his own neglect that a man is ignorant of that which he certainly must have known if he had only applied diligence;” whereas he prefers disputing all things rather than to pray, and say: “Give me understanding, that I may learn Thy commandments.”
Chapter 20 [XVIII.]—What Prayer Pelagius Would Admit to Be Necessary.
He confesses that “sins which have been committed do notwithstanding require to be divinely expiated, and that the Lord must be entreated because of them,”—that is, for the purpose, of course, of obtaining pardon; “because that which has been done cannot,” it is his own admission, “be undone,” by that “power of nature and will of man” which he talks about so much. From this necessity, therefore, it follows that a man must pray to be forgiven. That a man, however, requires to be helped not to sin, he has nowhere admitted; I read no such admission in this passage; he keeps a strange silence on this subject altogether; although the Lord’s Prayer enjoins upon us the necessity of praying both that our debts may be remitted to us, and that we may not be led into temptation,—the one petition entreating that past offences may be atoned for; the other, that future ones may be avoided. Now, although this is never done unless our will be assistant, yet our will alone is not enough to secure its being done; the prayer, therefore, which is offered up to God for this result is neither superfluous nor offensive to the Lord. For what is more foolish than to pray that you may do that which you have it in your own power to do.
Chapter 21 [XIX.]—Pelagius Denies that Human Nature Has Been Depraved or Corrupted by Sin.
You may now see (what bears very closely on our subject) how he endeavours to exhibit human nature, as if it were wholly without fault, and how he struggles against the plainest of God’s Scriptures with that “wisdom of word”
Chapter 22 [XX.]—How Our Nature Could Be Vitiated by Sin, Even Though It Be Not a Substance.
Now, do you not perceive the tendency and direction of this controversy? Even to render of none effect the Scripture where it is said “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.”
Chapter 23 [XXI.]—Adam Delivered by the Mercy of Christ.
But observe how, by specious arguments, he continues to oppose the truth of Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus, who is called Jesus because He saves His people from their sins,
Chapter 24 [XXII.]—Sin and the Penalty of Sin the Same.
“The very matter,” says he, “of sin is its punishment, if the sinner is so much weakened that he commits more sins.” He does not consider how justly the light of truth forsakes the man who transgresses the law. When thus deserted he of course becomes blinded, and necessarily offends more; and by so falling is embarrassed and being embarrassed fails to rise, so as to hear the voice of the law, which admonishes him to beg for the Saviour’s grace. Is no punishment due
to them of whom the apostle says: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened?”
Chapter 25 [XXIII.]—God Forsakes Only Those Who Deserve to Be Forsaken. We are Sufficient of Ourselves to Commit Sin; But Not to Return to the Way of Righteousness. Death is the Punishment, Not the Cause of Sin.
Perhaps he may answer that God does not compel men to do these things, but only forsakes those who deserve to be forsaken. If he does say this, he says what is most true. For, as I have already remarked, those who are forsaken by the light of righteousness, and are therefore groping in darkness, produce nothing else than those works of darkness which I have enumerated, until such time as it is said to them, and they obey the command: “Awake thou that sleepest, and
arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” The tribune Marcellinus had been put to death in the September of 413, “having, though innocent, fallen a victim to the cruel hatred of the tyrant Heraclius,” as Jerome writes in his book iii. against the Pelagians. Honorius mentions him as a “man of conspicuous renown,” in a law enacted August 30, in the year 414, contained in the Cod Theod. xvi. 5 (de hæreticis), line 55. Compare the notes above, pp. 15 and 80.
Chapter 26 [XXIV.]—Christ Died of His Own Power and Choice.
As to his statement, indeed, that “the Lord was able to die without sin;” His being born also was of the ability of His mercy, not the demand of His nature: so, likewise, did He undergo death of His own power; and this is our price which He paid to redeem us from death. Now, this truth their contention labours hard to make of none effect; for human nature is maintained by them to be such, that with free will it wants no such ransom in order to be translated from the
power of darkness and of him who has the power of death,
Chapter 27.—Even Evils, Through God’s Mercy, are of Use.
He asserts that “no evil is the cause of anything good;” as if punishment, forsooth, were good, although thereby many have been reformed. There are, then, evils which are of use by the wondrous mercy of God. Did that man experience some good thing, when he said, “Thou didst hide Thy face from me, and I was troubled?”
Chapter 28 [XXV.]—The Disposition of Nearly All Who Go Astray. With Some Heretics Our Business Ought Not to Be Disputation, But Prayer.
Man’s proud mind has no relish at all for this; God, however, is great, in persuading even it how to find it all out. We are, indeed, more inclined to seek how best to reply to such arguments as oppose our error, than to experience how salutary would be our condition if we were free from error. We ought, therefore, to encounter all such, not by discussions, but rather by prayers both for them and for ourselves. For we never say to them, what this opponent has opposed to
himself, that “sin was necessary in order that there might be a cause for God’s mercy.” Would there had never been misery to render that mercy necessary! But the iniquity of sin,—which is so much the greater in proportion to the ease wherewith man might have avoided sin, whilst no infirmity did as yet beset him,—has been followed closely up by a most righteous punishment; even that [offending man] should receive in himself a reward in kind of his sin, losing that obedience of his body which had
been in some degree put under his own control, which he had despised when it
Chapter 29 [XXVI.]—A Simile to Show that God’s Grace is Necessary for Doing Any Good Work Whatever. God Never Forsakes the Justified Man If He Be Not Himself Forsaken. See the treatise De Peccatorum Meritis, ii. 22.
Observe, indeed, how cautiously he expresses himself: “God, no doubt, applies His mercy even to this office, whenever it is necessary because man after sin requires help in this way, not because God wished there should be a cause for such necessity.” Do you not see how he does not say that God’s grace is necessary to prevent us from sinning, but because we have sinned? Then he adds: “But just in the same way it is the duty of a physician to be ready to cure a man who is already wounded; although he ought not to wish for a man who is sound to be wounded.” Now, if this simile suits the subject of which we are treating, human nature is certainly incapable of receiving a wound from sin, inasmuch as sin is not a substance. As therefore, for example’s sake, a man who is lamed by a wound is cured in order that his step for the future may be direct and strong, its past infirmity being healed, so does the Heavenly Physician cure our maladies, not only that they may cease any longer to exist, but in order that we may ever afterwards be able to walk aright,—to which we should be unequal, even after our healing, except by His continued help. For after a medical man has administered a cure, in order that the patient may be afterwards duly nourished with bodily elements and ailments, for the completion and continuance of the said cure by suitable means and help, he commends him to God’s good care, who bestows these aids on all who live in the flesh, and from whom proceeded even those means which [the physician] applied during the process of the cure. For it is not out of any resources which he has himself created that the medical man effects any cure, but out of the resources of Him who creates all things which are required by the whole and by the sick. God, however, whenever He—through “the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”—spiritually heals the sick or raises the dead, that is, justifies the ungodly, and when He has brought him to perfect health, in other words, to the fulness of life and righteousness, does not forsake, if He is not forsaken, in order that life may be passed in constant piety and righteousness. For, just as the eye of the body, even when completely sound, is unable to see unless aided by the brightness of light, so also man, even when most fully justified, is unable to lead a holy life, if he be not divinely assisted by the eternal light of righteousness. God, therefore, heals us not only that He may blot out the sin which we have committed, but, furthermore, that He may enable us even to avoid sinning.
Chapter 30 [XXVII.]—Sin is Removed by Sin.
He no doubt shows some acuteness in handling, and turning over and exposing, as he likes, and refuting a certain statement, which is made to this effect, that “it was really necessary to man, in order to take from him all occasion for pride and boasting, that he should be unable to exist without sin.” He supposes it to be “the height of absurdity and folly, that there should have been sin in order that sin might not be; inasmuch as pride is itself, of course, a sin.” As if a sore were not attended with pain, and an operation did not produce pain, that pain might be taken away by pain. If we had not experienced any such treatment, but were only to hear about it in some parts of the world where these things had never happened, we might perhaps use this man’s words, and say, It is the height of absurdity that pain should have been necessary in order that a sore should have no pain.
Chapter 31.—The Order and Process of Healing Our Heavenly Physician Does Not Adopt from the Sick Patient, But Derives from Himself. What Cause the Righteous Have for Fearing.
“But God,” they say, “is able to heal all things.” Of course His purpose in acting is to heal all things; but He acts on His own judgment, and does not take His procedure in healing from the sick man. For undoubtedly it was His wish to endow His apostle with very great power and strength, and yet He said to him: “My strength is made perfect in weakness;”
Chapter 32 [XXVIII.]—God Forsakes Us to Some Extent that We May Not Grow Proud.
Therefore it is not said to a man: “It necessary for you to sin that you may not sin;” but it is said to a man: “God in some degree forsakes you, in consequence of which you grow proud, that you may know that you are ‘not your own,’ but are His,
Chapter 33 [XXIX.]—Not Every Sin is Pride. How Pride is the Commencement of Every Sin.
“But how,” asks he, “shall we separate pride itself from sin?” Now, why does he raise such a question, when it is manifest that even pride itself is a sin? “To sin,” says he, “is quite as much to be proud, as to be proud is to sin; for only ask what every sin is, and see whether you can find any sin without the designation of pride.” Then he thus pursues this opinion, and endeavours to prove it thus: “Every sin,” says he, “if I mistake not, is a contempt of God, and
every contempt of God is pride. For what is so proud as to despise God? All sin, then, is also pride, even as Scripture says, Pride is the beginning of all sin.”
Chapter 34 [XXX.]—A Man’s Sin is His Own, But He Needs Grace for His Cure.
Well, but what does he mean when he says: “Then again, how can one be subjected to God for the guilt of that sin, which he knows is not his own? For,” says he, “his own it is not, if it is necessary. Or, if it is his own, it is voluntary: and if it is voluntary, it can be avoided.” We reply: It is unquestionably his own. But the fault by which sin is committed is not yet in every respect healed, and the fact of its becoming permanently fixed in us arises from our not
rightly using the healing virtue; and so out of this faulty condition the man who is now grow
Chapter 35 [XXXI.]—Why God Does Not Immediately Cure Pride Itself. The Secret and Insidious Growth of Pride. Preventing and Subsequent Grace.
But I would indeed so treat these topics, as to confess myself ignorant of God’s deeper counsel, why He does not at once heal the very principle of pride, which lies in wait for man’s heart even in deeds rightly done; and for the cure of which pious souls, with tears and strong crying, beseech Him that He would stretch forth His right hand and help their endeavours to overcome it, and somehow tread and crush it under foot. Now when a man has felt glad that he has
even by some good work overcome pride, from the very joy he lifts up his head and says: “Behold, I live; why do you triumph? Nay, I live because you triumph.” Premature, however, this forwardness of his to triumph over pride may perhaps be, as if it were now vanquished, whereas its last shadow is to be swallowed up, as I suppose, in that noontide which is promised in the scripture which says, “He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday;”
Chapter 36 [XXXII.]—Pride Even in Such Things as are Done Aright Must Be Avoided. Free Will is Not Taken Away When Grace is Preached.
So will He bestow on us whatever pleases Him, that if there be anything displeasing to Him in us, it will also be displeasing to us. “He will,” as the Scripture has said, “turn aside our paths from His own way,” See
Chapter 37 [XXXIII.]—Being Wholly Without Sin Does Not Put Man on an Equality with God.
But God forbid that we should meet him with such an assertion as he says certain persons advance against him: “That man is placed on an equality with God, if he is described as being without sin;” as if indeed an angel, because he is without sin, is put in such an equality. For my own part, I am of this opinion that the creature will never become equal with God, even when so perfect a holiness shall be accomplished in us, that it shall be quite incapable of receiving any addition. No; all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion; for myself I must confess that I am not persuaded of this.
Chapter 38 [XXXIV.]—We Must Not Lie, Even for the Sake of Moderation. The Praise of Humility Must Not Be Placed to the Account of Falsehood.
I am favourably disposed, indeed, to the view of our author, when he resists those who say to him, “What you assert seems indeed to be reasonable, but it is an arrogant thing to allege that any man can be without sin,” with this answer, that if it is at all true, it must not on any account be called an arrogant statement; for with very great truth and acuteness he asks, “On what side must humility be placed? No doubt on the side of falsehood, if you prove arrogance
to exist on the side of truth.” And so he decides, and rightly decides, that humility should rather be ranged on the side of truth, not of falsehood. Whence it follows that he who said, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,”
Chapter 39.—Pelagius Glorifies God as Creator at the Expense of God as Saviour.
Beyond this, however, although he flatters himself that he vindicates the cause of God by defending nature, he forgets that by predicating soundness of the said nature, he rejects the Physician’s mercy. He, however, who created him is also his Saviour. We ought not, therefore, so to magnify the Creator as to be compelled to say, nay, rather as to be convicted of saying, that the Saviour is superfluous. Man’s nature indeed we may honour with worthy praise, and attribute
the praise to the Creator’s glory; but at the same time, while we show our gratitude to Him for having created us, let us not be ungrateful to Him for healing us. Our sins which He heals we must undoubtedly attribute not to God’s operation, but to the wilfulness of man, and submit them to His righteous punishment; as, however, we acknowledge that it was in our power that they should not be committed, so let us confess that it lies in His mercy rather than in our own power that they
should be healed. But this mercy and remedial help of the Saviour, according to this writer, consists only in this, that He forgives the transgressions that are past, not that He helps us to avoid such as are to come. Here he is most fatally mistaken; here, however unwittingly—here he hinders us from being watchful, and from praying that “we enter not into temptation,” since he
Chapter 40 [XXXV.]—Why There is a Record in Scripture of Certain Men’s Sins, Recklessness in Sin Accounts It to Be So Much Loss Whenever It Falls Short in Gratifying Lust.
He who has a sound judgment says soundly, “that the examples of certain persons, of whose sinning we read in Scripture, are not recorded for this purpose, that they may encourage despair of not sinning, and seem somehow to afford security in committing sin,”—but that we may learn the humility of repentance, or else discover that even in such falls salvation ought not to be despaired of. For there are some who, when they have fallen into sin, perish rather from the recklessness of despair, and not only neglect the remedy of repentance, but become the slaves of lusts and wicked desires, so far as to run all lengths in gratifying these depraved and abandoned dispositions,—as if it were a loss to them if they failed to accomplish what their lust impelled them to, whereas all the while there awaits them a certain condemnation. To oppose this morbid recklessness, which is only too full of danger and ruin, there is great force in the record of those sins into which even just and holy men have before now fallen.
Chapter 41.—Whether Holy Men Have Died Without Sin.
But there is clearly much acuteness in the question put by our author, “How must we suppose that those holy men quitted this life,—with sin, or without sin?” For if we answer, “With sin,” condemnation will be supposed to have been their destiny, which it is shocking to imagine; but if it be said that they departed this life “without sin,” then it would be a proof that man had been without sin in his present life, at all events, when death was approaching. But, with
all his acuteness, he overlooks the circumstance that even righteous persons not without good reason offer up this prayer: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;”
Chapter 42 [XXXVI.]—The Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without Sin.
He then enumerates those “who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives,—Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John.” And he adds the names of some women,—“Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel,
Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,” he says, “we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.” We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.
Chapter 43 [XXXVII.]—Why Scripture Has Not Mentioned the Sins of All.
“But perhaps,” says he, “they will ask me: Could not the Scripture have mentioned sins of all of these?” And surely they would say the truth, whoever should put such a question to him; and I do not discover that he has anywhere given a sound reply to them, although I perceive that he was unwilling to be silent.
Chapter 44.—Pelagius Argues that Abel Was Sinless.
This, however, even he probably observed, and therefore he went on to say: “But, granted that it has sometimes abstained, in a numerous crowd, from narrating the sins of all; still, in the very beginning of the world, when there were only four persons in existence, what reason (asks he) have we to give why it chose not to mention the sins of all? Was it in consideration of the vast multitude, which had not yet come into existence? or because, having mentioned only the sins of those who had transgressed, it was unable to record any of him who had not yet committed sin?” And then he proceeds to add some words, in which he unfolds this idea with a fuller and more explicit illustration. “It is certain,” says he, “that in the earliest age Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel their sons, are mentioned as being the only four persons then in being. Eve sinned,—the Scripture distinctly says so much; Adam also transgressed, as the same Scripture does not fail to inform us; whilst it affords us an equally clear testimony that Cain also sinned: and of all these it not only mentions the sins, but also indicates the character of their sins. Now if Abel had likewise sinned, Scripture would without doubt have said so. But it has not said so, therefore he committed no sin; nay, it even shows him to have been righteous. What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add.”
Chapter 45 [XXXVIII.]—Why Cain Has Been by Some Thought to Have Had Children by His Mother Eve. The Sins of Righteous Men. Who Can Be Both Righteous, and Yet Not Without Sin.
When he says this, he forgets what he had himself said not long before: “After the human race had multiplied, it was possible that in the crowd the Scripture may have neglected to notice the sins of all men.” If indeed he had borne this well in mind, he would have seen that even in one man there was such a crowd and so vast a number of slight sins, that it would have been impossible (or, even if possible, not desirable) to describe them. For only such are recorded
as the due bounds allowed, and as would, by few examples, serve for instructing the reader in the many cases where he needed warning. Scripture has indeed omitted to mention concerning the few persons who were then in existence, either how many or who they were,—in other words, how many sons and daughters Adam and Eve begat, and what names they gave them; and from this circumstance some, not considering how many things are quietly passed over in Scripture, have gone so far as to suppose that
Cain cohabited with his mother, and by her had the children which are mentioned, thinking that Adam’s sons had no sisters, because Scripture failed to mention them in the particular place, although it afterwards, in the way of recapitulation, implied what it had previously omitted,—that “Adam begat sons and daughters,”
Chapter 46 [XXXIX.]—Shall We Follow Scripture, or Add to Its Declarations?
It is, to be sure, a grand sentence with which he concluded this passage, when he says: “What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add; and let it suffice to have said this of all cases.” On the contrary, I for my part say that we ought not to believe even everything that we read, on the sanction of the apostle’s advice: “Read all things; hold fast that which is good.”
Chapter 47 [XL.]—For What Pelagius Thought that Christ is Necessary to Us.
Perhaps, however, he thinks the name of Christ to be necessary on this account, that by His gospel we may learn how we ought to live; but not that we may be also assisted by His grace, in order withal to lead good lives. Well, even this consideration should lead him at least to confess that there is a miserable darkness in the human mind, which knows how it ought to tame a lion, but knows not how to live. To know this, too, is it enough for us to have free will and
natural law? This is that wisdom of word, whereby “the cross of Christ is rendered of none effect.”
Chapter 48 [XLI.]—How the Term “All” Is to Be Understood.
His opponents adduced the passage, “All have sinned,” Compare De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, i. 55.
Chapter 49 [XLII.]—A Man Can Be Sinless, But Only by the Help of Grace. In the Saints This Possibility Advances and Keeps Pace with the Realization.
“Well, be it so,” says he, “I agree; he testifies to the fact that all were sinners. He says, indeed, what they have been, not that they might not have been something else. Wherefore,” he adds, “if all then could be proved to be sinners, it would not by any means prejudice our own definite position, in insisting not so much on what men are, as on what they are able to be.” He is right for once to allow that no man living is justified in God’s sight. He contends,
however, that this is not the question, but that the point lies in the possibility of a man’s not sinning,—on which subject it is unnecessary for us to take ground against him; for, in truth, I do not much care about expressing a definite opinion on the question, whether in the present life there ever have been, or now are, or ever can be, any persons who have had, or are having, or are to have, the love of God so perfectly as to admit of no addition to it (for nothing short of this amounts to
a most true, full, and perfect righteousness). For I ought not too sharply to contend as to when, or where, or in whom is done that which I confess and maintain can be done by the will of man, aided by the grace of God. Nor do I indeed contend about the actual possibility, forasmuch as the possibility under dispute advances with the realization in the saints, their human will being healed and helped; whilst “the love of God,” as fully as our healed and cleansed nature can possibly receive it,
“is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us.”
Chapter 50 [XLIII.]—God Commands No Impossibilities.
What he says, however, is true enough, “that God is as good as just, and made man such that he was quite able to live without the evil of sin, if only he had been willing.” For who does not know that man was made whole and faultless, and endowed with a free will and a free ability to lead a holy life? Our present inquiry, however, is about the man whom “the thieves”
Chapter 51 [XLIV.]—State of the Question Between the Pelagians and the Catholics. Holy Men of Old Saved by the Self-Same Faith in Christ Which We Exercise.
But why need we tarry longer on general statements? Let us go into the core of the question, which we have to discuss with our opponents solely, or almost entirely, on one particular point. For inasmuch as he says that “as far as the present question is concerned, it is not pertinent to inquire whether there have been or now are any men in this life without sin, but whether they had or have the ability to be such persons;” so, were I even to allow that there have
been or are any such, I should not by any means therefore affirm that they had or have the ability, unless justified by the grace of God through our Lord “Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”
Chapter 52.—The Whole Discussion is About Grace.
Let us, however, observe what our author answers, after laying before himself the question wherein he seems indeed so intolerable to Christian hearts. He says: “But you will tell me this is what disturbs a great many,—that you do not maintain that it is by the grace of God that a man is able to be without sin.” Certainly this is what causes us disturbance; this is what we object to him. He touches the very point of the case. This is what causes us such utter pain to endure it; this is why we cannot bear to have such points debated by Christians, owing to the love which we feel towards others and towards themselves. Well, let us hear how he clears himself from the objectionable character of the question he has raised. “What blindness of ignorance,” he exclaims, “what sluggishness of an uninstructed mind, which supposes that that is maintained and held to be without God’s grace which it only hears ought to be attributed to God!” Now, if we knew nothing of what follows this outburst of his, and formed our opinion on simply hearing these words, we might suppose that we had been led to a wrong view of our opponents by the spread of report and by the asseveration of some suitable witnesses among the brethren. For how could it have been more pointedly and truly stated that the possibility of not sinning, to whatever extent it exists or shall exist in man, ought only to be attributed to God? This too is our own affirmation. We may shake hands.
Chapter 53 [XLV.]—Pelagius Distinguishes Between a Power and Its Use.
Well, are there other things to listen to? Yes, certainly; both to listen to, and correct and guard against. “Now, when it is said,” he says, “that the very ability is not at all of man’s will, but of the Author of nature,—that is, God,—how can that possibly be understood to be without the grace of God which is deemed especially to belong to God?” Already we begin to see what he means; but that we may not lie under any mistake, he explains himself with greater
breadth and clearness: “That this may become still plainer, we must,” says he, “enter on a somewhat fuller discussion of the point. Now we affirm that the possibility of anything lies not so much in the ability of a man’s will as in the necessity of nature.” He then proceeds to illustrate his meaning by examples and similes. “Take,” says he, “for instance, my ability to speak. That I am able to speak is not my own; but that I do speak is my own,—that is, of my own will. And because the act of
my speaking is my own, I have the power of alternative action,—that is to say, both to speak and to refrain from speaking. But because my ability to speak is not my own, that is, is not of my own determination and will, it is of necessity Necesse est me semper loqui posse. This obscure sentence seems to point to Pelagius’ former statement: Cujusque rei possibilitatem non tam in arbitrii humani potestate quàm in naturæ necessitate consistere.
Chapter 54 [XLVI.]—There is No Incompatibility Between Necessity and Free Will.
Now how does all this apply to our subject? Let us see what he makes out of it. “Whatever,” says he, “is fettered by natural necessity is deprived of determination of will and deliberation.” Well, now, here lies a question; for it is the height of absurdity for us to say that it does not belong to our will that we wish to be happy, on the ground that it is absolutely impossible for us to be unwilling to be happy, by reason of some indescribable but amiable coercion of our nature; nor dare we maintain that God has not the will but the necessity of righteousness, because He cannot will to sin.
Chapter 55 [XLVII.]—The Same Continued.
Mark also what follows. “We may perceive,” says he, “the same thing to be true of hearing,
Chapter 56 [XLVIII.]—The Assistance of Grace in a Perfect Nature.
Not only, then, are these similes employed by our author false, but so is the matter which he wishes them to illustrate. He goes on to say: “In like manner, touching the possibility of our not sinning, we must understand that it is of us not to sin, but yet that the ability to avoid sin is not of us.” If he were speaking of man’s whole and perfect nature, which we do not now possess (“for we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope. But if we hope for
that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it”
Chapter 57 [XLIX.]—It Does Not Detract from God’s Almighty Power, that He is Incapable of Either Sinning, or Dying, or Destroying Himself.
“Inasmuch,” says he, “as not to sin is ours, we are able to sin and to avoid sin.” What, then, if another should say: “Inasmuch as not to wish for unhappiness is ours, we are able both to wish for it and not to wish for it?” And yet we are positively unable to wish for it. For who could possibly wish to be unhappy, even though he wishes for something else from which unhappiness will ensue to him against his will? Then again, inasmuch as, in an infinitely greater degree,
it is God’s not to sin, shall we therefore venture to say that He is able both to sin and to avoid sin? God forbid that we should ever say that He is able to sin! For He cannot, as foolish persons suppose, therefore fail to be almighty, because He is unable to die, or because He cannot deny Himself. What, therefore, does he mean? by what method of speech does he try to persuade us on a point which he is himself loth to consider? For he advances a step further, and says: “Inasmuch as, however,
it is not of us to be able to avoid sin; even if we were to wish not to be able to avoid sin, it is not in our power to be unable to avoid sin.” It is an involved sentence, and therefore a very obscure one. It might, however, be more plainly expressed in some such way as this: “Inasmuch as to be able to avoid sin is not of us, then, whether we wish it or do not wish it, we are able to avoid sin!” He does not say, “Whether we wish it or do not wish it, we do not sin,”—for we undoubtedly do sin,
if we wish;—but yet he asserts that, whether we will or not, we have the capacity of not sinning,—a capacity which
Chapter 58 [L.]—Even Pious and God-Fearing Men Resist Grace.
Observe also what remark he adds, by which he thinks that his position is confirmed: “No will,” says he, “can take away that which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature.” Whence then comes that utterance: “So then ye cannot do the things that ye would?”
Chapter 59 [LI.]—In What Sense Pelagius Attributed to God’s Grace the Capacity of Not Sinning.
In order, however, to escape from the odium wherewith Christians guard their salvation, he parries their question when they ask him, “Why do you affirm that man without the help of God’s grace is able to avoid sin?” by saying, “The actual capacity of not sinning lies not so much in the power of will as in the necessity of nature. Whatever is placed in the necessity of nature undoubtedly appertains to the Author of nature, that is, God. How then,” says he, “can that
be regarded as spoken without the grace of God which is shown to belong in an especial manner to God?” Here the opinion is expressed which all along was kept in the background; there is, in fact, no way of permanently concealing such a doctrine. The reason why he attributes to the grace of God the capacity of not sinning is, that God is the Author of nature, in which, he declares, this capacity of avoiding sin is inseparably implanted. Whenever He wills a thing, no doubt He does it; and what He
wills not, that He does not. Now, wherever there is this inseparable capacity, there cannot accrue any infirmity of the will; or rather, there cannot be both a presence of will and a failure in “performance.”
Chapter 60 [LII.]—Pelagius Admits “Contrary Flesh” In the Unbaptized.
See what obstacles he still attempts to break through, if possible, in order to introduce his own opinion. He raises a question for himself in these terms: “But you will tell me that, according to the apostle, the flesh is contrary In the next chapter.
Chapter 61 [LIII.]—Paul Asserts that the Flesh is Contrary Even in the Baptized.
Now let us see whether we anywhere read about the flesh being contrary in the baptized also. And here, I ask, to whom did the apostle say, “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye do not the things that ye would?” See the context of
Chapter 62.—Concerning What Grace of God is Here Under Discussion. The Ungodly Man, When Dying, is Not Delivered from Concupiscence.
Now, whereas it is most correctly asked in those words put to him, “Why do you affirm that man without the help of God’s grace is able to avoid sin?” yet the inquiry did not concern that grace by which man was created, but only that whereby he is saved through Jesus Christ our Lord. Faithful men say in their prayer, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” See above, ch. 59, sub init.
Chapter 63 [LIV.]—Does God Create Contraries?
He next endeavours, by much quotation from the apostle, about which there is no controversy, to show “that the flesh is often mentioned by him in such a manner as proves him to mean not the substance, but the works of the flesh.” What is this to the point? The defects of the flesh are contrary to the will of man; his nature is not accused; but a Physician is wanted for its defects. What signifies his question, “Who made man’s spirit?” and his own answer thereto,
“God, without a doubt?” Again he asks, “Who created the flesh?” and again answers, “The same God, I suppose.” And yet a third question, “Is the God good who created both?” and the third answer, “Nobody doubts it.” Once more a question, “Are not both good, since the good Creator made them?” and its answer, “It must be confessed that they are.” And then follows his conclusion: “If, therefore, both the spirit is good, and the flesh is good, as made by the good Creator, how can it be that the two
good things should be contrary to one another?” I need not say that the whole of this reasoning would be upset if one were to ask him, “Who made heat and cold?” and he were to say in answer, “God, without a doubt.” I do not ask the string of questions. Let him determine himself whether these conditions of climate may either be said to be not good, or else whether they do not seem to be contrary to each other. Here he will probably object, “These are not substances, but the qualities of
substances.” Very true, it is so. But still they are natural qualities, and undoubtedly belong to God’s creation; and substances, indeed, are not said to be contrary to each other in themselves, but in their qualities, as water and fire. What if it be so too with flesh and spirit? We do not affirm it to be so; but, in order to show that his argument terminates in a conclusion which does not necessarily follow, we have said so much as this. For it is quite possible for contraries not to be
reciprocally opposed to each other, but rather by mutual action to temper health and render it good; just as, in our body, dryness and moisture, cold and heat,—in the tempering of which altogether consists our bodily health. The fact, however, that “the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would,”
Chapter 64.—Pelagius’ Admission as Regards the Unbaptized, Fatal.
Now, as touching these two good substances which the good God created, how, against the reasoning of this man, in the case of unbaptized persons, can they be contrary the one to the other? Will he be sorry to have said this too, which he admitted out of some regard to the Christians’ faith? For when he asked, “How, in the case of any person who is already baptized, can it be that his flesh is contrary to him?” he intimated, of course, that in the case of unbaptized
persons it is possible for the flesh to be contrary. For why insert the clause, “who is already baptized,” when without such an addition he might have put his question thus: “How in the case of any person can the flesh be contrary?” and when, in order to prove this, he might have subjoined that argument of his, that as both body and spirit are good (made as they are by the good Creator), they therefore cannot be contrary to each other? Now, suppose unbaptized persons (in whom, at any
rate, he confesses that the flesh is contrary) were to ply him with his own arguments, and say to him, Who made man’s spirit? he must answer, God. Suppose they asked him again, Who created the flesh? and he answers, The same God, I believe. Suppose their third question to be, Is the God good who created both? and his reply to be, Nobody doubts it. Suppose once more they put to him his yet remaining inquiry, Are not both good, since the good Creator made them? and he confesses it. Then surely
they will cut his throat with his own sword, when they force home his conclusion on him, and say: Since therefore the spirit of man is good, and his flesh good, as made by the good Creator, how can it be that the two being good should be contrary to one another? Here, perhaps, he will reply: I beg your pardon, I ought not to have said that the flesh cannot be contrary to the spirit in any baptized person, as if I meant to imply that it is contrary in the unbaptized; but I ought to have made my
statement general, to the effect that the flesh in no man’s case is contrary. Now see into what a corner he drives himself. See what a man will say, who is unwilling to cry out with the apostle, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through Jesus
Chapter 65 [LV.]—“This Body of Death,” So Called from Its Defect, Not from Its Substance.
Now, I ask, when did our nature lose that liberty, which he craves to be given to him when he says: “Who shall liberate me?”
Chapter 66.—The Works, Not the Substance, of the “Flesh” Opposed to the “Spirit.”
Now if we secure even this concession from them, that unbaptized persons may implore the assistance of the Saviour’s grace, this is indeed no slight point against that fallacious assertion of the self-sufficiency of nature and of the power of free will. For he is not sufficient to himself who says, “O wretched man that I am! who shall liberate me?” Nor can he be said to have full liberty who still asks for liberation. [LVI.] But let us, moreover, see to this point
also, whether they who are baptized do the good which they would, without any resistance from the lust of the flesh. That, however, which we have to say on this subject, our author himself mentions, when concluding this topic he says: “As we remarked, the passage in which occur the words, ‘The flesh lusteth against the Spirit,’
Chapter 67 [LVII.]—Who May Be Said to Be Under the Law.
But even our author should observe that it is to persons who have been already baptized that it was said: “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”
Chapter 68 [LVIII.]—Despite the Devil, Man May, by God’s Help, Be Perfected.
If, therefore, we feel rightly on this matter, it is our duty at once to be thankful for what is already healed within us, and to pray for such further healing as shall enable us to enjoy full liberty, in that most absolute state of health which is incapable of addition, the perfect pleasure of God.
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?
Chapter 70 [LX.]—Whether Any Man is Without Sin in This Life.
Now, whether there ever has been, or is, or ever can be, a man living so righteous a life in this world as to have no sin at all, may be an open question among true and pious Christians; See next treatise—its preface, or Admonitio.
Chapter 71 [LXI.]—Augustin Replies Against the Quotations Which Pelagius Had Advanced Out of the Catholic Writers. Lactantius.
Accordingly, with respect also to the passages which he has adduced,—not indeed from the canonical Scriptures, but out of certain treatises of catholic writers,—I wish to meet the assertions of such as say that the said quotations make for him. The fact is, these passages are so entirely neutral, that they oppose neither our own opinion nor his. Amongst them he wanted to class something out of my own books, thus accounting me to be a person who seemed worthy of
being ranked with them. For this I must not be ungrateful, and I should be sorry—so I say with unaffected friendliness—for him to be in error, since he has conferred this honour upon me. As for his first quotation, indeed, why need I examine it largely, since I do not see here the author’s name, either because he has not given it, or because from some casual mistake the copy which you Timasius and Jacobus, to whom the treatise is addressed. See ch. 1. Lactantius is the writer from whom Pelagius takes his first quotations here. See his Instit. Divin. iv. 24. Lactantius, Instit. Divin. iv. 25.
Chapter 72 [LXI.]—Hilary. The Pure in Heart Blessed. The Doing and Perfecting of Righteousness.
He quotes the following words from the blessed Hilary: “It is only when we shall be perfect in spirit and changed in our immortal state, which blessedness has been appointed only for the pure in heart, See Hilary in loco. Hilary’s Fragments.
Chapter 73.—He Meets Pelagius with Another Passage from Hilary.
Now even Job himself is not silent respecting his own sins; and your friend, Pelagius, the friend of Timasius and Jacobus.
Chapter 74 [LXIII.]—Ambrose.
St. Ambrose, however, really opposes those who say that man cannot exist without sin in the present life. For, in order to support his statement, he avails himself of the instance of Zacharias and Elisabeth, because they are mentioned as “having walked in all the commandments and ordinances” of the law “blameless.”
“Votisque præstat sedulis,
Sanctum mereri Spiritum,” Ambrose’s Hymns, 3.
“To those who sedulously seek He gives to gain the Holy Spirit.”
Chapter 75.—Augustin Adduces in Reply Some Other Passages of Ambrose.
I, too, will quote a passage out of this very work of St. Ambrose, from which our opponent has taken the statement which he deemed favourable for citation: “‘It seemed good to me,’” he says; “but what he declares seemed good to him cannot have seemed good to him alone. For it is not simply to his human will that it seemed good, but also as it pleased Him, even Christ, who, says he, speaketh in me, who it is that causes that which is good in itself to seem good to
ourselves also. For him on whom He has mercy He also calls. He, therefore, who follows Christ, when asked why he wished to be a Christian, can answer: ‘It seemed good to me.’ In saying this he does not deny that it also pleased God; for from God proceeds the preparation of man’s will inasmuch as it is by God’s grace that God is honoured by His saint.” Ambrose on Ambrose on
Chapter 76 [LXIV.]—John of Constantinople.
He quotes also John, bishop of Constantinople, as saying “that sin is not a substance, but a wicked act.” Who denies this? “And because it is not natural, therefore the law was given against it, and because it proceeds from the liberty of our will.” Compare Chrysostom’s Homily on
Chapter 77.—Xystus.
What Christian, again, is unaware of what he quotes the most blessed Xystus, bishop of Rome and martyr of Christ, as having said, “God has conferred upon men liberty of their own will, in order that by purity and sinlessness of life they may become like unto God?” This passage, which Pelagius had quoted as from Xystus the Roman bishop and martyr, Augustin subsequently ascertained to have had for its author Sextus, a Pythagorean philosopher. See the passage of the Retractations, ii. 42, at the head of this treatise.
Chapter 78 [LXV.]—Jerome.
We have next a quotation of some words of the venerable presbyter Jerome, from his exposition of the passage where it is written: “‘Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.’ Jerome on Jerome, Against Jovinianus, ii. 3.
Chapter 79 [LXVI.]—A Certain Necessity of Sinning.
But let us revert to the apostle’s assertion: “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.”
Chapter 80 [LXVII.]—Augustin Himself. Two Methods Whereby Sins, Like Diseases, are Guarded Against.
Let us now turn to our own case. “Bishop Augustin also,” says your author, “in his books on Free Will has these words: ‘Whatever the cause itself of volition is, if it is impossible to resist it, submission to it is not sinful; if, however, it may be resisted, let it not be submitted to, and there will be no sin. Does it, perchance, deceive the unwary man? Let him then beware that he be not deceived. Is the deception, however, so potent that it is not possible to
guard against it? If such is the case, then there are no sins. For who sins in a case where precaution is quite impossible? Sin, however, is committed; precaution therefore is possible.’” Augustin, De Libero Arbitrio, iii. 18 (50). Augustin gives a similar reply to the objection in his Retractations, i. 9.
Chapter 81.—Augustin Quotes Himself on Free Will.
In order, however, that my meaning on this subject may be clear not merely to him, but also to such persons as have not read those treatises of mine on Free Will, which your author has read, and who have not only not read them, but perchance do read him; I must go on to quote out of my books what he has omitted, but which, if he had perceived and quoted in his book, no controversy would be left between us on this subject. For immediately after those words of mine
which he has quoted, I expressly added, and (as fully as I could) worked out, the train of thought which might occur to any one’s mind, to the following effect: “And yet some actions are disapproved of, even when they are done in ignorance, and are judged deserving of chastisement, as we read in the inspired authorities.” After taking some examples out of these, I went on to speak also of infirmity as follows: “Some actions also deserve disapprobation, that are done from necessity; as when a
man wishes to act rightly and cannot. For whence arise those utterances: ‘For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do’?” De Libero Arbitrio, iii. 19.
Chapter 82 [LXVIII.]—How to Exhort Men to Faith, Repentance, and Advancement.
If, therefore, we wish “to rouse and kindle cold and sluggish souls by Christian exhortations to lead righteous lives,” This passage, and others in this and the following chapters, are marked as quotations, apparently cited from Pelagius by Augustin. For the “difficulty,” which is one of the penal consequences of sin, see last chapter, about its middle.
Chapter 83 [LXIX.]—God Enjoins No Impossibility, Because All Things are Possible and Easy to Love.
But “the precepts of the law are very good,” if we use them lawfully. See According to the Septuagint, which adds after ἐν τῇ καρδία σου the words καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσί σου. This was probably Pelagius’ reading. Compare Quæstion. in Deuteron. Book v. 54.
Chapter 84 [LXX.]—The Degrees of Love are Also Degrees of Holiness.
Inchoate love, therefore, is inchoate holiness; advanced love is advanced holiness; great love is great holiness; “perfect love is perfect holiness,”—but this “love is out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,” See note at beginning of ch. 82 for the meaning of this mark of quotation.
a treatise concerning man’s perfection in righteousness.
preface to the treatise on man’s perfection in righteousness.
————————————
Augustin has made no mention of this treatise in his book of Retractations; for the reason, no doubt, that it belonged to the collection of the Epistles, for which he designed a separate statement of Retractations. In all the mss. this work begins with his usual epistolary salutation: “Augustin, to his holy brethren and fellow-bishops Eutropius and Paulus.” And yet, by general consent, this epistle has been received as a treatise, not only in those volumes of his works which contain this work, but also in the writings of those ancient authors who quote it. Amongst these, the most renowned and acquainted with Augustin’s writings, Possidius (In indiculo, 4) and Fulgentius (Ad Monimum, i. 3) expressly call this work “A Treatise on the Perfection of Man’s Righteousness.” So far nearly all the mss. agree, but a few (including the Codd. Audöenensis and Pratellensis) add these words to the general title: “In opposition to those who assert that it is possible for a man to become righteous by his own sole strength.” In a ms. belonging to the Church of Rheims there occurs this inscription: “A Treatise on what are called the definitions of Cœlestius.” Prosper, in his work against the Collator, ch. 43, advises his reader to read, besides some other of Augustin’s “books,” that which he wrote “to the priests Paulus and Eutropius in opposition to the questions of Pelagius and Cœlestius.”
From this passage of Prosper, however, in which he mentions, but with no regard to accurate order, some of the short treatises of Augustin against the Pelagians, nobody could rightly show that this work On the Perfection of Man’s Righteousness was later in time than his work On Marriage and Concupiscence, or than the six books against Julianus, which are mentioned previously in the same passage by Prosper. For, indeed, at the conclusion of the present
treatise, Augustin hesitates as yet to censure those persons who affirmed that men are living or have lived in this life righteously without any sin at all: their opinion Augustin, in the passage referred to (just as in his treatises On Nature and Grace, n. 3, and On the Spirit and the Letter, nn. 49, 70), does not yet think it necessary stoutly to resist. Nothing had as yet, therefore, been determined on this point; nor were there yet enacted, in opposition to this opinion, the
three well-known canons (6–8) of the Council of Carthage, which was held in the year 418. Afterwards, however, on the authority of these canons, he cautions people against the opinion as a pernicious error, as one may see from many passages in his books Against the two Epistles of the Pelagians, especially Book iv. ch. x. (27), where he says: “Let us now consider that third point of theirs, which each individual member of Christ as well as His entire body regards with horror, where they
contend that there are in this life, or have been, righteous persons without any sin whatever.” Certainly, in the year 414, in an epistle (157) to Hilary, when answering the questions which were then being agitated in Sicily, he expresses himself in the same tone, and almost in the same language, on sinlessness, as that which he employs at the end of this present treatise. “But those persons,” says he (in ch. ii. n. 4 of that epistle), “however much one may tolerate them when they affirm that
there either are, or have been, men besides the one Saint of saints who have been wholly free from sin; yet when they allege that man’s own free will is sufficient for fulfilling the Lord’s commandments, even when unassisted by God’s grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit for the performance of good works, the idea is altogether worthy of anathema and of perfect detestation.” On comparing these words with the conclusion of this treatise before us, nothing will appear more probable than that the
work which supplies the refutation of Cœlestius’ questions, which were also brought over from Sicily, was written not long after the above-mentioned epistle. This work Possidius, in his index, places immediately after the treatise On Nature and Grace, and before the book On the Proceedings of Pelagius. Augustin, however, does not mention this work in his epistle (169) which he addressed to Evodius about the end of the year 415; but he intimates in it that he had published an
answer to the Commonitorium of Orosius, wherein that author stated that “the bishops Eutropius and Paulus had already given information to Augustin about certain formidable heresies.” Some suppose that this statement refers to the letter which they despatched to Augustin along with Cœlestius’ propositions. However that be, it is not unreasonable to believe that they, not long after Orosius’ arrival in Africa (that is, before the midsummer of the year 415), had sent these propositions to
him, and that Augustin
Furthermore, Cœlestius, whose name is inscribed in the propositions, “wrote to his parents from his monastery,” as Gennadius informs us in his work on Church writers (De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis), “before he fell in with the teaching of Pelagius, three letters in the shape of short treatises, necessary for all seekers after God.” Afterwards he openly professed the Pelagian heresy, and published a short treatise, in which, besides other topics, he
acknowledged in the Church of Carthage that even infants had redemption by being baptized into Christ,—an episcopal decision on the question having been obtained in that city about the commencement of the year 412, as we learn from an epistle to Pope Innocent (amongst the Epistles of Augustin [175, n. 1 and 6]), as well as from the epistle [157, n. 22] which we have referred to above; and from Augustin’s work On the Merits of Sins, i. 62, and ii. 59; also from his treatise On Original
Sin, 21; and his work Against Julianus, iii. 9. Another work by an anonymous writer, but which was commonly attributed to Cœlestius, divided into chapters, is mentioned in the treatise which follows the present one, On the Proceedings of Pelagius; see chapters 29, 30, and 62. There were extant, moreover, in the year 417, several small books or tracts of Cœlestius, which Augustin, in his work On the Grace of Christ, 31, 32, and 36, says were produced by Cœlestius
himself in some ecclesiastical proceedings at Rome under Zosimus. Augustin, at the commencement of the present work On the Perfection of Man’s Righteousness, mentions an undoubted work of Cœlestius as having been seen by him, from which he discovered that the definitions or propositions therein examined by Augustin were not unsuited to the tone and temper of Cœlestius. This was very probably the book which Jerome quotes in his Epistle to Ctesiphon, written in the year 413 or 414. These
are Jerome’s words: “One of his followers [that is, Pelagius’], who was already in fact become the master and the leader of all that army, and ‘a vessel of wrath,’
A Treatise concerning man’s perfection in righteousness,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In One Book,
addressed to eutropius and paulus, a.d. 415.
————————————
A paper containing sundry definitions, These breves definitiones, which Augustin also calls ratiocinationes, are short argumentative statements, which may be designated breviates.
Augustin to his holy brethren and fellow-bishops Eutropius and Paulus. [Probably Spanish refugees; they had recently presented to Augustin a memorial against certain heresies. Oros. ad Aug. i.—W.]
Chapter I.
Your love, which in both of you is so great and so holy that it is a delight to obey its commands, has laid me under an obligation to reply to some definitions which are said to be the work of Cœlestius; for so runs the title of the paper which you have given me, “The definitions, so it is said, of Cœlestius.” As for this title, I take it that it is not his, but theirs who have brought this work from Sicily, where Cœlestius is said not to
be,—although many there In his epistle (157) to Hilary, written a little while before this work, he mentions Cœlestius and the condemnation of his errors in a Council held at Carthage; he expresses also some apprehension of Cœlestius attempting to spread his opinions in Sicily: “Whether he be himself there,” says Augustin, “or only others who are partners in his errors, there are too many of them; and, unless they be checked, they lead astray others to join their sect; and so great is
their increase, that I cannot tell whither they will force their way,” etc. Sociorum ejus. It has been proposed to read sectatorum ejus,—not unsuitably (although not justified by ms. evidence), because Cœlestius “had,” to use Jerome’s words, “by this time turned out a master with a following,—the leader of a perfect army.”—Jerome’s Epistle to Ctesiphon, written in the year 413 or 414.
Chapter II.—(1.) The First Breviate of Cœlestius.
I. “First of all,” says he, “he must be asked who denies man’s ability to live without sin, what every sort of sin is,—is it such as can be avoided? or is it unavoidable? If it is unavoidable, then it is not sin; if it can be avoided, then a man can live without the sin which can be avoided. No reason or justice permits us to designate as sin what cannot in any way be avoided.” Our answer to this is, that sin can be avoided, if our corrupted nature be healed by
God’s grace, through our Lord Jesus Christ. For, in so far as it is not sound, in so far does it either through blindness fail to see, or through weakness fail to accomplish, that which it ought to do; “for the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,”
(2.) The Second Breviate.
II. “We must next ask,” he says, “whether sin comes from will, or from necessity? If from necessity, it is not sin; if from will, it can be avoided.” We answer as before; and in order that we may be healed, we pray to Him to whom it is said in the psalm: “Lead Thou me out of my necessities.”
(3.) The Third Breviate.
III. “Again we must ask,” he says, “what sin is,—natural? or accidental? If natural, it is not sin; if accidental, it is separable; [An accident “is a modification or quality which does not essentially belong to a thing, nor form one of its constituent or invariable attributes: as motion in relation to matter, or heat to iron.”—Fleming: Vocabulary of Philosophy.—W.]
(4.) The Fourth Breviate.
IV. “We must ask, again,” he says, “What is sin,—an act, or a thing? If it is a thing, it must have an author; and if it be said to have an author, then another besides God will seem to be introduced as the author of a thing. But if it is impious to say this, we are driven to confess that every sin is an act, not a thing. If therefore it is an act, for this very reason, because it is an act, it can be avoided.” Our reply is, that sin no doubt is called an act, and
is such, not a thing. But likewise in the body, lameness for the same reason is an act, not a thing, since it is the foot itself, or the body, or the man who walks lame because of an injured foot, that is the thing; but still the man cannot avoid the lameness, unless his foot be cured. The same change may take place in the inward man, but it is by God’s grace, through our Lord Jesus Christ. The defect itself which causes the lameness of the man is neither the foot, nor the body, nor the man,
nor indeed the lameness itself; for there is of course no lameness when there is no walking, although there is nevertheless the defect which causes the lameness whenever there is an attempt to walk. Let him therefore ask, what name must be given to this defect,—would he have it called a thing, or an act, or rather a bad property [Cœlestius had in the previous breviate confined sin to either nature or accident: Augustin declares it to be a property. By this he apparently means that it is a non-essential attribute, without which man would remain man, but yet not what is called a “separable accident.”—W.]
Chapter III.—(5.) The Fifth Breviate.
V. “We must again,” he says, “inquire whether a man ought to be without sin. Beyond doubt he ought. If he ought, he is able; if he is not able, then he ought not. Now if a man ought not to be without sin, it follows that he ought to be with sin,—and then it ceases to be sin at all, if it is determined that it is owed. Or if it is absurd to say this, we are obliged to confess that man ought to be without sin; and it is clear that his obligation is not more than his
ability.” We frame our answer with the same illustration that we employed in our previous reply. When we see a lame man who has the
(6.) The Sixth Breviate.
VI. “Again,” he says, “we have to inquire whether man is commanded to be without sin; for either he is not able, and then he is not commanded; or else because he is commanded, he is able. For why should that be commanded which cannot at all be done?” The answer is, that man is most wisely commanded to walk with right steps, on purpose that, when he has discovered his own inability to do even this, he may seek the remedy which is provided for the inward man to cure the lameness of sin, even the grace of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
(7.) The Seventh Breviate.
VII. “The next question we shall have to propose,” he says, “is, whether God wishes that man be without sin. Beyond doubt God wishes it; and no doubt he has the ability. For who is so foolhardy as to hesitate to believe that to be possible, which he has no doubt about God’s wishing?” This is the answer. If God wished not that man should be without sin, He would not have sent His Son without sin, to heal men of their sins. This takes place in believers who are being
renewed day by day,
(8.) The Eighth Breviate.
VIII. “Again, this question must be asked,” he says, “how God wishes man to be,—with sin, or without sin? Beyond doubt, He does not wish him to be with sin. We must reflect how great would be the impious blasphemy for it to be said that man has it in his power to be with sin, which God does not wish; and for it to be denied that he has it in his power to be without sin, which God wishes: just as if God had created any man for such a result as this,—that he should be
able to be what He would not have him, and unable to be what He would have him; and that he should lead an existence contrary to His will, rather than one which should be in accordance therewith.” This has been in fact already answered; but I see that it is necessary for me to make here an additional remark, that we are saved by hope. “But hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.”
Chapter IV.—(9.) The Ninth Breviate.
IX. “The next question we shall require to be solved,” says he, “is this: By what means is it brought about that man is with sin?—by the necessity of nature, or by the freedom of choice? If it is by the necessity of nature, he is blameless; if by the freedom of choice, then the question arises, from whom he has received this freedom of choice. No doubt, from God. Well, but that which God bestows is certainly good. This cannot be gainsaid. On what principle, then, is
a thing proved to be good, if it is more prone to evil than to good? For it is more prone to evil than to good if by means of it man can be with sin and cannot be without sin.” The answer is this: It came by the freedom of choice that man was with sin; but a penal corruption closely followed thereon, and out of the liberty produced necessity. Hence the cry of faith to God, “Lead Thou me out of my necessities.”
(10.) The Tenth Breviate.
X. “Since God made man good,” he says, “and, besides making him good, further commanded him to do good, how impious it is for us to hold that man is evil, when he was neither made so, nor so commanded; and to deny him the ability of being good, although he was both made so, and commanded to act so!” Our answer here is: Since then it was not man himself, but God, who made man good; so also is it God, and not man himself, who remakes him to be good, while liberating
him from the evil which he himself did upon his wishing, believing, and invoking such a deliverance. But all this is effected by the renewal day by day of the inward man,
Chapter V.—(11.) The Eleventh Breviate.
XI. “The next question which must be put,” he says, “is, in how many ways all sin is manifested? In two, if I mistake not: if either those things are done which are forbidden, or those things are not done which are commanded. Now, it is just as certain that all things which are forbidden are able to be avoided, as it is that all things which are commanded are able to be effected. For it is vain either to forbid or to enjoin that which cannot either be guarded
against or accomplished. And how shall we deny the possibility of man’s being without sin, when we are compelled to admit that he can as well avoid all those things which are forbidden, as do all those which are commanded?” My answer is, that in the Holy Scriptures there are many divine precepts, to mention the whole of which would be too laborious; but the Lord, who on earth consummated and abridged An application of
Chapter VI.—(12.) The Twelfth Breviate.
XII. “Again the question arises,” he says, “how it is that man is unable to be without sin,—by his will, or by nature? If by nature, it is not sin; if by his will, then will can very easily be changed by will.” We answer by reminding him how he ought to reflect on the extreme presumption of saying—not simply that it is possible (for this no doubt is undeniable, when God’s grace comes in aid), but—that it is “very easy” for will to be changed by will; whereas
the apostle says, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye do not the things that ye would.” ῝Ινα μη ἁ ἂν θελητε, ταῦτα ποιῆτε.
(13.) The Thirteenth Breviate.
XIII. “The next question we have to ask,” says he, “is this: If man cannot be without sin, whose fault is it,—man’s own, or some one’s else? If man’s own, in what way is it his fault if he is not that which he is unable to be?” We reply, that it is man’s fault that he is not without sin on this account, because it has by man’s sole will come to pass that he has come into such a necessity as cannot be overcome by man’s sole will.
(14.) The Fourteenth Breviate.
XIV. “Again the question must be asked,” he says, “If man’s nature is good, as nobody but Marcion or Manichæus will venture to deny, in what way is it good if it is impossible for it to be free from evil? For that all sin is evil who can gainsay?” We answer, that man’s nature is both good, and is also able to be free from evil. Therefore do we earnestly pray, “Deliver us from evil.”
(15.) The Fifteenth Breviate.
XV. “And this, moreover, has to be said,” he says: “God is certainly righteous; this cannot be denied. But God imputes every sin to man. This too, I suppose, must be allowed, that whatever shall not be imputed as sin is not sin. Now if there is any sin which is unavoidable, how is God said to be righteous, when He is supposed to impute to any man that which cannot be avoided?” We reply, that long ago was it declared in opposition to the proud, “Blessed is the man to
whom the Lord imputeth not sin.” See above, in his work De Spiritu et Litterâ, 64; also De Naturâ et Gratiâ, 45.
Chapter VII.—(16.) The Sixteenth Breviate.
XVI. After all these disputations, their author introduces himself in person as arguing with another, and represents himself as under examination, and as being addressed by his examiner: “Show me the man who is without sin.” He answers: “I show you one who is able to be without sin.” His examiner then says to him: “And who is he?” He answers: “You are the man.” “But if,” he adds, “you were to say, ‘I, at any rate, cannot be without sin,’ then you must answer me,
‘Whose fault is that?’ If you then were to say, ‘My own fault,’ you must be further asked, ‘And how is it your fault, if you cannot be without sin?’” He again represents himself as under examination, and thus accosted: “Are you yourself without sin, who say that a man can be without sin?” And he answers: “Whose fault is it that I am not without sin? But if,” continues he, “he had said in reply, ‘The fault is your own;’ then the answer would be, ‘How my fault, when I am unable to be
without sin?’” Now our answer to all this running argument is, that no controversy ought to have been raised between them about such words as these; because he nowhere ventures to affirm that a man (either any one else, or himself) is without sin, but he merely said in reply that he can be,—a position which we do not ourselves deny. Only the question arises, when can he, and through whom can he? If at the present time, then by no faithful soul which is enclosed within the body of this
death must this prayer be offered, or such words as these be spoken, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,”
Chapter VIII.—(17.) It is One Thing to Depart from the Body, Another Thing to Be Liberated from the Body of This Death.
He next proposes to establish his point by the testimony of Holy Scripture. Let us carefully observe what kind of defence he makes. “There are passages,” says he, “which prove that man is commanded to be without sin.” Now our answer to this is: Whether such commands are given is not at all the point in question, for the fact is clear enough; but whether the thing which is evidently commanded be itself at all possible of accomplishment in the body of this death,
wherein “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things that we would.”
(18.) The Righteousness of This Life Comprehended in Three Parts,—Fasting, Almsgiving, and Prayer.
As long, then, as we are “absent from the Lord, we walk by faith, not by sight;” For this reading of δικαιοσύνην instead of ἐλεημοσύνην there is high ms. authority. It is admitted also by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and Alford.
(19.) The Commandment of Love Shall Be Perfectly Fulfilled in the Life to Come.
And in this prayer, unless we choose to be contentious, there is placed before our view a mirror of sufficient brightness in which to behold the life of the righteous, who live by faith, and finish their course, although they are not without sin. Therefore they say, “Forgive us,” because they have not yet arrived at the end of their course. Hence the apostle says, “Not as if I had already attained, either were already perfect. . .Brethren, I count not myself to have
apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded.” Mente. The Septuagint, however, like the Hebrew, has δυναμεως. A.V. “thy might.” Comp See above in Augustin’s De Spiritu et Littera, 64.
Chapter IX.—(20.) Who May Be Said to Walk Without Spot; Damnable and Venial Sins.
Having premised these remarks, let us carefully attend to the passages which he whom we are answering has produced, as if we ourselves had quoted them. “In Deuteronomy, ‘Thou shalt be perfect before the Lord thy God.’ Augustin’s word is inconsummatus. The Septuagint term τελισκόμενος (which properly signifies complete, perfect) comes to mean one initiated into the mysteries of idolatrous worship.
Chapter X.—(21.) To Whom God’s Commandments are Grievous; And to Whom, Not. Why Scripture Says that God’s Commandments are Not Grievous; A Commandment is a Proof of the Freedom Of Man’s Will; Prayer is a Proof of Grace.
He next quotes passages to show that God’s commandments are not grievous. But who can be ignorant of the fact that, since the generic commandment is love (for “the end of the commandment is love,”
(22.) Passages to Show that God’s Commandments are Not Grievous.
He afterwards adduces those passages which represent God as recommending His own commandments as not grievous: let us now attend to their testimony. “Because,” says he, “God’s commandments are not only not impossible, but they are not even grievous. In Deuteronomy:
Chapter XI.—(23.) Passages of Scripture Which, When Objected Against Him by the Catholics, Cœlestius Endeavours to Elude by Other Passages: the First Passage.
After this he adduced the passages which are usually quoted against them. He does not attempt to explain these passages, but, by quoting what seem to be contrary ones, he has entangled the questions more tightly. “For,” says he, “there are passages of Scripture which are in opposition to those who ignorantly suppose that they are able to destroy the liberty of the will, or the possibility of not sinning, by the authority of Scripture. For,” he adds, “they are in the
habit of quoting against us what holy Job said: ‘Who is pure from uncleanness? Not one; even if he be an infant of only one day upon the earth.’”
(24.) To Be Without Sin, and to Be Without Blame—How Differing.
The same thing is affirmed in another passage, which he has quoted immediately afterwards, as spoken by the same Job: “Behold, I am very near my judgment, and I know that I shall be found righteous.”
(25.) Hence the force of the statement: “There was no injustice in my hands, but my prayer was pure.”
(26.) Why Job Was So Great a Sufferer.
And when he says concerning the Lord, “For many bruises hath He inflicted upon me without a cause,”
(27.) Who May Be Said to Keep the Ways of the Lord; What It is to Decline and Depart from the Ways of the Lord.
Then again, as for what he says, “For I have kept His ways, and have not turned aside from His commandments, nor will I depart from them;”
(28.) When Our Heart May Be Said Not to Reproach Us; When Good is to Be Perfected.
Furthermore, concerning these words of Job, “My heart shall not reproach me in all my life,”
Chapter XII.—(29.) The Second Passage. Who May Be Said to Abstain from Every Evil Thing.
“They are in the habit of next quoting,” says he, “the passage: ‘Every man is a liar.’” If this refer to See above, ii.(4).
(30.) “Every Man is a Liar,” Owing to Himself Alone; But “Every Man is True,” By Help Only of the Grace of God.
“Moreover,” says he, “in Job himself it is said: ‘And he maintained the miracle of a true man.’
Chapter XIII.—(31.) The Third Passage. It is One Thing to Depart, and Another Thing to Have Departed, from All Sin. “There is None that Doeth Good,”—Of Whom This is to Be Understood.
He has likewise propounded another question, as we shall proceed to show, but has failed to solve it; nay, he has rather rendered it more difficult, by first stating the testimony that had been quoted against him: “There is none that doeth good, no, not one;” On this passage Fulgentius remarks (Ad Monimum, i. 5): “In no other sense do I suppose that passage of St. Augustin should be taken, in which he affirms that there are certain persons predestinated to destruction than in regard to their punishment, not their sin: not to the evil which they unrighteously commit, but to the punishment which they shall righteously suffer; not to the sin on account of which they either do not receive, or else lose, the benefit
of the first resurrection, but to the retribution which their own personal iniquity evilly incurs, and the divine justice righteously inflicts.”
Chapter XIV.—(32.) The Fourth Passage. In What Sense God Only is Good. With God to Be Good and to Be Himself are the Same Thing.
“They likewise,” says he, “quote what the Saviour says: ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good save one, that is, God?’”
(33.) The Fifth Passage. See also his work Contra Julianum. ii. 8.
“This,” says he, “is another text of theirs: ‘Who will boast that he has a pure heart?’”
Chapter XV.—(34.) The Opposing Passages.
And yet the passages are true which he goes on to adduce by way of answer, saying: “The Saviour in the gospel declares, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.’
(35.) The Church Will Be Without Spot and Wrinkle After the Resurrection.
Then shall the Church realize, fully and perfectly, the condition of “not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,”
(36.) The Difference Between the Upright in Heart and the Clean in Heart.
I suppose, too, that there is a difference between one who is upright in heart and one who is clean in heart. A man is upright in heart when he “reaches forward to those things which are before, forgetting those things which are behind”
Chapter XVI.—(37.) The Sixth Passage.
He has also adduced this passage of Scripture, which is very commonly quoted against his party: “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” See above, ch. xii. (29).
Chapter XVII.—(38.) The Seventh Passage. Who May Be Called Immaculate. How It is that in God’s Sight No Man is Justified.
“They also, says he, “quote the text: ‘For in thy sight shall no man living be justified.’” See above, ch. xi. (23).
Chapter XVIII.—(39.) The Eighth Passage. In What Sense He is Said Not to Sin Who is Born of God. In What Way He Who Sins Shall Not See Nor Know God.
“They also quote,” says he, “this passage, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
Chapter XIX—(40.) The Ninth Passage.
“This passage, too,” says he, “is quoted by them: ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.’”
(41.) Specimens of Pelagian Exegesis.
But I beg of you to see what kind of objection, after all, he makes, that to him who “willeth and runneth” there is no necessity for God’s mercy, which actually anticipates him in order that he may run,—because, forsooth, the apostle says concerning a certain person, “Let him do what he will,”
Or again, because it is said, “The commandments, if thou wilt, shall save thee,”
(42.) God’s Promises Conditional. Saints of the Old Testament Were Saved by the Grace of Christ.
He, however, thought he had discovered a great support for his cause in the prophet Isaiah; because by him God said: “If ye be willing, and hearken unto me, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye be not willing, and hearken not to me, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken this.”
Chapter XX.—(43.) No Man is Assisted Unless He Does Himself Also Work. Our Course is a Constant Progress.
But what is the import of the last statement which he has made: “If any one say, ‘May it possibly be that a man sin not even in word?’ then the answer,” says he, “which must be given is, ‘Quite possible, if God so will; and God does so will, therefore it is possible.’” See how unwilling he was to say, “If God give His help, then it would be possible;” and yet the Psalmist thus addresses God: “Be Thou my helper, forsake me not;”
Chapter XXI.—(44.) Conclusion of the Work. In the Regenerate It is Not Concupiscence, But Consent, Which is Sin.
Whosoever, then, supposes that any man or any men (except the one Mediator between God and man See Augustin’s treatise, De Natura et Gratia, 74, 75.
a work on the proceedings of pelagius.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 45,
On the Following Treatise,
“De gestis pelagii.”
————————————
“About the same time, in the East (that is to say, in Palestinian Syria), Pelagius was summoned by certain catholic brethren Their names were Heros and Lazarus.
preface to the book on the proceedings of pelagius.
————————————
In the year of Christ 415, Pelagius was accused of heresy in Palestine, and brought to trial on one or two occasions. At the first trial, which was held on or about the 30th of July, at a congress of his presbyters, by John, bishop of Jerusalem, no regular record was kept of the proceedings, as we are informed by Augustin in the following work (sec. 39 and 55). The hour and the day of this assembly we may learn from Orosius, a presbyter of Spain, who was present at the congress, and has in his Apology committed to writing some of its most memorable acts. We are informed by him that “after a great deal of earnest proceeding on both sides, the bishop John proposed the last resolution, that certain brethren should be sent with a letter to blessed Innocent, Pope of Rome, to the intent that he might decide on all the points which were to follow.”
The second trial took place afterwards at Diospolis, That is, Lydda.
We find from the epistle of Lucian, To be found in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. vii., Appendix.
A certain deacon, called Annianus, is supposed to have pleaded the cause of Pelagius at the synod; some learned men finding it easier to interpret of this deacon than of Pelagius what Jerome writes in a letter addressed to Alypius and Augustin (Epist. Augustinian. 202, 2): “For every thing which he denies having ever uttered in that miserable synod of Diospolis he professes to hold in this work.” Jerome bestowed the epithet of “miserable” on this synod of Diospolis, for no other reason (as we suppose) than because he discovered from its Acts how miserably the synod had been duped by Pelagius. Pope Innocent, after a sight of these Acts, expressly owned (see Epist. Augustinian. 183, 4) that “he could not bring himself to refuse either blame or praise of those bishops.” Augustin, however, in the following treatise (see chs. 4 and 8), does not hesitate to call them “pious judges,” and (in his first book against Julianus, i. ch. v. 19) “catholic judges,” who, when Pelagius abjured the errors attributed to him, pronounced him a catholic, and acquitted him; indeed, he frequently cites these fourteen bishops as witnesses of the catholic faith in opposition to Julianus.
In his letters addressed to Pope Innocent in the year 416 (see Epist. Augustinian. 175, 4, and 177, 2), Augustin intimated that he knew nothing of the Proceedings of the synod except from hearsay; and in a letter to John, bishop of Jerusalem (Epist. 179, 4), he earnestly requested him to forward them to him. But the report was in his hands about midsummer in 417, when he wrote his Epistle to Paulinus (Epist. 186, 31); so that the date of the following treatise is thus traced to the commencement of the year 417, supposing it to have been published immediately after he had received the Proceedings.
The title given to this work by Augustin, in his book On Original Sin (15), stands De Gestis Palæstinis [On the Proceedings which took place in Palestine]; by this title Prosper likewise refers to the work (in his book Adv.
Out of this book Photius copied a very accurate account of the Synod of Diospolis and inserted it in his Bibliotheca (cod. 54). One may therefore conclude that this work of Augustin’s is one of those which Possidonius, in his Life, ch. xi. or xxi., No. 59, mentions as having been “translated into the Greek tongue.” The Aurelius to whom the work is dedicated is mentioned by Photius in the passage just cited, and by Prosper before him (in the 43d chapter of the above-quoted Adversus Collatorem), as “the bishop of Carthage.” If the title-page of old did not give them this information, they could both of them discover it from reading this book, especially ch. 23 [XI.].
A work on the proceedings of pelagius, [1609]
In One Book,
addressed to bishop aurelius [of carthage], by
aurelius augustin;
written about the commencement of the year, a.d. 417.
————————————
The several heads of error which were alleged against Pelagius at the Synod in Palestine, with his answers to each charge, are minutely discussed. Augustin shows that, although Pelagius was acquitted by the synod, there still clave to him the suspicion of heresy; and that the acquittal of the accused by the synod was so contrived, that the heresy itself with which he was charged was unhesitatingly condemned.
Chapter 1.—Introduction.
After there came into my hands, holy father Aurelius, the ecclesiastical proceedings, by which fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine pronounced Pelagius a catholic, my hesitation, in which I was previously reluctant to make any lengthy or confident statement about the defence which he had made, came to an end. This defence, indeed, I had already read in a paper which he himself forwarded to me. Forasmuch, however, as I received no letter therewith from him, I was afraid that some discrepancy might be detected between my statement and the record of the ecclesiastical proceedings; and that, should Pelagius perhaps deny that he had sent me any paper (and it would have been difficult for me to prove that he had, when there was only one witness), I should rather seem guilty in the eyes of those who would readily credit his denial, either of an underhanded falsification, or else (to say the least) of a reckless credulity. Now, however, when I am to treat of matters which are shown to have actually transpired, and when, as it appears to me, all doubt is removed whether he really acted in the way described, your holiness, and everybody who reads these pages, will no doubt be able to judge, with greater readiness and certainty, both of his defence and of this my treatment of it.
Chapter 2 [I.]—The First Item in the Accusation, and Pelagius’ Answer.
First of all, then, I offer to the Lord my God, who is also my defence and guide, unspeakable thanks, because I was not misled in my views respecting our holy brethren and fellow-bishops who sat as judges in that case. His answers, indeed, they not without reason approved; because they had not to consider how he had in his writings stated the points which were objected against him, but what he had to say about them in his reply at the pending examination. A case of
unsoundness in the faith is one thing, one of incautious statement is another thing. Now sundry objections were urged against Pelagius out of a written complaint, which our holy brethren and fellow-bishops in Gaul, Heros and Lazarus, presented, being themselves unable to be present, owing (as we afterwards learned from credible information) to the severe indisposition of one of them. The first of these was, that he writes, in a certain book of his, this: “No man can be
Chapter 3.—Discussion of Pelagius’ First Answer.
Now to say that “a man is by the knowledge of the law assisted towards not sinning,” is a different assertion from saying that “a man cannot be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law.” We see, for example, that corn-floors may be threshed without threshing-sledges,—however much these may assist the operation if we have them; and that boys can find their way to school without the pedagogue,—however valuable for this may be the office of pedagogues; and that many persons recover from sickness without physicians,—although the doctor’s skill is clearly of greatest use; and that men sometimes live on other aliments besides bread,—however valuable the use of bread must needs be allowed to be; and many other illustrations may occur to the thoughtful reader, without our prompting. From which examples we are undoubtedly reminded that there are two sorts of aids. Some are indispensable, and without their help the desired result could not be attained. Without a ship, for instance, no man could take a voyage; no man could speak without a voice; without legs no man could walk; without light nobody could see; and so on in numberless instances. Amongst them this also may be reckoned, that without God’s grace no man can live rightly. But then, again, there are other helps, which render us assistance in such a way that we might in some other way effect the object to which they are ordinarily auxiliary in their absence. Such are those which I have already mentioned,—the threshing-sledges for threshing corn, the pedagogue for conducting the child, medical art applied to the recovery of health, and other like instances. We have therefore to inquire to which of these two classes belongs the knowledge of the law,—in other words, to consider in what way it helps us towards the avoidance of sin. If it be in the sense of indispensable aid without which the end cannot be attained; not only was Pelagius’ answer before the judges true, but what he wrote in his book was true also. If, however, it be of such a character that it helps indeed if it is present, but even if it be absent, then the result is still possible to be attained by some other means,—his answer to the judges was still true, and not unreasonably did it find favour with the bishops that “man is assisted not to sin by the knowledge of the law;” but what he wrote in his book is not true, that “there is no man without sin except him who has acquired a knowledge of the law,”—a statement which the judges left undiscussed, as they were ignorant of the Latin language, and were content with the confession of the man who was pleading his cause before them, especially as no one was present on the other side who could oblige the interpreter to expose his meaning by an explanation of the words of his book, and to show why it was that the brethren were not groundlessly disturbed. For but very few persons are thoroughly acquainted with the law. The mass of the members of Christ, who are scattered abroad everywhere, being ignorant of the very profound and complicated contents of the law, are commended by the piety of simple faith and unfailing hope in God, and sincere love. Endowed with such gifts, they trust that by the grace of God they may be purged from their sins through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Chapter 4 [II.]—The Same Continued.
If Pelagius, as he possibly might, were to say in reply to this, that that very thing was what he meant by “the knowledge of the law, without which a man is unable to be free from sins,” which is communicated by the teaching of faith to converts and to babes in Christ, and in which candidates for baptism are catechetically instructed with a view to their knowing the creed, certainly this is not what is usually meant when any one is said to have a knowledge of the law.
This phrase is only applied to such persons as are skilled in the law. But if he persists in describing the knowledge of the law by the words in question, which, however few in number, are great in weight, and are used to designate all who are faithfully baptized according to the prescribed rule of the Churches; and if he maintains that it was of this that he said, “No
Chapter 5 [III.]—The Second Item in the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Answer.
The synod of bishops then proceeded to say: “Let another section be read.” Accordingly there was read the passage in the same book wherein Pelagius had laid down the position that “all men are ruled by their own will.” On this being read, Pelagius said in answer: “This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.” Upon hearing this, the
bishops exclaimed: “Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church.” For who indeed could condemn or deny the freedom of the will, when God’s help is associated with it? His opinion, therefore, as thus explained in his answer, was, with good reason, deemed satisfactory by the bishops. And yet, after all, the statement made in his book, “All men are ruled by their own will,” ought without doubt to have deeply disturbed the brethren, who had discovered what these men are accustomed to
dispute against the grace of God. For it is said, “All men are ruled by their own will,” as if God rules no man, and the Scripture says in vain, “Save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance; rule them, and lift them up for ever.”
Chapter 6.—Pelagius’ Answer Examined.
Indeed, in this very book which contains these statements, after laying down the position, “All men are governed by their own will, and every one is submitted to his own desire,” Pelagius goes on to adduce the testimony of Scripture, from which it is evident enough that no man ought to trust to himself for direction. For on this very subject the Wisdom of Solomon declares: “I myself also am a mortal man like unto all; and the offspring of him that was first made of
the earth,”
Chapter 7.—The Same Continued.
As for the passage from the psalm, “He loved cursing, and it shall come upon him; and he willed not blessing, so it shall be far removed from him,”
Chapter 8.—The Same Continued.
This being the case, how must God’s children, who have learned the truth of all this and rejoice at being ruled and led by the Spirit of God, have been affected when they heard or read that Pelagius had declared in writing that “all men are governed by their own will, and that every one is submitted to his own desire?” And yet, when questioned by the bishops, he fully perceived what an evil impression these words of his might produce, and told them in answer that “he had made such an assertion in the interest of free will,”—adding at once, “God is its helper whenever it chooses good; whilst man is himself in fault when he sins, as being under the influence of a free will.” Although the pious judges approved of this sentiment also, they were unwilling to consider or examine how incautiously he had written, or indeed in what sense he had employed the words found in his book. They thought it was enough that he had made such a confession concerning free will, as to admit that God helped the man who chose the good, whereas the man who sinned was himself to blame, his own will sufficing for him in this direction. According to this, God rules those whom He assists in their choice of the good. So far, then, as they rule anything themselves, they rule it rightly, since they themselves are ruled by Him who is right and good.
Chapter 9.—The Third Item in the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Answer.
Another statement was read which Pelagius had placed in his book, to this effect: “In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.” This induced the brethren to regard the statement as open to the objection, that it seemed so worded as to imply that all sinners whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment, without excepting even those who hold Christ as their foundation,
although “they build thereupon wood, hay, stubble,” The bishops Heros and Lazarus; see above, I [II.].
Chapter 10.—Pelagius’ Answer Examined. On Origen’s Error Concerning the Non-Eternity of the Punishment of the Devil and the Damned.
But what Pelagius added, “Who believes differently is an Origenist,” was approved by the judges, because in very deed the Church most justly abominates the opinion of Origen, that even they whom the Lord says are to be punished with everlasting punishment, and the devil himself and his angels, after a time, however protracted, will be purged, and released from their penalties, and shall then cleave to the saints who reign with God in the association of blessedness.
This additional sentence, therefore, the synod pronounced to be “not opposed to the Church,”—not in accordance with Pelagius, but rather in accordance with the Gospel, that such ungodly and sinful men shall be consumed by eternal fires as the Gospel determines to be worthy of such a punishment; and that he is a sharer in Origen’s abominable opinion, who affirms that their punishment can possibly ever come to an end, when the Lord has said it is to be eternal. Concerning those sinners, however,
of whom the apostle declares that “they shall be saved, yet so as by fire, after their work has been burnt up,”
Chapter 11.—The Same Continued.
But how this judgment is to be accomplished, it is not easy to understand from Holy Scripture; for there are many modes therein of describing that which is to come to pass only in one mode. In one place the Lord declares that He will “shut the door” against those whom He does not admit into His kingdom; and that, on their clamorously demanding admission, “Open unto us, . . . we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence,” and so forth, as the Scripture describes, “He will
say unto them in answer, I know you not, . . . all ye workers of iniquity.”
Chapter 12 [IV.]—The Fourth Item in the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Answer.
It was further objected against Pelagius, as if he had written in his book, that “evil does not enter our thoughts.” In reply, however, to this charge, he said: “We made no such statement. What we did say was, that the Christian ought to be careful not to have evil thoughts.” Of this, as it became them, the bishops approved. For who can doubt that evil ought not to be thought of? And, indeed, if what he said in his book about “evil not being thought” runs in this
form, “neither is evil to be thought of,” the ordinary meaning of such words is “that evil ought not even to be thought of.” Now if any person denies this, what else does he in fact say, than that evil ought to be thought of? And if this were true, it could not be said in praise of love that “it thinketh no evil!”
Chapter 13 [V.]—The Fifth Item of the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Answer.
After the judges had accorded their approbation to this answer of Pelagius, another passage which he had written in his book was read aloud: “The kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament.” Upon this, Pelagius remarked in vindication: “This can be proved by the Scriptures: but heretics, in order to disparage the Old Testament, deny this. I, however, simply followed the authority of the Scriptures when I said this; for in the prophet Daniel it is
written: ‘The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most. High.’”
Chapter 14.—Examination of This Point. The Phrase “Old Testament” Used in Two Senses. The Heir of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament There Were Heirs of the New Testament.
Was it therefore without reason that our brethren were moved by his words to include this charge among the others against him? Certainly not. The fact is, that the phrase Old Testament is constantly employed in two different ways,—in one, following the authority of the Holy Scriptures; in the other, following the most common custom of speech. For the Apostle Paul says, in his Epistle to the Galatians: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not
hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. . . .Which things are an allegory: for these are the two testaments; the one which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and is conjoined with the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; whereas the Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all.”
Chapter 15.—The Same Continued.
How then should there not be a feeling of just disquietude entertained by the children of promise, children of the free Jerusalem, which is eternal in the heavens, when they see that by the words of Pelagius the distinction which has been drawn by Apostolic and catholic authority is abolished, and Agar is supposed to be by some means on a par with Sarah? He therefore does injury to the scripture of the Old Testament with heretical impiety, who with an impious and
sacrilegious face denies that it was inspired by the good, supreme, and very God,—as Marcion does, as Manichæus does, and other pests of similar opinions. On this account (that I may put into as brief a space as I can what my own views are on the subject), as much injury is done to the New Testament, when it is put on the same level with the Old Testament, as is inflicted on the Old itself when men deny it to be the work of the supreme God of goodness. Now, when Pelagius in his answer gave as
his reason for saying that even in the Old Testament there was a promise of the kingdom of heaven, the testimony of the prophet Daniel, who most plainly foretold that the saints should receive the kingdom of the Most High, it was fairly decided that the statement of Pelagius was not opposed to the catholic faith, although not according to the distinction which shows that the earthly promises of Mount Sinai are the proper characteristics of the Old Testament; nor indeed was the decision an
improper one, considering that mode of speech which designates all the canonical Scriptures which were given to men before the Lord’s coming in the flesh by
Chapter 16 [VI.]—The Sixth Item of the Accusation, and Pelagius’ Reply.
The next objection was to the effect that Pelagius in that same book of his wrote thus: “A man is able, if he likes, to be without sin;” and that writing to a certain widow he said, flatteringly: “In thee piety may find a dwelling-place, such as she finds nowhere else; in thee righteousness, though a stranger, can find a home; truth, which no one any longer recognises, can discover an abode and a friend in thee; and the law of God, which almost everybody despises, may be honoured by thee alone.” And in another sentence he writes to her: “O how happy and blessed art thou, when that righteousness which we must believe to flourish only in heaven has found a shelter on earth only in thy heart!” In another work addressed to her, after reciting the prayer of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and teaching her in what manner saints ought to pray, he says: “He worthily raises his hands to God, and with a good conscience does he pour out his prayer, who is able to say, ‘Thou, O Lord, knowest how holy, and harmless, and pure from all injury and iniquity and violence, are the hands which I stretch out to Thee; how righteous, and pure, and free from all deceit, are the lips with which I offer to Thee my supplication, that Thou wouldst have mercy upon me.’” To all this Pelagius said in answer: “We asserted that a man could be without sin, and could keep God’s commandments if he wished; for this capacity has been given to him by God. But we never said that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from infancy to old age, had committed sin: but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own labour and God’s grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change ever afterwards. As for the other statements which they have made against us, they are not to be found in our books, nor have we at any time said such things.” Upon hearing this vindication, the synod put this question to him: “You have denied having ever written such words; are you therefore ready to anathematize those who do hold these opinions?” Pelagius answered: “I anathematize them as fools, not as heretics, for there is no dogma.” The bishops then pronounced their judgment in these words: “Since now Pelagius has with his own mouth anathematized this vague statement as foolish verbiage, justly declaring in his reply, ‘That a man is able with God’s assistance and grace to be without sin,’ let him now proceed to answer the other heads of accusation against him.”
Chapter 17.—Examination of the Sixth Charge and Answers.
Well, now, had the judges either the power or the right to condemn these unrecognised and vague words, when no person on the other side was present to assert that Pelagius had written the very culpable sentences which were alleged to have been addressed by him to the widow? In such a matter, it surely could not be enough to produce a manuscript, and to read out of it words as his, if there were not also witnesses forthcoming in case he denied, on the words being read out, that they ever dropped from his pen. But even here the judges did all that lay in their power to do, when they asked Pelagius whether he would anathematize the persons who held such sentiments as he declared he had never himself propounded either in speech or in writing. And when he answered that he did anathematize them as fools, what right had the judges to push the inquiry any further on the matter, in the absence of Pelagius’ opponents?
Chapter 18.—The Same Continued.
But perhaps the point requires some consideration, whether he was right in saying that “such as held the opinions in question deserved anathema, not as heretics, but as fools, since it was no dogma.” The question, when fairly confronted, is no doubt far from being an unimportant one,—how far a man deserves to be described as a heretic; on this occasion, however, the judges acted rightly in abstaining from it altogether. If any one, for example, were to allege that
eaglets are suspended in the talons of the parent bird, and so exposed to the rays of the sun, and such as wink are flung to the ground as spurious, the light being in some mysterious way the gauge of their genuine nature, he is not to be accounted a heretic, if the story happens to be untrue. It is told by Pliny, Hist. Nat. x. 3 (3), and Lucan, Pharsalia, ix. 902, etc. Creditum, however, is read in both clauses; we should expect non creditum in one, as one reading has it. [?—W.] See See
Chapter 19.—The Same Continued.
Now it so happened that, while we were reading this defence of Pelagius in the small paper which we received at first, See below, in chap. 57 [xxxi.].
Chapter 20.—The Same Continued. Pelagius Acknowledges the Doctrine of Grace in Deceptive Terms.
There can be no doubt that what Pelagius has acknowledged as his own is as yet very obscure. I suppose, however, that it will become apparent in the subsequent details of these proceedings. Now he says: “We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin; but that if any person
were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God’s grace
Chapter 21 [VIII.]—The Same Continued.
It is not nature, therefore, which, sold as it is under sin and wounded by the offence, longs for a Redeemer and Saviour; nor is it the knowledge of the law—through which comes the discovery, not the expulsion, of sin—which delivers us from the body of this death; but it is the Lord’s good grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Chapter 21 [IX.]—The Same Continued.
This grace is not dying nature, nor the slaying letter, but the vivifying spirit; for already did he possess nature with freedom of will, because he said: “To will is present with me.”
Chapter 22 [X.]—The Same Continued. The Synod Supposed that the Grace Acknowledged by Pelagius Was that Which Was So Thoroughly Known to the Church.
This grace, then, which was most completely known in the catholic Church (as the bishops were well aware), they supposed Pelagius made confession of, when they heard him say that “a man, when converted from his sins, is able by his own exertion and the grace of God to be without sin.” For my own part, however, I remembered the treatise which had been given to me, that I might refute it, by those servants of God, who had been Pelagius’ followers.
Timasius and Jacobus, at whose instance Augustin wrote, and to whom he addressed his book De Naturâ et Gratiâ. The reader may consult the treatise De Naturâ et Gratiâ, chs. 53 and 54, on this opinion of Pelagius. See De Naturâ et Gratiâ, xxxvii. (44). See above, ch. 16 (vi). Hanc talem hæresim.
Chapter 23 [XI.]—The Seventh Item of the Accusation: the Breviates of Cœlestius Objected to Pelagius.
Then follow sundry statements charged against Pelagius, which are said to be found among the opinions of his disciple Cœlestius: how that “Adam was created mortal, and would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned; that Adam’s sin injured only himself and not the human race; that the law no less than the gospel leads us to the kingdom; that there were sinless men previous to the coming of Christ; that new-born infants are in the same condition as Adam was
before the fall; that the whole human race does not, on the one hand, die through Adam’s death or transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ.” These have been so objected to, that they are even said to have been, after a full hearing, condemned at Carthage by your holiness and other bishops associated with you. Compare Augustin’s work De Peccato Originali, ch. xi. (12). See same treatise as before, and same chapter. See Augustin’s letter to Hilary, in Epist 157.
Chapter 24.—Pelagius’ Answer to the Charges Brought Together Under the Seventh Item.
The following, as the proceedings testify, was Pelagius’ own answer to these charges against him: “Concerning a man’s being able indeed to be without sin, we have spoken,” says he, “already; concerning the fact, however, that before the Lord’s coming there were persons without sin, we say now that, previous to Christ’s advent, some men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures. The rest were not said by me, as even their testimony
goes to show, and for them, I
Chapter 25.—The Pelagians Falsely Pretended that the Eastern Churches Were on Their Side.
Now, by reason of these questions, and the very contentious assertions of these tenets, which are everywhere accompanied with heated feelings, many weak brethren were disturbed. We have accordingly, in the anxiety of that love which it becomes us to feel towards the Church of Christ through His grace, and out of regard to Marcellinus of blessed memory (who was extremely vexed day by day by these disputers, and who asked my advice by letter), been obliged to write on
some of these questions, and especially on the baptism of infants. On this same subject also I afterwards, at your request, and assisted by your prayers, delivered an earnest address, to the best of my ability, in the church of the Majores, “In the Basilica Majorum.” According to another reading, “the church of Majorinus.” Augustin mentions their names in his work Contra Julianum, Book i. ch. v. (19).
Chapter 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
Chapter 27 [XII.]—The Eighth Item in the Accusation.
Pelagius was charged with having said: “That the Church here is without spot or wrinkle.” It was on this point that the Donatists also were constantly at conflict with us in our conference. We used, in their case, to lay especial stress on the mixture of bad men with good, like that of the chaff with the wheat; and we were led to this idea by the similitude of the threshing-floor. We might apply the same illustration in answer to our present opponents, unless indeed
they would have the Church consist only of good men, whom they assert to be without any sin whatever, that so the Church might be without spot or wrinkle. If this be their meaning, then I repeat the same words as I quoted just now; for how can they be members of the Church, of whom the voice of a truthful humility declares, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?”
Chapter 28.—Pelagius’ Reply to the Eighth Item of Accusation.
But to this objection he replied with a watchful caution such as the catholic judges no doubt approved. “It has,” says he, “been asserted by me,—but in such a sense that the Church is by the laver cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and in this purity the Lord wishes her to continue.” Whereupon the synod said: “Of this also we approve.” And who amongst us denies that in baptism the sins of all men are remitted, and that all believers come up spotless and pure from the laver of regeneration? Or what catholic Christian is there who wishes not, as his Lord also wishes, and as it is meant to be, that the Church should remain always without spot or wrinkle? For in very deed God is now in His mercy and truth bringing it about, that His holy Church should be conducted to that perfect state in which she is to remain without spot or wrinkle for evermore. But between the laver, where all past stains and deformities are removed, and the kingdom, where the Church will remain for ever without any spot or wrinkle, there is this present intermediate time of prayer, during which her cry must of necessity be: “Forgive us our debts.” Hence arose the objection against them for saying that “the Church here on earth is without spot or wrinkle;” from the doubt whether by this opinion they did not boldly prohibit that prayer whereby the Church in her present baptized state entreats day and night for herself the forgiveness of her sins. On the subject of this intervening period between the remission of sins which takes place in baptism, and the perpetuity of sinlessness which is to be in the kingdom of heaven, no proceedings ensued with Pelagius, and no decision was pronounced by the bishops. Only he thought that some brief indication ought to be given that he had not expressed himself in the way which the accusation against him seemed to state. As to his saying, “This has been asserted by me,—but in such a sense,” what else did he mean to convey than the idea that he had not in fact expressed himself in the same manner as he was supposed to have done by his accusers? That, however, which induced the judges to say that they were satisfied with his answer was baptism as the means of being washed from our sins; and the kingdom of heaven, in which the holy Church, which is now in process of cleansing, shall continue in a sinless state for ever: this is clear from the evidence, so far as I can form an opinion.
Chapter 29 [XIII.]—The Ninth Item of the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Reply.
The next objections were urged out of the book of Cœlestius, following the contents of each several chapter, but rather according to the sense than the words. These indeed he expatiates on rather fully; they, however, who presented the indictment against Pelagius said that they had been unable at the moment to adduce all the words. In the first chapter, then, of Cœlestius’ book they alleged that the following was written: “That we do more than is commanded us in the law
and the gospel.” To this This “better expression,” “non expedit ducere,” Augustin substitutes for the reading “non expedit nubere,” as applied to a woman’s taking a husband. The original, γαμῆσαι [not γαμεῖσθαι], justifies Augustin’s preference.
Chapter 30 [XIV.]—The Tenth Item in the Accusation. The More Prominent Points of Cœlestius’ Work Continued.
After this we find objected against Pelagius some other points of Cœlestius’ teaching,—prominent ones, and undoubtedly worthy of condemnation; such, indeed, as would certainly have involved Pelagius in condemnation, if he had not anathematized them in the synod. Under his third head Cœlestius was alleged to have written: “That God’s grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine.” And again: “That God’s grace is given in proportion to our deserts; because, were He to give it to sinful persons, He would seem to be unrighteous.” And from these words he inferred that “therefore grace itself has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it. For if we do all things by grace, then whenever we are overcome by sin, it is not we who are overcome, but God’s grace, which wanted by all means to help us, but was not able.” And once more he says: “If, when we conquer sin, it is by the grace of God; then it is He who is in fault whenever we are conquered by sin, because He was either altogether unable or unwilling to keep us safe.” To these charges Pelagius replied: “Whether these are really the opinions of Cœlestius or not, is the concern of those who say that they are. For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views; on the contrary, I anathematize every one who does entertain them.” Then the synod said: “This holy synod accepts you for your condemnation of these impious words.” Now certainly there can be no mistake, in regard to these opinions, either as to the clear way in which Pelagius pronounced on them his anathema, or as to the absolute terms in which the bishops condemned them. Whether Pelagius or Cœlestius, or both of them, or neither of them, or other persons with them or in their name, have ever held or still hold these sentiments,—may be doubtful or obscure; but nevertheless by this judgment of the bishops it has been declared plainly enough that they have been condemned, and that Pelagius would have been condemned along with them, unless he had himself condemned them too. Now, after this trial, it is certain that whenever we enter on a controversy touching opinions of this kind, we only discuss an already condemned heresy.
Chapter 31.—Remarks on the Tenth Item.
I shall make my next remark with greater satisfaction. In a former section I expressed a fear See above, (20). He refers to Pelagius’ work which Augustin received from Jacobus and Timasius, aud against which he wrote his treatise De Naturâ et Gratiâ. See above, (2). See above, (5).
Chapter 32.—The Eleventh Item of the Accusation.
But what comes afterwards again fills me with anxiety. On its being objected to him, from the fifth chapter of Cœlestius’ book, that “they say that every individual has the ability to possess all powers and graces, thus taking away that ‘diversity of graces,’ which the apostle teaches,” Pelagius replied: “We have certainly said so much; but yet they have laid against us a malignant and blundering charge. We do not take away the diversity of graces; but we declare
that God gives to the person, who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul.” Hereupon the Synod said: “You accordingly do yourself hold the doctrine of the Church touching the gift of the graces, which are collectively possessed by the apostle.” Here some one may say, “Why then is he anxious? Do you on your side deny that all the powers and graces were combined in the apostle?” For my own part, indeed, if all those are to be understood
which the apostle has himself mentioned together in one passage,—as, I suppose, the bishops understood Pelagius to mean when they approved of his answer, and pronounced it to be in keeping with the sense of the Church,—then I do not doubt that the apostle had them all; for he says: “And God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” Another reading has Ecclesiarum, instead of gratiarum; q.d. “difference in churches.”
Chapter 33.—Discussion of the Eleventh Item Continued.
What, then, is the reason why, as I said just now, I felt anxious on the subject of this head of his doctrine? It is occasioned by what Pelagius says in these words: “That God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul.” Now, I should not have felt any anxiety about this answer of Pelagius, if it were not closely connected with the cause which we are bound to guard with the utmost
care—even that God’s grace may never be attacked, while we are silent or dissembling in respect of so great an evil. As, therefore, he does not say, that God gives to whom He will, but that “God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all these graces,” I could not help being suspicious, when I read such words. For the very name of grace, and the thing that is meant by it, is taken away, if it is not bestowed gratuitously, but he only receives it who is worthy of
it. Will anybody say that I do the apostle wrong, because I do not admit him to have been worthy of grace? Nay, I should indeed rather do him wrong, and bring on myself a punishment, if I refused to believe what he himself says. Well, now, has he not pointedly so defined grace as to show that it is so called because it is bestowed gratuitously? These are his own very words: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.”
Chapter 34.—The Same Continued. On the Works of Unbelievers; Faith is the Initial Principle from Which Good Works Have Their Beginning; Faith is the Gift of God’s Grace.
He will perhaps say to this: “It was not because of his works, but in consequence of his faith, that I said the apostle was worthy of having all those great graces bestowed upon him. His faith deserved this distinction, but not his works, which were not previously good.” Well, then, are we to suppose that faith does not work? Surely faith does work in a very real way, for it “worketh by love.”
Chapter 35.—The Same Continued.
“What, then, is the meaning of that which the same apostle says: ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day;’ There seems to be a corruption in the text here: “Quid aliud apostolo Petro Dominus commendavit orando.” Another reading inserts de before the word apostolo. Our version is rather of the apparent sense than of the words of the passage.
Chapter 36.—The Same Continued. The Monk Pelagius. Grace is Conferred on the Unworthy.
His due reward, therefore, is recompensed to the apostle as worthy of it; but still it was grace which bestowed on him the apostleship itself, which was not his due, and of which he was not worthy. Shall I be sorry for having said this? God forbid! For under his own testimony shall I find a ready protection from such reproach; nor will any man charge me with audacity, unless he be himself audacious enough to charge the apostle with mendacity. He frankly says, nay he
protests, that he commends the gifts of God within himself, so that he glories not in himself at all, but in the Lord; This is a poor imitation of Augustin’s playful words: “Me potius onerabo quam illum honorabo.”
Chapter 37—The Same Continued. John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and His Examination.
With great propriety, as the proceedings show, did John, the holy overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, employ the authority of this same passage of the apostle, as he himself told our brethren the bishops who were his assessors at that trial, on their asking him what proceedings had taken place before him previous to the trial. In a conference held at Jerusalem at the end of July in the year 415, as described by Orosius in his Apology.
Chapter 38 [XV.]—The Same Continued.
Bishop John narrated all this in the hearing of Pelagius; but he, of course, might respectfully say: “Your holiness is in error; you do not accurately remember the facts. It was not in reference to the passages of Scripture which you have quoted that I uttered the words: ‘This is what I also believe.’ Because this is not my opinion of them. I do not understand them to say, that God’s grace so co-operates with man, that his abstinence from sin is due, not to ‘him
that willeth, nor to him that runneth, but to God that showeth mercy.’”
Chapter 39 [XVI.]—The Same Continued. Heros and Lazarus; Orosius.
Now there are some expositions of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans which are said to have been written by Pelagius himself, See the treatise De Peccatorum Meritis, iii. 1. Avitus, perhaps, Passerius, and Dominus ex duce, whose names do not occur in the Acts of the Synod of Diospolis, but are mentioned by Orosius Apol. 3. Augustin here refers to the Proceedings of the conference at Jerusalem before its bishop John, which sat previous to the Council of Diospolis. See above, 37 (xiv.).
Chapter 40 [XVII.]—The Same Continued.
Since, then, Pelagius was present when these passages of the Scriptures were discussed, and by his silence acknowledged having said that he entertained the same view of their meaning, how happens it, that, after reconsidering the apostle’s testimony, as he had just done, and finding that he said: “I am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God; but by the grace of God I am what I am,” See above, 30 (xiv.). See above, 32.
Chapter 41.—Augustin Indulgently Shows that the Judges Acted Incautiously in Their Official Conduct of the Case of Pelagius.
Why, then (some one will say), did the judges approve of this? I confess that I hardly even now understand why they did. It is, however, not to be wondered at, if some brief word or phrase too easily escaped their attention and ear; or if, because they thought it capable of being somehow interpreted in a correct sense, from seeming to have from the accused himself such clear confessions of truth on the subject, they decided it to be hardly worth while to excite a discussion about a word. The same feeling might have occurred to ourselves also, if we had sat with them at the trial. For if, instead of the term worthy, the word predestinated had been used, or some such word, my mind would certainly not have entertained any doubt, much less have been disquieted by it; and yet if it were asserted, that he who is justified by the election of grace is called worthy, through no antecedent merits of good indeed, but by destination, just as he is called “elect,” it would be really difficult to determine whether he might be so designated at all, or at least without some offence to an intelligent view of the subject.
As for myself, indeed, I might readily pass on from the discussion on this word, were it not that the treatise which called forth my reply, and in which he says that there is no God’s grace at all except our own nature gratuitously created We have preferred the reading gratis creatam to the obscure gratiam creaturam.
Chapter 42 [XVIII.]—The Twelfth Item in the Accusation. Other Heads of Cœlestius’ Doctrine Abjured by Pelagius.
For it was objected that in the sixth chapter of Cœlestius’ work there was laid down this position: “Men cannot be called sons of God, unless they have become entirely free from all sin.” It follows from this statement, that not even the Apostle Paul is a child of God, since he said: “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect.” See
Chapter 43 [XIX.]—The Answer of the Monk Pelagius and His Profession of Faith.
After all these sentences were read out, the synod said: “What says the monk Pelagius to all these heads of opinion which have been read in his presence? For this holy synod condemns the whole, as does also God’s Holy Catholic Church.” Pelagius answered: “I say again, that these opinions, even according to their own testimony, are not mine; nor for them, as I have already said, ought I to be held responsible. The opinions which I have confessed to be my own, I maintain are sound; those, however, which I have said are not my own, I reject according to the judgment of this holy synod, pronouncing anathema on every man who opposes and gainsays the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church. For I believe in the Trinity of the one substance, and I hold all things in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. If indeed any man entertains opinions different from her, let him be anathema.”
Chapter 44 [XX.]—The Acquittal of Pelagius.
The synod said: “Now since we have received satisfaction on the points which have come before us touching the monk Pelagius, who has been present; since, too, he gives his consent to the pious doctrines, and even anathematizes everything that is contrary to the Church’s faith, we confess him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church.”
Chapter 45 [XXI.]—Pelagius’ Acquittal Becomes Suspected.
If these are the proceedings by which Pelagius’ friends rejoice that he was exculpated, we, on our part,—since he certainly took much pains to prove that we were well affected towards him, by going so far as to produce even our private letters to him, and reading them at the trial,—undoubtedly wish and desire his salvation in Christ; but as regards his exculpation, which is rather believed than clearly shown, we ought not to be in a hurry to exult. When I say this,
indeed, I do not charge the judges either with negligence or connivance, or with consciously holding unsound doctrine—which they most certainly would be the very last to entertain. But although by their sentence Pelagius is held by those who are on terms of fullest and closest intimacy with him to have been deservedly acquitted, with the approval and commendation of his judges, he certainly does not appear to me to have been cleared of the charges brought against him. They conducted his trial
as of one whom they knew nothing of, especially in the absence of those who had prepared the indictment against him, and were quite unable to ex
Chapter 46 [XXII.]—How Pelagius Became Known to Augustin; Cœlestius Condemned at Carthage.
Now, that I may especially refer to my own relation to him, I first became acquainted with Pelagius’ name, along with great praise of him, at a distance, and when he was living at Rome. Afterwards reports began to reach us, that he disputed against the grace of God. This caused me much pain, for I could not refuse to believe the statements of my informants; but yet I was desirous of ascertaining information on the matter either from himself or from some treatise of his, that, in case I should have to discuss the question with him, it should be on grounds which he could not disown. On his arrival, however, in Africa, he was in my absence kindly received on our coast of Hippo, where, as I found from our brethren, nothing whatever of this kind was heard from him; because he left earlier than was expected. On a subsequent occasion, indeed, I caught a glimpse of him, once or twice, to the best of my recollection, when I was very much occupied in preparing for the conference which we were to hold with the heretical Donatists; but he hastened away across the sea. Meanwhile the doctrines connected with his name were warmly maintained, and passed from mouth to mouth, among his reputed followers—to such an extent that Cœlestius found his way before an ecclesiastical tribunal, and reported opinions well suited to his perverse character. We thought it would be a better way of proceeding against them, if, without mentioning any names of individuals, the errors themselves were met and refuted; and the men might thus be brought to a right mind by the fear of a condemnation from the Church rather than be punished by the actual condemnation. And so both by books and by popular discussions we ceased not to oppose the evil doctrines in question.
Chapter 47 [XXIII.]—Pelagius’ Book, Which Was Sent by Timasius and Jacobus to Augustin, Was Answered by the Latter in His Work “On Nature and Grace.”
But when there was actually placed in my hands, by those faithful servants of God and honourable men, Timasius and Jacobus, the treatise in which Pelagius dealt with the question of God’s grace, it became very evident to me—too evident, indeed, to admit of any further doubt—how hostile to salvation by Christ was his poisonous perversion of the truth. He treated the subject in the shape of an objection started, as if by an opponent, in his own terms against himself; for he
was already suffering a good deal of obloquy from his opinions on the question, which he now appeared to solve for himself in no other way than by simply describing the grace of God as nature created with a free will, occasionally combining therewith either the help of the law, or even the remission of sins; although these additional admissions were not plainly made, but only sparingly suggested by him. And yet, even under these circumstances, I refrained from inserting Pelagius’ name in my
work, wherein I refuted this book of his; for I still thought that I should render a prompter assistance to the truth if I continued to preserve a friendly relation to him, and so to spare his personal feelings, while at the same time I showed no mercy, as I was bound not to show it, to the productions of his pen. Hence, I must say, I now feel some annoyance, that in this trial he somewhere said: “I anathematize those who hold these opinions, or have at any time held them.” He might have been
contented with saying, “Those who hold these opinions,” which we should have regarded in the light of a self-censure; but when he went on to say, “Or have at any time held them,” in the first place, how could he dare to condemn so unjustly those harmless persons who no longer hold the errors, which they had learnt either from others, or actually from himself? And, in the second place, who among all those persons that were aware of the fact of his not only having held the opinions
in question, but of his having taught them, could help suspecting, and not unreasonably, that he must have acted insincerely in condemning those who now hold those opinions, seeing that he did not hesitate to condemn in the same strain and at the same moment those also who had at any time previously held them, when they would be sure to remember that they had no less a person than himself as their instructor in these errors? There are, for instance, such persons as Timasius and Jacobus, to say
nothing of any others. How can he with unblushing face look at them, his
Chapter 48 [XXIV.]—A Letter Written by Timasius and Jacobus to Augustin on Receiving His Treatise “On Nature and Grace.”
“To his lordship, the truly blessed and deservedly venerable father, Bishop Augustin, Timasius and Jacobus send greeting in the Lord. We have been so greatly refreshed and strengthened by the grace of God, which your word has ministered to us, my lord, our truly blessed and justly venerated father, that we may with the utmost sincerity and propriety say, ‘He sent His word and healed them.’ Supprimendam. See Augustin’s Epist. 168.
Chapter 49 [XXV.]—Pelagius’ Behaviour Contrasted with that of the Writers of the Letter.
If now that man, Pelagius.
Chapter 50.—Pelagius Has No Good Reason to Be Annoyed If His Name Be at Last Used in the Controversy, and He Be Expressly Refuted.
But now if Pelagius thinks of God, if he is not ungrateful for His mercy in having brought him before this tribunal of the bishops, that thus he might be saved from the hardihood of afterwards defending these anathematized opinions, and be at once led to acknowledge them as deserving of abhorrence and rejection, he will be more thankful to us for our book, in which, by mentioning his name, we shall open the wound in order to cure it, than for one in which we were afraid
to cause him pain, and, in fact, only produced irritation,—a result which causes us regret. Should he, however, feel angry with us, let him reflect how unfair such anger is; and, in order to subdue it, let him ask God to give him that grace which, in this trial, he has confessed to be necessary for each one of our actions, that so by His assistance he may gain a real victory. For of what use to him are all those great laudations contained in the letters of the bishops, which he thought fit to
be men
Chapter 51 [XXVI.]—The Nature of Augustin’s Letter to Pelagius.
For my own part, indeed, in my letter which he produced, I not only abstained from all praises of him, but I even exhorted him, with as much earnestness as I could, short of actually mooting the question, to cultivate right views about the grace of God. In my salutation I called him “lord” This term corresponds somewhat to our Sir; but Augustin here refers to its more expressive meaning of Master, or Lord.
Chapter 52 [XXVII. And XXVIII.]—The Text of the Letter.
“To my most beloved lord, and most longed-for brother Pelagius, Augustin sends greeting in the Lord. I thank you very much for the pleasure you have kindly afforded me by your letter, and for informing me of your good health. May the Lord requite you with blessings, and may you ever enjoy them, and live with Him for evermore in all eternity, my most beloved lord, and most longed-for brother. For my own part, indeed, although I do not admit your high encomiums of me,
which the letter of your Benignity Tuæ Benignitatis Epistola is more than “your kind letter.” “Benignitas” is a complimentary abstract title addressed to the correspondent.
Chapter 53 [XXIX.]—Pelagius’ Use of Recommendations.
As to that which I placed in the postscript,—that he might “find favour with the Lord,”—I intimated that this lay rather in His grace than in man’s sole will; for I did not make it the subject either of exhortation, or of precept, or of instruction, but simply of my wish. But just in the same way as I should, if I had exhorted or enjoined, or even instructed him, simply have shown that all this appertained to free will, without, however, derogating from the grace of God;
so in like manner, when I expressed the matter in the way of a wish, I asserted no doubt the grace of God, but at the same time I did not quench the liberty of the will. Wherefore, then, did he produce this letter at the trial? If he had only from the beginning entertained views in accordance with it, very likely he would not have been at all summoned before the bishops by the brethren, who, with all their kindness of disposition, could yet not help being offended with his perverse
contentiousness. Now, however, as I have given on my part an account of this letter of mine, so would they, whose epistles he quoted, explain theirs also, if it were necessary;—they would tell us either what they thought, or what they were ignorant of, or with what purpose they wrote to him. Pelagius, therefore, may boast to his heart’s content of the friendship of holy men,
Chapter 54 [XXX.]—On the Letter of Pelagius, in Which He Boasts that His Errors Had Been Approved by Fourteen Bishops.
For I will not be silent as to the transactions which took place after this trial, and which rather augment the suspicion against him. A certain epistle found its way into our hands, which was ascribed to Pelagius himself, writing to a friend of his, a presbyter, who had kindly admonished him (as appears from the same epistle) not to allow any one to separate himself from the body of the Church on his account. Among the other contents of this document, which it
would be both tedious and unnecessary to quote here, Pelagius says: “By the sentence of fourteen bishops our statement was received with approbation, in which we affirmed that ‘a man is able to be without sin, and easily to keep the commandments of God, if he wishes.’ This sentence,” says he, “has filled the mouths of the gainsayers with confusion, and has separated asunder the entire set which was conspiring together for evil.” Whether, indeed, this epistle was really written by Pelagius, or
was composed by somebody in his name, who can fail to see, after what manner this error claims to have achieved a victory, even in the judicial proceedings where it was refuted and condemned? Now, he has adduced the words we have just quoted according to the form in which they occur in his book of “Chapters,” as it is called, not in the shape in which they were objected to him at his trial, and even repeated by him in his answer. For even his accusers, through some unaccountable inaccuracy,
left out a word in their indictment, concerning which there is no small controversy. They made him say, that “a man is able to be without sin, if he wishes; and, if he wishes, to keep the commandments of God.” There is nothing said here about this being “easily” done. Afterwards, when he gave his answer, he spake thus: “We said, that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God, if he wishes;” he did not then say, “easily keep,” but only “keep.” So in
another place, amongst the statements about which Hilary consulted me, and I gave him my views, it was objected to Pelagius that he had said, “A man is able, if he wishes, to live without sin.” To this he himself responded, “That a man is able to be without sin has been said above.” Now, on this occasion, we do not find on the part either of those who brought the objection or of him who rebutted it, that the word “easily” was used at all. Then, again, in the narrative of the holy Bishop
John, which we have partly quoted above, In 37 [XIV.]
Chapter 55.—Pelagius’ Letter Discussed.
What, then, is the meaning of those vaunting words of theirs in this epistle, wherein they boast of having induced the fourteen bishops who sat in that trial to believe not merely that a man has ability but that he has “facility” to abstain from sinning, according to the position laid down in the “Chapters” of this same Pelagius,—when, in the draft of the proceedings, notwithstanding the frequent repetition of the general charge and full consideration bestowed on
it, this is nowhere found? How, indeed, can this word fail to contradict the very defence and answer which Pelagius made; since the Bishop John asserted that Pelagius put in this answer in his presence, that “he wished it to be understood that the man who was willing to labour and agonize for his salvation was able to avoid sin,” while Pelagius himself, at this time engaged in a formal inquiry and conducting his defence, Ch. 16. At the synod of Diospolis. The proceedings before John, bishop of Jerusalem, were not duly registered. See above, 39. See above, 37. This point, however, was definitely settled a year or two afterwards, at a council held in Carthage. (See its Canons 6–8.) See also above, the Preface to the treatise On the Perfection of Man’s Righteousness.
Chapter 56 [XXXI.]—Is Pelagius Sincere?
How, then, can it be believed that Pelagius (if indeed this epistle is his) could have been sincere, when he acknowledged the grace of God, which is not nature with its free will, nor the knowledge of the law, nor simply the forgiveness of sins, but a something which is necessary to each of our actions; or could have sincerely anathematized everybody who entertained the contrary opinion:—seeing that in his epistle he set forth even the ease wherewith a man can avoid sinning (concerning which no question had arisen at this trial) just as if the judges had come to an agreement to receive even this word, and said nothing about the grace of God, by the confession and subsequent addition of which he escaped the penalty of condemnation by the Church?
Chapter 57 [XXXII.]—Fraudulent Practices Pursued by Pelagius in His Report of the Proceedings in Palestine, in the Paper Wherein He Defended Himself to Augustin.
There is yet another point which I must not pass over in silence. In the paper containing his defence which he sent to me by a friend of ours, one Charus, a citizen of Hippo, but a deacon in the Eastern Church, he has made a statement which is different from what is contained in the Proceedings of the Bishops. Now, these Proceedings, as regards their contents, are of a higher and firmer tone, and more straightforward in defending the catholic verity in opposition to this
heretical pestilence. For, when I read this paper of his, previous to receiving a copy of the Proceedings, I was not aware that he had made use of those words which he had used at the trial, when he was present for himself; they are few, and there is not much discrepancy, and they do not occasion me much anxiety. [XXXIII.] But I could not help feeling annoyance that he can appear to have defended sundry sentences of Cœlestius, which, from the Proceedings, it is clear enough that he
anathematized. Now, some of these he disavowed for himself, simply remarking, that “he was not in any way responsible for
Chapter 58.—The Same Continued.
He has, moreover, in this same paper, huddled together afterwards many of the points which were objected against him out of the “Chapters,” of Cœlestius’ book; nor has he kept distinct, at the intervals which separate them in the Proceedings, the two answers in which he anathematized these very heads; but has substituted one general reply for them all. This, I should have supposed, had been done for the sake of brevity, had I not perceived that he had a very special
object in the arrangement which disturbs us. For thus has he closed this answer: “I say again, that these opinions, even according to their own testimony, are not mine; nor, as I have already said, am I to be held responsible for them. The opinions which I have confessed to be my own, I maintain are sound and correct; those, however, which I have said are not my own, I reject according to the judgment of the holy Church, pronouncing anathema on every man that opposes and gainsays the doctrines
of the holy and catholic Church; and likewise on those who by inventing false opinions have excited odium against us.” This last paragraph the Proceedings do not contain; it has, however, no bearing on the matter which causes us anxiety. By all means let them have his anathema who have excited odium against him by their invention of false opinions. But, when first I read, “Those opinions, however, which I have said are not my own, I reject in accordance with the judgment of the holy Church,”
being ignorant that any judgment had been arrived at on the point by the Church, since there is here nothing said about it, and I had not then read the Proceedings, I really thought that nothing else was meant than that he promised that he would entertain the same view about the “Chapters” as the Church, which had not yet determined the question, might some day decide respecting them; and that he was ready to reject the opinions which the Church had not yet indeed rejected, but might one day
have occasion to reject; and that this, too, was the purport of what he further said: “Pronouncing anathema on every man that opposes and gainsays the doctrines of the holy catholic Church.” But in fact, as the Proceedings testify, a judgment of the Church had already been pronounced on these subjects by the fourteen bishops; and it was in accordance with this judgment that he professed to reject all these opinions, and to pronounce his anathema against those persons who, by reason of the said
opinions, were contravening the judgment which had already, as the Proceedings show, been actually settled. For already had the judges asked: “What says the monk Pelagius to all these heads of opinion which have been read in his presence? For this holy synod condemns them, as does also God’s holy catholic Church.” Now, they who know nothing of all this, and only read this paper of his, are led to suppose that some one or other of these opinions may lawfully be maintained, as if they had not
been determined to be contrary to catholic doctrine, and as if Pelagius had declared himself to be ready to hold the same sentiments concerning them which the Church had not as yet determined, but might have to determine. He has not, therefore, expressed himself in this paper, to which we have so often referred, straightforwardly enough for us to discover the fact, of which we find a voucher in the Proceedings, that all those dogmas by means of which this heresy has been stealing along and
Chapter 59 [XXXIV.]—Although Pelagius Was Acquitted, His Heresy Was Condemned.
Now, with respect to this treatise of mine, which perhaps is not unreasonably lengthy, considering the importance and extent of its subject, I have wished to inscribe it to your Reverence, in order that, if it be not displeasing to your mind, it may become known to such persons as I have thought may stand in need of it under the recommendation of your authority, which carries so much more weight than our own poor industry. Thus it may avail to crush the vain and contentious thoughts of those persons who suppose that, because Pelagius was acquited, those Eastern bishops who pronounced the judgment approved of those dogmas which are beginning to shed very pernicious influences against the Christian faith, and that grace of God whereby we are called and justified. These the Christian verity never ceases to condemn, as indeed it condemned them even by the authoritative sentence of the fourteen bishops; nor would it, on the occasion in question, have hesitated to condemn Pelagius too, unless he had anathematized the heretical opinions with which he was charged. But now, while we render to this man the respect of brotherly affection (and we have all along expressed with all sincerity our anxiety for him and interest in him), let us observe, with as much brevity as is consistent with accuracy of observation, that, notwithstanding the undoubted fact of his having been acquitted by a human verdict, the heresy itself has ever been held worthy of condemnation by divine judgment, and has actually been condemned by the sentence of these fourteen bishops of the Eastern Church.
Chapter 60 [XXXV.]—The Synod’s Condemnation of His Doctrines.
This is the concluding clause of their judgment. The synod said: “Now forasmuch as we have received satisfaction in these inquiries from the monk Pelagius, who has been present, who yields assent to godly doctrines, and rejects and anathematizes those which are contrary to the Church, we confess him still to belong to the communion of the catholic Church.” Now, there are two facts concerning the monk Pelagius here contained with entire perspicuity in this brief statement of the holy bishops who judged him: one, that “he yields assent to godly doctrines;” the other, that “he rejects and anathematizes those which are contrary to the Church.” On account of these two concessions, Pelagius was pronounced to be “in the communion of the catholic Church.” Let us, in pursuit of our inquiry, briefly recapitulate the entire facts, in order to discover what were the words he used which made those two points so clear, as far as men were able at the moment to form a judgment as to what were manifest points. For among the allegations which were made against him, he is said to have rejected and anathematized, as “contrary,” all the statements which in his answer he denied were his. Let us, then, summarize the whole case as far as we can.
Chapter 61.—History of the Pelagian Heresy. The Pelagian Heresy Was Raised by Sundry Persons Who Affected the Monastic State.
Since it was necessary that the Apostle Paul’s prediction should be accomplished,—“There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you,”
Chapter 62.—The History Continued. Cœlestius Condemned at Carthage by Episcopal Judgment. Pelagius Acquitted by Bishops in Palestine, in Consequence of His Deceptive Answers; But Yet His Heresy Was Condemned by Them.
After this heresy had deceived a great many persons, and was disturbing the brethren whom it had failed to deceive, one Cœlestius, who entertained these sentiments, was brought up for trial before the Church of Carthage, and was condemned by a sentence of the bishops. This trial was held at Carthage, before the Bishop Aurelius (to whom Augustin dedicated the present treatise), at the beginning of the year 412, as appears from the letter to Innocentius among Augustin’s Epistles, 175, Nos. 1 and 6. This happened in the year 415, in the month of December, at Diospolis. See above, 5. See above, 16.
Chapter 63.—The Same Continued. The Dogmas of Cœlestius Laid to the Charge of Pelagius, as His Master, and Condemned.
Of the opinions which Cœlestius has said or written, and which were objected against Pelagius, on the ground that they were the dogmas of his disciple, he acknowledged some as entertained also by himself; but, in his vindication, he said that he held them in a different sense from that which was alleged in the indictment. One of these opinions was thus stated: “Before the advent of Christ some men lived holy and righteous lives.” See above, 26. See above, 27. See above, 29. See above, 32.
Chapter 64.—How the Bishops Cleared Pelagius of Those Charges.
These four dogmas, thus connected with the name of Cœlestius, were therefore not approved by the bishops in their judgment, in the sense in which Cœlestius was said to have set them forth but in the sense which Pelagius gave to them in his reply. For they saw clearly enough, that it is one thing to be without sin, and another thing to live holily and righteously, as Scripture testifies that some lived even before the coming of Christ. And that although the Church
here on earth is not without spot or wrinkle, she is yet both cleansed from every spot and wrinkle by the laver of regeneration, and in this state the Lord would have her continue. And continue she certainly will, for without doubt she shall reign without spot or wrinkle in an everlasting felicity. And that the perpetual virginity, which is not commanded, is unquestionably more than the purity of wedded life, which is commanded—although virginity is persevered in by many persons, who,
notwithstanding, are not without sin. And that all those graces which he enumerates in a certain passage were possessed by the Apostle Paul; and yet, for all that, either they could quite understand, in regard to his having been worthy to receive them, that the merit was not according to his works, but rather, in some way, according to predestination (for the apostle says himself: “I am not meet to be called an apostle;”)
Chapter 65.—Recapitulation of What Pelagius Condemned.
Let us now, by a like recapitulation, bestow a little more attention on those subjects which the bishops said he rejected and condemned as “contrary;” for herein especially lies the whole of that heresy. We will entirely pass over the strange terms of adulation which he is reported to have put into writing in praise of a certain widow; these he denied having ever inserted in any of his writings, or ever given utterance to, and he anathematized all who held the
opinions in question not indeed as heretics, but as fools. See above, 16. See above, 24. See above, 30.
Chapter 66.—The Harsh Measures of the Pelagians Against the Holy Monks and Nuns Who Belonged to Jerome’s Charge.
Certain followers of Pelagius are said to have carried their support of his cause after these judicial proceedings to an incredible extent of perverseness and audacity. They are said He here refers to a letter (32) of Pope Innocent to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. It thus commences: “Plunder, slaughter, incendiary fire, every atrocity of the maddest kind have been deplored by the noble and holy virgins Eustochium and Paula, as having been perpetrated, at the devil’s instigation, in several places of your diocese,” etc. An epistle by the same writer (33) addressed to Jerome, begins with these words: “The apostle testifies that contention never did
any good to the Church.”
a treatise on the grace of christ, and on original sin.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 50,
On the Following Treatise,
“De gratia christi, et de peccato originali.”
————————————
“After the conviction and condemnation From this it follows that we must refer his books On the Grace of Christ and On Original Sin to the year 418; for it was in this year that the Pelagian heresy was condemned by the pope Zosimus. Somewhat earlier there was held a general council of the bishops of Africa at Carthage, to take measures against the heresy,—the precise date of which council is May 1st of this year 418. Augustin, on account of this council, was detained at Carthage, and his
stay in that city was longer than usual, as one may learn from the 94th canon of the council, or from the Codex Canonum of the Church of Africa, canon 127, as well as from his epistle (193, sec. 1) to Mercator. And it was in this interval of time, before he started for Mauritania Cæsariensis, that he wrote these two books for Albina, Pinianus, and Melania; accordingly, in his Retractations, he places them just previous to the time of his proceedings with Emeritus, which were
concluded at Cæsarea on the 20th of September in this very year 418. Julianus, in his work addressed to Turbantius, calumniously attacked a passage in the book On the Grace of Christ; the passage is defended by Augustin in his work against Julianus, iv. 8. 47, where he mentions this first book, addressed to the holy Pinianus, as he calls him, and gives its title as “Concerning Grace, in opposition to Pelagius.” [Albina, with her son-in-law Pinianus, and her daughter Melania, by
whose questions Augustin was led to write this work, constituted an interesting family of ascetics, which had formerly lived in Africa, but at this time were in Palestine; Pinianus at the head of a monastery, and his wife an inmate of a convent.—W.]
A Treatise on the grace of christ, and on original sin,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In Two Books,
written against pelagius and cœlestius in the year a.d. 418.
————————————
Book I.
On the Grace of Christ.
Wherein he shows that Pelagius is disingenuous in his confession of grace, inasmuch as he places grace either in nature and free will, or in law and teaching; and, moreover, asserts that it is merely the “possibility” (as he calls it) of will and action, and not the will and action itself, which is assisted by divine grace; and that this assisting grace, too, is given by God according to men’s merits; whilst he further thinks that they are so assisted for the sole purpose of being able the more easily to fulfil the commandments. Augustin examines those passages of his writings in which he boasted that he had bestowed express commendation on the grace of God, and points out how they can be interpreted as referring to law and teaching,—in other words, to the divine revelation and the example of Christ which are alike included in “the teaching,”—or else to the remission of sins; nor do they afford any evidence whatever that Pelagius really acknowledged Christian grace, in the sense of help rendered for the performance of right action to natural faculty and instruction, by the inspiration of a most glowing and luminous love; and he concludes with a request that Pelagius would seriously listen to Ambrose, whom he is so very fond of quoting, in his excellent eulogy in commendation of the grace of God.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Introductory.
How greatly we rejoice on account of your bodily, and, above all, your spiritual welfare, my most sincerely attached brethren and beloved of God, Albina, Pinianus, and Melania, [See note to the passage from the Retractations above; and for full accounts see Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, under these names.—W.]
Chapter 2 [II.]—Suspicious Character of Pelagius’ Confession as to the Necessity of Grace for Every Single Act of Ours.
You informed me in your letter, that you had entreated Pelagius to express in writing his condemnation of all that had been alleged against him; and that he had said, in the audience of you all: “I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’
Chapter 3 [III.]—Grace According to the Pelagians.
But why should we wonder at this? For the same Pelagius, who in the Proceedings of the episcopal synod unhesitatingly condemned those who say “that God’s grace and assistance are not given for single acts, but consist in free will, or in law and teaching,” See De Gestis Pelagii, c. 30. We have in these two clauses an explanation of the terms “law” and “teaching,” which Pelagius uses almost technically.
Chapter 4.—Pelagius’ System of Faculties.
In his system, he posits and distinguishes three faculties, by which he says God’s commandments are fulfilled,—capacity, volition, and action: [These three technical terms are, possibilitas, voluntas, actio.—W.]
Chapter 5 [IV.]—Pelagius’ Own Account of the Faculties, Quoted.
Lest, however, it should chance to be said that we either do not correctly understand what he advances, or malevolently pervert to another meaning what he never meant to bear such a sense, I beg of you to consider his own actual words: “We distinguish,” says he, “three things, arranging them in a certain graduated order. We put in the first place ‘ability;’ in the second, ‘volition;’ and in the third, ‘actuality.’ [The three terms here are, posse, velle, esse.—W.]
Chapter 6 [V.]—Pelagius and Paul of Different Opinions.
The whole of this dogma of Pelagius, observe, is carefully expressed in these words, and none other, in the third book of his treatise in defence of the liberty of the will, in which he has taken care to distinguish with so great subtlety these three things,—the “capacity,” the “volition,” and the “action,” that is, the “ability,” the “volition,” and the “actuality,”—that, whenever we read or hear of his acknowledging the assistance of divine grace in order to our
avoidance of evil and accomplishment of good,—whatever he may mean by the said assistance of grace, whether law and the teaching or any other thing,—we are sure of what he says; nor can we run into any mistake by understanding him otherwise than he means. For we cannot help knowing that, according to his belief, it is not our “volition” nor our “action” which is assisted by the divine help, but solely our “capacity” to will and act, which alone of the three, as he affirms, we have of God. As if
that faculty were infirm which God Himself placed in our nature; while the other two, which, as he would have it, are our own, are so strong and firm and self-sufficient as to require none of His help! so that He does not help us to will, nor help us to act, but simply helps us to the possibility of willing and acting. The apostle, however, holds the contrary, when he says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
Chapter 7 [VI.]—Pelagius Posits God’s Aid Only for Our “Capacity.”
Let not Pelagius, however, in this way deceive incautious and simple persons, or even himself; for after saying, “Man is therefore to be praised for his willing and doing a good work,” he added, as if by way of correcting himself, these
Chapter 8.—Grace, According to the Pelagians, Consists in the Internal and Manifold Illumination of the Mind.
As to this natural capacity which, he allows, is assisted by the grace of God, it is by no means clear from the passage either what grace he means, or to what extent he supposes our nature to be assisted by it. But, as is the case in other passages in which he expresses himself with more clearness and decision, we may here also perceive that no other grace is intended by him as helping natural capacity than the law and the teaching. [VII.] For in one passage he says: “We are supposed by very ignorant persons to do wrong in this matter to divine grace, because we say that it by no means perfects sanctity in us without our will,—as if God could have imposed any command on His grace, without also supplying the help of His grace to those on whom he imposed His commands, so that men might more easily accomplish through grace what they are required to do by their free will.” Then, as if he meant to explain what grace he meant, he immediately went on to add these words: “And this grace we for our part do not, as you suppose, allow to consist merely in the law, but also in the help of God.” Now who can help wishing that he would show us what grace it is that he would have us understand? Indeed, we have the strongest reason for desiring him to tell us what he means by saying that he does not allow grace merely to consist in the law. Whilst, however, we are in the suspense of our expectation, observe, I pray you, what he has further to tell us: “God helps us,” says he, “by His teaching and revelation, whilst He opens the eyes of our heart; whilst He points out to us the future, that we may not be absorbed in the present; whilst He discovers to us the snares of the devil; whilst He enlightens us with the manifold and ineffable gift of heavenly grace.” He then concludes his statement with a kind of absolution: “Does the man,” he asks, “who says all this appear to you to be a denier of grace? Does he not acknowledge both man’s free will and God’s grace?” But, after all, he has not got beyond his commendation of the law and of teaching; assiduously inculcating this as the grace that helps us, and so following up the idea with which he had started, when he said, “We, however, allow it to consist in the help of God.” God’s help, indeed, he supposed must be recommended to us by manifold lures; by setting forth teaching and revelation, the opening of the eyes of the heart, the demonstration of the future, the discovery of the devil’s wiles, and the illumination of our minds by the varied and indescribable gift of heavenly grace,—all this, of course, with a view to our learning the commandments and promises of God. And what else is this than placing God’s grace in “the law and the teaching”?
Chapter 9 [VIII.]—The Law One Thing, Grace Another. The Utility of the Law.
Hence, then, it is clear that he acknowledges that grace whereby God points out and reveals to us what we are bound to do; but not that whereby He endows and assists us to act, since the knowledge of the law, unless it be accompanied by the assistance of grace, rather avails for producing the transgression of the commandment. “Where there is no law,” says the apostle, “there is no transgression;”
Chapter 10 [IX.]—What Purpose the Law Subserves.
What object, then, can this man gain by accounting the law and the teaching to be the grace whereby we are helped to work righteousness? For, in order that it may help much, it must help us to feel our need of grace. No man, indeed, is able to fulfil the law through the law. “Love is the fulfilling of the law.”
Chapter 11 [X.]—Pelagius’ Definition of How God Helps Us: “He Promises Us Future Glory.”
For in another passage, after asserting at length that it is not by the help of God, but out of our own selves, that a good will is formed within us, he confronted himself with a question out of the apostle’s epistle; and he asked this question: “How will this stand consistently with the apostle’s words,
Chapter 12 [XI.]—The Same Continued: “He Reveals Wisdom.”
But what shall I say about the revelation of wisdom? For there is no man who can in the present life very well hope to attain to the great revelations which were given to the Apostle Paul; and of course it is impossible to suppose that anything was accustomed in these revelations to be made known to him but what appertained to wisdom. Yet for all this he says: “Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a
thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that He would take it away from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.”
Chapter 13 [XII.]—Grace Causes Us to Do.
To him, therefore, who is reluctant to endure the troublesome process, whereby this vaunting disposition is restrained, before he attains to the ultimate and highest perfection of charity, it is most properly said, “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness,”
Chapter 14 [XII.]—The Righteousness Which is of God, and the Righteousness Which is of the Law.
If this grace is to be called “teaching,” let it at any rate be so called in such wise that God may be believed to infuse it, along with an ineffable sweetness, more deeply and more internally, not only by their agency who plant and water from without, but likewise by His own too who ministers in secret His own increase,—in such a way, that He not only exhibits truth, but likewise imparts love. For it is thus that God teaches those who have been called
according to His purpose, giving them simultaneously both to know what they ought to do, and to do what they know. Accordingly, the apostle thus speaks to the Thessalonians: “As touching love of the brethren, ye need not that I write unto you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.”
Chapter 15 [XIV.]—He Who Has Been Taught by Grace Actually Comes to Christ.
Now as touching this kind of teaching, the Lord also says: “Every man that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” See above, ch. 7 [vi.]. The technical gradation is here neatly expressed by profectus, affectus, and effectus.
Chapter 16 [XV.]—We Need Divine Aid in the Use of Our Powers. Illustration from Sight.
Now what is the use of his examples, if they do not really accomplish his own promise of making his meaning clearer to us; See above, ch. 5 [iv.].
Chapter 17 [XVI.]—Does Pelagius Designedly Refrain from Openly Saying that All Good Action is from God?
“That we are able to speak,” says he, “is of God; but that we make a good or a bad use of speech is of ourselves.” He, however, who has made the most excellent use of speech does not teach us so. “For,” says He, “it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.” See ch. 5.
Chapter 18 [XVII.]—He Discovers the Reason of Pelagius’ Hesitation So to Say.
For, when wishing to point out why this lies within our own competency, he says: “Because we are able to turn all these actions into evil.” This, then, was the reason why he was afraid to admit that such an action proceeds “both from ourselves and from God,” lest it should be objected to him in reply: “If the fact of our doing, speaking, thinking anything good, is owing both to ourselves and to God, because He has endowed us with this ability, then it follows that our doing, thinking, speaking evil things, is due to ourselves and to God, because He has here also endowed us with ability of indifferency; the conclusion from this being—and God forbid that we should admit any such—that just as God is associated with ourselves in the praise of good actions, so must He share with us the blame of evil actions.” For that “capacity” with which He has endowed us makes us capable alike of good actions and of evil ones.
Chapter 19 [XVIII.]—The Two Roots of Action, Love and Cupidity; And Each Brings Forth Its Own Fruit.
Concerning this “capacity,” Pelagius thus writes in the first book of his Defence of Free Will: “Now,” says he, “we have implanted in us by God a capacity for either part. [The technical phrase is possibilitas utriusque partis.—W.]
Chapter 20 [XIX.]—How a Man Makes a Good or a Bad Tree.
Now a man makes a good tree when he receives the grace of God. For it is not by himself that he makes himself good instead of evil; but it is of Him, and through Him, and in Him [Here the phraseology contrasts vitium naturæ, with vitium natura.—W.]
Chapter 21 [XX.]—Love the Root of All Good Things; Cupidity, of All Evil Ones.
The “capacity,” then, of which we speak is not (as he supposes) the one identical root both of good things and evil. For the love which is the root of good things is quite different from the cupidity which is the root of evil things—as different, indeed, as virtue is from vice. But without doubt this “capacity” is capable of either root: because a man is not only able to possess love, whereby the tree becomes a good one; but he is likewise able to have cupidity,
which makes the tree evil. This human cupidity, however, which is a vice, has for its author man, or man’s deceiver, but not man’s Creator. It is indeed that “lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world.”
Chapter 22 [XXI.]—Love is a Good Will.
That love, however, which is a virtue, comes to us from God, not from ourselves, according to the testimony of Scripture, which says: “Love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God: for God is love.” See above, ch. 4.
Chapter 23 [XXII.]—Pelagius’ Double Dealing Concerning the Ground of the Conferrence of Grace.
Perhaps, however, our own antecedent merits caused this gift to be bestowed upon us; as this writer has already suggested in reference to God’s grace, in that work which he addressed to a holy virgin, Epistola ad Demetriadem, c. 25. See the De Gestis Pelagii, ch. 30 [xiv.].
Chapter 24.—Pelagius Places Free Will at the Basis of All Turning to God for Grace.
But perhaps he may meet us with this rejoinder, that in the sentence before us he spoke of our “meriting the divine grace by doing the will of God,” in the sense that grace is added to those who believe and lead godly lives, whereby they may boldly withstand the tempter; whereas their very first reception of grace was, that they might do the will of God. Lest, then, he make such a rejoinder, consider some other words of his on this subject: “The man,” says he,
“who hastens to the Lord, and desires to be directed by Him, that is, who makes his own will depend upon God’s, who moreover cleaves so closely to the Lord as to become (as the apostle says) ‘one spirit’ with Him,
Chapter 25 [XXIV.]—God by His Wonderful Power Works in Our Hearts Good Dispositions of Our Will.
Now I want him to tell us whether that king of Assyria, The reading “Assyrius” is replaced in some editions by the more suitable word “Assuerus.” This “exsecrabatur cubile” seems to refer to Esther’s words in her prayer, βδελυσσομαι κοίτην ἀπεριτμητων, “I abhor the couch of the uncircumcised” (
Chapter 26 [XXV.]—The Pelagian Grace of “Capacity” Exploded. The Scripture Teaches the Need of God’s Help in Doing, Speaking, and Thinking, Alike.
Let Pelagius, therefore, cease at last to deceive both himself and others by his disputations against the grace of God. It is not on account of only one of these three See above, ch. 4. See See ch. 15 at the end.
Chapter 27 [XXVI.]—What True Grace Is, and Wherefore Given. Merits Do Not Precede Grace.
Now even Pelagius should frankly confess that this grace is plainly set forth in the inspired Scriptures; nor should he with shameless effrontery hide the fact that he has too long opposed it, but admit it with salutary regret; so that the holy Church may cease to be harassed by his stubborn persistence, and rather rejoice in his sincere conversion. Let him distinguish between knowledge and love, as they ought to be distinguished; because “knowledge puffeth up,
but love edifieth.”
Chapter 28 [XXVII.]—Pelagius Teaches that Satan May Be Resisted Without the Help of the Grace of God.
In the book which he addressed to a certain holy virgin, there is a passage which I have already mentioned, Quoted above, ch. 23 [xxii.], from the Epistola ad Demetriadem.
Chapter 29 [XXVIII.]—When He Speaks of God’s Help, He Means It Only to Help Us Do What Without It We Still Could Do.
Again, in the first book of his Defence of the Freedom of the Will, he says: “But while we have within us a free will so strong and so stedfast against sinning, which our Maker has implanted in human nature generally, still, by His unspeakable goodness, we are further defended by His own daily help.” What need is there of such help, if free will is so strong and so stedfast against sinning? But here, as before, he would have it understood that the purpose of the alleged assistance is, that that may be more easily accomplished by grace which he nevertheless supposes may be effected, less easily, no doubt, but yet actually, without grace.
Chapter 30 [XXIX.]—What Pelagius Thinks is Needful for Ease of Performance is Really Necessary for the Performance.
In like manner, in another passage of the same book, he says: “In order that men may more easily accomplish by grace that which they are commanded to do by free will.” Now, expunge the phrase “more easily,” and you leave not only a full, but also a sound sense, if it be regarded as meaning simply this: “That men may accomplish through grace what they are commanded to do by free will.” The addition of the words “more easily,” however, tacitly suggests the
possibility of accomplishing good works even without the grace of God. But such a meaning is disallowed by Him who says, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Chapter 31 [XXX.]—Pelagius and Cœlestius Nowhere Really Acknowledge Grace.
Let him amend all this, that if human infirmity has erred in subjects so profound, he may not add to the error diabolical deception and wilfulness, either by denying what he has really believed, or by maintaining what he has rashly believed, after he has once discovered, on recollecting the light of truth, that he ought never to have so believed. As for that grace, indeed, by which we are justified,—in other words, whereby “the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us,”
Chapter 32.—Why the Pelagians Deemed Prayers to Be Necessary. The Letter Which Pelagius Despatched to Pope Innocent with an Exposition of His Belief.
Now I will say nothing at present about the works of Cœlestius, or those tracts of his which Augustin again mentions a short treatise by Cœlestius produced by him at Rome in some proceedings of the church there, below, in ch. 36 (xxxiii.), and also in his work De Peccato Originali, chs. 2 and 5 (ii., v.), etc. Those acts of the Roman church were drawn up (as Augustin testifies in his Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, ii. 3, “when Cœlestius was present to answer charges laid against him”) in the time of Pope Zosimus,
A.D. 417.
Chapter 33 [XXXI.]—Pelagius Professes Nothing on the Subject of Grace Which May Not Be Understood of the Law and Teaching.
“See,” he says, “how this epistle will clear me before your Blessedness; for in it we clearly and simply declare, that we possess a free will which is unimpaired for sinning and for not sinning; [Ad peccandum et ad non peccandum integrum liberum arbitrium.—W.]
Chapter 34.—Pelagius Says that Grace is Given According to Men’s Merits. The Beginning, However, of Merit is Faith; And This is a Gratuitous Gift, Not a Recompense for Our Merits.
Then, again, whatever it is which he means by “grace,” he says is given even to Christians according to their merits, although (as I have already mentioned above In ch. 23 [xxii.]. Conditionis bonum.
Chapter 35 [XXXII.]—Pelagius Believes that Infants Have No Sin to Be Remitted in Baptism.
But Pelagius would have the reader pass from this letter to the book which states his belief. This he has made mention of to yourselves, and in it he has discoursed a good deal on points about which no question was raised as to his views. Let us, however, look simply at the subjects about which our own controversy with them is concerned. Having, then terminated a discussion which he had conducted to his heart’s content,—from the Unity of the Trinity to the resurrection of the flesh, on which nobody was questioning him,—he goes on to say: “We hold likewise one baptism, which we aver ought to be administered to infants in the same sacramental formula as it is to adults.” Well, now, you have yourselves affirmed that you heard him admit at least as much as this in your presence. What, however, is the use of his saying that the sacrament of baptism is administered to children “in the same words as it is to adults,” when our inquiry concerns the thing, not merely the words? It is a more important matter, that (as you write) with his own mouth he replied to your own question, that “infants receive baptism for the remission of sins.” For he did not say here, too, “in words of remission of sins,” but he acknowledged that they are baptized for the remission itself; and yet for all this, if you were to ask him what the sin is which he supposes to be remitted to them, he would contend that they had none whatever.
Chapter 36 [XXXIII.]—Cœlestius Openly Declares Infants to Have No Original Sin.
Who would believe that, under so clear a confession, there is concealed a contrary meaning, if Cœlestius had not exposed it? He who in that book of his, which he quoted at Rome in the ecclesiastical proceedings there, See above, ch. 32 [xxx.]; compare De Pecc. Orig. chs. 5, 6.
Chapter 37 [XXXIV.]—Pelagius Nowhere Admits the Need of Divine Help for Will and Action.
I also have read those books or writings of his which he mentions in the letter which he sent to Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, with the exception of a brief epistle which he says he sent to the holy Bishop Constantius; but I have nowhere been able to find in them that he acknowledges such a grace as helps not only that “natural capacity of willing and acting” (which according to him we possess, even when we neither will a good thing nor do it), but also the will and the action itself, by the ministration of the Holy Ghost.
Chapter 38 [XXXV.]—A Definition of the Grace of Christ by Pelagius.
“Let them read,” says he, “the epistle which we wrote about twelve years ago to that holy man Bishop Paulinus: its subject throughout in some three hundred lines is the confession of
Chapter 39 [XXXVI]—A Letter of Pelagius Unknown to Augustin.
“Let them also read,” says he, “my epistle to the holy Bishop Constantius, wherein I have—briefly no doubt, but yet plainly—conjoined the grace and help of God with man’s free will.” This epistle, as I have already stated, See above, ch. 37 [xxxiv.].
Chapter 40 [XXXVII]—The Help of Grace Placed by Pelagius in the Mere Revelation of Teaching.
“Let them read moreover” says he, “what I wrote, See above, ch. 23. Epistle to Demetrias, ch. 1.
Chapter 41.—Restoration of Nature Understood by Pelagius as Forgiveness of Sins.
In this same work he says in another passage: “Now, if even without God men show of what character they have been made by God, see what Christians have it in their power to do, whose nature has been through Christ restored to a better condition, and who are, moreover, assisted by the help of divine grace.” Epistle to Demetrias, ch. 3. Epistle to Demetrias, ch. 17.
Chapter 42 [XXXVIII.]—Grace Placed by Pelagius in the Remission of Sins and the Example of Christ.
Likewise in another place in this epistle of his he says: “Now, if even before the law, as we have already remarked, and long previous to the coming of our Lord and Saviour, some men are related to have lived righteous and holy lives; how much more worthy of belief is it that we are capable of doing this since the illumination of His coming, who have been restored by the grace of Christ, and born again into a better man? How much better than they, who lived before
the law, ought we to be, who have been reconciled and cleansed by His blood, and by His example encouraged to the perfection of righteousness!” Epistle to Demetrias, ch. 8. Epistle to Demetrias, ch. 9.
Chapter 43 [XXXIX.]—The Forgiveness of Sins and Example of Christ Held by Pelagius Enough to Save the Most Hardened Sinner.
That this, indeed, is his meaning, other words also of his show us,—not contained in this work, but in the third book of his Defence of Free Will, wherein he holds a discussion with an opponent, who had insisted on the apostle’s words when he says, “For what I would, that do I not;” By his ecclesiastici viri he refers, of course, to ecclesiastical writers who had commented on St. Paul’s doctrine. See also Augustin’s Contra duas Epistt. Pelag. i. 14 [viii.]; Contra Julianum, ii. 5 [iii.], 8 [iv.], 13 [v.], 30 [viii.]; and De Predestinatione Sanctorum, 4 [iv.].
Chapter 44 [XL.]—Pelagius Once More Guards Himself Against the Necessity of Grace.
Then, again, in the work addressed to the holy virgin, The nun Demetrias. See above, chs. 23, 28.
Chapter 45 [XLI.]—To What Purpose Pelagius Thought Prayers Ought to Be Offered.
“Let them also read,” says he, “my recent little treatise which we were obliged to publish a short while ago in defence of free will, and let them acknowledge how unfair is their determination to disparage us for a denial of grace, when we throughout almost the whole work acknowledge fully and sincerely both free will and grace.” There are four books in this treatise, all of which I read, marking such passages as required consideration, and which I proposed to discuss:
these I examined as well as I was able, before we came to that epistle of his which was sent to Rome. But even in these four books, that which he seems to regard as the grace which helps us to turn aside from evil and to do good, he describes in such a manner as to keep to his old ambiguity of language, and thus have it in his power so to explain to his followers, that they may suppose the assistance which is rendered by grace, for the purpose of helping our natural capacity, consists of
nothing else than the law and the teaching. Thus our
Chapter 46 [XLII]—Pelagius Professes to Respect the Catholic Authors.
Such are the particulars which, to the best of my ability, I have succeeded in obtaining from the writings of Pelagius, whenever he makes mention of grace. You perceive, however, that men who entertain such opinions as we have reviewed are “ignorant of God’s righteousness, and desire to establish their own,”
Chapter 47 [XLIII.]—Ambrose Most Highly Praised by Pelagius.
“The blessed Bishop Ambrose,” says he, “in whose writings the Roman faith shines forth with especial brightness, and whom the Latins have always regarded as the very flower and glory of their authors, and who has never found a foe bold enough to censure his faith or the purity of his understanding of the Scriptures.” Observe the sort as well as the amount of the praises which he bestows; nevertheless, however holy and learned he is, he is not to be compared to the
authority of the canonical Scripture. The reason of this high commendation of Ambrose lies in the circumstance, that Pelagius sees proper to quote a certain passage from his writings to prove that man is able to live without sin. See On Nature and Grace, above, ch. 74.
Chapter 48 [XLIV].—Ambrose is Not in Agreement with Pelagius.
I wish, indeed, that he would listen to the venerable bishop when, in the second book of his Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke, Book ii. c. 84, on Book vi. c. 25, on
Chapter 49 [XLV.]—Ambrose Teaches with What Eye Christ Turned and Looked Upon Peter.
That repentance, indeed, itself, which beyond all doubt is an action of the will, is wrought into action by the mercy and help of the Lord, is asserted by the blessed Ambrose in the following passage in the ninth book of the same work: “In the ninth book of the same work,” says St. Augustin. The reference, however, is to book x. of the editions, c. 89, on
Chapter 50.—Ambrose Teaches that All Men Need God’s Help.
In the same book the same St. Ambrose says again: Book x. c. 89. It is impossible to preserve the paronomasia of the original, which plays on the meaning of the names Pelagius (pelago, sea) and Petrus (petra, rock).
Chapter 51 [XLVI.]—Ambrose Teaches that It is God that Does for Man What Pelagius Attributes to Free Will.
Let him lend an ear also to the same godly bishop, who says, in the sixth book of this same book: It is the seventh book in the editions, c. 27, on
Chapter 52 [XLVII.]—If Pelagius Agrees 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.” See above, ch. 4.
Chapter 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 approbation,—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; Ambrose on St. Luke, Book i. c. 17.
Chapter 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, This work of Ambrose is no longer extant. It is again quoted by Augustin in his work, De Peccato Originali, c. 47 [xli.]; in his De Nuptiis et Concupisc. i. 40 [xxxv.]; in his Contra Julianum, i. 11 [iv.], ii. 24 [viii.]; and in his Contra duas Epist. Pelagianorum, c. 30 [xi.]. Ambrose himself mentions this work of his in his Exposition of Luke, Book ii. c. 56, on
Chapter 55 [L.]—Ambrose Witnesses that Perfect Purity is Impossible to Human Nature.
He ought, 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.” See Augustin, above, De Naturâ et Gratiâ, c. 75 [lxiii.].
Book II.
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 follower Cœlestius, 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.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Caution Needed in Attending to Pelagius’ Deliverances on Infant Baptism.
Next I beg of you, For the persons addressed, see above, in Book i. c. 1, of On the Grace of Christ. See above, On the Grace of Christ, ch. 35.
Chapter 2 [II.]—Cœlestius, on His Trial at Carthage, Refuses to Condemn His Error; The Written Statement Which He Gave to Zosimus.
Cœlestius, 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, See Concerning the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 23. Pelagius, at Diospolis, condemned this position of Cœlestius. Hence the comparative restraint of Pelagius, and the greater freedom in holding the error which is here attributed to Cœlestius.
Chapter 3 [III.]—Part of the Proceedings of the Council of Carthage Against Cœlestius.
“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, Cœlestius said: ‘I said that I was in doubt about the transmission of sin, De traduce peccati, the technical phrase to express the conveyance by birth of original sin. This Paulinus, according to Mercator (Commonit. super nomine Cœlestii), 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 Life 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 Pelagius, 23. Mercator (Commonit. adv. Hæres. Pelagii) informs us that a certain Syrian called Rufinus introduced 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 Pelagius 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.
Chapter 4.—Cœlestius Concedes Baptism for Infants, Without Affirming Original Sin.
You, of course, see that Cœlestius 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.”
Chapter 5 [V.]—Cœlestius’ Book Which Was Produced 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: See above, On the Grace of Christ, ch. 36.
Chapter 6 [VI.]—Cœlestius the Disciple is In This Work Bolder Than His Master.
Carefully observe, then, what Cœlestius has advanced so very openly, and you will discover what amount of concealment Pelagius has practised upon you. Cœlestius 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.
Chapter 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 tightly 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 of 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.”
Chapter 8 [VII.]—Cœlestius 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 far as to “promise that he would condemn all the points 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 interval 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 carry 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.
Chapter 9 [VIII.]—Pelagius Deceived the Council 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 observe what opinion was entertained about this man by the trusty Romans, whose faith deserved to be spoken of in the Lord, Albina, Pinianus, and Melania. Literally, they are here addressed as “your Love.”
Chapter 10 [IX.]—The Judgment of Innocent Respecting the Proceedings in Palestine.
Five bishops, then, of whom I was one, wrote him a letter, Epistle 177, in the collection of Augustin’s letters. Innocent’s letter occurs amongst the epistles of Augustin, letter 183. 3, 4.
Chapter 11 [X.]—How that Pelagius Deceived the Synod of Palestine.
Now I pray you carefully to observe by what evidence Pelagius is shown to have deceived his judges in Palestine, not to mention other points, on this very question of the baptism of infants, lest we should seem to any one to have used calumny and suspicion, rather than to have ascertained the certain fact, when we alleged that Pelagius concealed the opinion which Cœlestius expressed with greater frankness, while at the same time he actually entertained the same views. Now, from what has been stated above, it has been clearly seen that Cœlestius refused to condemn the assertion that “Adam’s sin injured only himself, and not the human race, and that infants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was before the transgression,” because he saw that, if he condemned these propositions, he would affirm that there was in infants a transmission of sin from Adam. When, however, it was objected to Pelagius that he was of one mind with Cœlestius on this point, he condemned the words without hesitation. I am quite aware that you have read all this before. Since, however, we are not writing this account for you alone, we proceed to transcribe the very words of the synodal acts, lest the reader should be unwilling either to turn to the record for himself, or if he does not possess it, take the trouble to procure a copy. Here, then, are the words:—
Chapter 12 [XI.]—A Portion of the Proceedings of the Synod of Palestine in the Cause of Pelagius.
“The synod said: Compare On the Proceedings of Pelagius, chs. 16, 23.
Chapter 13 [XII.]—Cœlestius the Bolder Heretic; Pelagius the More Subtle.
You see, indeed, not to mention other points, how that Pelagius pronounced his anathema against those who hold that “Adam’s sin injured only himself, and not the human race; and that infants are at their birth in the same condition in which Adam was before the transgression.” Now what else could the bishops who sat in judgment on him have possibly understood him to mean by this, but that the sin of Adam is transmitted to infants? It was to avoid making such an admission that Cœlestius refused to condemn this statement, which this man on the contrary anathematized. If, therefore, I shall show that he did not really entertain any other opinion concerning infants than that they are born without any contagion of a single sin, what difference will there remain on this question between him and Cœlestius, except this, that the one is more open, the other more reserved; the one more pertinacious, the other more mendacious; or, at any rate, that the one is more candid, the other more astute? For, the one before the church of Carthage refused to condemn what he afterwards in the church at Rome publicly confessed to be a tenet of his own; at the same time professing himself “ready to submit to correction if an error had stolen over him, considering that he was but human;” whereas the other both condemned this dogma as being contrary to the truth lest he should himself be condemned by his catholic judges, and yet kept it in reserve for subsequent defence, so that either his condemnation was a lie, or his interpretation a trick.
Chapter 14 [XIII.]—He Shows That, Even After the Synod of Palestine, Pelagius Held the Same Opinions as Cœlestius on the Subject of Original Sin.
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
Chapter 15 [XIV.]—Pelagius by His Mendacity and Deception Stole His Acquittal from the Synod in Palestine.
For my own part, however, I, as you are quite aware, and as I also stated in the book which I addressed to our venerable and aged Aurelius on the proceedings in Palestine, really felt glad that Pelagius in that answer of his had exhausted the whole of this question. See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 24.
Chapter 16 [XV.]—Pelagius’ Fraudulent and Crafty Excuses.
For what is the significance to the matter with which we now have to do of his answers to his followers, when he tells them that “the reason why he condemned the points which were objected against him, is because he himself maintains that primal sin was injurious not only to the first man, but to the whole human race, not by transmission, but by example;” in other words, not because those who have been propagated from him have derived any fault from him, but because all who afterwards have sinned, have imitated him who committed the first sin? Or when he says that “the reason why infants are not in the same state in which Adam was before the transgression, is because they are not yet able to receive the commandment, whereas he was able; and because they do not yet make use of that choice of a rational will which he certainly made use of, since otherwise no commandment would have been given to him”? How does such an exposition as this of the points alleged against him justify him in thinking that he rightly condemned the propositions, “Adam’s sin injured only himself, and not the whole race of man;” and “infants at their birth are in the self-same state in which Adam was before he sinned;” and that by the said condemnation he is not guilty of deceit in holding such opinions as are found in his subsequent writings, how that “infants are born without any evil or fault, and that there is nothing in them but what God has formed,”—no wound, in short, inflicted by an enemy?
Chapter 17.—How Pelagius Deceived His Judges.
Now, is it by making such statements as these, meeting objections which are urged in one sense with explanations which are meant in another, that he designs to prove to us that he did not deceive those who sat in judgment on him? Then he utterly fails in his purpose. In proportion to the craftiness of his explanations, was the stealthiness with which he deceived them. For, just because they were catholic bishops, when they heard the man pouring out anathemas upon those
who maintained that “Adam’s sin was
Chapter 18 [XVII.]—The Condemnation of Pelagius.
This being the case, you of course feel that episcopal councils, and the Apostolic See, and the whole Roman Church, and the Roman Empire itself, Possidius, in his Life of Augustin, ch. 18, says: “Even the most pious Emperor Honorius, upon hearing that the weighty sentence of the catholic Church of God had been pronounced against them, in pursuance of the same, determined that they should be regarded as heretics, under condemnation by his own laws.” These enactments are printed by the Benedictine editors in the second part of their Appendix.
Chapter 19.—Pelagius’ Attempt to Deceive the Apostolic See; He Inverts the Bearings of the Controversy.
But I would have you carefully observe the way in which Pelagius endeavoured by deception to overreach even the judgment of the bishop of the Apostolic See on this very question of the baptism of infants. He sent a letter to Rome to Pope Innocent of blessed memory; and when it found him not in the flesh, it was handed to the holy Pope Zosimus, and by him directed to us. In this letter he complains of being “defamed by certain persons for refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ’s redemption.” The objections, however, are not urged against them in the manner he has stated. For they neither deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, nor do they promise the kingdom of heaven to any irrespective of the redemption of Christ. As regards, therefore, his complaint of being defamed by sundry persons, he has set it forth in such terms as to be able to give a ready answer to the alleged charge against him, without injury to his own dogma. [XVIII.] The real objection against them is, that they refuse to confess that unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of the first man, and that original sin has been transmitted to them and requires to be purged by regeneration; their contention being that infants must be baptized solely for being admitted into the kingdom of heaven, as if they could only have eternal death apart from the kingdom of heaven, who cannot have eternal life without partaking of the Lord’s body and blood. This, I would have you know, is the real objection to them respecting the baptism of infants; and not as he has represented it, for the purpose of enabling himself to save his own dogmas while answering what is actually a proposition of his own, under colour of meeting an objection.
Chapter 20.—Pelagius Provides a Refuge for His Falsehood in Ambiguous Subterfuges.
And then observe how he makes his answer, how he provides in the obscure mazes of his double sense retreats for his false doctrine, quenching the truth in his dark mist of error; so that even we, on our first perusal of his words, almost rejoiced at their propriety and correctness. But the fuller discussions in his books, in which he is generally forced, in spite of all his efforts at concealment, to explain his meaning, have made even his better statements suspicious to us, lest on a closer inspection of them we should detect them to be ambiguous. For, after saying that “he had never heard even an impious heretic say this” (namely, what he set forth as the objection) “about infants,” he goes on to ask: “Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as not only to attempt to make such an affirmation, but even to be able to lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?”
Chapter 21 [XIX.]—Pelagius Avoids the Question as to Why Baptism is Necessary for Infants.
Now it is to no purpose that he says all this. He does not clear himself thereby. Not even they have ever denied the impossibility of infants entering the kingdom of heaven without baptism. But this is not the question; what we are discussing concerns the obliteration Purgatione. See above, in the preface to the treatise On the Perfection of a Righteous Man, towards the end.
Chapter 22 [XX.]—Another Instance of Pelagius’ Ambiguity.
Then, again, observe what he subjoins to the last remark: “Can any one,” says he, “forbid a second birth to an eternal and certain life, to him who has been born to this present uncertain life?” In other words: “Who is so impious as to forbid his being born again to the life which is sure and eternal, who has been born to this life of uncertainty?” When we first read these words, we supposed that by the phrase “uncertain life” he meant to designate this present temporal life; although it appeared to us that he ought rather to have called it “mortal” than “uncertain,” because it is brought to a close by certain death. But for all this, we thought that he had only shown a preference for calling this mortal life an uncertain one, because of the general view which men take that there is undoubtedly not a moment in our lives when we are free from this uncertainty. And so it happened that our anxiety about him was allayed to some extent by the following consideration, which rose almost to a proof, notwithstanding the fact of his unwillingness openly to confess that infants incur eternal death who depart this life without the sacrament of baptism. We argued: “If, as he seems to admit, eternal life can only accrue to them who have been baptized, it follows of course that they who die unbaptized incur everlasting death. This destiny, however, cannot by any means justly befall those who never in this life committed any sins of their own, unless on account of original sin.”
Chapter 23 [XXI.]—What He Means by Our Birth to an “Uncertain” Life.
Certain brethren, however, afterwards failed not to remind us that Pelagius possibly expressed himself in this way, because on this question he is represented as having his answer ready for all inquirers, to this effect: “As for infants who die unbaptized, I know indeed whither they go not; yet whither they go, I know not;” that is, I know they do not go into the kingdom of heaven. But as to whither they go, he was (and for the matter of that, still is
Dicebat, aut dicit. These two latter words are not superfluous, as some have thought; they intimate that Pelagius still clave to his error.
Chapter 24.—Pelagius’ Long Residence at Rome.
The truth indeed is, that in the book of his faith which he sent to Rome with this very letter See above, ch. 19. See above ch. 1, and On the Grace of Christ, ch. 35. See especially Book iii. chs. 2, 5, 6 [III.]. In ch. 14 [XIII.].
Chapter 25 [XXII.]—The Condemnation of Pelagius and Cœlestius.
These things, then, being as I have stated them, it is now evident that there has arisen a deadly heresy, which, with the Lord’s help, the Church by this time guards against more directly—now that those two men, Pelagius and Cœlestius, have been either offered repentance, or on their refusal been wholly condemned. They are reported, or perhaps actually proved, to be the authors of this perversion; at all events, if not the authors (as having learnt it from
others), they are yet its boasted abettors and teachers, through whose agency the heresy has advanced and grown to a wider extent. This boast, too, is made even in their own statements and writings, and in unmistakeable signs of reality, as well as in the fame which arises and grows out of all these circumstances. What, therefore, remains to be done? Must not every catholic, with all the energies wherewith the Lord endows him, confute this pestilential doctrine, and oppose it with all
vigilance; so that whenever we contend for the truth, compelled to answer, but not fond of the contest, the untaught may be instructed, and that thus the Church may be benefited by that which the enemy devised for her destruction; in accordance with that word of the apostle’s, “There must be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”?
Chapter 26 [XXIII.]—The Pelagians Maintain that Raising Questions About Original Sin Does Not Endanger the Faith.
Therefore, after the full discussion with which we have been able to rebut in writing this error of theirs, which is so inimical to the grace of God bestowed on small and great through our Lord Jesus Christ, it is now our duty to examine and explode that assertion of theirs, which in their desire to avoid the odious imputation of heresy they astutely advance, to the effect that “calling this subject into question produces no danger to the faith,”—in order that
they may appear, forsooth, if they are convicted of having deviated from it, to have erred not criminally, but only, as it were, courteously. This is far from a clear translation of the terse original: Non criminaliter, sed quasi civiliter errasse videantur. See above, ch. 3 [IV.] See above, ch. 6.
Chapter 27 [XXIII.]—On Questions Outside the Faith—What They Are, and Instances of the Same.
But he is greatly mistaken in this opinion. The questions which he supposes to be outside the faith are of a very different character from those in which, without any detriment to the faith whereby we are Christians, there exists either an ignorance of the real fact, and a consequent suspension of any fixed opinion, or else a conjectural view of the case, which, owing to the infirmity of human thought, issues in conceptions at variance with truth: as when a
question arises about the description and locality of that Paradise where God placed man whom He formed out of the ground, without any disturbance, however, of the Christian belief that there undoubtedly is such a Paradise; or as when it is asked where Elijah is at the present moment, and where Enoch—whether in this Paradise or in some other place, although we doubt not of their existing still in the same bodies in which they were born; or as when one inquires whether it was in the body or out
of the body that the apostle was caught up to the third heaven,—an inquiry, however, which betokens great lack of modesty on the part of those who would fain know what he who is the subject of the mystery itself expressly declares his ignorance of,
Chapter 28 [XXIV.]—The Heresy of Pelagius and Cœlestius Aims at the Very Foundations of Our Faith.
This is, however, in the matter of the two men by one of whom we are sold under sin,
Chapter 29.—The Righteous Men Who Lived in the Time of the Law Were for All that Not Under the Law, But Under Grace. The Grace of the New Testament Hidden Under the Old.
Death indeed reigned from Adam until Moses,
Chapter 30 [XXVI]—Pelagius and Cœlestius Deny that the Ancient Saints Were Saved by Christ.
We must not therefore divide the times, as Pelagius and his disciples do, who say that men first lived righteously by nature, then under the law, thirdly under grace,—by nature meaning all the long time from Adam before the giving of the law. “For then,” say they, “the Creator was known by the guidance of reason; and the rule of living rightly was carried written in the hearts of men, not in the law of the letter, but of nature. But men’s manners became corrupt; and then,” they say, “when nature now tarnished began to be insufficient, the law was added to it whereby as by a moon the original lustre was restored to nature after its blush was impaired. But after the habit of sinning had too much prevailed among men, and the law was unequal to the task of curing it, Christ came; and the Physician Himself, through His own self, and not through His disciples, brought relief to the malady at its most desperate development.”
Chapter 31.—Christ’s Incarnation Was of Avail to the Fathers, Even Though It Had Not Yet Happened.
By disputation of this sort, they attempt to exclude the ancient saints from the grace of the Mediator, as if the man Christ Jesus were not the Mediator between God and those men; on the ground that, not having yet taken flesh of the Virgin’s womb, He was not yet man at the time when those righteous men lived. If this, however, were true, in vain would the apostle say: “By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Chapter 32 [XXVII.]—He Shows by the Example of Abraham that the Ancient Saints Believed in the Incarnation of Christ.
For it must not be supposed that those saints of old only profited by Christ’s divinity, which was ever existent, and not also by the revelation of His humanity, which had not yet come to pass. What the Lord Jesus says, “Abraham desired to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad,” The word “thigh,”
ךְרֵיָ,
occurs in the phrase, “to come out from the thigh of any
one,” in the sense of being begotten by any one, or
descended from him, in several passages: see
Chapter 33 [XVIII.]—How Christ is Our Mediator.
Of this flesh and blood Melchizedek also, when he blessed Abram himself,
Chapter 34 [XXIX.]—No Man Ever Saved Save by Christ.
Now, whoever maintains that human nature at any period required not the second Adam for its physician, because it was not corrupted in the first Adam, is convicted as an enemy to the grace of God; not in a question where doubt or error might be compatible with soundness of belief, but in that very rule of faith which makes us Christians. How happens it, then, that the human nature, which first existed, is praised by these men as being so far less tainted with evil
manners? How is it that they overlook the fact that men were even then sunk in so many intolerable sins, that, with the exception of one man of God and his wife, and three sons and their wives, the whole world was in God’s just judgment destroyed by the flood, even as the little land of Sodom was afterwards with fire? See
Chapter 35 [XXX.]—Why the Circumcision of Infants Was Enjoined Under Pain of So Great a Punishment.
The Scripture does not inform us whether before Abraham’s time righteous men or their children were marked by any bodily or visible sign. Sacramento.
Chapter 36 [XXXI]—The Platonists’ Opinion About the Existence of the Soul Previous to the Body Rejected.
What, then, is the purport of so severe a condemnation, when no wilful sin has been committed? For it is not as certain Platonists have thought, because every such infant is thus requited in his soul for what it did of its own wilfulness previous to the present life, as having possessed previous to its present bodily state a free choice of living either well or ill; since the Apostle Paul says most plainly, that before they were born they did neither good nor
evil. Sacramenta.
Chapter 37 [XXXII.]—In What Sense Christ is Called “Sin.”
There was a change of the sacramental ordinances made after the coming of Him whose advent they prefigured; but there was no change in the Mediator’s help, who, even previous to His coming in the flesh, all along delivered the ancient members of His body by their faith in His incarnation; and in respect of ourselves too, though we were dead in sins and in the uncircumcision of our flesh, we are quickened together in Christ, in whom we are circumcised with the
circumcision not made with the hand,
Chapter 38 [XXXIII.]—Original Sin Does Not Render Marriage Evil.
But they argue thus, saying: “Is not, then, marriage an evil, and the man that is produced by marriage not God’s work?” As if the good of the married life were that disease of concupiscence with which they who know not God love their wives—a course which the apostle forbids; This translation is intended to preserve, however faintly, Augustin’s antithesis, factor est hominis and factus est homo.
Chapter 39 [XXXIV.]—Three Things Good and Laudable in Matrimony.
Marriage, therefore, is a good in all the things which are proper to the married state. And these are three: it is the ordained means of procreation, it is the guarantee Fides. Connubii sacramentum. De Bono Conjugali, 3 sqq.
Chapter 40 [XXXV.]—Marriage Existed Before Sin Was Committed. How God’s Blessing Operated in Our First Parents.
There was, however, undoubtedly marriage, even when sin had no prior existence; and for no other reason was it that woman, and not a second man, was created as a help for the man. Moreover, those words of God, “Be fruitful and multiply,”
Chapter 41 [XXXVI.]—Lust and Travail Come from Sin. Whence Our Members Became a Cause of Shame.
Granted, therefore, that we have no means of showing both that the nuptial acts of that primeval marriage were quietly discharged, undisturbed by lustful passion, and that the motion of the organs of generation, like that of any other members of the body, was not instigated by the ardour of lust, but directed by the choice of the will (which would have continued such with marriage had not the disgrace of sin intervened); still, from all that is stated in the
sacred Scriptures on divine authority, we have reasonable grounds for believing that such was the original condition of wedded life. Although, it is true, I am not told that the nuptial embrace was unattended with prurient desire; as also I do not find it on record that parturition was unaccompanied with groans and pain, or that actual birth led not to future death; yet, at the same time, if I follow the verity of the Holy Scriptures, the travail of the mother and the death of the human
offspring would never have supervened if sin had not preceded. Nor would that have happened which abashed the man and woman when they covered their loins; because in the same sacred records it is expressly written that the sin was first committed, and then immediately followed this hiding of their shame.
Chapter 42 [XXXVII.]—The Evil of Lust Ought Not to Be Ascribed to Marriage. The Three Good Results of the Nuptial Ordinance: Offspring, Chastity, and the Sacramental Union.
It is then manifest that that must not be laid to the account of marriage, even in the absence of which, marriage would still have existed. The good of marriage is not taken away by the evil, although the evil is by marriage turned to a good use. Such, however, is the present condition of mortal men, that the connubial intercourse and lust are at the same time in action; and on this account it happens, that as the lust is blamed, so also the nuptial commerce,
however lawful and honourable, is thought to be reprehensible by those persons who either are unwilling or unable to draw the distinction between them. They are, moreover, inattentive to that good of the nuptial state which is the glory of matrimony; I mean offspring, chastity, and the pledge. Sacramentum; see above, ch. 39.
Chapter 43 [XXXVIII.]—Human Offspring, Even Previous to Birth, Under Condemnation at the Very Root. Uses of Matrimony Undertaken for Mere Pleasure Not Without Venial Fault.
Where God did nothing else than by a just sentence to condemn the man who wilfully sins, together with his stock; there also, as a matter of course, whatsoever was even not yet born is justly condemned in its sinful root. In this condemned stock carnal generation holds every man; and from it nothing but spiritual regeneration liberates him. In the case, therefore, of regenerate par
Chapter 44 [XXXIX.]—Even the Children of the Regenerate Born in Sin. The Effect of Baptism.
This concupiscence of the flesh would be prejudicial, The three phrases here marked with asterisks have a more clearly expressed relation in the original: obesset, inesset, prodesset. The three phrases here marked with asterisks have a more clearly expressed relation in the original: obesset, inesset, prodesset. The three phrases here marked with asterisks have a more clearly expressed relation in the original: obesset, inesset, prodesset.
Chapter 45.—Man’s Deliverance Suited to the Character of His Captivity.
The guilt, therefore, of that corruption of which we are speaking will remain in the carnal offspring of the regenerate, until in them also it be washed away in the laver of regeneration. A regenerate man does not regenerate, but generates, sons according to the flesh; and thus he transmits to his posterity, not the condition of the regenerated, but only of the generated. Therefore, be a man guilty of unbelief, or a perfect believer, he does not in either case
beget faithful children, but sinners; in the same way that the seeds, not only of a wild olive, but also of a cultivated one, produce not cultivated olives, but wild ones. So, likewise, his first birth holds a man in that bondage from which nothing but his second birth delivers him. The devil holds him, Christ liberates him: Eve’s deceiver holds him, Mary’s Son frees him: he holds him, who approached the man through the woman; He frees him, who was born of a woman that never approached a man:
he holds him, who injected into the woman the cause of lust; He liberates him, who without any lust was conceived in the woman. The former was able to hold all men in his grasp through one; nor does any deliver them out of his power but One, whom he was unable to grasp. The very sacraments indeed of the Church, which she That is, the Church, according to one reading—concelebrat; but another reading, concelebrant, understands “the Pelagians” to be the subject of the proposition.
Chapter 46.—Difficulty of Believing Original Sin. Man’s Vice is a Beast’s Nature.
No one should feel surprise, and ask: “Why does God’s goodness create anything for the devil’s malignity to take possession of?” The truth is, God’s gift is bestowed on the seminal elements of His creature with the same bounty wherewith “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
Chapter 47 [XLI.]—Sentences from Ambrose in Favour of Original Sin.
And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, See above, De Gratiâ Christi, 49–51 (xlv., xlvi.). Ambrose’s De Exc. Sal. ii. 6. Ambrose’s De Pœnitentia, i. 2, 3. Quoted from a work by St. Ambrose, On Isaiah, not now extant. See Book ii. 56. of this Commentary on St. Luke, ch. ii.
Chapter 48.—Pelagius Rightly Condemned and Really Opposed by Ambrose.
These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that “we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.” See above, ch. 14 (xiii.). The three friends to whom these two books are addressed were pious members of the same family; Pinianus was the husband, Melania his wife, and Albina her mother.
on marriage and concupiscence.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 53,
On the Following Treatise,
“De nuptiis et concupiscentia.”
————————————
“I Addressed two books to the Illustrious Count Valerius, upon hearing that the Pelagians had brought sundry vague charges upon us—how, for instance, we condemned marriage by maintaining Original Sin. These books are entitled, On Marriage and Concupiscence. We maintain that marriage is good; and that it must not be supposed that the concupisence of the flesh, or “the law in our members which wars against the law of mind,”
advertisement to the reader on the following treatise.
————————————
On revising these two Books, which he addressed to the Count Valerius, Augustin placed them immediately after his reply to the discourse of the Arians, which was affixed to the Proceedings with Emeritus. The Donatist bishop. [This work gives an account of the meeting of the catholic bishops at Cæsarea on Sept. 20, 418, at which Emeritus was present by invitation. Cf. Smith and Wace, Dict of Christ. Biog. ii. 107.—W.] Against Two Epistles of the Pelagians, ch. 9.
Soon after its publication it began to be assailed by the Pelagians, who observed that its perusal was producing in the minds of the catholics much odium against their heresy. One of them, Julianus, Bishop of Eclanum in Italy. See below at beginning of Book ii. The great friend of Augustin.
Moreover, the Valerius whom Augustin dignifies with the title of Illustrious as well as Count, was much employed in public life—not, to be sure, in the forum, but in the field; and from this circumstance we find it difficult to accede to the opinion that supposes him to have been the same person with the Valerius who was Count of the Private Estate in the year 425, Consul in 432, and lastly Master of the Offices under Theodosius the younger in the year 434. These appointments, indeed, had no connection with military service, nor had the prefects of Theodosius anything in common with those of Honorius.
A Letter This is the 200th in the collection of Augustin’s Letters.
on augustin’s forwarding to him what he calls his first book “on marriage and concupiscence.”
————————————
To the illustrious and deservedly eminent Lord and his most dearly beloved son in the love of Christ, Valerius, Augustin sends greeting in the Lord.
1. While I was chafing at the long disappointment of receiving no acknowledgments from your Highness of the many letters which I had written to you, I all at once received three letters from your Grace,—one by the hand of my fellow bishop Vindemialis, which was not meant for me only, and two, soon afterwards, through my brother presbyter Firmus. This holy man, who is bound to me, as you may have ascertained from his own lips, by the ties of
a most intimate love, had much conversation with me about your excellence, and gave me undoubted proofs of his complete knowledge of your character “in the bowels of Christ;”
2. Now, as to your praises in Christ, or rather Christ’s praises in you, see what delight and joy it was to me to hear of them from him, who could neither deceive me because of his fidelity to me, nor be ignorant of them by reason of his friendship with you. But other testimony, which though inferior in amount and certainty has still reached my ear from divers quarters, assures me how sound and catholic is your faith; how devout your hope of the future; how great
your love to God and the brethren; how humble your mind amid the highest honours, as you do not trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, and art rich in good works;
3. Touching, however, the subject of conjugal purity, that we might be able to bestow our commendation and love upon you for it, could we possibly listen to the information of any one but some bosom friend of your own, who had no mere superficial acquaintance with you, but knew your innermost life? Concerning, therefore, this excellent gift of God to you, I am delighted to converse with you with more frankness and at greater length. I am quite sure that I shall not prove burdensome to you, even if I send you a prolix treatise, the perusal of which will only ensure a longer converse between us. For this have I discovered, that amidst your manifold and weighty cares you pursue your reading with ease and pleasure; and that you take great delight in any little performances of ours, even if they are addressed to other persons, whenever they have chanced to fall into your hands. Whatever, therefore, is addressed to yourself, in which I can speak to you as it were personally, you will deign both to notice with greater attention, and to receive with a higher pleasure. From the perusal, then, of this letter, turn to the book which I send with it. It will in its very commencement, in a more convenient manner, intimate to your Reverence the reason, both why it has been written, and why it has been submitted specially to your consideration.
on marriage and concupiscence,
In Two Books,
addressed to the count valerius
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
written in 419 and 420.
————————————
Book I. Written about the beginning of the year A.D. 419.
Wherein He expounds the peculiar and natural blessings of marriage. He shows that among these blessings must not be reckoned fleshly concupiscence; insomuch as this is wholly evil, such as does not proceed from the very nature of marriage, but is an accident thereof arising from original sin. This evil, notwithstanding, is rightly employed by marriage for the procreation of children. But, as the result of this concupiscence, it comes to pass that, even from the lawful marriage of the children of God, men are not born children of God, but of the world, and are bound with the chain of sin, although their parents have been liberated therefrom by grace; and are led captive by the devil, if they be not in like manner rescued by the self-same grace of Christ. He explains how it is that concupiscence remains in the baptized in act though not in guilt. He teaches, that by the sanctity of baptism, not merely this original guilt, but all other sins of men whatever, are taken away. He lastly quotes the authority of Ambrose to show that the evil of concupiscence must be distinguished from the good of marriage.
Chapter 1.—Concerning the Argument of This Treatise.
Our new heretics, my dearest son Valerius, who maintain that infants born in the flesh have no need of that medicine of Christ whereby sins are healed, are constantly affirming, in their excessive hatred of us, that we condemn marriage and that divine procedure by which God creates human beings by means of men and women, inasmuch as we assert that they who are born of such a union contract that original sin of which the apostle says, “By
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all sinned;” In quo omnes peccaverunt,
Chapter 2. [II.]—Why This Treatise Was Addressed to Valerius.
Now there are three very special reasons, which I will briefly indicate, why I wished to write to you particularly on this subject. One is, because by the gift of Christ you are a strict observer of conjugal chastity. Another is, because by your great care and diligence you have effectually withstood those profane novelties which we are resisting in our present discussion. The third is, because of my learning that something which they had committed to writing had
found its way into your hands; and although in your robust faith you could despise such an attempt, it is still a good thing for us also to know how to bring aid to our faith by defending it. For the Apostle Peter instructs us to be “ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason of the faith and hope that is in us;”
Chapter 3 [III.]—Conjugal Chastity the Gift of God.
That chastity in the married state is God’s gift, is shown by the most blessed Paul, when, speaking on this very subject, he says: “But I would that all men were even as I myself: but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”
Chapter 4.—A Difficulty as Regards the Chastity of Unbelievers. None But a Believer is Truly a Chaste Man. See Augustin’s work Against Julianus, iv. 3.
What, then, have we to say when conjugal chastity is discovered even in some unbelievers? Must it be said that they sin, in that they make a bad use of a gift of God, in not restoring it to the worship of Him from whom they received it? Or must these endowments, perchance, be not regarded as gifts of God at all, when they are not believers who exercise them; according to the apostle’s sentiment, when he says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin?”
Chapter 5 [IV.]—The Natural Good of Marriage. All Society Naturally Repudiates a Fraudulent Companion. What is True Conjugal Purity? No True Virginity and Chastity Except in Devotion to True Faith.
The union, then, of male and female for the purpose of procreation is the natural good of marriage. But he makes a bad use of this good who uses it bestially, so that his intention is on the gratification of lust, instead of the desire of offspring. Nevertheless, in sundry animals unendowed with reason, as, for instance, in most birds, there is both preserved a certain kind of confederation of pairs, and a social combination of skill in nest-building; and their
mutual division of the periods for cherishing their eggs and their alternation in the labor of feeding their young, give them the appearance of so acting, when they mate, as to be intent rather on securing the continuance of their kind than on gratifying lust. Of these two, the one is the likeness of man in a brute; the other, the likeness of the brute in man. With respect, however, to what I ascribed to the nature of marriage, that the male and the female are united together as associates for
procreation, and consequently do not defraud each other (forasmuch as every associated state has a natural abhorrence of a fraudulent companion), although even men without faith possess this palpable blessing of nature, yet, since they use it not in faith, they only turn it to evil and sin. In like manner, therefore, the marriage of believers converts to the use of righteousness that carnal concupiscence by which “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit.”
Chapter 6 [V.]—The Censuring of Lust is Not a Condemnation of Marriage; Whence Comes Shame in the Human Body. Adam and Eve Were Not Created Blind; Meaning of Their “Eyes Being Opened.”
Now, this being the real state of the question, they undoubtedly err who suppose that, when fleshly lust is censured, marriage is condemned; as if the malady of concupiscence was the outcome of marriage and not of sin. Were not those first spouses, whose nuptials God blessed with the words, “Be fruitful and multiply,”
Chapter 7 [VI.]—Man’s Disobedience Justly Requited in the Rebellion of His Own Flesh; The Blush of Shame for the Disobedient Members of the Body.
When the first man transgressed the law of God, he began to have another law in his members which was repugnant to the law of his mind, and he felt the evil of his own disobedience when he experienced in the disobedience of his flesh a most righteous retribution recoiling on himself. Such, then, was “the opening of his eyes” which the serpent had promised him in his temptation
Chapter 8 [VII.]—The Evil of Lust Does Not Take Away the Good of Marriage.
Forasmuch, then, as the good of marriage could not be lost by the addition of this evil, some imprudent persons suppose that this is not an added evil, but something which appertains to the original good. A distinction, however, occurs not only to subtle reason, but even to the most ordinary natural judgment, which was both apparent in the case of the first man and woman, and also holds good still in the case of married persons to-day. What they afterward effected in
propagation,—that is the good of marriage; but what they first veiled through shame,—that is the evil of concupiscence, which everywhere shuns sight, and in its shame seeks privacy. Since, therefore, marriage effects some good even out of that evil, it has whereof to glory;
Chapter 9 [VIII.]—This Disease of Concupiscence in Marriage is Not to Be a Matter of Will, But of Necessity; What Ought to Be the Will of Believers in the Use of Matrimony; Who is to Be Regarded as Using, and Not Succumbing To, the Evil of Concupiscence; How the Holy Fathers of the Old Testament Formerly Used Wives.
This disease of concupiscence is what the apostle refers to, when, speaking to married believers, he says: “This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the disease of desire, even as the Gentiles which know not God.” See
Chapter 10 [IX.]—Why It Was Sometimes Permitted that a Man Should Have Several Wives, Yet No Woman Was Ever Allowed to Have More Than One Husband. Nature Prefers Singleness in Her Dominations.
Now, if to the God of our fathers, who is likewise our God, such a plurality of wives had not been displeasing for the purpose that lust might have a fuller range of indulgence; then, on such a supposition, the holy women also ought each to have rendered service to several husbands. But if any woman had so acted, what feeling but that of a disgraceful concupiscence could impel her to have more husbands, seeing that by such licence she could not have more children?
That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more honourable precedent. In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives,—many to
each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one. Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, “The head of the woman is
the man;”
Chapter 11 [X.]—The Sacrament of Marriage; Marriage Indissoluble; The World’s Law About Divorce Different from the Gospel’s.
It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond Quoddam sacramentum. See above, On Original Sin, ch. 39 [xxxiv]. Res sacramenti.
Chapter 12 [XI.]—Marriage Does Not Cancel a Mutual Vow of Continence; There Was True Wedlock Between Mary and Joseph; In What Way Joseph Was the Father of Christ.
But God forbid that the nuptial bond should be regarded as broken between those who have by mutual consent agreed to observe a perpetual abstinence from the use of carnal concupiscence. Nay, it will be only a firmer one, whereby they have exchanged pledges together, which will have to be kept by an especial endearment and concord,—not by the voluptuous links of bodies, but by the voluntary affections of souls. For it was not deceitfully that the angel said to
Joseph: “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.” Compare
Chapter 13.—In the Marriage of Mary and Joseph There Were All the Blessings of the Wedded State; All that is Born of Concubinage is Sinful Flesh.
The entire good, therefore, of the nuptial institution was effected in the case of these parents of Christ: there was offspring, there was faithfulness, there was the bond. Sacramentum. Sacramentum.
Chapter 14 [XIII.]—Before Christ It Was a Time for Marrying; Since Christ It Has Been a Time for Continence.
Now this propagation of children which among the ancient saints was a most bounden duty for the purpose of begetting and preserving a people for God, amongst whom the prophecy of Christ’s coming must needs have had precedence over everything, now has no longer the same necessity. For from among all nations the way is open for an abundant offspring to receive spiritual regeneration, from whatever quarter they derive their natural birth. So that we may acknowledge
that the scripture which says there is “a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing,”
Chapter 15.—The Teaching of the Apostle on This Subject.
Accordingly the apostle also, speaking apparently with this passage in view, declares: “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it re
Chapter 16 [XIV.]—A Certain Degree of Intemperance is to Be Tolerated in the Case of Married Persons; The Use of Matrimony for the Mere Pleasure of Lust is Not Without Sin, But Because of the Nuptial Relation the Sin is Venial.
But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness, though not prescribed by way of commandment: So also the best mss. of the original. So again, after the best witnesses in the original. [The Latin word for “permission” is venia, which also means “indulgence,” “forbearance,” “forgiveness;” and so the sins that may be forgiven are called “venial sins,” i.e. “pardonable,” and in this sense “permissible,” sins. Augustin’s argument here turns on this word.—W.] [The Latin word for “permission” is venia, which also means “indulgence,” “forbearance,” “forgiveness;” and so the sins that may be forgiven are called “venial sins,” i.e. “pardonable,” and in this sense “permissible,” sins. Augustin’s argument here turns on this word.—W.] [The Latin word for “permission” is venia, which also means “indulgence,” “forbearance,” “forgiveness;” and so the sins that may be forgiven are called “venial sins,” i.e. “pardonable,” and in this sense “permissible,” sins. Augustin’s argument here turns on this word.—W.] [The Latin word for “permission” is venia, which also means “indulgence,” “forbearance,” “forgiveness;” and so the sins that may be forgiven are called “venial sins,” i.e. “pardonable,” and in this sense “permissible,” sins. Augustin’s argument here turns on this word.—W.]
Chapter 17 [XV.]—What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?
It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there
Chapter 18 [XVI.]—Continence Better Than Marriage; But Marriage Better Than Fornication.
Forasmuch, then, as marriage cannot be such as that of the primitive men might have been, if sin had not preceded; it may yet be like that of the holy fathers of the olden time, in such wise that the carnal concupiscence which causes shame (which did not exist in paradise previous to the fall, and after that event was not allowed to remain there), although necessarily forming a part of the body of this death, is not subservient to it, but only submits its
function, when forced thereto, for the sole purpose of assisting in the procreation of children; otherwise, since the present time (as we have already See above, ch. 14 [xiii.].
Chapter 19 [XVII.]—Blessing of Matrimony.
In matrimony, however, let these nuptial blessings be the objects of our love—offspring, fidelity, the sacramental bond. See above, ch. 11, and On Original Sin, ch. 39.
Chapter 20 [XVIII]—Why Children of Wrath are Born of Holy Matrimony.
This is the reason, indeed, why of even the just and lawful marriages of the children of God are born, not children of God, but children of the world; because also those who generate, if they are already regenerate, beget children not as chil See De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, ii. 11 [ix.].
Chapter 21 [XIX.]—Thus Sinners are Born of Righteous Parents, Even as Wild Olives Spring from the Olive.
That, therefore, which is born of the lust of the flesh is really born of the world, and not of God; but it is born of God, when it is born again of water and of the Spirit. The guilt of this concupiscence, regeneration alone remits, even as natural generation contracts it. What, then, is generated must be regenerated, in order that likewise since it cannot be otherwise, what has been contracted may be remitted. It is, no doubt, very wonderful that what has been
remitted in the parent should still be contracted in the offspring; but nevertheless such is the case. That this mysterious verity, which unbelievers neither see nor believe, might get some palpable evidence in its support, God in His providence has secured in the example of certain trees. For why should we not suppose that for this very purpose the wild olive springs from the olive? Is it not indeed credible that, in a thing which has been created for the use of mankind, the Creator provided
and appointed what should afford an instructive example, applicable to the human race? It is a wonderful thing, then, how those who have been themselves delivered by grace from the bondage of sin, should still beget those who are tied and bound by the self-same chain, and who require the same process of loosening? Yes; and we admit the wonderful fact. But that the embryo of wild olive trees should latently exist in the germs of true olives, who would deem credible, if it were not proved true by
experiment and observation? In the same manner, therefore, as a wild olive grows out of the seed of the wild olive, and from the seed of the true olive springs also nothing but a wild olive, notwithstanding the very great difference there is between the wild olive and the olive; so what is born in the flesh, either of a sinner or of a just man, is in both instances a sinner, notwithstanding the vast distinction which exists between the sinner and the righteous man. He that is begotten is no
sinner as yet in act, and is still new from his birth; but in guilt he is old. Human from the Creator, he is a captive of the destroyer, and needs a redeemer. The difficulty, however, is how a state of captivity can possibly befall the offspring, when the parents have been themselves previously redeemed from it. Now it is no easy matter to unravel this intricate point, or to explain it in a set discourse; therefore unbelievers refuse to accept it as true; just as if in that other point about
the wild olive and the olive, which we gave in illustration, any reason could be easily found, or explanation clearly given, why the self-same shoot should sprout out of so dissimilar a stock. The truth,
Chapter 22 [XX.]—Even Infants, When Unbaptized, are in the Power of the Devil; Exorcism in the Case of Infants, and Renunciation of the Devil.
Now the Christian faith unfalteringly declares, what our new heretics have begun to deny, both that they who are cleansed in the laver of regeneration are redeemed from the power of the devil, and that those who have not yet been redeemed by such regeneration are still captive in the power of the devil, even if they be infant children of the redeemed, unless they be themselves redeemed by the self-same grace of Christ. For we cannot doubt that that blessing of God
applies to every stage of human life, which the apostle describes when he says concerning Him: “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son.”
Chapter 23 [XXI.]—Sin Has Not Arisen Out of the Goodness of Marriage; The Sacrament of Matrimony a Great One in the Case of Christ and the Church—A Very Small One in the Case of a Man and His Wife.
If now we interrogate, so to speak, those goods of marriage to which we have often referred, See above, chs. 11, 19, and On Original Sin, ch. 39.
Chapter 24.—Lust and Shame Come from Sin; The Law of Sin; The Shamelessness of the Cynics.
But if, in like manner, the question be asked of the concupiscence of the flesh, how it is that acts now bring shame which once were free from shame, will not her answer be, that she only began to have existence in men’s members after sin? [XXII.] And, therefore, that the apostle designated her influence as “the law of sin,” Cynici, i.e. Κυνικοί, “dog-like.”
Chapter 25 [XXIII.]—Concupiscence in the Regenerate Without Consent is Not Sin; In What Sense Concupiscence is Called Sin.
Now this concupiscence, this law of sin which dwells in our members, to which the law of righteousness forbids allegiance, saying in the words of the apostle, “Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:”
Chapter 26.—Whatever is Born Through Concupiscence is Not Undeservedly in Subjection to the Devil by Reason of Sin; The Devil Deserves Heavier Punishment Than Men.
This wound which the devil has inflicted on the human race compels everything which has its birth in consequence of it to be under the devil’s power, as if he were rightly plucking fruit off his own tree. Not as if man’s nature, which is only of God, came from him, but sin alone, which is not of God. For it is not on its own account that man’s nature is under condemnation, because it is the work of God, and therefore laudable; but on account of that condemnable corruption by which it has been vitiated. Now it is by reason of this condemnation that it is in subjection to the devil, who is also in the same damnable state. For the devil is himself an unclean spirit: good, indeed, so far as he is a spirit, but evil as being unclean; for by nature he is a spirit, by the corruption thereof an unclean one. Of these two, the one is of God, the other of himself. His hold over men, therefore, whether of an advanced age or in infancy, is not because they are human, but because they are polluted. He, then, who feels surprise that God’s creature is a subject of the devil, should cease from such feeling. For one creature of God is in subjection to another creature of God, the less to the greater, a human being to an angelic one; and this is not owing to nature, but to a corruption of nature: polluted is the sovereign, polluted also the subject. All this is the fruit of that ancient stock of pollution which he has planted in man; himself being destined to suffer a heavier punishment at the last judgment, as being the more polluted; but at the same time even they who will have to bear a less heavy burden in that condemnation are subjects of him as the prince and author of sin, for there will be no other cause of condemnation than sin.
Chapter 27 [XXIV.]—Through Lust Original Sin is Transmitted; Venial Sins in Married Persons; Concupiscence of the Flesh, the Daughter and Mother of Sin.
Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty who are born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence, which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame. Marriage is itself “honourable in all”
Chapter 28 [XXV.]—Concupiscence Remains After Baptism, Just as Languor Does After Recovery from Disease; Concupiscence is Diminished in Persons of Advancing Years, and Increased in the Incontinent.
If the question arises, how this concupiscence of the flesh remains in the regenerate, in whose case has been effected a remission of all sins whatever; seeing that human semination takes place by its means, even when the carnal offspring of even a baptized parent is born: or, at all events, if it may be in the case of a baptized parent concupiscence and not be sin, why should this same concupiscence be sin in the offspring?—the answer to be given is this: Carnal
concupiscence is remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for sin. Although its guilt is now taken away, it still remains until our entire infirmity be healed by the advancing renewal of our inner man, day by day, when at last our outward man shall be clothed with incorruption.
Chapter 29 [XXVI.]—How Concupiscence Remains in the Baptized in Act, When It Has Passed Away as to Its Guilt.
In the case, then, of those persons who are born again in Christ, when they receive an entire remission of all their sins, it is of course necessary that the guilt also of the still indwelling concupiscence should be remitted, in order that (as I said) it should not be imputed to them for sin. For even as in the case of those sins which cannot be themselves permanent, since they pass away as soon as they are committed, the guilt yet is permanent, and (if not
remitted) will remain for evermore; so, when the concupiscence is remitted, the guilt of it also is taken away. For not to have sin means this, not to be deemed guilty of sin. If a man have (for example) committed adultery, though he do not repeat the sin, he is held to be guilty of adultery until the indulgence in guilt be itself remitted. He has the sin, therefore, remaining, although the particular act of his sin no longer exists, since it has passed away along with the time when it was
committed. For if to desist from sinning were the same thing as not to have sins, it would be sufficient if Scripture were content to give us the simple warning, “My son, hast thou sinned? Do so no more.”
Chapter 30 [XXVII.]—The Evil Desires of Concupiscence; We Ought to Wish that They May Not Be.
For the concupiscence of the flesh is in some sort active, even when it does not exhibit either an assent of the heart, where its seat of empire is, or those members whereby, as its weapons, it fulfils what it is bent on. But what in this action does it effect, unless it be its evil and shameful desires? For if these were good and lawful, the apostle would not forbid obedience to them, saying, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey
the lusts thereof.” “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion. “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion. “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion.
Chapter 31 [XXVIII.]—Who is the Man that Can Say, “It is No More I that Do It”?
A man, however, is much deceived if, while consenting to the lust of his flesh, and then both resolving in his mind to do its desires and setting about it, he supposes that he has still a right to say, “It is not I that do it,” even if he hates and loathes himself for assenting to evil desires. The two things are simultaneous in his case: he hates the thing himself because he knows that it is evil; and yet he does it, because he is bent on doing it. Now if, in
addition to all this, he proceeds to do what the Scripture forbids him, when it says, “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,”
Chapter 32.—When Good Will Be Perfectly Done.
The apostle then adds these words: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perfect that which is good I find not.”
Chapter 33 [XXX.]—True Freedom Comes with Willing Delight in God’s Law.
The apostle then repeats his former statement, the more fully to recommend its purport: “For the good,” says he, “that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now, if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” Then follows this: “I find then the law, when I would act, to be good to me; for evil is present with me.” This sharing of joy with the law of God: “Ista condelectatio legi Dei.”
Chapter 34.—How Concupiscence Made a Captive of the Apostle; What the Law of Sin Was to the Apostle.
Then, indeed, this statement, “I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind,” refers to that very concupiscence which we are now speaking of—the law of sin in our sinful flesh. But when he said, “And bringing me into captivity to the law of sin,” that is, to its own self, “which is in my members,” he either meant “bringing me into captivity,” in the sense of endeavouring to make me captive, that is, urging me to approve and accomplish
evil desire; or rather (and this opens no controversy), in the sense of leading me captive according to the flesh, and, if this is not possessed by the carnal concupiscence which he calls the law of sin, no unlawful desire—such as our mind ought not to obey—would, of course, be there to excite and disturb. The fact, however, that the apostle does not say, Bringing my flesh into captivity, but “Bringing me into captivity,” leads us to look out for some other meaning for the phrase,
and to understand the term “bringing me into captivity” as if he had said, endeavouring to make me captive. But why, after all, might he not say, “Bringing me into captivity,” and at the same time mean us to understand his flesh? Was it not spoken by one concerning Jesus, when His flesh was not found in the sepulchre: “They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him”?
Chapter 35 [XXXI.]—The Flesh, Carnal Affection.
But we have in the apostle’s own language, a little before, a sufficiently clear proof that he might have meant his flesh when he said, “Bringing me into captivity.” For after declaring, “I know that in me dwelleth no good thing,” he at once added an explanatory sentence to this effect, “That is,in my flesh.”
Chapter 36.—Even Now While We Still Have Concupiscence We May Be Safe in Christ.
But the apostle pursues the subject, and says, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin;”
Chapter 37 [XXXII.]—The Law of Sin with Its Guilt in Unbaptized Infants. By Adam’s Sin the Human Race Has Become a “Wild Olive Tree.”
Until, then, this remission of sins takes place in the offspring, they have within them the law of sin in such manner, that it is really imputed to them as sin; in other words, with that law there is attaching to them its sentence of guilt, which holds them debtors to eternal condemnation. For what a parent transmits to his carnal offspring is the condition of his own carnal birth, not that of his spiritual new birth. For, that he was born in the flesh, although
no hindrance after the remission of his guilt to his fruit, still remains hidden, as it were, in the seed of the olive, even though, because of the remission of his sins, it in no respect injures the oil—that is, in plain language, his life which he lives, “righteous by faith,” An allusion, of course, to the meaning of the word “Christ,” from Chrisma, and meaning “the Anointed One.”
Chapter 38 [XXXIII.]—To Baptism Must Be Referred All Remission of Sins, and the Complete Healing of the Resurrection. Daily Cleansing.
Blessed, therefore, is the olive tree “whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;” blessed is it “to which the Lord hath not imputed sin.”
Chapter 39 [XXXIV.]—By the Holiness of Baptism, Not Sins Only, But All Evils Whatsoever, Have to Be Removed. The Church is Not Yet Free from All Stain.
And thus not only all the sins, but all the ills of men of what kind soever, are in course of removal by the holiness of that Christian laver whereby Christ cleanses His Church, that He may present it to Himself, not in this world, but in that which is to come, as not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Now there are some who maintain that such is the Church even now, and yet they are in it. Well then, since they confess that they have some sins themselves, if they say the truth in this (and, of course, they do, as they are not free from sins), then the Church has “a spot” in them; whilst if they tell an untruth in their confession (as speaking from a double heart), then the Church has in them “a wrinkle.” If, however, they assert that it is themselves, and not the Church, which has all this, they then as good as acknowledge that they are not its members, nor belong to its body, so that they are even condemned by their own confession.
Chapter 40 [XXXV.]—Refutation of the Pelagians by the Authority of St. Ambrose, Whom They Quote to Show that the Desire of the Flesh is a Natural Good.
In respect, however, to this concupiscence of the flesh, we have striven in this lengthy discussion to distinguish it accurately from the goods of marriage. This we have done on account of our modern heretics, who cavil whenever concupiscence is censured, as if it involved a censure of marriage. Their object is to praise concupiscence as a natural good, that so they may defend their own baneful dogma, which asserts that those who are born by its means do not
contract original sin. Now the blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan, by whose priestly office I received the washing of regeneration, briefly spoke on this matter, when, expounding the prophet Isaiah, he gathered from him the nativity of Christ in the flesh: “Thus,” says the bishop, “He was both tempted in all points as a man, Pro libero arbitrio, lib. 3.
Here, then, you have my book, which, owing to its tedious length and difficult subject, it has been as troublesome for me to compose as for you to read, in those little snatches of time in which you have been able (or at least, as I suppose, have been able) to find yourself at leisure. Although it has been indeed drawn up with considerable labour amidst my ecclesiastical duties, as God has vouchsafed to give me His help, I should hardly have intruded it on your notice, with all your public cares, if I had not been informed by a godly man, who has an intimate knowledge of you, that you take such pleasure in reading as to lie awake by the hour, night after night, spending the precious time in your favourite pursuit.
preliminary notes on the second book.
————————————
(1) From the Preface of Augustin’s “Unfinished Work Against Julianus.”
I Wrote a treatise, under the title On Marriage and Concupiscence, and addressed it to the Count Valerius, on learning that he had been informed of the Pelagians that they charge us with condemning marriage. Now in that treatise I showed the distinction, as criticially and accurately as I was able, between the good of marriage and the evil of carnal concupiscence,—an evil which is well used by conjugal
chastity. On receiving my treatise, the illustrious man whom I have named sent me in a short paper In chartula. [This able and learned man was much the most formidable of the Pelagian writers. Besides this book, Augustin wrote three large works against him, the treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, and the two treatises Against Julian the last of which is usually called The Unfinished Work from the circumstance that Augustin left it incomplete at his death. Julian was a son of a dear friend of Augustin, and was himself much loved by him. He
became a “lector” in 404, and was ordained bishop by Innocent I. about 417. Under Zosimus’ vacillating policy he took strong ground on the Pelagian side, and, refusing to sign Zosimus’ Tractoria, was exiled with his seventeen fellow-recusants, and passed his long life in vain endeavours to obtain recognition for the Pelagian party. His writings included two letters to Zosimus, a Confession of Faith, the two letters answered in Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (though he
seems to have repudiated the former of these), and two large books against Augustin, the first of which was his four books against the first book of the present treatise, against extracts from which the second book was written, whilst Augustin’s Against Julian, in six books, traverses the whole work. To this second book Julian replied in a rejoinder addressed to Florus, and consisting of eight books. Augustin’s Unfinished Work is a reply to this. Julian’s character was as noble as
his energy was great and his pen acute. He stands out among his fellow-Pelagians as the sufferer for conscience’ sake. A full account of his works may be read in the Preface to Augustin’s Unfinished Work, with which may be compared the article on him in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography—W.]
(2) From Augustin’s Epistle to Claudius [CCVII.].
“Whoever has perused this second book of mine, addressed (as the first was) to the Count Valerius, and drawn up (as, indeed, both were) for his use, will have discovered that there are some points in which I have not answered Julianus, but that I meant my work rather for him who made the extracts from that writer’s books, and who did not arrange them in the order in which he found them. He deemed some considerable alteration necessary in his arrangement, very probably with the view of appropriating by this method as his own the thoughts which evidently were another person’s.”
Book II. Written A.D. 420.
Augustin, in this latter book, refutes sundry sentences which had been culled by some unknown author from the first of four books that Julianus had published in opposition to the former book of his treatise “On Marriage and Concupiscence;” which sentences had been forwarded to him at the instance of the Count Valerius. He vindicates the Catholic doctrine of original sin from his opponent’s cavils and subtleties, and particularly shows how diverse it is from the infamous heresy of the Manicheans.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Introductory Statement.
I Cannot tell you, dearly loved and honoured son Valerius, how great is the pleasure which my heart receives when I hear of your warm and earnest interest in the testimony of the word of God against the heretics; and this, too, amidst your military duties and the cares which devolve on you in the eminent position you so justly occupy, and the pressing functions, moreover, of your political life. After reading the letter of your Eminence, in which you acknowledge the book which I dedicated to you, I was roused to write this also; for you request me to attend to the statement, which my brother and fellow-bishop Alypius is commissioned to make to me, about the discussion which is being raised by the heretics over sundry passages of my book. Not only have I received this information from the narrative of my said brother, but I have also read the extracts which he produced, and which you had yourself forwarded to Rome, after his departure from Ravenna. On discovering the boastful language of our adversaries, as I could easily do in these extracts, I determined, with the help of the Lord, to reply to their taunts with all the truthfulness and scriptural authority that I could command.
Chapter 2 [II.]—In This and the Four Next Chapters He Adduces the Garbled Extracts He Has to Consider.
The paper which I now answer starts with this title: “Headings out of a book written by Augustin, in reply to which I have culled a few passages out of books.” I perceive from this that the person who forwarded these written papers to your Excellency wanted to make his extracts out of the books he does not name, with a view, so far as I can judge, to getting a quicker answer, in order that he might not delay your urgency. Now, after considering what books
they were which he meant, I suppose that it must have been those which Julianus mentioned in the Epistle he sent to Rome, See Augustin’s Unfinished Work against Julian, i. 18. This Augustin afterwards did by the publication of six book against Julianus, on receiving his entire work. Augustin tells us (Unfinished Work, i. 19) that he had long endeavoured to procure a copy of Julianus’ books for the purpose of refuting them, and only succeeded in getting them after some difficulty and delay.
Chapter 3.—The Same Continued.
The words which he has quoted and endeavoured to refute out of my book, which I sent to you, and with which you are very well acquainted, are the following: “They are constantly affirming, in their excessive hatred of us, that we condemn marriage and that divine procedure by which God creates human beings by means of men and women, inasmuch as we maintain that they who are born of such a union contract original sin, and do not deny that, of whatever parents they are
born, they are still under the devil’s dominion unless they be born again in See above, Book i. ch. 1 of this treatise.
Chapter 4.—The Same Continued.
But he has added other words of mine, where I have said: “Nor do they reflect that the good of marriage is no more impeachable by reason of the original evil which is derived therefrom, than the evil of adultery and fornication can be excused by reason of the natural good which is born of them. For as sin is the work of the devil, whether derived from this source or from that; so is man, whether born of this or that, the work of God.” Here, too, he has left out
some words, in which he was afraid of catholic ears. For to come to the words here quoted, it had previously been said by us: “Because, then, we affirm this doctrine, which is contained in the oldest and unvarying rule of the catholic faith, these propounders of novel and perverse dogmas, who deny that there is in infants any sin to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, in their unbelief or ignorance calumniate us as if we condemned marriage, and as if we asserted to be the devil’s work
what is God’s own work, to wit, the human being which is born of marriage.” Book i. of this treatise, ch. 1.
Chapter 5.—The Same Continued.
He then returns See The Unfinished Work, i. 64.
Chapter 6.—The Same Continued.
He has next adduced that passage of ours, wherein we said: “For there would have been none of this shame-producing concupiscence, which is impudently praised by impudent men, if man had not previously sinned; while as to marriage, it would still have existed, even if no man had sinned: for the procreation of children would have been effected without this disease.” Up to this point he cited my words; but he shrank from adding what comes next—“in the body of that
chaste life, although without it this cannot be done in ‘the body of this death.’” He would not complete my sentence, but mutilated it somewhat, because he dreaded the apostle’s exclamation, of which my words gave him a reminder: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Chapter 7 [III.]—Augustin Adduces a Passage Selected from the Preface of Julianus. (See “The Unfinished Work,” i. 73.)
Let us now look at those words of ours which he adduced just as it suited him, and to which he would oppose his own. For they are followed by his words; moreover, as the person insinuated who sent you the paper of extracts, he copied something out of a preface, which was no doubt the preface of the books from which he selected a few passages. The paragraph thus copied stands as follows: “The teachers of our day, most holy brother, He calls Florus “most holy father” elsewhere (see The Unfinished Work, iv. 5). This man, to whom Julianus dedicated his work, is called a colleague or fellow-bishop of Julianus by Augustin (The Unfinished Work, iii. 187). Conditor nascentium, i.e. the Maker of all men’s births. For a description of this curious mode of capture, see Dr. Smith’s Greek and Roman Antiquities, s. v. Rete. See The Unfinished Work, i. 3.
Chapter 8.—Augustin Refutes the Passage Adduced Above.
Well, now, whoever you are that have said all this, what you say is by no means true; by no means, I repeat; you are much deceived, or you aim at deceiving others. We do not deny free will; but, even as the Truth declares, “if the Son shall make you free, then shall ye be free indeed.” See The Unfinished Work, iii. 101.
Chapter 9.—The Catholics Maintain the Doctrine of Original Sin, and Thus are Far from Being Manicheans.
Listen, then, for a little while, and observe what is involved in this question. Catholics say that human nature was created good by the good God as Creator; but that, having been corrupted by sin, it needs the physician Christ. The Manicheans affirm, that human nature was not created by God good, and corrupted by sin; but that man was formed by the prince of eternal darkness of a mixture of two natures which had ever existed—one good and the other evil. The
Pelagians and Cœlestians say that human nature was created good by the good God; but that it is still so sound and healthy in infants at their birth, that they have no need at that age of Christ’s medicine. Recognise, then, your name in your dogma; and cease from intruding upon the catholics, who refute you, a name and a dogma which belong to others. For truth rejects both parties—the Manicheans and yourselves. To the Manicheans it says: “Have ye not read that He which made man at the
beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The words “in body” are added here in the text of the Benedictine edition, though it is found in almost none of the mss., because it is found in the passage as quoted in the Unfinished Work, iii. 138. This clause alludes to the Imperial edicts which Honorius issued, enacting penalties against the Pelagian heretics.
Chapter 10 [IV.]—In What Manner the Adversary’s Cavils Must Be Refuted.
Let us now look at the rest of what he has joined together in his selections. But what should be my course of proceeding? Ought I to set forth every passage of his for the purpose of answering it, or, omitting everything which the catholic faith contains, as not in dispute between us, only handle and confute those statements in which he strays away from the beaten path of truth, and endeavours to graft on catholic stems the poisonous shoots of his Pelagian heresy? This
is, no doubt, the easier course. But I suppose I must not lose sight of a possible contingency, that any one, after reading my book, without perusing all that has been alleged by him, may think that I was unwilling to bring forward the passages on which his allegations depend, and by which are shown to be truly deduced the statements which I am controverting as false. I
Chapter 11.—The Devil the Author, Not of Nature, But Only of Sin.
Now, the man who forwarded to your Love the paper in question has introduced the contents thereof with this title: “In opposition to those persons who condemn matrimony, and ascribe its fruits to the devil.” This, then, is not in opposition to us, who neither condemn matrimony, which we even commend in its order with a just commendation, nor ascribe its fruits to the devil. For the fruits of matrimony are men which are orderly engendered from it, and not the sins which accompany their birth. Human beings are not under the devil’s dominion because they are human beings, in which respect they are the fruits of matrimony; but because they are sinful, in which resides the transmission of their sins. For the devil is the author of sin, not of nature.
Chapter 12.—Eve’s Name Means Life, and is a Great Sacrament of the Church.
Now, observe the rest of the passage in which he thinks he finds, to our prejudice, what is consonant with the above-quoted title. “God,” says he, “who had framed Adam out of the dust of the ground, formed Eve out of his rib, Compare For once a difficulty occurs (for which, however, St. Augustin is not responsible) in the construction of the original. The obscure passage is here translated in accordance with a suggestion in some of the editions. It stands in the original thus: “Quorum tamen efficientiæ potentiâ operationis intervenit omne quod est eâ administrans virtute quâ condidit.” Some editors suggest “potentia” (nominative) “Dei operationis intervenit;” but there is
no ms. authority for the Dei.
Chapter 13.—The Pelagian Argument to Show that the Devil Has No Rights in the Fruits of Marriage.
After these true and catholic statements, which are, moreover, really contained in the Holy Scriptures, although they are not adduced by him in a catholic spirit, with the earnestness of a catholic mind, he loses no time in introducing to us the heresy of Pelagius and Cœlestius, for which purpose he wrote, indeed, his previous remarks. Mark carefully the following words: “You now who say, ‘We do not deny that they, are still, of whatever parents born, under the
devil’s power, unless they be born again in Christ,’ show us what the devil can recognise as his own in the sexes, by reason of which he can (to use your phrase) rightly claim as his property the fruit which they produce. Is it the difference of the sexes? But this is inherent in the bodies which God made. Is it their union? But this union is justified in the privilege of the primeval blessing no less than institution. For it is the voice of God that says, ‘A man shall leave his father
and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they two shall be one flesh.’
Chapter 14 [V.]—Concupiscence Alone, in Marriage, is Not of God.
You see the terms of his question to us: what the devil can find in the sexes to call his own, by reason of which they should be in his power, who are born of parents of whatsoever kind, unless they be born again in Christ; he asks us, moreover, whether it is the difference in the sexes which we ascribe to the devil, or their union, or their very fruitfulness. We answer, then, nothing of these qualities, inasmuch as the difference of sex belongs to “the vessels”
of the parents; while the union of the two pertains to the procreation of children; and their fruitfulness to the blessing pronounced on the marriage institution. But all these things are of God; yet amongst them he was unwilling to name that “lust of the flesh, which is not of the Father, but is of the world;”
Chapter 15.—Man, by Birth, is Placed Under the Dominion of the Devil Through Sin; We Were All One in Adam When He Sinned.
He then proceeds to ask: “Why, then, are they in the devil’s power whom God created?” And he finds an answer to his own question apparently from a phrase of mine. “Because of sin,” says he, “not because of nature.” Then framing his answer in reference to mine, he says: “But as there cannot be offspring without the sexes, so there cannot be sin without the will.” Yes, indeed, such is the truth. For even as “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
so also has death passed through to all men, for in him all have sinned.” Ambrose On Isaiah; see also his Epistle (81) to Siricius.
Chapter 16 [VI.]—It is Not of Us, But Our Sins, that the Devil is the Author.
He puts to us, then, another question, saying, “Whom, then, do you confess to be the author of infants? The true God?” I answer: This is the Benedictine reading; but another reading has “he answers,” which seems to suit the context. See the following: “again he answers.”
Chapter 17 [VII.]—The Pelagians are Not Ashamed to Eulogize Concupiscence, Although They are Ashamed to Mention Its Name.
But among so many names of good things, such as bodies, sexes, unions, he never once mentions the lust or concupiscence of the flesh. He is silent, because he is ashamed; and yet with a strange shamelessness of shame (if the expression may be used), he is not ashamed to praise what he is ashamed to mention. Now just observe how he prefers to point to his object by circumlocution rather than by direct mention of it. “After that the man,” says he, “by natural
appetite knew his wife.” See again, he refused to say, He knew his wife by carnal concupiscence; but he used the phrase, “by natural appetite,” by which it is open to us to understand that holy and honourable will which wills the procreation of children, and not that lust, of which even he is so much ashamed, forsooth, that he prefers to use ambiguous language to us, to expressing his mind in unmistakeable words. “Now what is the meaning of his phrase—“by natural appetite”? Is not both the wish
to be saved and the wish to beget, nourish, and educate children, natural appetite? and is it not likewise of reason, and not of lust? Since, however, we can ascertain his intention, we are pretty sure that he meant by these words to indicate the lust of the organs of generation. Do not the words in question appear to you to be the fig-leaves, under cover of which is hidden nothing else but that which he feels ashamed of? For just as they of old sewed the leaves together
Chapter 18.—The Same Continued.
But now, I pray you, look a little more attentively, and observe how he contrives to find a name wherewith to cover again what he blushes to unfold. “For,” says he, “Adam begot him by the power of his members, not by diversity of merits.” Now I confess I do not understand what he meant by the latter clause, not by diversity of merits; but when he said, “by the power of his members,” I believe he wished to express what he is ashamed to say openly and clearly. He preferred to use the phrase, “by the power of his members,” rather than say, “by the lust of the flesh.” Plainly—even if the thought did not occur to him—he intimated a something which has an evident application to the subject. For what is more powerful than a man’s members, when they are not in due submission to a man’s will? Even if they be restrained by temperance or continence, their use and control are not in any man’s power. Adam, then, begat his sons by what our author calls “the power of his members,” over which, before he begat them, he blushed, after his sin. If, however, he had never sinned, he would not have begotten them by the power, but in the obedience, of his members. For he would himself have had the power to rule them as subjects to his will, if he, too, by the same will had only submitted himself as a subject to a more powerful One.
Chapter 19 [VIII.]—The Pelagians Misunderstand “Seed” In Scripture.
He goes on to say: “After a while the divine Scripture says again, ‘Adam knew Eve his wife; and she bare a son, and he called his name Seth: saying, The Lord hath raised me up another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.’” He then adds: “The Divinity is said to have raised up the seed itself; as a proof that the sexual union was His appointment.” This person did not understand what the Scripture records; for he supposed that the reason why it is said, The Lord
hath raised me up another seed instead of Abel, was none other than that God might be supposed to have excited in him a desire for sexual intercourse, by means whereof seed might be raised for being poured into the woman’s womb. He was perfectly unaware that what the Scripture has said is not “Has raised me up seed” in the sense he uses, but only as meaning “Has given me a son.” Indeed, Adam did not use the words in question after his sexual intercourse, when he emitted his seed, but after his
wife’s confinement, in which he received his son by the gift of God. For what gratification is there (except perhaps for lascivious persons, and those who, as the apostle says with prohibition, “possess their vessel in the lust of concupiscence”
Chapter 20.—Original Sin is Derived from the Faulty Condition of Human Seed.
This, however, I would not say, as implying at all that we must look for some other creator than the supreme and true God, of either human seed or of man himself who comes from the seed; but as meaning, that the seed would have issued from the human being by the quiet and normal obedience of his members to his will’s command, if sin had not preceded. The question now before us does not concern the nature of human seed, but its corruption. Now the nature has
God for its author; it is from its corruption that original sin is derived. If, indeed, the seed had itself no corruption, what means that passage in the Book of Wisdom, “Not being ignorant that they were a naughty generation, and that their malice was inbred, and that their cogitation would never be changed; for their seed was accursed from the beginning”?
Chapter 21 [IX.]—It is the Good God That Gives Fruitfulness, and the Devil That Corrupts the Fruit.
What, therefore, is this man’s meaning, in the next passage, wherein he says concerning Noah and his sons, that “they were blessed, even as Adam and Eve were; for God said unto them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and have dominion over the earth’”?
Chapter 22.—Shall We Be Ashamed of What We Do, or of What God Does?
It is, however, of pleasure that this man spoke in his passage, because pleasure can be even honourable: of carnal concupiscence, or lust, which produces shame, he made no mention. In some subsequent words, however, he uncovered his susceptibility of shame; and he was unable to dissemble what nature herself has prescribed so forcibly. “There is also,” says he, “that statement: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh.’” Then after these words of God, he goes on to offer some of his own, saying: “That he might express faith in works, the prophet approached very near to a perilling of modesty.” What a confession! How clear and extorted from him by the force of truth! The prophet, it would seem, to express faith in works, almost imperilled modesty, when he said, “They twain shall become one flesh;” wishing it to be understood of the sexual union of the male and the female. Let the cause be alleged, why the prophet, in expressing the works of God, should approach so near an imperilling of modesty? Is it then the case that the works of man ought not to produce shame, but must be gloried in at all events, and that the works of God must produce shame? Is it, that in setting forth and expressing the works of God the prophet’s love or labour receives no honour, but his modesty is imperilled? What, then, was it possible for God to do, which it would be a shame for His prophet to describe? And, what is a weightier question still, could a man be ashamed of any work which not man, but God, has made in man? whereas workmen in all cases strive, with all the labour and diligence in their power, to avoid shame in the works of their own hands. The truth, however, is, that we are ashamed of that very thing which made those primitive human beings ashamed, when they covered their loins. That is the penalty of sin; that is the plague and mark of sin; that is the temptation and very fuel of sin; that is the law in our members warring against the law of our mind; that is the rebellion against our own selves, proceeding from our very selves, which by a most righteous retribution is rendered us by our disobedient members. It is this which makes us ashamed, and justly ashamed. If it were not so, what could be more ungrateful, more irreligious in us, if in our members we were to suffer confusion of face, not for our own fault or penalty, but because of the works of God?
Chapter 23 [X.]—The Pelagians Affirm that God in the Case of Abraham and Sarah Aroused Concupiscence as a Gift from Heaven.
He has much also to say, though to no purpose, concerning Abraham and Sarah, how they received a son according to the promise; and at last he mentions the word concupiscence. But
Chapter 24 [XI.]—What Covenant of God the New-Born Babe Breaks. What Was the Value of Circumcision.
But let him inform us how it was that his i.e., Isaac’s.
Chapter 25 [XII.]—Augustin Not the Deviser of Original Sin.
“This sexual connection of bodies,” he says, “together with the ardour, with the pleasure, with the emission of seed, was made by God, and is praiseworthy on its own account, and is therefore to be approved; it, moreover, became sometimes even a great gift to pious men.” He distinctly and severally repeated the phrases, “with ardour,” “with pleasure,” “with emission of seed.” He did not, however, venture to say, “with lust.” Why is this, if it be not that he is ashamed
to name what he does not blush to praise? A gift, indeed, for pious men is the prosperous propagation of children; but not that shame-producing excitement of the members, which our nature would not feel were it in a sound state, although corrupted nature now experiences it. On this account, indeed, it is that he who is born of it requires to be born again, in order that he may be a member of Christ; and that
Chapter 26 [XIII.]—The Child in No Sense Formed by Concupiscence.
But as he was speaking of Abraham and Sarah, he goes on to say: “If, indeed, you were to affirm that the natural use was strong in them, and there was no offspring, my answer will be: Whom the Creator promised, the Creator also gave; the child which is born is not the work of cohabitation, but of God. He, indeed, who made the first man of the dust, fashions all men out of seed. As, therefore, the dust of the earth, which was taken as the material, was not the author of man; so likewise that power of sexual pleasure which forms and commingles the seminal elements does not complete the entire process of man’s making, but rather presents to God, out of the treasures of nature, material with which He vouchsafes to make the human being.” Now the whole of this statement of his, except where he says, that the seminal elements are formed and commingled by sexual pleasure, would be correctly expressed by him were he only earnest in making it to defend the catholic sense. To us, however, who are fully aware what he strives to make out of it, he speaks indeed correctly in a perverse manner. The exceptional statement to the general truth, which I do not deny belongs to this passage, is untrue for this reason, because the pleasure in question of carnal concupiscence does not form the seminal elements. These are already in the body, and are formed by the same true God who created the body itself. They do not receive their existence from the libidinous pleasure, but are excited and emitted in company with it. Whether, indeed, such pleasure accompanies the commingling of the seminal elements of the two sexes in the womb, is a question which perhaps women may be able to determine from their inmost feelings; but it is improper for us to push an idle curiosity so far. That concupiscence, however, which we have to be ashamed of, and the shame of which has given to our secret members their shameful designation, pudenda, had no existence in the body during its life in paradise before the entrance of sin; but it began to exist “in the body of this death” after sin, the rebellion of the members retaliating man’s own disobedience. Without this concupiscence it was quite possible to effect the function of the wedded pair in the procreation of children: just as many a laborious work is accomplished by the compliant operation of our other limbs, without any lascivious heat; for they are simply moved by the direction of the will, not excited by the ardour of concupiscence.
Chapter 27.—The Pelagians Argue that God Sometimes Closes the Womb in Anger, and Opens It When Appeased.
Carefully consider the rest of his remarks: “This likewise,” says he, “is confirmed by the apostle’s authority. For when the blessed Paul spoke of the resurrection of the dead, he said, “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened.” The translation adopts the conjecture of the Benedictine editors: in vitium, instead of in vitio or initio, as the mss. read. See
Chapter 28 [XIV.]—Augustin’s Answer to This Argument. Its Dealing with Scripture.
Now to this lengthy statement of his we have to say in answer, that, in the passages which he has quoted from the sacred writings, there is nothing said about that shameful lust, which we say did not exist in the body of our first parents in their blessedness, when they were naked and were not ashamed. Above, ch. 26 [xiii.].
Chapter 29.—The Same Continued. Augustin Also Asserts that God Forms Man at Birth.
Though I have given special attention to the point, I have failed to discover what assistance he could obtain from this deceitful use of Scripture, except that he wanted to produce the apostle as a witness, and by him to prove, what we also assert, that God forms man of human seed. And inasmuch as no passage directly occurred to him, he deceitfully manipulated this particular one; fearing no doubt that, if the apostle should chance to seem to have spoken of corn seeds,
and not of human, in this passage, we should have suggested to us at once by such procedure of his, how to refute him: not indeed as the pure-minded advocate of a chastened will, but as the impudent proclaimer of a profligate voluptuousness. But from the very seeds, forsooth, which the farmers sow in their fields he can be refuted. For why can we not suppose that God could have granted to man in his happy state in paradise, the same course with regard to his own seed which we see granted to the
seeds of corn, in such wise that the former might be sown without any shameful lust, the members of generation simply obeying the inclination of the will; just as the latter is sown without any shameful lust, the hands of the husbandman merely moving in obedience to his will? There being, indeed, this difference, that
Chapter 30 [XV.]—The Case of Abimelech and His House Examined.
Then, again, as to the passage which he has adduced from the inspired history concerning Abimelech, and God’s choosing to close up every womb in his household that the women should not bear children, and afterwards opening them that they might become fruitful, what is all this to the point? What has it to do with that shameful concupiscence which is now the question in dispute? Did God, then, deprive those women of this feeling, and give it to them again just when He liked? The punishment however, was that they were unable to bear children, and the blessing that they were able to bear them, after the manner of this corruptible flesh. For God would not confer such a blessing upon this body of death, as only that body of life in paradise could have had before sin entered; that is, the process of conceiving without the prurience of lust, and of bearing children without excruciating pain. But why should we not suppose, since, indeed, Scripture says that every womb was closed, that this took place with something of pain, so that the women were unable to bear cohabitation, and that God inflicted this pain in His wrath, and removed it in His mercy? For if lust was to be taken away as an impediment to begetting offspring, it ought to have been taken away from the men, not from the women. For a woman might perform her share in cohabitation by her will, even if the lust ceased by which she is stimulated, provided it were not absent from the man for exciting him; unless, perhaps (as Scripture informs us that even Abimelech himself was healed), he would tell us that virile concupiscence was restored to him. If, however, it were true that he had lost this, what necessity was there that he should be warned by God to hold no connection with Abraham’s wife? The truth is, Abimelech is said to have been healed, because his household was cured of the affliction which smote it.
Chapter 31 [XVI.]—Why God Proceeds to Create Human Beings, Who He Knows Will Be Born in Sin.
Let us now look at those three clauses of his, than which three, he says, nothing more profane could possibly be uttered: “Either God did not make man, or else He made him for the devil; or, at any rate, the devil framed God’s image, that is, man.” Now, the first and the last of these sentences, even he himself must allow, if he be not reckless and perverse, were never uttered by us. The dispute is confined to that which he puts second between the other two. In
respect of this, he is so far mistaken as to suppose that we had said that God made man for the devil; as if, in the case of human beings whom God creates of human parents, His care and purpose and provision were, that by means of His workmanship the devil should have as slaves those whom he is unable to make for himself. God forbid that any sort of pious belief, however childish, should ever entertain such a sentiment as this! Of His own goodness God has made man—the first without sin, all
others under sin—for the purposes of His own profound thoughts. For just as He knew full well what to do with reference to the malice of the devil himself, and what He does is just and good, however unjust and evil he is, about whom He takes His measures; and just as He was not unwilling to create him because He foresaw that he would be evil; so in regard to the entire human race, though not a man of it is born without the taint of sin, He who is supremely good Himself is always working out
good, making some men, as it were, “vessels of mercy,” whom grace distinguishes from those who are “vessels of wrath;” whilst He makes others, as it were, “vessels of wrath,” that He may make known the riches of His glory towards the vessels of mercy.
Chapter 32 [XVII.]—God Not the Author of the Evil in Those Whom He Creates.
Then, does God feed the children of perdition, the goats on His left hand,
Chapter 33 [XVIII.]—Though God Makes Us, We Perish Unless He Re-makes Us in Christ.
From this most true and firmly-established principle of the apostolic and catholic faith the writer before us departs in company with the Pelagians. He will not have it that men are born under the dominion of the devil, lest infants be carried to Christ to be delivered from the power of darkness, and to be translated into His kingdom. There is a climax in infecerit and interfecerit.
Chapter 34 [XIX.]—The Pelagians Argue that Cohabitation Rightly Used is a Good, and What is Born from It is Good.
I request your attention now to the following words. He says, “That children, however, who are conceived in wedlock are by nature good, we may learn from the apostle’s words, when he speaks of men who, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust, men with men working together that which is disgraceful. See first chapter of the first book of this treatise.
Chapter 35 [XX.]—He Answers the Arguments of Julianus. What is the Natural Use of the Woman? What is the Unnatural Use?
My answer to this challenge is, that not only the children of wedlock, but also those of adultery, are a good work in so far as they are the work of God, by whom they are created: but as concerns original sin, they are all born under condemnation of the first Adam; not only those who are born in adultery, but likewise such as are born in wedlock, unless they be regenerated in the second Adam, which is Christ. As to what the apostle says of the wicked, that
“leaving the natural use of the woman, the men burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly;”
Chapter 36 [XXI.]—God Made Nature Good: the Saviour Restores It When Corrupted.
Now we do not reprehend bread and wine because some men are luxurious and drunkards, any more than we disapprove of gold because of the greedy and avaricious. Wherefore on the same principle we do not censure the honourable connection between husband and wife, because of the shame-causing lust of bodies. For the former would have been quite possible before any antecedent commission of sin, and by it the united pair would not have been made to blush; whereas the
latter arose after the perpetration of sin, and they were obliged to hide it, from very shame.
Chapter 37 [XXII.]—If There is No Marriage Without Cohabitation, So There is No Cohabitation Without Shame.
“Show me,” he says, “any bodily marriage without sexual connection.” I do not show him any bodily marriage without sexual connection; but then, neither does he show me any case of sexual connection which is without shame. In paradise, however, if sin had not preceded, there would not have been, indeed, generation without union of the sexes, but this union would certainly have been without shame; for in the sexual union there would have been a quiet acquiescence of
the members, not a lust of the flesh productive of shame. Matrimony, therefore, is a good, in which the human being is born after orderly conception; the fruit, too, of matrimony is good, as being the very human being which is thus born; sin, however, is an evil with which every man is born. Now it was God who made and still makes man; but “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all sinned.”
Chapter 38 [XXIII.]—Jovinian Used Formerly to Call Catholics Manicheans; The Arians Also Used to Call Catholics Sabellians.
“By your new mode of controversy,” says he, “you both profess to be a catholic and patronize Manichæus, inasmuch as you designate matrimony both as a great good and a great evil.” Now he is utterly ignorant of what he says, or pretends to be ignorant. Or else he does not understand what we say, or does not wish it to be understood. But if he does not understand, he is impeded by the pre-occupation of error; or if he does not wish our meaning to be understood, then obstinacy is the fault with which he defends his error. Jovinian, too, who endeavoured a few years ago to found a new heresy, used to declare that the catholics patronized the Manicheans, because in opposition to him they preferred holy virginity to marriage. But this man is sure to reply, that he does not agree with Jovinian in his indifference about marriage and virginity. I do not myself say that this is their opinion; still these new heretics must allow, by the fact of Jovinian’s playing off the Manicheans upon the catholics, that the expedient is not a novel one. We then declare that marriage is a good, not an evil. But just as the Arians charge us with being Sabellians, although we do not say that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same, as the Sabellians hold; but affirm that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one and the same nature, as the catholics believe: so do the Pelagians cast the Manicheans in our teeth, although we do not declare marriage to be an evil, as the Manicheans pretend, but affirm that evil accrued to the first man and woman, that is to say, to the first married pair, and from them passed on to all men, as the catholics hold. As, however, the Arians, while avoiding the Sabellians, fall into worse company, because they have had the audacity to divide not the Persons of the Trinity, but the natures; so the Pelagians, in their efforts to escape from the pestilent error of the Manicheans, by taking the opposite extreme, are convicted of entertaining worse sentiments than the Manicheans themselves touching the fruit of matrimony, inasmuch as they believe that infants stand in no need of Christ as their Physician.
Chapter 39 [XXIV.]—Man Born of Whatever Parentage is Sinful and Capable of Redemption.
He then says: “You conclude that a human being, if born of fornication, is not guilty; and if born in wedlock, is not innocent. Your assertion, therefore, amounts to this, that natural good may possibly subsist from adulterous connections, while original sin is actually derived from marriage.” Well now, he here attempts, but in vain before an intelligent reader, to give a wrong turn to words which are correct enough. Far be it from us to say, that a human being, if born
in fornication, is not guilty. But we do
Chapter 40 [XXV.]—Augustin Declines the Dilemma Offered Him.
“One of these propositions,” says he, “is true, the other false.” My reply is as brief as the allegation: Both are really true, neither is false. “It is true,” he goes on to say, “that the sin of adultery cannot be excused by reason of the man who is born of it; inasmuch as the sin which adulterers commit, pertains to corruption of the will; but the offspring which they produce tends to the praise of fecundity. If one were to sow wheat which had been stolen, the
crop which springs up is none the worse. Of course,” says he, “I blame the thief, but I praise the corn. So I pronounce him innocent who is born of the generous fruitfulness of the seed; even as the apostle puts it: ‘God giveth it a body, as it pleases Him; and to every seed its own body;’
Chapter 41 [XXVI.]—The Pelagians Argue that Original Sin Cannot Come Through Marriage If Marriage is Good.
After this he proceeds with the following words: “Certainly if evil is contracted from marriage, it may be blamed, nay, cannot be excused; and you place under the devil’s power its work and fruit, because everything which is the cause of evil is itself without good. The human being, however, who is born of wedlock owes his origin not to the reproaches of wedlock, but to its seminal elements: the cause of these, however, lies in the condition of bodies; and
whosoever makes a bad use of these bodies, deals a blow at the good desert thereof, not at their nature. It is therefore clear,” argues he, “that the good is not the cause of the evil. If, therefore,” he continues, “original evil is derived even from marriage, the cause of the evil is the compact of marriage; and that must needs be evil by which and from which the evil fruit has made its appearance; even as the Lord says in the Gospel: ‘A tree is known by its fruits.’
Chapter 42.—The Pelagians Try to Get Rid of Original Sin by Their Praise of God’s Works; Marriage, in Its Nature and by Its Institution, is Not the Cause of Sin.
I have an answer ready for all this; but before I give it, I wish the reader carefully to notice, that the result of the opinions of these persons is, that no Saviour is necessary for infants, whom they deem to be entirely without any sins to be saved from. This vast perversion of the truth, so hostile to God’s great grace, which is given through our Lord Jesus Christ, who “came to seek and to save what was lost,”
Chapter 43.—The Good Tree in the Gospel that Cannot Bring Forth Evil Fruit, Does Not Mean Marriage.
What, then, does he mean by saying, “A tree is known by its fruits,” on the ground of our reading that the Lord spake thus in the Gospel? Was, then, the Lord speaking of this question in these words, and not rather of men’s two wills, the good and the evil, calling one of these the good tree, and the other the corrupt tree, inasmuch as good works spring out of a good will, and evil ones out of an evil will—the converse being impossible, good works out of an evil
will, and evil ones out of a good will? If, however, we were to suppose marriage to be the good tree, according to the Gospel simile which he has mentioned, then, of course, we must on the other hand assume fornication to be the corrupt tree. Wherefore, if a human being is said to be the fruit of marriage, in the sense of the good fruit of a good tree, then undoubtedly a human being could never have been born in fornication. “For a corrupt tree bringeth not forth good fruit.”
Chapter 44 [XXVII.]—The Pelagians Argue that If Sin Comes by Birth, All Married People Deserve Condemnation.
What, then, is his object when he inquires of us, “By what means sin may be found in an infant, through the will, or through marriage, or through its parents”? He speaks, indeed, in such a way as if he had an answer to all these questions, and as if by clearing all of sin together he would have nothing remain in the infant whence sin could be found. I beg your attention to his very words: “Through what,” says he, “is sin found in an infant? Through the will? But there
has never been one in him? Through marriage? But this appertains to the parents’ work, of whom you had previously declared that in this action they had not sinned; though it appears from your subsequent words that you did not make this concession truly. Marriage, therefore,” he says, “must be condemned, since it furnished the cause of the evil. Yet marriage only indicates the work of personal agents. The parents, therefore, who by their coming together afforded occasion for the sin, are
properly de
Chapter 45.—Answer to This Argument: The Apostle Says We All Sinned in One.
Now, there is an answer for him to all these questions given by the apostle, who censures neither the infant’s will, which is not yet matured in him for sinning, nor marriage, which, as such, has not only its institution, but its blessing also, from God; nor parents, so far as they are parents, who are united together properly and lawfully for the procreation of children; but he says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed
upon all men for in him all have sinned.”
Chapter 46.—The Reign of Death, What It Is; The Figure of the Future Adam; How All Men are Justified Through Christ.
But what else is meant even by the apostle’s subsequent words? For after he had said the above, he added, “For until the law sin was in the world,”
Chapter 47.—The Scriptures Repeatedly Teach Us that All Sin in One.
Still let him ply his question: “By what means may sin be discovered in an infant?” He may find an answer in the inspired pages: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all sinned.” “Through the offence of one many are dead.” “The judgment was from one to condemnation.” “By one man’s offence death reigned by one.” “By the offence of one, Judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” “By one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners.”
Chapter 48.—Original Sin Arose from Adam’s Depraved Will. Whence the Corrupt Will Sprang.
“If,” says he, “sin comes from the will, it is an evil will that causes sin; if it comes from nature, then nature is evil.” I at once answer, Sin does come from the will. Perhaps he wants to know, whether original sin also? I answer, most certainly original sin also. Because it, too, was engendered from the will of the first man; so that it both existed in him, and passed on to all. As for what he next proposes, “If it comes from nature, then nature is evil,” I request
him to answer, if he can, to this effect: As it is manifest that all evil works spring from a corrupt will, like the fruits of a corrupt tree; so let him say whence arose the corrupt will itself—the corrupt tree which yields the corrupt fruits. If from an angel, what was the angel, but the good work of God? If from man, what was even he, but the good work of God? Nay, inasmuch as the corrupt will arose in the angel from an angel, and in man from man, what were both these, previous to the evil
arising within them, but the good work of God, with a good and laudable nature? Behold, then, evil arises out of good; nor was there any other source, indeed, whence it could arise, but out of good. I call that will bad which no evil has preceded; no evil works, of course, since they only proceed from an evil will, as from a corrupt tree. Nevertheless, that the evil will arose out of good, could not be, because that good was made by the good God, but because it was created out of nothing—not
out of God. What, therefore, becomes of his argument, “If nature is the work of God, it will never do for the work of the devil to permeate the work of God”? Did not the work of the devil, I ask, arise in a work of God, when it first arose in that angel who became the devil? Well, then, if evil, which was absolutely nowhere previously, could arise in a work of God, why could not evil, which had by this time found an existence somewhere, pervade the work of God; especially when the apostle uses
the very expression in the passage, “And so death passed
Chapter 49 [XXIX.]—In Infants Nature is of God, and the Corruption of Nature of the Devil.
“In a single man rightly is the intention blamed and the origin praised; because there must be two things to admit of contraries: in an infant, however, there is but one thing, nature only; because will has no existence in his case. Now this one thing,” says he, “is ascribable either to God or to the devil. If nature,” he goes on to observe, “is of God, there cannot be original evil in it. If of the devil, there will be nothing on the ground of which man may be
vindicated for the work of God. So that he is completely a Manichean who maintains original sin.” Let him hear rather what is true in opposition to all this. In a single man the will is to be blamed, and his nature to be praised; because there should be two things for the application of contraries. Still, even in an infant, it is not the case that there is but one thing only, that is, the nature in which man was created by the good God; for he has also that corruption, which has passed upon all
men by one, as the apostle wisely says, and not as the folly of Pelagius, or Cœlestius, or any of their disciples would represent the matter. Of these two things, then, which we have said exist in an infant, one is ascribed to God, the other to the devil. From the fact, however, that (owing to one of the two, even the corruption) both are subjected to the power of the devil, there really ensues no incongruity; because this happens not from the power of the devil himself, but of God. In fact,
corruption is subjected to corruption, nature to nature, because the two are even in the devil; so that whenever those who are beloved and elect are “delivered from the power of darkness”
Chapter 50.—The Rise and Origin of Evil. The Exorcism and Exsufflation of Infants, a Primitive Christian Rite.
As to the passage, which he seemed to himself to indite in a pious vein, as it were, “If nature is of God, there cannot be original sin in it,” would not another person seem even to him to give a still more pious turn to it, thus: “If nature is of God, there cannot arise any sin in it?” And yet this is not true. The Manicheans, indeed, meant to assert this, and they endeavoured to steep in all sorts of evil the very nature of God itself, and not His creature, made
out of nothing. For evil arose in nothing else than what was good—not, however, the supreme and unchangeable good which is God’s nature, but that which was made out of nothing by the wisdom of God. This, then, is the reason why man is claimed for a divine work; for he would not be man unless he were made by the operation of God. But evil would not exist in infants, if evil had not been committed by the wilfulness of the first man, and original sin derived from a nature thus corrupted. It is not
true, then, as he puts it, “He is completely a Manichean who maintains original sin;” but rather, he is completely a Pelagian who does not believe in original sin. For it is not simply from the time when the pestilent opinions of Manichæus began to grow that in the Church of God infants about to be baptized were for the first time exorcised with exsufflation,—which ceremonial was intended to show that they were not removed into the kingdom of Christ without first being delivered from the power
of darkness;
Chapter 51.—To Call Those that Teach Original Sin Manicheans is to Accuse Ambrose, Cyprian, and the Whole Church.
What, moreover, shall I say of those commentators on the divine Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic Church? They have never tried to pervert these testimonies to an alien sense, because they were firmly established in our most ancient and solid faith, and were never moved aside by the novelty of error. Were I to wish to collect these together, and to make use of their testimony, the task would both be too long, and I should probably seem to have
bestowed less preference than I ought on canonical authorities, i.e., Scripture. See Book i. of this treatise, last chapter. Ambrose On Isaiah: cited in the same Book, i. ch. 35. i.e., of martyrdom.
Chapter 52 [XXX.]—Sin Was the Origin of All Shameful Concupiscence.
“Do you,” he asks, “repeat your affirmation, ‘There would be no concupiscence if man had not first sinned; marriage, however, would have existed, even if no one had sinned’?” I never said, “There would be no concupiscence,” because there is a concupiscence of the spirit, which craves wisdom. See above, Book i. ch. 1. See On the City of God, Book xi. ch. 17.
Chapter 53 [XXXI.]—Concupiscence Need Not Have Been Necessary for Fruitfulness.
He says: “Therefore that marriage which might have been without concupiscence, without bodily motion, without necessity for sexual organs—to use your own statement—is pronounced by you to be laudable; whereas such marriages as are now enacted are, according to
Chapter 54 [XXXII.]—How Marriage is Now Different Since the Existence of Sin.
God forbid that we should say, what this man pretends we say, “Such marriages as are now enacted are the invention of the devil.” Why, they are absolutely the same marriages as God made at the very first. For this blessing of His, which He appointed for the procreation of mankind, He has not taken away even from men under condemnation, any more than He has deprived them of their senses and bodily limbs, which are no doubt His gifts, although they are condemned to
die by an already incurred retribution. This, I say, is the marriage whereof it was said (only excepting the great sacrament of Christ and the Church, which the institution prefigured): “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh.”
Chapter 55 [XXXIII.]—Lust is a Disease; The Word “Passion” In the Ecclesiastical Sense.
He then passes on from those who are united in marriage to those who are born of it. It is in relation to these that we have to encounter the most laborious discussions with the new heretics in connection with our subject. Impelled by some hidden instinct from God, he makes avowals which go far to untie the whole knot. For in his desire to raise greater odium against us, because we had said that infants are born in sin even of lawful wedlock, he makes the following observation: “You assert that they, indeed, who have not been ever born might possibly have been good; those, however, who have peopled the world, and for whom Christ died, you decide to be the work of the devil, born in a disordered state, and guilty from the beginning. Therefore,” he continues, “I have shown that you are doing nothing else than denying that God is the Creator of the men who actually exist.” I beg to say, that I declare none but God to be the Creator of all men, however true it be that all are born in sin, and must perish unless born again. It was, indeed, the sinful corruption which had been sown in them by the devil’s persuasion that became the means of their being born in sin; not the created nature of which men are composed. Shameful lust, however, could not excite our members, except at our own will, if it were not a disease. Nor would even the lawful and honourable cohabiting of husband and wife raise a blush, with avoidance of any eye and desire of secrecy, if there were not a diseased condition about it. Moreover, the apostle would not prohibit the possession of wives in this disease, did not disease exist in it. The phrase in the Greek text, ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας, is by some rendered in Latin, in morbo desiderii vel concupiscentiæ, in the disease of desire or of concupiscence; by others, however, in passione concupiscentiæ, in the passion of concupiscence; or however it is found otherwise in different copies: at any rate, the Latin equivalent passio (passion), especially in the ecclesiastical use, is usually understood as a term of censure.
Chapter 56.—The Pelagians Allow that Christ Died Even for Infants; Julianus Slays Himself with His Own Sword.
But whatever opinion he may entertain about the shame-causing concupiscence of the flesh, I must request your attention to what he has said respecting infants (and it is in their behalf that we labour), as to their being supposed to need a Saviour, if they are not to die without salvation. I repeat his words once more: “You assert,” says he to me, “that they, indeed, who have not been ever born might possibly have been good; those, however, who have peopled the
world, and for whom Christ died, you decide to be the work of the devil, born in a disordered state, and guilty from the very beginning.” Would that he only solved the entire controversy as he unties the knot of this question! For will he pretend to say that he merely spoke of adults in this passage? Why, the subject in hand is about infants, about human beings at their birth; and it is about these that he raises odium against us, because they are defined by us as guilty from the very
first, because we declare them to be guilty, since Christ died for them. And why did Christ die for them if they are not guilty? It is entirely from them, yes, from them, we shall find the reason, wherefore he thought odium should be raised against me. He asks: “How are infants guilty, for whom Christ died?” We answer: Nay, how are infants not guilty, since Christ died for them? This dispute wants a judge to determine it. Let Christ be the Judge, and let Him tell us what is the object which has
profited by His death? “This is my blood,” He says, “which shall be shed Effundetur.
Chapter 57 [XXXIV.]—The Great Sin of the First Man.
Now observe what follows, as he goes on to say: “If, before sin, God created a source from which men should be born, but the devil a source from which parents were disturbed, then beyond a doubt holiness must be ascribed to those that are born, and guilt to those that produce. Since, however, this would be a most manifest condemnation of marriage; remove, I pray you, this view from the midst of the churches, and really believe that all things were made by Jesus
Christ, and that without Him nothing was made.” Vexat. Another reading has vitiat, “corrupts.”
Chapter 58.—Adam’s Sin is Derived from Him to Every One Who is Born Even of Regenerate Parents; The Example of the Olive Tree and the Wild Olive.
But this sin, which changed man for the worse in paradise, because it is far greater than we can form any judgment of, is contracted by every one at his birth, and is remitted only in the regenerate; and this derangement is such as to be derived even from parents who have been regenerated, and in whom the sin is remitted and covered, to the condemnation of the children born of them, unless these, who were bound by their first and carnal birth, are absolved by their second and spiritual birth. Of this wonderful fact the Creator has produced a wonderful example in the cases of the olive and the wild olive trees, in which, from the seed not only of the wild olive, but even of the good olive, nothing but a wild olive springs. Wherefore, although even in persons whose natural birth is followed by regeneration through grace, there exists this carnal concupiscence which contends against the law of the mind, yet, seeing that it is remitted in the remission of sins, it is no longer accounted to them as sin, nor is it in any degree hurtful, unless consent is yielded to its motions for unlawful deeds. Their offspring, however, being begotten not of spiritual concupiscence, but of carnal, like a wild olive of our race from the good olive, derives guilt from them by natural birth to such a degree that it cannot be liberated from that pest except by being born again. How is it, then, that this man affirms that we ascribe holiness to those who are born, and guilt to their parents? when the truth rather shows that even if there has been holiness in the parents, original sin is inherent in their children, which is abolished in them only if they are born again.
Chapter 59 [XXXV.]—The Pelagians Can Hardly Venture to Place Concupiscence in Paradise Before the Commission of Sin.
This being the case, let him think what he pleases about this concupiscence of the flesh and about the lust which lords it over the unchaste, has to be mastered by the chaste, and yet is to be blushed at both by the chaste and the unchaste; for I see plainly he is much pleased with it. Let him not hesitate to praise what he is ashamed to name; let him call it (as he has in fact called it) the vigour of the members, and let him not be afraid of the honor of chaste ears;
let him designate it the power of the members, and let him not care about the impudence. Let him say, if his blushes permit him, that if no one had sinned, this vigour must have flourished like a flower in paradise; nor would there have been any need to cover that which would
Chapter 60.—Let Not the Pelagians Indulge Themselves in a Cruel Defence of Infants.
As I said, however, let him entertain what views he likes of this lust; let him proclaim it as he pleases, praise it as much as he chooses (and he pleases much, as several of his extracts show), that the Pelagians may gratify themselves, if not with its uses, at all events with its praises, as many of them as fail to enjoy the limitation of continence enjoined in wedlock. Only let him spare the infants, so as not to praise their condition uselessly, and
defend them cruelly. Let him not declare them to be safe; let him suffer them to come, not, indeed, to Pelagius for eulogy, but to Christ for salvation. For, that this book may be now brought to a termination, since the dissertation of this man is ended, which was written on the short paper you sent me, I will close with his last words: “Really believe that all things were made by Jesus Christ, and that without Him nothing was made.”
a treatise on the soul and its origin.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 56,
On the Following Treatise,
“De anima et ejus origine.”
————————————
“At that time one Vincentius discovered in the possesion of a certain presbyter called Peter, in Mauritania Cæsariensis, a little work of mine, in a particular passage of which, touching the origin of souls in individual men, I had confessed that I knew not whether they are propagated from the primeval soul of the first man, and from that by parental descent, or whether they are severally assigned to each person without propogation, as the first was to Adam; but that I was, at the same time, quite sure that the soul was not body, but spirit. In opposition to these opinions of mine, he addressed to this Peter two books, which were sent to me from Cæsarea by the monk Renatus. Having read these books, I replied in four others,—one addressed to the monk Renatus, another to the presbyter Peter, and two more to Victor himself. That to Peter, however, though it has all the lengthiness of a book, is yet only a letter, which I did not like to be kept separate from the other three works. In all of them, while discussing many points which were unavoidable, I defended my hesitancy on the point of the origin of the souls which are given to individual men; and I pointed out this man’s many errors and presumptuous pravity. At the same time, I treated the young man as gently as I could,—not as one who ought to be denounced all out of hand, but as one who ought to be still instructed; and I accepted the account of his conduct which he wrote back to me. In this work of mine, the book addressed to Renatus begins with these words: “Your sincerity towards us;” while that which was written to Peter begins thus: “To his Lordship, my dearly beloved brother and co-presbyter Peter.” Of the last two books, which are addressed to Vincentius Victor, the former one thus opens: “As to that which I have thought it my duty to write to you.”
advertisement to the reader on the following treatise.
————————————
The occasion of these four books was furnished by a young man named Vincentius Victor, a native of Mauritania Cæsariensis, a convert to the catholic Church from the Rogatian faction (which split off from the Donatist schism, and inhabited that part of Mauritania which lay around Cartenna). This Victor, they say, had previously so high an opinion of the Vincentius who succeeded Rogatus as the head of the before-mentioned faction, that he
adopted his name as his own. See below, Book iii. c. 2. See below, ii. 13, 15.
A monk called Renatus happened then to be at Cæsarea. It appears that this man had shown to Augustin, who was staying at the same place in the autumn of the year 418, a letter of the Bishop Optatus consulting him about the origin of the soul. See Augustin’s letter 190, ch. 1. See Book ii. 17. See Book i. 34.
In Book I., written to Renatus, he points out his own opinion about the nature of the soul, and his hesitation as to its origin, which had been unjustly blamed by Victor. He reproves the man’s juvenile forwardness, shows him he had fallen into grave and unheard-of errors while venturing to take upon himself the solution of a question which exceeded his abilities, and points out that he adduced only doubtful passages of Scripture, and such as were not applicable to the subject, in his endeavour to prove that souls are not propagated, but that entirely new ones are breathed by God into every man at his separate birth.
In Book II., he advises Peter not to incur the imputation of having approved of the books which had been addressed to him by Victor On the Origin of the Soul by any use he might make of them, nor to take as catholic doctrines that person’s rash utterances contrary to the Christian faith. Victor’s various and very serious errors he points out and briefly confutes, and he concludes with advising Peter himself to try to persuade Victor to correct his errors.
In Book III., which was written to Victor himself, he points out the corrections which Victor ought to make in his books if he wished to be deemed a catholic; those opinions also and paradoxes of his, which had been already refuted in the preceding books to Renatus and Peter, the author briefly censures in this third book, and classifies under eleven heads of error.
In Book IV., addressed to the same Victor, he first shows that his hesitation on the subject of the origin of souls was undeservedly blamed, and that he was wrongly compared with cattle, because he had refrained from any bold conclusions on the subject. Then again, with regard to his own unhesitating statement, that the soul was spirit, not body, he points out how rashly Victor disapproved of this assertion, especially when he was vainly expending his efforts to prove that the soul was corporeal in its own nature, and that the spirit in man was distinct from the soul itself.
A Treatise on the soul and its origin,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In Four Books,
written towards the end of 419.
————————————
Book I. Written about the end of 419.
Addressed to Renatus, the Monk.
On receiving from Renatus the two books of Vincentius Victor, who disapproved of Augustin’s opinion touching the nature of the soul, and of his hesitation in respect of its origin, Augustin points out how the young objector, in his self-conceit in aiming to decide on so abstruse a subject, had fallen into insufferable mistakes. He then proceeds to show that those passages of Scripture by which Victor thought he could prove that human souls are not derived by propagation, but are breathed by God afresh into each man at birth, are ambiguous, and inadequate for the confirmation of this opinion of his.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Renatus Had Done Him a Kindness by Sending Him the Books Which Had Been Addressed to Him.
Your sincerity towards us, dearest brother Renatus, and your brotherly kindness, and the affection of mutual love between us, we already had clear proof of; but now you have afforded us a still clearer proof, by sending me two books, written by a person whom I knew, indeed, nothing of,—though he was not on that account to be despised,—called Vincentius Victor (for in such form did I find his name placed at the head of his work): this you did in the summer of last year; but owing to my absence from home, it was the end of autumn before they found their way to me. How, indeed, would you be likely with your very great affection for me to fail either in means or inclination to bring under my notice any writings of the kind, by whomsoever composed, if they fell into your hands, even if they were addressed to some one else? How much less likely, when my own name was mentioned and read—and that in a context of gainsaying some words of mine, which I had published in certain little treatises? Now you have done all this in the way you were sure to act as my very sincere and beloved friend.
Chapter 2 [II.]—He Receives with a Kindly and Patient Feeling the Books of a Young and Inexperienced Man Who Wrote Against Him in a Tone of Arrogance. Vincentius Victor Converted from the Sect of the Rogatians.
I am somewhat pained, however, at being thus far less understood by your Holiness than I should like to be; forasmuch as you supposed that I should so receive your communication, as if you did me an injury, by making known to me what another had done. You may see, indeed, how far this feeling is from my mind, in that I have no complaint to make of having suffered [The Edinburgh translator conjectures minime dubitandam here: “on which he seemed to himself to be holding no doubtful, but a perfectly well-known and certain opinion.”—W.]
Chapter 3 [III]—The Eloquence of Vincentius, Its Dangers and Its Tolerableness.
For he has an eloquence by which he is able to explain what he thinks. He must, therefore, be dealt with accordingly; and we must hope that he may entertain right sentiments, and that he may not turn useless things into objects of desire; that he may not seem to have propounded as true whatever he may have expressed with eloquence. But in his very outspokenness he may have much to correct, and to prune of redundant verbiage. And this characteristic of his has actually given offence to you, who are a person of gravity, as your own writings indicate. This fault, however, is either easily corrected, or, if it be resorted to with fondness by light minds, and borne with by serious ones, it is not attended with any injury to their faith. For we have already amongst us men who are frothy in speech, but sound in the faith. We need not then despair that this quality even in him (it might be endurable, however, even if it proved permanent) may be tempered and cleansed—in fact, may be either extended or recalled to an entire and solid criterion; especially as he is said to be young, so that diligence may supply to him whatever defect his inexperience may possess, and ripeness of age may digest what crude loquacity finds indigestible. The troublesome, dangerous, and pernicious thing is, when folly is set off by the commendation which is accorded to eloquence, and when a poisonous draught is drunk out of a precious goblet.
Chapter 4 [IV.]—The Errors Contained in the Books of Vincentius Victor. He Says that the Soul Comes from God, But Was Not Made Either Out of Nothing or Out of Any Created Thing.
I will now proceed to point out what things are chiefly to be avoided in his contentious statement. He says that the soul was made, indeed, by God, but that it is not a portion of God or of the nature of God,—which is an entirely true statement. When, however, he refuses to allow that it is made out of nothing, and mentions no other created thing out of which it was made; and makes God its author, in such a sense that He must be supposed to have made it, neither out of
any non-existing things, that is, out of nothing, nor out of anything which exists other than God, but out of His very self: he is little aware that in the revolution of his thoughts he has come back to the position which he thinks he has avoided, even that the soul is nothing else than the nature of God; and consequently that there is an actual something made out of the nature of God by the self-same God, for the making of which the material of which He makes it is His own very self who makes
it; and that thus God’s nature is changeable, and by being changed for the worse the very nature of God Himself incurs condemnation at the hands of the self-same God! How far all this is from being fit for your intelligent faith to suppose, how alien it is from the heart of a catholic, and how much to be avoided, you can readily see. For the soul is either so made out of the breath, or God’s breath is so made into it, that it was not created out of Himself, but by Himself out of nothing. It is
not, indeed, like the case of a human being, when he breathes: he
Chapter 5 [V.]—Another of Victor’s Errors, that the Soul is Corporeal.
But as regards his contention, “that the soul is not spirit, but body,” what else can he mean to make out, than that we are composed, not of soul and body, but of two or even three bodies? For inasmuch as he says that we consist of spirit, soul and body, and asserts that all the three are bodies; it follows, that he supposes us to be made up of three bodies. How absurd this conclusion is, I think ought rather to be demonstrated to him than to you. But this is not an intolerable error on the part of a person who has not yet discovered that there is in existence a something, which, though it be not corporeal, yet may wear somewhat of the similitude of a body.
Chapter 6 [VI.]—Another Error Out of His Second Book, to the Effect, that the Soul Deserved to Be Polluted by the Body.
But he is plainly past endurance in what he says in his second book, when he endeavours to solve a very difficult question on original sin, how it belongs to body and soul, if the soul is not derived by parental descent but is breathed afresh by God into a man. Striving to explain this troublesome and profound point, he thus expresses his view: “Through the flesh the soul fitly recovers its primitive condition, which it seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh, in order that it may begin to be regenerated by the very flesh by which it had deserved to be polluted.” You observe how this person, having been so bold as to undertake what exceeds his powers, has fallen down such a precipice as to say, that the soul deserved to be defiled by the body; although he could in no wise declare whence it drew on itself this desert, before it put on flesh. For if it first had from the flesh its desert of sin, let him tell us (if he can) whence (previous to sin) it derived its desert to be contaminated by the flesh. For this desert, which projected it into sinful flesh to be polluted by it, it of course had either from itself, or, which is much more offensive to our mind, from God. It certainly could not, previous to its being invested with the flesh, have received from that flesh that ill desert by reason of which it was projected into the flesh, in order to be defiled by it. Now, if it had the ill desert from its own self, how did it get it, seeing that it did no sin previous to its assumption of flesh? But if it be alleged that it had the ill desert from God, then, I ask, who could listen to such blasphemy? Who could endure it? Who could permit it to be alleged with impunity? For the question which arises here, remember, is not, what was the ill desert which adjudged the soul to be condemned after it became incarnate, but what was its ill desert prior to the flesh, which condemned it to the investiture of the flesh, that it might be thereby polluted? Let him explain this to us, if he can, seeing that he has dared to say that the soul deserved to be defiled by the flesh.
Chapter 7 [VII.]—Victor Entangles Himself in an Exceedingly Difficult Question. God’s Foreknowledge is No Cause of Sin.
In another passage, also, on proposing for explanation the very same question in which he had entangled himself, he says, speaking in the person of certain objectors: “Why, they ask, did God inflict upon the soul so unjust a punishment as to be willing to relegate it into a body, when, by reason of its association with the flesh, that begins to be sinful which could not have been sinful?” Now, amidst the reefy sea of such a question, it was surely his duty to beware of
shipwreck; nor to commit himself to dangers which he could not hope to escape by passing over them, and where his only chance of safety lay in putting back again—in a word, by repentance. He tries to free himself by means of the foreknowledge of God, but to no purpose. For God’s foreknowledge only marks beforehand those sinners whom He purposes to heal. For if He liberates from sin those souls which He Himself involved in sin when
Chapter 8 [VIII.]—Victor’s Erroneous Opinion, that the Soul Deserved to Become Sinful.
Vainly supposing, then, that he was able to solve this question from the foreknowledge of God, he keeps floundering on, and says: “If the soul deserved to be sinful which could not have been sinful, yet neither did it remain in sin, because, as prefigured in Christ, it was not bound to be in sin, even as it was unable to be.” Now what can he mean when he says, “which could not have been sinful,” or “was unable to be in sin,” except, as I suppose, this, if it did not come into the flesh? For, of course, it could not have been sinful through original sin, or have been at all involved in original sin, except through the flesh, if it is not derived from the parent. We see it, then, liberated from sin through grace, but we do not see how it deserved to be involved in sin. What, then, is the meaning of these words of his, “If the soul deserved to be sinful, yet neither did it remain in sin”? For if I were to ask him, why it did not remain in sin, he would very properly answer, Because the grace of Christ delivered it therefrom. Since, then, he tells us how it came to pass that an infant’s soul was liberated from its sinfulness, let him further tell us how it happened that it deserved to be sinful.
Chapter 9.—Victor Utterly Unable to Explain How the Sinless Soul Deserved to Be Made Sinful.
But what does he mean by that, which in his introduction he says has befallen him? For previous to proposing that question of his, and as introducing it, he affirms: “There are other opprobrious expressions underlying the querulous murmurings of those who rail at us; and, shaken about as in a hurricane, we are again and again dashed amongst enormous rocks.” Now, if I were to express myself about him in this style, he would probably be angry. The words are his; and
after premising them, he propounded his question, by way of showing us the very rocks against which he struck and was wrecked. For to such lengths was he carried, and against such frightful reefs was he borne, drifted, and struck, that his escape was a perfect impossibility without a retreat—a correction, in short, of what he had said; since he was unable to show by what desert the soul was made sinful; though he was not afraid to say, that previous to any sin of its own it had deserved to
become sinful. Now, who deserves, without committing any sin, so immense a punishment as to be conceived in the sin of another, before leaving his mother’s womb, and then to be no longer free from sin? But from this punishment the free grace of God delivers the souls of such infants as are regenerated in Christ, with no previous merits of their own—otherwise grace is no grace.”
Chapter 10 [IX.]—Another Error of Victor’s, that Infants Dying Unbaptized May Attain to the Kingdom of Heaven. Another, that the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ Must Be Offered for Infants Who Die Before They are Baptized.
But when he wished to answer with respect, however, to those infants who are prevented by death from being first baptized in Christ, he was so bold as to promise them not only paradise, but also the kingdom of heaven,—finding no way else of avoiding the necessity of saying that God condemns to eternal death innocent souls which, without any previous desert of sin, He introduces into sinful flesh. He saw, however, to some extent what evil he was giving utterance
to, in implying that without any grace of Christ the souls of infants are redeemed to everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, and that in their case original sin may be cancelled without Christ’s baptism, in which is effected the forgiveness of sins: observing all this, and into what a depth he had plunged in his sea of shipwreck, he says, “I am of opinion that for them, indeed, constant oblations and sacrifices must be continually offered up by holy priests.” You may here behold another
danger, out of which he will never escape except by regret and a recall of his words. For who can offer up the body of Christ for any except for those who are members of Christ? Moreover, from the time when He said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;” [Augustin here confesses the validity of the “baptism of blood,” that is, martyrdom, which may take the place of baptism. See the next chapter, and also Book ii. 17.—W.]
Chapter 11.—Martyrdom for Christ Supplies the Place of Baptism. The Faith of the Thief Who Was Crucified Along with Christ Taken as Martyrdom and Hence for Baptism.
Accordingly, the thief, who was no follower of the Lord previous to the cross, but His confessor upon the cross, from whose case a presumption is sometimes taken, or attempted, against the sacrament of baptism, is reckoned by St. Cyprian Cyprian’s Letter to Jubianus. See likewise Augustin’s work Against the Donatists, iv. 29; also On Leviticus, question 84; also his Retractations, ii. 18, 55.
Chapter 12 [X.]—Dinocrates, Brother of the Martyr St. Perpetua, is Said to Have Been Delivered from the State of Condemnation by the Prayers of the Saint.
Concerning Dinocrates, however, the brother
Chapter 13 [XI.]—The Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Will Not Avail for Unbaptized Persons, and Can Not Be Offered for the Majority of Those Who Die Unbaptized.
But even if it be conceded to this man (what cannot by any means be allowed with safety to the catholic faith and the rule of the Church), that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ may be offered for unbaptized persons of every age, as if they were to be helped by this kind of piety on the part of their friends to reaching the kingdom of heaven: what will he have to say to our objections respecting the thousands of infants who are born of impious parents
and never fall, by any mercy of God or man, into the hands of pious friends, and who depart from that wretched life of theirs at their most tender age without the washing of regeneration? Let him tell us, if he only can, how it is that those souls deserved to be made sinful to such a degree as certainly never afterwards to be delivered from sin. For if I ask him why they deserve to be condemned if they are not baptized, he will rightly answer me: On account of original sin. If I then inquire
whence they derived original sin, he will answer, From sinful flesh, of course. If I go on to ask why they deserved to be condemned to a sinful flesh, seeing they had done no evil before they came in the flesh, and to be so condemned to undergo the contagion of the sin of another, that neither baptism shall regenerate them, born as they are in sin, nor sacrifices expiate them in their pollution: let him find something to reply to this! For in such circumstances and of such parents have these
infants been born, or are still being born, that it is not possible for them to be reached with such help. Here, at any rate, all argument is lacking. Our question is not, why souls have deserved to be condemned subsequently to their consorting with sinful flesh? But we ask, how it is that souls have deserved to be condemned to undergo at all this association with sinful flesh, seeing that they have no sin previous to this association. There is no room for him to say: “It was no detriment to
them that they shared for a season the contagion of another’s sin, since in the prescience of God redemption had been provided for them.” For we are now speaking of those to whom no redemption brings help, since they depart from the body before they are baptized. Nor is there any propriety in his saying: “The souls which baptism does not cleanse, the many sacrifices which are offered up for them will cleanse. God foreknew this, and willed that they should for a little while be implicated in the
sins of another without incurring eternal damnation, and with the hope of eternal happiness.” For we are now speaking of those whose birth among impious persons and of impious parents could by no possibility find such defences and helps. And even if these could be applied, they would, it is certain, be unable to benefit any who are unbaptized; just as the sacrifices which he has mentioned out of the book of the Maccabees could be of no use for the sinful dead for whom they were offered,
inasmuch as they had not been circumcised.
Chapter 14.—Victor’s Dilemma: He Must Either Say All Infants are Saved, or Else God Slays the Innocent.
Let him, then, find an answer, if he can, when the question is asked of him, why it was that the soul, without any sin whatever, either original or personal, deserved so to be condemned to undergo the original sin of another as to be unable to be delivered from it; let him see which he will choose of two alternatives: Either to say that even the souls of dying infants who depart hence without the washing of regeneration, and for whom no sacrifice of the Lord’s
body is offered, are absolved from the bond of original sin—although the apostle teaches that “from one all go into condemnation,”
Chapter 15 [XII.]—God Does Not Judge Any One for What He Might Have Done If His Life Had Been Prolonged, But Simply for the Deeds He Actually Commits.
For my own part, indeed, I affirm that neither of the alternative cases ought to be admitted, nor that third opinion which would have it that souls sinned in some other state previous to the flesh, and so deserved to be condemned to the flesh; for the apostle has most distinctly stated that “the children being not yet born, had done neither good nor evil.”
Chapter 16 [XIII.]—Difficulty in the Opinion Which Maintains that Souls are Not by Propagation.
This means, then, of settling the point whereby the soul was sent into the flesh until what time it should be delivered from the flesh,—seeing that the soul of an infant, which has not grown old enough for the will to become free, is the case supposed,—makes no discovery of the reason why condemnation should overtake it without the reception of baptism, except the reason of original sin. Owing to this sin, we do not deny that the soul is righteously condemned, because
for sin God’s righteous law has appointed punishment. But then we ask, why the soul has been made to undergo this sinful state, if it is not derived from that one primeval soul which sinned in the first father of the human race. Wherefore, if God does not condemn the innocent,—if He does not make guilty those whom He sees to be innocent,—and if nothing liberates souls from either original sins or personal ones but Christ’s baptism in Christ’s Church,—and if sins, before they are committed, and
much more when they have never been committed, cannot be condemned by any righteous law: then this writer cannot adduce any of these four cases; he must, if he can, explain, in respect to the souls of infants, which, as they quit life without baptism, are sent into condemnation, by what desert of theirs it is that they, without having ever sinned, are consigned to a sinful flesh, there to find the sin which is to secure their just condemnation. Moreover, if he shrinks from these four cases
which sound doctrine condemns,—that is to say, if he has not the courage to maintain that souls, when they are even without sin, are made sinful by God, or that they are freed from the original sin that is in them without
Chapter 17 [XIV.]—He Shows that the Passages of Scripture Adduced by Victor Do Not Prove that Souls are Made by God in Such a Way as Not to Be Derived by Propagation: First Passage.
Here, perhaps, he may say that his opinion is backed by divine authority, since he supposes that he proves by passages of the Holy Scriptures that souls are not made by God by way of propagation, but that they are by distinct acts of creation breathed afresh into each individual. Let him prove this if he can, and I will allow that I have learnt from him what I was trying to find out with great earnestness. But he must go in quest of other defences, which, perhaps,
he will not find, for he has not proved his point by the passages which he has thus far advanced. For all he has applied to the subject are to some extent undoubtedly suitable, but they afford only doubtful demonstration to the point which he raises respecting the soul’s origin. For it is certain that God has given to man breath and spirit, as the prophet testifies: “Thus saith the Lord, who made the heaven, and founded the earth, and all that is therein; who giveth breath to the people upon
it, and spirit to them that walk over it.”
Chapter 18.—By “Breath” Is Signified Sometimes the Holy Spirit.
How, again, does he know whether the repetition of the idea in the sentence, “who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it,” may not be understood of only one thing under two expressions, and may not mean, not the life or spirit whereby human nature lives, but the Holy Spirit? For if by the “breath” the Holy Ghost could not be signified, the Lord would not, when He “breathed upon” His disciples after His resurrection, have said,
“Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” [It is the parallelism of Hebrew poetry to which Augustin here appeals: and that soundly, although the interpretation of “spirit” in the passage in hand, which is suggested in the chapter, is untenable.—W.]
Chapter 19.—The Meaning of “Breath” In Scripture.
The term, however, that is used in the Greek version, πνοή, is variously rendered in Latin: sometimes by flatus, breath; sometimes by spiritus, spirit; sometimes by inspiratio, inspiration. This term occurs in the Greek editions of the passage which we are now reviewing, “Who giveth breath to the people upon it,” the word for breath being πνοή.
The passage stands in the LXX.: Καὶ διδοὺς πνοὴν τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. The LXX. text of According to the LXX., Πνοὴ δὲ παντοκράτορός ἐστιν ἡ διδάσκουσα. The words here given in brackets are suggested by the Benedictine editor. [The Latin as it stands may be translated simply: “that the prophet meant to signify in these words the soul or spirit whereby our nature lives?” and is not this better than the conjecture?—W.]
Chapter 20.—Other Ways of Taking the Passage.
There are also some persons who understand the prophet’s words, “He gave breath to the people upon it,” that is to say, upon the earth, as if the word “breath,” flatus, were simply equivalent to “soul,” anima; while they construe the next clause, “and spirit to them that walk over it,” as referring to the Holy Ghost; and they suppose that the same order is observed by the prophet that is mentioned by the apostle: “That was not first which is
spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”
Chapter 21.—The Second Passage Quoted by Victor.
On the same principle we treat the passage in which God says: “For my Spirit shall go forth from me; and I have created every breath.”
Chapter 22.—Victor’s Third Quotation.
He proceeds to favour us with a third passage, in which it is written: “Who forms the spirit of man within him.”
Chapter 23.—His Fourth Quotation.
We have read all about the mother of the Maccabean youths, who was really more fruitful in virtues when her children suffered than of children when they were born; how she exhorted them to constancy, speaking in this wise: “I cannot tell, my sons, how ye came into my womb. For it was not I who gave you spirit and soul, nor was it I that formed the members of every one of you; but it was God, who also made the world, and all things that are therein; who, moreover,
formed the generation of men; and searches the action Actum; another reading is ortum, more in accordance with the Greek γένεσιν, the meaning of which would be: “Searches the origin of all things.”
Chapter 24 [XV.]—Whether or No the Soul is Derived by Natural Descent (Ex Traduce), His Cited Passages Fail to Show.
Forasmuch, then, as the passages of Scripture which he mentions by no means show what he endeavours to enforce (since, indeed, they express nothing at all on the immediate question before us), what can be the meaning of these words of his: “We firmly maintain that the soul comes from the breath of God, not from natural generation, because it is given from God”? As if, forsooth, the body could be given from another, than from Him by whom it is created, “Of whom are
all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things;”
Chapter 25.—Just as the Mother Knows Not Whence Comes Her Child Within Her, So We Know Not Whence Comes the Soul.
How I wish that, on so profound a question, so long as he is ignorant what he should say, he would imitate the mother of the Maccabean youths! Although she knew very well that she had conceived children of her husband, and that they had been created for her by the Creator of all, both in body and in soul and spirit, yet she says, “I cannot tell, my sons, how ye came into my womb.” Well now, I only wish this man would tell us that which she was ignorant of! She, of
course, knew (on the points I have mentioned) how they came into her womb as to their bodily substance, because she could not possibly doubt that she had conceived them by her husband. She furthermore confessed—because this, too, she was, of course, well aware of—that it was God who gave them their soul and spirit, and that it was He also who formed for them their features and their limbs. What was it, then, that she was so ignorant of? Was it not probably (what we likewise are equally unable
to determine) whether the soul and spirit, which God no doubt bestowed upon them, was derived to them from their parents, or breathed into them separately as it had been into the first man? But whether it was this, or some other particular respecting the constitution of human nature, of which she was ignorant, she frankly confessed her ignorance; and did not venture to defend at random what she knew nothing about. Nor would this man say to her, what he has not been ashamed to say to us: “Man
being in honour doth not understand; he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like unto them.”
Chapter 26 [XVI.]—The Fifth Passage of Scripture Quoted by Victor.
“Learn,” says he, “for, behold the apostle teaches you.” Yes, indeed, I will learn, if the apostle teaches; since it is God alone who teaches by the apostle. But, pray, what is it which the apostle teaches? “Behold,” he adds, “how, when speaking to the men of Athens, he strongly set forth this truth, saying: ‘Seeing He giveth to all life and spirit.’” Well, who thinks of denying this? “But understand,” he says, “what it is the apostle states: He giveth; not,
He hath given. He refers us to continuous and indefinite time, and does not proclaim past and completed time. Now that which he gives without cessation, He is always giving; just as He who gives is Himself ever existent.” I have quoted his words precisely as I found them in the second of the books which you sent me. First, I beg you to notice to what lengths he has gone, while endeavouring to affirm what he knows nothing about. For he has dared to say, that God, without any cessation,
and not merely in the present time, but for ever and ever, gives souls to persons when they are born. “He is
Chapter 27 [XVII.]—Augustin Did Not Venture to Define Anything About the Propagation of the Soul.
For whence comes it that he is so careless about the Scriptures, which he talks of, as not to notice that when he reads of human beings being from God, it is not merely, as he contends, in respect of their soul and spirit, but also as regards their body? For the apostle’s statement, “We are His offspring,”
Chapter 28.—A Natural Figure of Speech Must Not Be Literally Pressed.
He goes on to remark: “But the apostle, by saying, ‘And He Himself giveth life and spirit to all,’ and then by adding the words, ‘And hath made the whole race of men of one blood,’ Another reading has “he asserts,” i.e. Augustin’s opponent, Victor.
Chapter 29 [XVIII.]—The Sixth Passage of Scripture Quoted by Victor.
Let us now look at the quotation from Genesis, where the woman was created out of the side of the man, and was brought to him, and he said: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Our opponent thinks that “Adam ought to have said, ‘Soul of my soul, or spirit of my spirit,’ if this, too, had been derived from him.” But, in fact, they who maintain the opinion of the propagation of souls feel that they possess a more impregnable defence of their
position in the fact that in the Scripture narrative which informs us that God took a rib out of the man’s side and formed it into a woman, it is not added that He breathed into her face the breath of life; for this reason, as they say, because she had already been ensouled “Animata,” possessing the “anima,” or soul. “Animata,” possessing the “anima,” or soul.
Chapter 30—The Danger of Arguing from Silence.
Now, while the disputants are thus contending with one another in alternate argument, I so judge between them that they must not rely on uncertain evidence; nor make bold assertions on points of which they are ignorant. For if the Scripture had said, “God breathed into the woman’s face the breath of life, and she became a living soul,” it would not have followed even then that the human soul is not derived by propagation from parents, except the same statement
were likewise made concerning their son. For it might have been that whilst an unensouled “Animari,” or endued with the “anima,” or soul. “Animari,” or endued with the “anima,” or soul.
Chapter 31.—The Argument of the Apollinarians to Prove that Christ Was Without the Human Soul of This Same Sort.
Although, then, this question remains unsolved
Chapter 32 [XIX.]—The Self-Contradiction of Victor as to the Origin of the Soul.
Under these circumstances, I find that this treatise of mine must now be closed. It contains, in fact, all that seemed to me chiefly necessary to the subject under discussion. They who peruse its contents will know how to be on their guard against agreeing with the person whose two books you sent me, so as not to believe with him, that souls are produced by the breath of God in such wise as not to be made out of nothing. The man, indeed, who supposes this, however much he may in words deny the conclusion, does in reality affirm that souls have the substance of God, and are His offspring, not by endowment, but by nature. For from whomsoever a man derives the origin of his nature, from him, in all sober earnestness, it must needs be admitted, that he also derives the kind of his nature. But this author is, after all, self-contradictory: at one time he says that “souls are the offspring of God,—not, indeed, by nature, but by endowment;” and at another time he says, that “they are not made out of nothing, but derive their origin from God.” Thus he does not hesitate to refer them to the nature of God, a position which he had previously denied.
Chapter 33.—Augustin Has No Objection to the Opinion About the Propagation of Souls Being Refuted, and that About Their Insufflation Being Maintained.
As for the opinion, that new souls are created by inbreathing without being propagated, we certainly do not in the least object to its maintenance,—only let it be by persons who have succeeded in discovering some new evidence, either in the canonical Scriptures, in the shape of unambiguous testimony towards the solution of a most knotty question, or else in their own reasonings, such as shall not be opposed to catholic truth, but not by such persons as this man has shown himself to be. Unable to find anything worth saying, and at the same time unwilling to suspend his disputatious propensity, without measuring his strength at all, in order to avoid saying nothing, he boldly affirmed that “the soul deserved to be polluted by the flesh,” and that “the soul deserved to become sinful;” though previous to its incarnation he was unable to discover any merit in it, whether good or evil. Moreover, that “in infants departing from the body without baptism original sin may be remitted, and that the sacrifice of Christ’s body must be offered for them,” who have not been incorporated into Christ through His sacraments in His Church, and that “they, quitting this present life without the laver of regeneration, not only can go to rest, but can even attain to the kingdom of heaven.” He has propounded a good many other absurdities, which it would be evidently tedious to collect together, and to consider in this treatise. If the doctrine of the propagation of souls is false, may its refutation not be the work of such disputants; and may the defence of the rival principle of the insufflation of new souls in every creative act, proceed from better hands.
Chapter 34.—The Mistakes Which Must Be Avoided by Those Who Say that Men’s Souls are Not Derived from Their Parents, But are Afresh Inbreathed by God in Every Instance.
All, therefore, who wish to maintain that new souls are rightly said to be breathed into persons at their birth, and not derived from their parents, must by all means be cautious on each of the four points which I have already mentioned. That is to say, do not let them affirm that souls become sinful by another’s original sin; do not let them affirm that infants who died unbaptized can possibly reach eternal life and the kingdom of heaven by the remission of original sin in any other way whatever; do not let them affirm that souls had sinned in some other place previous to their incarnation, and that on this account they were forcibly introduced into sinful flesh; nor let them affirm that the sins which were not actually found in them were, because they were foreknown, deservedly punished, although they were never permitted to reach that life where they could be committed. Provided that they affirm none of these points, because each of them is simply false and impious, they may, if they can, produce any conclusive testimonies of the Holy Scriptures on this question; and they may maintain their own opinion, not only without any prohibition from me, but even with my approbation and best thanks. If, however, they fail to discover any very decided authority on the point in the divine oracles, and are obliged to propound any one of the four opinions by reason of their failure, let them restrain their imagination, lest they should be driven in their difficulty to enunciate the now damnable and very recently condemned heresy of Pelagius, to the effect that the souls of infants have not original sin. It is, indeed, better for a man to confess his ignorance of what he knows nothing about, than either to run into heresy which has been already condemned, or to found some new heresy, while recklessly daring to defend over and over again opinions which only display his ignorance. This man has made some other absurd mistakes, indeed many, in which he has wandered out of the beaten track of truth, without going, however, to dangerous lengths; and I would like, if the Lord be willing, to write even to himself something on the subject of his books; and probably I shall point them all out to him, or a good many of them if I should be unable to notice all.
Chapter 35 [XX.]—Conclusion.
As for this present treatise, which I have thought it proper to address to no other person in preference to yourself, who have taken a kindly and true interest both in our common faith and my character, as a true catholic and a good friend, you will give it to be read or copied by any persons you may be able to find interested in the subject, or may deem worthy to be trusted. In it I have thought proper to repress and confute the presumption of this young man, in such a way,
however, as to show that I love him, wishing him to be amended rather than condemned, and to make such progress in the great house which is the catholic Church, whither the divine compassion has conducted him, that he may be therein “a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work,”
Book II.
In the Shape of a Letter Addressed to the Presbyter Peter.
He advises Peter not to incur the imputation of having approved of the books which had been addressed to him by Victor on the origin of the soul, by any use he might make of them, nor to take as Catholic doctrines that person’s rash utterances contrary to the Christian faith. Victor’s various errors, and those, too, of a very serious character, he points out and briefly confutes; and he concludes with advising Peter himself to try to persuade Victor to amend his errors.
To his Lordship, my dearly beloved brother and fellow-presbyter Peter, Augustin, bishop, sendeth greeting in the Lord.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Depraved Eloquence an Injurious Accomplishment.
There have reached me the two books of Vincentius Victor, which he addressed in writing to your Holiness; they have been forwarded to me by our brother Renatus, a layman indeed, but a person who has a prudent and religious care about the faith both of himself and of all he loves. On reading these books, I saw that their author was a man of great resources in speech, of which he had enough, and more than enough; but that on the subjects of which he wished to teach, he was as yet insufficiently instructed. If, however, by the gracious gift of the Lord this qualification were also conferred upon him, he would be serviceable to many. For he possesses in no slight degree the faculty of explaining and beautifying what he thinks; all that is wanted is, that he should first take care to think rightly. Depraved eloquence is a hurtful accomplishment; for to persons of inadequate information it always carries the appearance of truth in its readiness of speech. I know not, indeed, how you received his books; but if I am correctly informed, you are said, after reading them, to have been so greatly overjoyed, that you (though an elderly man and a presbyter) kissed the face of this youthful layman, and thanked him for having taught you what you had been previously ignorant of. Now, in this conduct of yours I do not disapprove of your humility; indeed, I rather commend it; for it was not the man whom you praised, but the truth itself which deigned to speak to you through him: only I wish you were able to point out to me what was the truth which you received through him. I should, therefore, be glad if you would show me, in your answer to this letter, what it was he taught you. Be it far from me to be ashamed to learn from a presbyter, since you did not blush to be instructed by a layman, in proclaiming and imitating your humble conduct, if the lessons were only true in which you received instruction.
Chapter 2 [II.]—He Asks What the Great Knowledge is that Victor Imparts.
Therefore, brother greatly beloved, I desire to know what you learned of him, in order that, if I have already possessed the knowledge, I may participate in your joy; but if I happen to be ignorant, I may be instructed by you. Did you not then understand that there are two somethings, soul and spirit, according as it is said in Scripture, “Thou wilt separate my soul from my spirit”?
Chapter 3.—The Difference Between the Senses of the Body and Soul.
Again, I wonder whether this man taught you the difference between the bodily senses and the sensibilities of the soul; and whether you, who were a person of considerable age and position before you took lessons of this man, used to consider to be one and the same that faculty by which white and black are distinguished, which sparrows even see as well as ourselves, and that by which justice and injustice are discriminated, which Tobit also perceived even after he
lost the sight of his eyes.
Chapter 4.—To Believe the Soul is a Part of God is Blasphemy.
And if you happened to suppose, before receiving the instruction from this teacher, which you are rejoicing to have received, that the human soul is a portion of God’s nature, then you were ignorant how false and terribly dangerous this opinion was. And if you only were taught by this person that the soul is not a portion of God, then I bid you thank God as earnestly as you can that you were not taken away out of the body before learning so important a lesson. For you would have quitted life a great heretic and a terrible blasphemer. However, I never could have believed this of you, that a man who is both a catholic and a presbyter of no contemptible position like yourself, could by any means have thought that the soul’s nature is a portion of God. I therefore cannot help expressing to your beloved self my fears that this man has by some means or other taught you that which is decidedly opposed to the faith which you were holding.
Chapter 5 [III.]—In What Sense Created Beings are Out of God.
Now, just because I do not suppose that you, a member of the catholic Church, ever believed the human soul to be a portion of God, or that the soul’s nature is in any degree identical with God’s, I have some apprehension lest you may have been induced to fall in with this man’s opinion, that “God did not make the soul from nothing, but that the soul is so far out of Him as to have emanated from Him.” For he has put out such a statement as this, with his other opinions,
which have led him out of the usual track on this subject to a huge precipice. Now, if he has taught you this, I do not want you to teach it to me; nay, I should wish you to unlearn what you have been taught. For it is not enough to avoid believing and saying that the soul is a part of God. We do not even say that the Son or the Holy Ghost is a part of God, although we affirm that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all of one and the same nature. It is not, then, enough for us to
avoid saying that the soul is a part of God, but it is of indispensable importance that we should say that the soul and God are not of one and the self-same nature. This person is therefore right in declaring that “souls are God’s offspring, not by nature, but by gift;” and then, of course, not the souls of all men, but of the faithful. But afterwards he returned to the statement from which he had shrunk, and affirmed that God and the soul are of the same nature—not, indeed, in so many words,
but plainly and manifestly to such a purport. For when he says that the soul is out of God, in such a manner that God created it not out of any other nature, nor out of nothing, but out of His own self, what would he have us believe but the very thing which he denies, in other words, even that the soul is of the self-same nature as God Himself is? For every nature is either God, who has no author; or out of God, as having Him for its Author. But the nature which has for its author God, out of
whom it comes, is either not made, or made. Now, that nature which is not made and yet is out of Him, is either begotten by Him or proceeds from Him. That which is begotten is His only Son,
Chapter 6.—Shall God’s Nature Be Mutable, Sinful, Impious, Even Eternally Damned.
All this, however, I am saying to a catholic: advising with him rather than teaching him. For I do not suppose that these things are new to you; or that they have been long heard of by you, but not believed. This epistle of mine, you will, I am sure, so read as to recognise in its statement your own faith also, which is by the gracious gift of the Lord the common property of us all in the catholic Church. Since, then (as I was saying), I am now speaking to a
catholic, whence I pray you tell me, do you suppose that the soul, I will not say your soul or my own soul, but the soul of the first man, was given to him? If you admit that it came from nothing, made, however, and inbreathed into him by God, then your belief tallies with my own. If, on the contrary, you suppose that it came out of some other created thing, which served as the material, as it were, for the divine Artificer to make the soul out of, just as the dust was the material of which
Adam was formed, or the rib whence Eve was made, or the waters whence the fishes and the fowls were created, or the ground out of which the terrestrial animals were formed: then this opinion is not catholic, nor is it true. But further, if you think, which may God forbid, that the divine Creator made, or is still making, human souls neither out of nothing, nor out of some other created thing, but out of His own self, that is, out of His own nature, then you have learnt this of your new
instructor; but I cannot congratulate you, or flatter you, on the discovery. You have wandered along with him very far from the catholic faith. Better would it be, though it would be untrue, yet it would be better, I say, and more tolerable, that you should believe the soul to have been made out of some other created substance which God had already formed, than out of God’s own uncreated substance, so that what is mutable, and sinful, and impious, and if persistent to the end in the impiety
will have to suffer eternal damnation, should not with horrible blasphemy be referred to the nature of God! Away, brother, I beseech you, away with this, I will not call it faith, but execrably impious error. May God avert from you, a man of gravity and a presbyter, the misery of being seduced by a youthful layman; and, while supposing that your opinion is the catholic faith, of being lost from the number of the faithful. For I must not deal with you as I might with him; nor does this
tremendous error, when yours, deserve the same indulgence as being that of this young man, although you may have derived it from him. He has but just now found his way to the catholic fold to get healing and safety; See below in ch. 14 [x.].
Chapter 7.—To Think the Soul Corporeal an Error.
But if you say to me, He has not taught me this; nor have I by any means given my assent to this erroneous opinion of his, however much I was enchanted by the sweetness of his eloquent and elegant discourse; then I earnestly thank God. Still I cannot help asking, why, even with kisses, as the report goes, you expressed your gratitude to him for having taught you what you were ignorant of, previous to hearing his discussion. Now if it be a false report which makes you to
have done and said so much, then I beg you to be kind enough to give me this assurance, that the idle rumour may be stopped by your own written authority. If, however, it is true that you bestowed your thanks with such humility upon this man, I should rejoice, indeed, if he has not taught you to believe the opinion which I have already pointed out as a detestable one, and to be carefully avoided as such. Nor shall I find fault [IV.] if your humble thanks to your instructor were further earned
by your having acquired from discussions with him some other true and Dilectio tua.
Chapter 8.—The Thirst of the Rich Man in Hell Does Not Prove the Soul to Be Corporeal.
Now with regard to the point, which with perfect propriety and great soundness of view he believes, that souls after quitting the body are judged, before they come to that final judgment to which they must submit when their bodies are restored to them, and are either tormented or glorified in the very same flesh wherein they once lived here on earth; is it, let me ask you, the case that you were really ignorant of this? Who ever had his mind so obstinately set
against the gospel as not to hear these truths, and after hearing to believe them, in the parable of the poor man who was carried away after death to Abraham’s bosom, and of the rich man who is set forth as suffering torment in hell? See
Chapter 9 [V.]—How Could the Incorporeal God Breathe Out of Himself a Corporeal Substance?
In that he believes God to be truly incorporeal, I congratulate him that herein, at all events, he has kept himself uninfluenced by the ravings of Tertullian. For he insisted, that as the soul is corporeal, so likewise is God. See Tertullian’s treatise On the Soul in The Ante-Nicene Christian Fathers, vol. iii. p. 181 sq. See also Augustin, On Heresies, 86, and Epistles, No. 190.
Chapter 10 [VI.]—Children May Be Found of Like or of Unlike Dispositions with Their Parents.
Then, again, how ineptly he labours to free the soul, which he supposes to be corporeal, from the passions of the body, raising questions about the soul’s infancy; about the soul’s emotions, when paralysed and oppressed; about the amputation of bodily limbs, without cutting or dividing the soul. But in dealing with such points as these, my duty is to treat rather with him than with you; it is for him to labour to assign a reason for all he says. In this way we
shall not seem to wish to be too importunate with an elderly man’s gravity on the subject of a young man’s work. As to the similarity of disposition to the parents which is discovered in their children, he does not dispute its coming from the soul’s seed. Accordingly, this is the opinion also of those persons who do away with the soul’s propagation; but the opposite party who entertain this theory do not place on this the weight of their assertion. For they observe also that children are unlike
their parents in disposition; and the reason of this, as they suppose, is, that one and the same person very often has various dispositions himself, unlike each other,—not, of course, that he has received another soul, but that his life has undergone a change for the better or for the worse. So they say that there is no impossibility in a soul’s not possessing the same disposition which he had by whom it was propagated, seeing that the selfsame soul may have different dispositions at different
times. If, therefore, you think that you have learnt this of him, that the soul does not come to us by natural transmission at birth,—I only wish that you had discovered from him the truth of the case,—I would with the greatest pleasure resign myself to your hands to learn the whole truth. But really to learn is one thing, and to seem to yourself to have learned is another thing. If, then, you suppose that you have learned what you still are ignorant of, you have evidently not learnt, but given
a random credence to a pleasant hearsay. Falsity has stolen over you in the suavity. This play of words too inadequately represents Augustin’s Subrepsit tibi falsiloquium per suaviloquium.
Chapter 11 [VII.]—Victor Implies that the Soul Had a “State” And “Merit” Before Incarnation.
Would you hesitate yourself to reprobate what he has said concerning the soul? “You will not have it,” he says, “that the soul contracts from the sinful flesh the health, to which holy See below, Book iii. 9.
Chapter 12 [VIII.]—How Did the Soul Deserve to Be Incarnated?
He also says some time afterwards: “The soul therefore, if it deserved to be sinful, although it could not have been sinful, yet did not remain in sin; because, as it was prefigured in Christ, it was bound not to be in a sinful state, even as it was unable to be.” See above, Book i. 8, and below, Book iii. 11.
Chapter 13 [IX.]—Victor Teaches that God Thwarts His Own Predestination.
Let us now go on to plainer matters. For while he was confined within these great straits, as to how souls can be held bound by the chain of original sin, when they derive not their origin from the soul which first sinned, but the Creator breathes them afresh at every birth into sinful
Chapter 14 [X.]—Victor Sends Those Infants Who Die Unbaptized to Paradise and the Heavenly Mansions, But Not to the Kingdom of Heaven.
But I beg you mark how bold he is, who is displeased with hesitancy, which prefers to be cautious rather than overknowing in a question so profound as this: “I would be bold to say”—such are his words—“that they can attain to the forgiveness of their original sins, yet not so as to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven. Just as in the case of the thief on the cross, who confessed but was not baptized, the Lord did not give him the kingdom of heaven, but paradise;
See Book i. of the present treatise, chs. 11 [ix.] and 12 [x.].
Chapter 15 [XI.]—Victor “Decides” That Oblations Should Be Offered Up for Those Who Die Unbaptized.
Still he chafes with indecision, and is well-nigh suffocated in the terrible straits of his theory; for very likely he descries with a more sensitive eye than you, the amount of evil which he enunciates, to the effect that original sin in infants is effaced without Christ’s sacrament of baptism. It is, indeed, for the purpose of finding an escape to some extent, and tardily, in the Church’s sacraments that he says: “In their behalf I most certainly decide that
constant oblations and incessant sacrifices must be offered up on the part of the holy priests.” Well, then, you may take him if you like for your arbiter, if it were not enough to have him as your instructor. Let him decide that you must offer up the sacrifice of Christ’s body even for those who have not been incorporated into Christ. Now this is quite a novel idea, and foreign to the Church’s discipline and the rule of truth: and yet, when daring to propound it in his books, he does not
modestly say, I rather think; he does not say, I suppose; he does not say, I am of opinion; nor does he say, I at least would suggest, or mention;—but he says, I give it as my decision; so that, should we be (as might be likely) offended by the novelty or the perverseness of his opinion, we might be overawed by the authority of his judicial determination. It is your own concern, my brother, how to be able to bear him as your instructor in these views. Catholic priests, however, of right feeling
(and among them you ought to take your place) could never keep quiet—God forbid it—and hear this man pronounce his decisions, when they would wish him rather to recover his senses, and be sorry both for having entertained such opinions, and for having gone so far as to commit them to writing, and chastise himself with the most wholesome discipline of repentance. “Now it is,” says he; “on this example of the Maccabees who fell in battle that I ground the necessity of doing this. When they
offered stealthily some interdicted sacrifices, and after they had fallen in the battle, we find,” says he, “that this remedial measure was at once resorted to by the priests,—sacrifices were offered up to liberate their souls, which had been bound by the guilt of their forbidden conduct.” This is a loose reference to the narrative in
Chapter 16 [XII.]—Victor Promises to the Unbaptized Paradise After Their Death, and the Kingdom of Heaven After Their Resurrection, Although He Admits that This Opposes Christ’s Statement.
But your friend, in comparison with what he has shown himself to be further on, thus far makes mistakes which one may somewhat tolerate. He apparently felt some disposition to relent; not, to be sure, at what he ought to have misgivings about, namely, for having ventured to assert that original sin is relaxed even in the case of the unbaptized, and that remission is given to them of all their sins, so that they are admitted into paradise, that is, to a place of
great happiness, and possess a claim to the happy mansions in our Father’s house; but he seems to have entertained some regret at having conceded to them abodes of lesser blessedness outside the kingdom of heaven. Accordingly he goes on to say, “Or if any one is perhaps reluctant to believe that paradise is bestowed as a temporary and provisional gift on the soul of the thief or of Dinocrates (for there remains for them still, in the resurrection, the reward of the kingdom of heaven), although
that principal passage stands in the way, Sententia illa principalis, in which principalis may mean either “principal,” “chief,” or “belonging to the Prince.” Or perhaps, “as simply amplifying both the effect and the purpose of,” etc., etc.
Chapter 17.—Disobedient Compassion and Compassionate Disobedience Reprobated. Martyrdom in Lieu of Baptism.
The new-fangled Pelagian heretics have been most justly condemned by the authority of catholic councils and of the Apostolic See, on the ground of their having dared to give to unbaptized infants a place of rest and salvation, even apart from the kingdom of heaven. This they would not have dared to do, if they did not deny their having original sin, and the need of its remission by the sacrament of baptism. This man, however, professes the catholic belief on this
point, admitting that infants are tied in the bonds of original sin, and yet he releases them from these bonds without the laver of regeneration, and after death, in his compassion, he admits them into paradise; while, with a still ampler compassion, he introduces them after the resurrection even to the kingdom of heaven. Such compassion did Saul see fit to assume when he spared the king whom God commanded to be slain;
Chapter 18 [XIII.]—Victor’s Dilemma and Fall.
For he is hemmed in within terrible straits by those who make the natural inquiry: “Why has God visited on the soul so unjust a punishment as to have willed to relegate it into a body of sin, since by its consorting with the flesh that began to be sinful, which else could not have been sinful?” For, of course, they say: “The soul could not have been sinful, if God had not commingled it in the participation of sinful flesh.” Well, this opponent of mine was unable to
discover the justice of God’s doing this, especially in consequence of the eternal damnation of infants who die without the remission of original sin by baptism; and his inability was equally great in finding out why the good and righteous God both bound the souls of infants, who He foresaw would derive no advantage from the sacrament of Christian grace, with the chain of original sin, by sending them into the body which they derive from Adam,—the souls them See Augustin’s treatises, On Free Will, iii. 21; On the Merits of Sins, ii. (last chapter); Letter (166) to Jerome, and (190) to Optatus.
Chapter 19 [XIV.]—Victor Relies on Ambiguous Scriptures.
The passages of Scripture, indeed, which he has adduced in the attempt to prove from them that God did not derive human souls by propagation from the primitive soul, but as in that first instance that He formed them by breathing them into each individual, are so uncertain and ambiguous, that they can with the utmost facility be taken in a different sense from that which he would assign to them. This point I have already demonstrated See above in Book i. 17 [xiv.] and following chapters.
Chapter 20.—Victor Quotes Scriptures for Their Silence, and Neglects the Biblical Usage.
As for the passage which affirms that “God hath made of one blood all nations of men,” Compare on this chapter Book i. 29.
Chapter 21 [XV.]—Victor’s Perplexity and Failure.
For these reasons I fail thus far to discover what this instructor has taught you, and what grounds you have for the gratitude you have lavished upon him. For the question remains just as it was, which inquires about the origin of souls, whether God gives, forms, and makes them for men by propagating them from that one soul which He breathed into the first man, or whether it is by His own inbreathing that He does this in every case, as He did for the first man.
For that God does form, and make, and bestow souls on men, the Christian faith does not hesitate to aver. Now, when this person endeavoured to solve the question without gauging his own resources, by denying the propagation of souls, and asserting that the Creator inbreathed them into men pure from all contagion of sin,—not out of nothing, but out of Himself,—He dishonoured the very nature of God by opprobriously attributing mutability to it, an imputation which was necessarily
untenable. Then, desirous of avoiding all implication which might lead to God’s being deemed unrighteous, if He ties with the bond of original sin souls which are pure of all actual sin, although not redeemed by Christian regeneration, he has given utterance to words and sentiments which I only wish he had not taught you. For he has accorded to unbaptized infants such happiness and salvation as even the Pelagian heresy could not have ventured on doing. And yet for all this, when the question
touches the many thousands of infants who are born of the ungodly, and die among the ungodly,—I do not mean those whom charitable persons are unable to assist by baptism, however desirous of doing so, but those of whose baptism nobody either has been able or shall be able to think, and for whom no one has offered or is likely to offer the sacrifice which, as this instructor of yours thought, ought to be offered even for those who have not been baptized, [The editions give the manifestly false reading nobis for non, yielding the sense: “even for ourselves who have been baptized.”—W.]
Chapter 22 [XVI.]—Peter’s Responsibility in the Case of Victor.
Far be it from you, my brother, that such views should be pleasant to you, or that you should either feel pleasure in having acquired them, or presume ever to teach them. Otherwise, even he would be a far better man than yourself. Because at the commencement of his first book he has prefixed the following modest See below in Book iii. 20 (xiv.).
Chapter 23 [XVII.]—Who They are that are Not Injured by Reading Injurious Books.
Forasmuch, then, as he has both commenced and terminated his books with such safeguards, and has placed on your shoulders the religious burden of their correction and emendation, I only trust that he may find in you all that he has asked you for, that you may “correct him righteously in mercy, and reprove him; whilst the oil of the sinner which anoints his head”
Book III.
Addressed to Vincentius Victor.
Augustin points out to Vincentius Victor the corrections which he ought to make in his books concerning the origin of the soul, if he wishes to be a Catholic. Those opinions also which had been already refuted in the preceding books addressed to Renatus and Peter, Augustin briefly censures in this third book, which is written to Victor himself: moreover, he classifies them under eleven heads of error.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Augustin’s Purpose in Writing.
As to that which I have thought it my duty to write to you, my much-loved son Victor, I would have you to entertain this above all other thoughts in your mind, if I seemed to despise you, that it was certainly not my intention to do so. At the same time I must beg of you not to abuse our condescension in such a way as to suppose that you possess my approval merely because you have not my contempt. For it is not to follow, but to correct you, that I give you my love; and since I by no means despair of the possibility of your amendment, I do not want you to be surprised at my inability to despise the man who has my love. Now, since it was my bounden duty to love you before you had united with us, in order that you might become a catholic; how much more ought I now to love you since your union with us, to prevent your becoming a new heretic, and that you may become so firm a catholic that no heretic may be able to withstand you! So far as appears from the mental endowments which God has largely bestowed upon you, you would be undoubtedly a wise man if you only did not believe that you were one already, and begged of Him who maketh men wise, with a pious, humble, and earnest prayer, that you might become one, and preferred not to be led astray with error rather than to be honoured with the flattery of those who go astray.
Chapter 2 [II.]—Why Victor Assumed the Name of Vincentius. The Names of Evil Men Ought Never to Be Assumed by Other Persons.
The first thing which caused me some anxiety about you was the title which appeared in your books with your name; for on inquiring of those who knew you, and were probably your associates in opinion, who Vincentius Victor was, I found that you had been a Donatist, or rather a Rogatist, but had lately come into communion with the catholic Church. Now, while I was rejoicing, as one naturally does at the recovery of those whom he sees rescued from that system of
error,—and in your case my joy was all the greater because I saw that your ability, which so much delighted me in your writings, had not remained behind with the enemies of truth,—additional information was given me by your friends which caused me sorrow amid my joy, to the effect that you wished to have the name Vincentius prefixed to your own name, inasmuch as you still held in affectionate regard the successor of Rogatus, who bore this name, as a great and holy man, and that for this reason
you wished his name to become your surname. Some persons also told me that you had, moreover, boasted about his having appeared in some sort of a vision to you, and assisted you in composing those books the subject of which I have discussed with you in this small work of mine, and to such an extent as to dictate to you himself the precise topics and arguments which you were to write about. Now, if all this be true, I no longer wonder at your having been able to make those statements which, if
you will only lend a patient ear to my admonition, and with the attention of a catholic duly consider and weigh those books, you will undoubtedly come to regret having ever advanced. For he who, according to the apostle’s portrait, “transforms himself into an angel of light,”
Chapter 3 [III.]—He Enumerates the Errors Which He Desires to Have Amended in the Books of Vincentius Victor. The First Error.
If you ask me what the particular errors are, you may read what I have written to our brethren, that servant of God Renatus, and the presbyter Peter, to the latter of whom you yourself thought it necessary to write the very works of which we are now treating, “in obedience,” as you allege, “to his own wish and request.” Now, they will, I doubt not, lend you my treatises for your perusal if you should like it, and even press them upon your attention without being
asked. But be that as it may, I will not miss this present opportunity of informing you what amendments I desire to have made in these writings of yours, as well as in your belief. The first is, that you will have it that “The soul was not so made by God that He made it out of nothing, but out of His own very self.” See above, Book i. 4 and Book ii. 5. Halitus (breath).
Chapter 4 [IV.]—Victor’s Simile to Show that God Can Create by Breathing Without Impartation of His Substance.
“But,” you say, “when we inflate a bag, no portion of our nature or quality is poured into the bag, while the very breath, by the current of which the filled bag is extended, is emitted from us without the least diminution of ourselves.” Now, you enlarge and dwell upon these words of yours, and inculcate the simile as necessary for our understanding how it is that God, without any injury to His own nature, makes the soul out of His own self, and how, when it is thus made out of Himself, it is not what Himself is. For you ask: “Is this inflation of the bag a portion of our own soul? Or do we create human beings when we inflate bags? Or do we suffer any injury in anything at all when we impart our breath by inflation on diverse things? But we suffer no injury when we transfer breath from ourselves to anything, nor do we ever remember experiencing any damage to ourselves from inflating a bag, the full quality and entire quantity of our breath remaining in us notwithstanding the process.” Now, however elegant and applicable this simile seems to you, I beg you to consider how greatly it misleads you. For you affirm that the incorporeal God breathes out a corporeal soul,—not made out of nothing, but out of Himself,—whereas the breath which we ourselves emit is corporeal, although of a more subtle nature than our bodies; nor do we exhale it out of our soul, but out of the air through internal functions in our bodily structure. Our lungs, like a pair of bellows, are moved by the soul (at the command of which also the other members of the body are moved), for the purpose of inhaling and exhaling the atmospheric air. For, besides the aliments, solid or fluid, which constitute our meat and drink, God has surrounded us with this third aliment of the atmosphere which we breathe; and that with so good effect, that we can live for some time without meat and drink, but we could not possibly subsist for a moment without this third aliment, which the air, surrounding us on all sides, supplies us with as we breathe and respire. And as our meat and drink have to be not only introduced into the body, but also to be expelled by passages formed for the purpose, to prevent injury accruing either way (from either not entering or not quitting the body); so this third airy aliment (not being permitted to remain within us, and thus not becoming corrupt by delay, but being expelled as soon as it is introduced) has been furnished, not with different, but with the self-same channels both for its entrance and for its exit, even the mouth, or the nostrils, or both together.
Chapter 5.—Examination of Victor’s Simile: Does Man Give Out Nothing by Breathing?
Prove now yourself what I say, for your own satisfaction in your own case; emit breath by exhalation, and see whether you can continue long without catching back your breath; then again catch it back by inhalation, and see what discomfort you experience unless you again emit it. Now, when we inflate a bag, as you prescribe, we do, in fact, the same thing which we do to maintain life, except that in the case of the artificial experiment our inhalation is somewhat
stronger, in order that we may emit a stronger breath, so as to fill and distend the bag by compressing the air we blow into it, rather in the manner of a hard puff than of the gentle process of ordinary breathing and respiration. On what ground, then, do you say, “We suffer no injury whenever we transfer breath from ourselves to any object, nor do we ever remember experiencing any damage to ourselves from inflating a bag, the full quality and entire quantity of our own breath remaining in us
notwithstanding the process”? It is very plain, my son, if ever you have inflated a bag, that you did not carefully observe your own performance. For you do not perceive what you lose by the act of inflation by reason of the immediate recovery of your breath. But you can learn all this with the greatest ease if you would simply prefer doing so to stiffly maintaining your own statements for no other reason than because you have made them—not inflating the bag, but inflated yourself to the full,
and inflating your hearers (whom you should rather edify and instruct by veritable facts) with the empty prattle of your turgid discourse. In the present case I do not send you to any other teacher than your own self. Breathe, then, a good breath into the bag; shut your mouth instantly, hold tight your nostrils, and in this way discover the truth of what I say to you. For when you begin to suffer the intolerable inconvenience which accompanies the experiment, what is it you wish to recover by
opening your mouth and releasing your nostrils? Surely there would be nothing to recover if your supposition be a correct one, that you have lost nothing whenever you breathe. Observe what a plight you would be in, if by inhalation you did not regain what you had parted with by your breath
Chapter 6.—The Simile Reformed in Accordance with Truth.
Well, now, you ought to have thought of all this when you were writing, and not to have brought God before our eyes in that favourite simile of yours, of inflated and inflateable bags, breathing forth souls out of some other nature which was already in existence, just as we ourselves make our breath from the air which surrounds us; or certainly you should not, in a manner which is really as diverse from your similitude as it is abundant in impiety, have represented God as either producing some changeable thing without injury, indeed, to Himself, but yet out of His own substance; or what is worse, creating it in such wise as to be Himself the material of His own work. If, however, we are to employ a similitude drawn from our breathing which shall suitably illustrate this subject, the following one is more credible: Just as we, whenever we breathe, make a breath, not out of our own nature, but, because we are not omnipotent, out of that air that surrounds us, which we inhale and discharge whenever we breathe and respire; and the said breath is neither living nor sentient, although we are ourselves living and sentient; so God can—not, indeed, out of His own nature, but (as being so omnipotent as to be able to create whatever He wills) even out of that which has no existence at all, that is to say, out of nothing—make a breath that is living and sentient, but evidently mutable, though He be Himself immutable.
Chapter 7 [V.]—Victor Apparently Gives the Creative Breath to Man Also.
But what is the meaning of that, which you have thought proper to add to this simile, with regard to the example of the blessed Elisha because he raised the dead by breathing into his face? In the original we have here another instance of Augustin’s frequent play on words, Non animando, sed amando: “not by ensouling but by loving him,” or “not by enlivening but by loving him.”
Chapter 8 [VI.]—Victor’s Second Error. (See Above in Book I. 26 [XVI.].)
Do not, I pray you, believe, say, or teach that “Thus is God ever giving souls through infinite time, just as He who gives is Himself ever
Chapter 9 [VII.]—His Third Error. (See Above in Book II. 11 [VII.].)
Again, do not, I pray you, believe, say, or teach that “the soul deservedly lost something by the flesh, although it was of good merit previous to the flesh,” if you wish to be a catholic. For the apostle declares that “children who are not yet born, have done neither good nor evil.”
Chapter 10.—His Fourth Error. (See Above in Book I. 6 [VI.] and Book II. 11 [VII.].)
Neither believe, nor say, nor teach that “the soul, by means of the flesh, repairs its ancient condition, and is born again by the very means through which it had deserved to be polluted,” if you wish to be a catholic. I might, indeed, dwell upon the strange discrepancy with your own self which you have exhibited in the next sentence, wherein you said that the soul through the flesh deservedly recovers its primitive condition, which it had seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh, in order that it may begin to be regenerated by the very flesh through which it had deserved to be polluted.” Here you—the very man who had just before said that the soul repairs its condition through the flesh, by reason of which it had lost its desert (where nothing but good desert can be meant, which you will have to be recovered in the flesh, by baptism, of course)—said in another turn of your thought, that through the flesh the soul had deserved to be polluted (in which statement it is no longer the good desert, but an evil one, which must be meant). What flagrant inconsistency! but I will pass it over, and content myself with observing, that it is absolutely uncatholic to believe that the soul, previous to its incarnate state, deserved either good or evil.
Chapter 11 [VIII.]—His Fifth Error. (See Above in Book I. 8 [VIII.] and Book II. 12 [VIII.].)
Neither believe, nor say, nor teach, if you wish to be a catholic, that “the soul deserved to be sinful before any sin.” It is, to be sure, an extremely bad desert to have deserved to be sinful. And, of course, it could not possibly have incurred so bad a desert previous to any sin, especially prior to its coming into the flesh, when it could have possessed no merit either way, either evil or good. How, then, can you say: “If, therefore, the soul, which could not be
sinful, deserved to be sinful, it yet did not remain in sin, because as it was prefigured in Christ it was bound not to be in a sinful state, even as it was unable to be”? Now, just for a little consider what it is you say, and desist from repeating such a statement. How did the soul deserve, and how was it unable, to be sinful? How, I pray you tell me, did that deserve to be sinful which never lived sinfully? How, I ask again, was that made sinful which was not able to be sinful? Or else, if
you mean your phrase, “was unable,” to imply inability apart from the flesh, how in that case did the soul deserve to be sinful, and by reason of what desert was it sent into the flesh, when previous to its union
Chapter 12 [IX.]—His Sixth Error. (See Above in Book I. 10-12 [IX., X.], and in Book II. 13, 14 [IX., X.].)
If you wish to be a catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that “infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins.” For the examples by which you are misled—that of the thief who confessed the Lord upon the cross, or that of Dinocrates the brother of St. Perpetua—contribute no help to you in defence of this erroneous opinion. As for the thief, although in God’s judgment he might
be reckoned among those who are purified by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord’s side,
Chapter 13 [X]—His Seventh Error. (See Above in Book II. 13 [IX.].)
If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that “they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.” There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
Chapter 14.—His Eighth Error. (See Above in Book II. 13 [IX.].)
Refuse, if you wish to be a catholic, to believe, or to say, or to teach that “it is of infants, who are forestalled by death before they are born again in Christ, that the Scripture says, ‘Speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should
Chapter 15 [XI.]—His Ninth Error. (See Above in Book II. 14 [X.].)
If you wish to be a catholic, I pray you, neither believe, nor say, nor teach that “there are some mansions outside the kingdom of God which the Lord said were in His Father’s house.” For He does not affirm, as you have adduced his testimony, “There are with my Father (apud Patrem meum) many mansions;” although, if He had even expressed Himself so, the mansions could hardly be supposed to have any other situation than in the house of His Father; but
He plainly says, “In my Father’s house are many mansions.”
Chapter 16.—God Rules Everywhere: and Yet the “Kingdom of Heaven” May Not Be Everywhere.
You may, however, not improbably contend that all things, it is true, belong to the kingdom of God, because He reigns in heaven, reigns on earth, in the depths beneath, in paradise, in hell (for where does He not reign, since His power is everywhere supreme?); but that the kingdom of heaven is one thing, into which none are permitted to enter, according to the Lord’s own true and settled sentence, unless they are washed in the laver of regeneration, while quite another thing is the kingdom over the earth, or over any other parts of creation, in which there may be some mansions of God’s house; but these, although appertaining to the kingdom of God, belong not to that kingdom of heaven where God’s kingdom exists with an especial excellence and blessedness; and that it hence happens that, while no parts and mansions of God’s house can be rudely separated from the kingdom of God, yet not all the mansions are prepared in the kingdom of heaven; and still, even in the abodes which are not situated in the kingdom of heaven, those may live happily, to whom, if they are even unbaptized, God has willed to assign such habitations. They are no doubt in the kingdom of God, although (as not having been baptized) they cannot possibly be in the kingdom of heaven.
Chapter 17.—Where the Kingdom of God May Be Understood to Be.
Now, they who say this, do no doubt seem to themselves to say a good deal, because theirs is only a slight and careless view of Scripture; nor do they understand in what sense we use the phrase, “kingdom of God,” when we say of it in our prayers, “Thy kingdom come;”
Chapter 18 [XII.]—His Tenth Error. (See Above in Book I. 13 [XI.] and Book II. 15 [XI.]).
Again, if you wish to be a catholic, I pray you, neither believe, nor say, nor teach that “the sacrifice of Christians ought to be offered in behalf of those who have departed out of the body without having been baptized.” Because you fail to show that the sacrifice of the Jews, which you have quoted out of the books of the Maccabees,
Chapter 19 [XIII.]—His Eleventh Error. (See Above in Book I. 15 [XII.] and Book II. 16.)
Once more, if you desire to be a catholic, do not believe, or say, or teach that “some of those persons who have departed this life without Christ’s baptism, do not in the meantime go into the kingdom of heaven, but into paradise; yet afterwards in the resurrection of the dead they attain also to the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven.” Even the Pelagian heresy was not daring enough to grant them this, although it holds that infants do not contract original sin.
You, however, as a catholic, confess that they are born in sin; and yet by some unaccountable perverseness in the novel opinion you put forth, you assert that they are absolved from that sin with which they were born, and admitted into the kingdom of heaven without the baptism which saves. Nor do you seem to be aware how much below Pelagius himself you are in your views on this point. For he, being alarmed by that sentence of the Lord which does not permit unbaptized persons to enter into the
kingdom of heaven, does not venture to send infants thither, although he believes them to be free from all sin; whereas you have so little regard for what is written, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” Et effectum et affectum.
Chapter 20 [XIV.]—Augustin Calls on Victor to Correct His Errors. (See Above in Book II. 22 [XVI.].)
Now these errors, and such as these, with whatever others you may perhaps be able to discover in your books on a more attentive and leisurely perusal, I beg of you to correct, if you possess a catholic mind; in other words, if you spoke in perfect sincerity when you said, that you were not over-confident in yourself that what statements you had made were all capable of proof; and that your constant aim was not to maintain even your own opinion, if it were shown to be improbable; and that it gave you much pleasure, if your own judgment were condemned, to adopt and pursue better and truer sentiments. Well now, my dear brother, show that you said this in no fallacious sense; so that the catholic Church may rejoice in your capacity and character, as possessing not only genius, but prudence withal, and piety, and moderation, rather than that the madness of heresy should be kindled by your contentious persistence in these errors. Now you have an opportunity of showing also how sincerely you expressed your feelings in the passage which immediately follows the satisfactory statement which I have just now mentioned of yours. “For,” you say, “as it is the mark of every highest aim and laudable purpose to transfer one’s self readily to truer views; so it shows a depraved and obstinate judgment to refuse to return promptly to the pathway of reason.” Well, then, show yourself to be influenced by this high aim and laudable purpose, and transfer your mind readily to truer views; and do not display a depraved and obstinate judgment by refusing to return promptly to the pathway of reason. For if your words were uttered in frank sincerity, if they were not mere sound of the lips, if you really felt them in your heart, then you cannot but abhor all delay in accomplishing the great good of correcting yourself. It was not, indeed, much for you to allow, that it showed a depraved and obstinate judgment to refuse to return to the pathway of reason, unless you had added “promptly.” By adding this, you showed us how execrable is his conduct who never accomplishes the reform; inasmuch as even he who effects it but tardily appears to you to deserve so severe a censure, as to be fairly described as displaying a depraved and obstinate mind. Listen, therefore, to your own admonition, and turn to good account mainly and largely the fruitful resources of your eloquence; that so you may promptly return to the pathway of reason, more promptly, indeed, than when you declined therefrom, at an unstable period of your age, when you were fortified with too little prudence and less learning.
Chapter 21.—Augustin Compliments Victor’s Talents and Diligence.
It would take me too long a time to handle and discuss fully all the points which I wish to be amended in your books, or rather in your own self, and to give you even a brief reason for the correction of each particular. And yet you must not because of them despise yourself, so as to suppose that your ability and powers of speech are to be thought lightly of. I have discovered in you no small recollection of the sacred Scriptures; but your erudition is less than was
proportioned to your talent, and the labour you bestowed on them. My desire, therefore, is that you should not, on the one hand, grow vain by attributing too much to yourself; nor, on the
Chapter 22 [XV.]—A Summary Recapitulation of the Errors of Victor.
What these particular errors are, I have, to the best of my ability, already explained. But I will run over them again with a brief recapitulation. One is, “That God did not make the soul out of nothing, but out of His own self.” A second is, that “just as God who gives is Himself ever existent, so is He ever giving souls through infinite time.” The third is, that “the soul lost some merit by the flesh, which it had had previous to the flesh.” The fourth is, that “the soul by means of the flesh recovers its ancient condition, and is born again through the very same flesh by which it had deserved to be polluted.” The fifth is, that “the soul deserved to be sinful, previous to any sin.” The sixth is, that “infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized, may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins.” The seventh is, that “they whom the Lord has predestinated to be baptized may be taken away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.” The eighth is, that “it is of infants who are fore-stalled by death, before they are born again in Christ, that the Scripture says, ‘Speedily was he taken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding,’” with the remainder of the passage to the same effect in the Book of Wisdom. The ninth is, that “there are outside the kingdom of God some of those mansions which the Lord said were in His Father’s house.” The tenth is, that “the sacrifice of Christians ought to be offered in behalf of those who have departed out of the body without being baptized.” The eleventh is, that “some of those persons who have departed this life without the baptism of Christ do not in the meanwhile go into the kingdom, but into paradise; afterwards, however, in the resurrection of the dead, they attain even to the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven.”
Chapter 23.—Obstinacy Makes the Heretic.
Well, now, as for these eleven propositions, they are extremely and manifestly perverse and opposed to the catholic faith; so that you should no longer hesitate to root them out and cast them away from your mind, from your words, and from your pen, if you are desirous that we should rejoice not only at your having come over to our catholic altars, but at your being really and truly a catholic. For if these dogmas of yours are severally maintained with pertinacity, they may possibly engender as many heresies as they number opinions. Wherefore consider, I pray you, how dreadful it is that they should be all concentrated in one person, when they would, if held severally by various persons, be every one of them damnable in each holder. If, however, you would in your own person cease to fight contentiously in their defence, nay, would turn your arms against them by faithful words and writings, you would acquire more praise as the censurer of your own self than if you directed any amount of right criticism against any other person; and your amendment of your own errors would bring you more admiration than if you had never entertained them. May the Lord be present to your heart and mind, and by His Spirit pour into your soul such readiness in humility, such light of truth, such sweetness of love, and such peaceful piety, that you may prefer being a conqueror of your own spirit in the truth, than of any one else who gainsays it with his errors. But I do not by any means wish you to think, that by holding these opinions you have departed from the catholic faith, although they are unquestionably opposed to the catholic faith; if so be you are able, in the presence of that God whose eye infallibly searches every man’s heart, to look back on your own words as being truly and sincerely expressed, when you said that you were not over-confident in yourself as to the opinions you had broached, that they were all capable of proof; and that your constant aim was not to persist in your own sentiments, if they were shown to be improbable; inasmuch as it was a real pleasure to you, when any judgment of yours was condemned, to adopt and pursue better and truer thoughts. Now such a temper as this, even in relation to what may have been said in an uncatholic form through ignorance, is itself catholic by the very purpose and readiness of amendment which it premeditates. With this remark, however, I must now end this volume, where the reader may rest a while, ready to renew his attention to what is to follow, when I begin my next book.
Book IV.
Addressed to Vincentius Victor.
He first shows, that his hesitation on the subject of the origin of souls was undeservedly blamed, and that he was wrongly compared with cattle, because he had refrained from any rash conclusions on the subject. Then, again, with regard to his own unhesitating statement, that the soul was spirit, not body, he points out how rashly Victor disapproved of this assertion, especially when he was vainly expending his efforts to prove that the soul was corporeal in its own nature, and that the spirit in man was distinct from the soul itself.
Chapter 1 [I.]—The Personal Character of This Book.
I Must now, in the sequel of my treatise, request you to hear what I desire to say to you concerning myself—as I best can; or rather as He shall enable me in whose hand are both ourselves and our words. For you blamed me on two several occasions, even going so far as to mention my name. In the beginning of your book you spoke of yourself as being perfectly conscious of your own want of skill, and as being destitute of the support of learning; and, when you mentioned me, bestowed on me the complimentary phrases of “most learned” and “most skilful.” But yet, all the while, on those subjects in which you seemed to yourself to be perfectly acquainted with what I either confess my ignorance of, or presume with no unbecoming liberty to have some knowledge of, you—young as you are, and a layman too—did not hesitate to censure me, an old man and a bishop, and a person withal whom in your own judgment you had pronounced most learned and most skilful. Well, for my own part, I know nothing about my great learning and skill; nay, I am very certain that I possess no such eminent qualities; moreover, I have no doubt that it is quite within the scope of possibility, that it may fall to the lot of even an unskilful and unlearned man occasionally to know what a learned and skilful person is ignorant of; and in this I plainly commend you, that you have preferred to merely personal regard a love of truth,—for if you have not understood the truth, yet at any rate you have thought it such. This you have done no doubt with temerity, because you thought you knew what you were really ignorant of; and without restraint, because, having no respect of persons, you chose to publish abroad whatever was in your mind. You ought therefore to understand how much greater our care should be to recall the Lord’s sheep from their errors; since it is evidently wrong for even the sheep to conceal from the shepherds whatever faults they have discovered in them. O that you censured me in such things as are indeed worthy of just blame! For I must not deny that both in my conduct and in my writings there are many points which may be censured by a sound judge without temerity. Now, if you would select any of these for your censure, I might be able by them to show you how I should like you to behave in those particulars which you judiciously and fairly condemned; moreover, I should have (as an elder to a younger, and as one in authority to him who has to obey) an opportunity of setting you an example under correction which should not be more humble on my part than wholesome to both of us. With respect, however, to the points on which you have actually censured me, they are not such as humility obliges me to correct, but such as truth compels me partly to acknowledge and partly to defend.
Chapter 2 [II.]—The Points Which Victor Thought Blameworthy in Augustin.
And they are these: The first, that I did not venture to make a definite statement touching the origin of those souls which have been given, or are being given, to human beings, since the first man—because I confess my ignorance of the subject; the second, because I said I was sure the soul was spirit, not body. Under this
Chapter 3.—How Much Do We Know of the Nature of the Body?
Well, now, this extremely lucid and eloquent castigation which you have inflicted on our ignorance lays you so strictly under the necessity of knowing every possible thing which appertains to the nature of man, that, should you unhappily be ignorant of any particular, you must (and remember it is not I, but you, that have made the necessity) be compared with “the cattle.” For although you appear to aim your censure at us more especially, when you quote the
passage, “Man, although he was in honour, understood not,” inasmuch as we (unlike yourself) hold an honourable place in the Church; yet even you occupy too honourable a rank in nature, not to be preferred above the cattle, with which according to your own judgment you will have to be compared, if you should happen to be ignorant on any of the points which manifestly appertain to your nature. For you have not merely aspersed with your censure those who are affected with the same ignorance as I
am myself labouring under, that is to say, concerning the origin of the human soul (although I am not indeed absolutely ignorant even on this point, for I know that God breathed into the face of the first man, and that “man then became a living soul,”
Chapter 4 [III.]—Is the Question of Breath One that Concerns the Soul, or Body, or What?
But to what, in your judgment, does that which we discussed in our former book concerning the breath of man belong?—to the nature of the soul, seeing that it is the soul which effects it in man; or to that of the body, since the body is moved by the soul to effect it; or to that of this air, by whose alternation of action it is discovered to effect it; or rather to all three, that is to say, to the soul as that which moves the body, and to the body which by its motion receives and emits the breath, and also to the circumambient air which raises by its entrance, and by its departure depresses? And yet you were evidently ignorant of all this, learned and eloquent though you are, when you supposed, and said, and wrote, and read in the presence of the crowd assembled to hear your opinion, that it was out of our own nature that we inflated a bag, and yet had no diminution of our nature at all by the operation; although you might most easily ascertain how we accomplish the process, not by any tedious examination of the pages either of human or of inspired writings, but by a simple investigation of your own physical action, whenever you liked. This, then, being the case, how can I trust you to teach me concerning the origin of souls,—a subject which I confess myself to be ignorant of,—you who are actually ignorant of what you are doing unintermittingly with your nose and mouth, and of why you are doing it? May the Lord bring it to pass that you may be advised by me, and accept rather than resist so manifest a truth, and one so ready to your hand. May you also not interrogate your lungs about the bag inflation in such a temper as to prefer inflating them in opposition to me, rather than acquiesce in their tuition, when they answer your inquiry with entire truth,—not by speech and altercation, but by breath and respiration. Then I could bear with you patiently while you correct and reproach me for my ignorance of the origin of souls; nay, I could even warmly thank you, if, besides inflicting on me rebuke, you would convince me with truth. For if you could teach me the truth I am ignorant of, it would be my duty to bear with all patience any blows you might deal against me, not in word only, but even with hand.
Chapter 5 [IV.]—God Alone Can Teach Whence Souls Come.
Now with respect to the question between us, I confess to your loving self Dilectioni tuæ. Animentur = “are furnished with their animæ.”
Chapter 6 [V.]—Questions About the Nature of the Body are Sufficiently Mysterious, and Yet Not Higher Than Those of the Soul.
What do you say to the statement, that amongst the works of God there are some which it is more difficult to know than even God Himself,—so far, indeed, as He can be an object of knowledge to us at all? For we have learnt that God is a Trinity; but to this very day we do not know how many kinds of animals, not even of land animals which were able to enter Noah’s ark, These vessels which carry the blood from the heart were formerly supposed, from being found empty after death, to contain only air; and hence, indeed, their name,—for “the artery” was originally the windpipe. Comp. Cicero (De Nat. Deor. ii. 55, 138): “Sanguis per venas in omne corpus diffunditur, et spiritus per arterias”: i.e. Blood is diffused throughout the body by the veins, and air by the arteries.
Chapter 7 [VI.]—We Often Need More Teaching as to What is Most Intimately Ours Than as to What is Further from Us.
But I have to put to you a far wider question arising out of our subject. Why should only a very few know why all men do what they do? Perhaps you will tell me, Because they have learnt the art of anatomy or experiment, which are both comprised in the physician’s education, which few obtain, while others have refused to acquire the information, although they might, of course, if they had liked. Here, then, I say nothing of the point why many try to acquire this
information, but cannot, because they are hindered by a slow intellect (which, however, is a very strange fact) from learning of others what is done by their own selves and in their own selves. But this is a very important question which I now ask, Why I should have no need of art to know that there is a sun in the heavens, and a moon, and other stars; but must have the aid of art to know, on moving my finger, whence the act begins,—from the heart, or the brain, or from both, or from neither:
why I do not require a teacher to know what is so much higher than me; but must yet wait for some one else to learn whence that is done by me which is done within me? For although we are said to think in our heart, and although we know what our thoughts are, without the knowledge of any other person, yet we know not in what part of the body we have the heart itself, where we do our thinking, unless we are taught it by some other person, who yet is ignorant of what we think. I am not unaware
that when we hear that we should love God with our whole heart, this is not said of that portion of our flesh which lies under our ribs, but of that power that originates our thoughts. And this is properly designated by this name, because, as motion does not cease in the heart whence the pulsation of the veins radiates in every direction, so in the process of thought we do not rest in the act itself and abstain from further pondering. But although every sensation is imparted even to the body by
the soul, how is it that we can count our external limbs, even in the dark and with closed eyes, by the bodily sense which is called “touch,” but we know nothing of our internal functions in the very central region of the soul itself, where that power is present which imparts life and animation to all else,—a mystery this which, I apprehend, no medical men of any kind, whether empirics, or anatomists, or dogmatists, or methodists, [The names of these various medical schools may be found explained in the article “Medicine” in the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xv. See especially p. 802.—W.]
Chapter 8.—We Have No Memory of Our Creation.
And whosoever shall have attempted to fathom such knowledge may not improperly have addressed to him the words we have before quoted, “Seek not out the things that are too high for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength.” Now it is not a question of mere altitude, such as is beyond our stature, but it is an elevation which our intelligence cannot reach, and a strength which our mental power cannot cope with. And yet it is neither the heaven of
heavens, nor the measure of the stars, nor the scope of sea and land, nor the nethermost hell; it is our own selves that we are incapable of comprehending; it is our own selves, who, in our too great height and strength, transcend the humble limits of our own knowledge; it is our own selves, whom we are incapable of embracing, although we are certainly not beside ourselves. But we are not to be compared with cattle simply because we do not perfectly discover what we ourselves are: and yet you
think that we deserve the humiliating comparison, if we have forgotten what we were, even though we knew it once. My soul is not now being derived from my parents, is not now receiving insufflation from God. Whichever of these two processes He used, He used when He created
Chapter 9 [VII.]—Our Ignorance of Ourselves Illustrated by the Remarkable Memory of One Simplicius.
Observe now, while we are, while we live, while we know that we live, while we are certain that we possess memory, understanding, and will; who boast of ourselves as having a great knowledge of our own nature;—observe, I say, how entirely ignorant we are of what avail to us is our memory, or our understanding, or our will. A certain man who from his youth has been a friend of mine, named Simplicius, is a person of accurate and astonishing memory. I once asked him to tell me what were the last lines but one of all the books of Virgil; he immediately answered my question without the least hesitation, and with perfect accuracy. I then asked him to repeat the preceding lines; he did so. And I really believe that he could have repeated Virgil line after line backward. For wherever I wished, I made trial whether he could do it, and he did it. Similarly in prose, from any of Cicero’s orations, which he had learnt by heart, he would perform a similar feat at our request, by reciting backwards as far as we wished. Upon our expressing astonishment, he called God to witness that he had no idea of this ability of his previous to that trial. So far, therefore, as memory is concerned, his mind only then learnt its own power; and such discovery would at no time be possible except by trial and experiment. Moreover, he was of course the very same man before he tried his powers; how was it, then, that he was ignorant of himself?
Chapter 10.—The Fidelity of Memory; The Unsearchable Treasure of Memory; The Powers of a Man’s Understanding Sufficiently Understood by None.
We often assume that we shall retain a thing in our memory; and so thinking, we do not write it down. But afterwards, when we wish to recall it, it refuses to come to mind; and we are then sorry that we thought it would return to memory, or that we did not secure it in writing so as to prevent its escape; and lo, on a sudden, without our seeking it, it occurs to us. Then does it follow that we were not ourselves when we thought this? And that we cease to be the same thing that we were, when we are no longer able to think it? Now how does it happen that I know not how we are abstracted from, and denied to, ourselves; and similarly am ignorant how we are restored and returned to ourselves? As if we are other persons, and elsewhere, when we seek, but fail to find, what we deposited in our memory; and are ourselves incapable of returning to ourselves, as if we were situated somewhere else; but afterwards return again, on finding ourselves out. For where do we make our quest, except in our own selves? And what is it we search for, except our own selves? As if we were not actually at home in our persons, but had gone somewhither. Do you not observe, even with alarm, so deep a mystery? And what is all this but our own nature—not what it has been, but such as it now is? And observe how much more we seek than we comprehend. I have often believed that I could understand a question which had been submitted to me, if I were to bestow thought upon it. Well, I have bestowed the thought, but have not been able to solve the question; and many a time I have not so believed, and yet have been able to determine the point. The powers, then, of my own understanding have not been really known to me; nor, I apprehend, have they been to you either.
Chapter 11.—The Apostle Peter Told No Lie, When He Said He Was Ready to Lay Down His Life for the Lord, But Only Was Ignorant of His Will.
But perhaps you despise me for confessing all this, and will in consequence compare me with “cattle.” For myself, however, I will not cease to advise you, or (if you refuse to listen to me) at all events to warn you, to acknowledge rather this common infirmity, in which virtue is perfected; lest, by assuming unknown things to be known, you fail to attain to the truth. For I suppose that there is something which even you wish to understand, but are unable; which you
would never seek to understand, unless you hoped some day to succeed in your research. Thus you also are ignorant of the powers of your own understanding, who profess to know all about your own nature, and decline to follow me in my confession of ignorance. Well, there is also the will; what am I to say about that, where certainly free choice is ostentatiously claimed by us? The blessed Apostle Peter, indeed, was willing to lay down his life for the Lord. He was no doubt sincere in his
willingness; nor was he treacherous to the Lord when he made the promise. But his will was entirely ignorant of its own powers. Therefore the great apostle, who had discovered his Master to be the Son of God, was unknown to himself. Thus we are quite aware respecting ourselves that we will a thing, or “nill” it; but although our will is a good one, we are ignorant, my dear son, unless we deceive ourselves, of its strength, of its re
Chapter 12 [VIII.]—The Apostle Paul Could Know the Third Heaven and Paradise, But Not Whether He Was in the Body or Not.
See therefore how many facts of our nature, not of the past but of the present time, and not pertaining to the body only, but also to our inner man, we know nothing about, without deserving to be compared with the brute beasts. And yet this is the opprobrious comparison which you have thought me worthy of, because I have not complete knowledge of the past origin of my soul—although I am not wholly ignorant of it, inasmuch as I know that it was given me by God, and
yet that it is not out of God. But when can I enumerate all the particulars relating to the nature of our spirit and our soul of which we are ignorant? Whereas we ought rather to utter that exclamation before God, which the Psalmist uttered: “The knowledge of Thee is too wonderful for me; it is very difficult, I cannot attain to it.”
Chapter 13 [IX.]—In What Sense the Holy Ghost is Said to Make Intercession for Us.
Do you perhaps also think me ridiculous and like the irrational beasts, because I said, “We know not what we should pray for as we ought”? Perhaps this is not quite so intolerable. For since, in the dictates of a sound and righteous judgment, we prefer our future to our past; and since our prayer must have reference not to what we have been, but what we shall be, it is of course much more injurious not to know what we should pray for, than to be ignorant of the
manner of our origin. But recollect whose words I repeated, or read them again for yourself, and reflect whence they come; and do not pelt me with your reproaches, lest the stone you throw should alight on a head you would not wish. For it is the great teacher of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul himself, who said, “For we know not what we should pray for as we ought.”
Chapter 14 [X.]—It is More Excellent to Know That the Flesh Will Rise Again and Live for Evermore, Than to Learn Whatever Scientific Men Have Been Able to Teach Us Concerning Its Nature.
But although the questions which arise touching the origin of souls are “higher,” no doubt, than that which treats of the source whence the breath comes which we inhale and exhale, you yet believe that those things are “higher” which you have learnt out of the Holy Scriptures, from which we derive what we learn by faith; and such as are not traceable by any human minds. Of course it is far more excellent to know that the flesh will rise again and will live for evermore, than any thing that scientific men have been able to discover in it by careful examination, which the soul perceives by no outward sense, although its presence quickens all the things of which it is ignorant. It is also far better to know that the soul, which has been born again and renewed in Christ, will be blessed for ever, than to discover all that we are ignorant of touching its memory, understanding, and will. Now these subjects, which I have designated as more excellent and as better, we could by no means find out, unless we believed them on the testimony of the inspired Scriptures. These Scriptures you perhaps think you so thoroughly believe, that you do not hesitate to draw out of them a definite theory about the origin of souls. Well, then, first of all, if it be as you suppose, you ought never to have attributed to human nature itself what man knows by discussion and inquiry about his own nature and quality, but to God’s gift. Now you asked: “Wherein does a man differ from the cattle, if he is ignorant of this?” But why need we read any thing, in order to know this, if we ought already to know it by the very fact that we are different from cattle? For just as you do not read anything to me for the purpose of teaching me that I am alive (my own nature making it impossible that I should be ignorant of this fact), so if it is an attribute of nature to know this other matter, why do you produce passages of Scripture for me to believe concerning this subject? Is it then only those persons who read them that differ from the cattle? Are we not so created as to be different from brute animals, even before we can acquire the art of reading? Pray, tell me how it is that you put in so high a claim for our nature, that by the very circumstance of its differing from cattle it already knows how to discuss and inquire into the origin of souls; while at the same time you make it so inexpert in this knowledge, as to be unable by human endowment to know this without it believe the divine testimonies.
Chapter 15 [XI.]—We Must Not Be Wise Above What is Written.
But then, again, you are mistaken in this matter; for the passages of Scripture which you chose to produce for the solution of this question of yours, do not prove the point. For it is another thing which they prove, without which we cannot really lead a pious life, namely, that we have in God the giver, creator, and fashioner of our souls. But how He does this for them, whether by inbreathing them as new, or by deriving them from the parents, they do not tell
us—except in the instance of that one soul which He gave to the first man. Read attentively what I have written to that servant of God, our brother Renatus; See above, Book i. 17 [xiv.], and following. This repetition of one word for rhetorical effect is characteristic of our author (as, before him, it was of the Apostle Paul): “Intellige quid non intelligas, ne totum non intelligas…qui ut veraciter intelligat, quod non intelligit hoc se non intelligere intelligit.”
Chapter 16.—Ignorance is Better Than Error. Predestination to Eternal Life, and Predestination to Eternal Death.
Do not, my son, let senile timidity displease your youthful confidence. For my own part, indeed, if I proved unequal, either under the teaching of God or of some spiritual instructor, to the task of understanding the subject of our present inquiry on the origin of souls, I am more prepared to vindicate God’s righteous will, that we should remain in ignorance on this point, as on many others, than to say in my rashness what either is so obscure that I can neither
bring it home to the intelligence of other people, nor understand it myself; or certainly even to help the cause of the heretics who endeavour to persuade us that the souls of infants are entirely free from guilt, on the ground, forsooth, that such guilt would only recoil on God as its Author, for having compelled innocent souls (for the help of which He knew beforehand no laver of regeneration was prepared) to become sinful, by assigning them to sinful flesh without any provision for that
grace of baptism which should prevent their incurring eternal damnation. For the fact undoubtedly is, that numberless souls of infants pass out of the body before they are baptized. God forbid that I should cast about for any futile effort to dilute this stern fact, and say what you have yourself said: “That the soul deserved to be polluted by the flesh, and to become sinful, though it previously had no sin, by reason of which it could be rightly said to have incurred this desert.” And again:
“That even without baptism original sins may be remitted.” And once more: “That even the kingdom of heaven is at last bestowed on those who have not been baptized.” Now, if I were not afraid to utter these and similar poisonous allegations against the faith, I should probably not be afraid to propound some definite theory on this subject. How much better, then, is it, that I should not separately dispute and affirm about the soul, what I am ignorant of; but simply hold what I see the apostle
has most plainly taught us: That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam See
Chapter 17 [XII.]—A Twofold Question to Be Treated Concerning the Soul; Is It “Body”? and is It “Spirit”? What Body is.
And now, as far as the Lord vouchsafes to enable me, I must reply also to that allegation of yours, in which, speaking of the soul, you again mention my name, and say, “We do not, as the very able and learned bishop Augustin professes, allow it to be incorporeal and also a spirit.” We have therefore, first, to discuss the question, whether the soul is to be deemed incorporeal, as I have said; or corporeal, as you hold. Then, secondly, whether in our Scriptures it
is called a spirit—although not the whole but its own separate part is also properly called spirit. [The author seems here to have such texts as
Chapter 18.—The First Question, Whether the Soul is Corporeal; Breath and Wind, Nothing Else Than Air in Motion.
Now whether the soul is such a substance, is an extremely nice and subtle question. You, indeed, with a promptitude for which I very greatly congratulate you, affirm that God is not a body. But then, again, you give me some anxiety when you say, “If the soul lacks body, so as to be (as some persons are pleased to suppose) of hollow emptiness, of airy and futile substance.” Now, from these words you seem to believe, that everything which lacks body is of an empty
substance. Well, if this is the case, how do you dare to say that God lacks body, without fearing the consequence that He is of an empty substance? If, however, God has not
Chapter 19 [XIII.]—Whether the Soul is a Spirit.
But again, why you would have the soul to be a body, and refuse to deem it a spirit, I cannot see. For if it is not a spirit, on the ground that the apostle named it with distinction from the spirit, when he said, “I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved,”
Chapter 20 [XIV.]—The Body Does Not Receive God’s Image.
But I pass by all this, lest the discussion between us should degenerate into one of names rather than things. Let us, then, see whether the inner man be the soul, or the spirit, or both. I observe, however, that you have expressed Caput et Navia, literally “head and ship,” the piece of money having a head of Janus on one side, and a ship on the other. See the matter illustrated in Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 7, Aur. Vict. Orig. 3.
Chapter 21 [XV.]—Recognition and Form Belong to Souls as Well as Bodies.
But you say: “If the soul is incorporeal, what was it that the rich man saw in hell? He certainly recognised Lazarus; he did [not
Chapter 22.—Names Do Not Imply Corporeity.
You also say, that “names cease to be given, when form is not distinguished; and that, where there is no designation of persons, there is no giving of names.” Your aim is to prove that Abraham’s soul was corporeal, inasmuch as he could be addressed as “Father Abraham.” Now, we have already said, that there is form even where there is no body. If, however, you think that where there are not bodies there is no assigning of names, I must beg of you to count the names
which occur in this passage of Scripture, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,”
Chapter 23 [XVI.]—Figurative Speech Must Not Be Taken Literally.
“In short,” you say, “members are in this parable ascribed to the soul, as if it were really a body.” You will have it, that “by the eye the whole head is understood,” because it is said, that “he lifted up his eyes.” Again you say, that “by tongues are meant jaws, and by finger the hand,” because it is said, “Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue.” Augustin’s reading of In manibus linguæ= the Hebrew phrase בְּיַד לָשֹׁון,
Chapter 24.—Abraham’s Bosom—What It Means.
As to your supposing that “the Abraham’s bosom referred to is corporeal,” and your further assertion, that “by it is meant his whole body,” I fear that you must be regarded (even in such a subject) as trying to joke and raise a laugh, instead of acting gravely and seriously. For you could not else be so foolish as to think that the material bosom of one person could receive so many souls; nay, to use your own words, “bear the bodies of as many meritorious men as
the angels carry thither, as they did Lazarus.” Unless it happen to be your opinion, that his soul alone deserved to find its way to the said bosom. If you are not, then, in fun, and do not wish to make childish mistakes, you must understand by “Abraham’s bosom” that remote and separate abode of rest and peace in which Abraham now is; and that what was said to Abraham In
Chapter 25 [XVII.]—The Disembodied Soul May Think of Itself Under a Bodily Form.
You must not, however, suppose that I say all this as if denying it to be possible that the soul of a dead man, like a person asleep, may think either good or evil thoughts in the similitude of his body. For, in dreams, when we suffer anything harsh and troublesome, we are, of course,
Chapter 26 [XVIII.]—St. Perpetua Seemed to Herself, in Some Dreams, to Have Been Turned into a Man, and Then Have Wrestled with a Certain Egyptian.
Some notice must be taken of sundry accounts of martyrs’ visions, because you have thought proper to derive some of your evidence therefrom. St. Perpetua, for instance, seemed to herself in dreams to be wrestling with an Egyptian, after being changed into a man. Now, who can doubt that it was her soul in that apparent bodily form, not her body, which, of course, remained in her own sex as a woman, and lay on the bed with her senses steeped in sleep, whilst her soul was struggling in the similitude of a man’s body? What have you to say to this? Was that male likeness a veritable body, or was it no body at all, although possessing the appearance of a body? Choose your alternative. If it was a body, why did it not maintain its sexual integrity? For in that woman’s flesh were found no virile functions of generation, whence by any such process as that which you call congelation could be moulded this similitude of a man’s body. We will conclude then, if you please, that, as her body was still alive while she slept, notwithstanding the wrestling of her soul, she remained in her own natural sex, enclosed, of course, in all her proper limbs which belong to her in her living state, and was still in possession of that bodily shape and the lineaments of which she had been originally formed. She had not resigned, as she would by death, her joints and limbs; nor had she withdrawn from the transposing power, which arises from the operation of the power of death, any of her members which had already received their fixed form. Whence, then, did her soul get that virile body in which she seemed to wrestle with her adversary? If, however, this [male likeness] was not a body, although such a semblance of one as admitted the sensation in it of a real struggle or a real joy, do you not by this time see, as far as may be, that there can be in the soul a certain resemblance of a bodily substance, while the soul is not itself a body?
Chapter 27.—Is the Soul Wounded When the Body is Wounded?
What, then, if some such thing is exhibited among the departed; and souls recognise themselves among them, not, indeed, by bodies, but by the semblances of bodies? Now, when we suffer pain, if only in our dreams, although it is only the similitude of bodily limbs which is in action, and not the bodily limbs themselves, still the pain is not merely in semblance, but in reality; as is also the case in the instance of joyous sensations. Inasmuch, however, as St. Perpetua
was not yet dead, you probably are
Chapter 28.—Is the Soul Deformed by the Body’s Imperfections?
Now, again, what means it that you say, “The soul acquires form from the body, and grows and extends with the increase of the body,” without keeping in view what a monstrosity the soul of either a young man or an old man would become if his arm had been amputated when he was an infant? “The hand of the soul,” you say, “contracts itself, so that it is not amputated with the hand of the body, and by condensation it shrinks into other parts of the body.” At this rate
the aforesaid arm of the soul will be kept, wherever it holds its ground, as short as it was at first when it received the form of the body, because it has lost the form by the growth of which it might itself have increased at an equal degree of expansion. Thus the soul of the young man or the old man who lost his hand in his infancy advances with two hands, indeed (because the one which shrank back escaped the amputation of the bodily limb), but one of these was the hand of an adult, young or
old, according to the hypothesis, while the other was only an infant’s hand, just as it was when the amputation happened. Such souls, believe me, are not made in the mould and form of the body, but they are fictitiously framed under the deformed stamp of error. It seems to me impossible for you to be rescued from this error, unless with God’s help you fully and calmly examine the visions of those who dream, and from these convince yourself that some forms are not real bodies, but only the
semblances of bodies. Now, although even those objects which we suppose to be like bodies are of the same class, That is (in opposition to the really “dead,” afterwards mentioned), such as are seen by living persons in visions. Virgil, Æneid, vi. 279, “Consanguineus Lethi sopor” (Death’s own brother, Sleep).
Chapter 29 [XIX.]—Does the Soul Take the Body’s Clothes Also Away with It?
If, indeed, the soul were body, and the form
Chapter 30.—Is Corporeity Necessary for Recognition?
But who is able to trace out what capacity of recognition even souls which are not good possess after death when relieved of the corruptible bodies, so as to be able by an inner sense to observe and recognise either souls that are evil like themselves, or even good ones, either in states which are actually not corporeal, but the semblances of bodies; or else in good or evil affections of the mind, in which there occur no lineaments whatever of bodily members?
Whence arises the fact that the rich man in the parable, though in torments, recognised “Father Abraham,” whose face and figure he had never seen, but the semblance of whose body his soul, though incorporeal, was able to comprehend?
Chapter 31 [XX.]—Modes of Knowledge in the Soul Distinguished.
Forasmuch, then, as there is one function in the soul, by which we perceive real bodies, which we do by the five bodily senses; another, which enables us to discern apart from these non-corporeal likenesses of bodies (and by this we can have a view of ourselves also, as not otherwise than like to bodies); and a third, by which we gain a still surer and stronger insight into objects fitted for its faculty, which are neither corporeal nor are like bodily substances,—such as faith, hope, charity,—things which have neither complexion, nor passion, nor any such thing: on which of these functions ought we to dwell more intently, and to some degree more familiarly, and where be renewed in the knowledge of God after the image of Him who created us? Is it not on and in that which I have now put in the third place? And here we shall certainly experience neither sexual difference nor the semblance thereof.
Chapter 32.—Inconsistency of Giving the Soul All the Parts of Sex and Yet No Sex.
For that form of the soul, whether masculine or feminine, which has the distinction of members characteristic of man and woman, being no semblance merely of body, but actual body, is either a male or a female, whether you will or no, precisely as it appears to be a man or a woman. But if your opinion be correct, and the soul is a body, even a living body, then it both possesses swelling and pendent breasts, and lacks a beard, it has a womb, and all the generative organs
of a woman, yet is not a woman after all. Will not mine, then, be a statement more consistent with truth: the soul, indeed, has an eye and has a tongue, has a finger, and all other members which resemble those of the body, and yet the whole is the semblance
Chapter 33.—The Phenix After Death Coming to Life Again.
Now, what you say about the phenix has nothing whatever to do with the subject before us. For the phenix symbolizes the resurrection of the body; it does not do away with the sex of souls; if indeed, as is thought, he is born afresh after his death. I suppose, however, that you thought your discourse would not be sufficiently plausible unless you declaimed a good deal about the phenix, after the fashion of young people. Now do you find in the body of your bird male organs of generation and not a male bird; or female ones, and not a female? But, I beg of you, reflect on what it is you say,—what theory you are trying to construct, and to recommend for our acceptance. You say that the soul, spread through all the limbs of the body, grew stiff by congelation, and received the entire shape of the whole body from the crown of the head to the soles of the feet, and from the inmost marrow to the skin’s outward surface. At this rate it must have received, in the case of a female body, all the inner appurtenances of a woman’s body, and yet not be a woman! Why, pray, are all the members feminine in a true living body, and yet the whole no woman? And why all be male, and the result not a man? Who can be so presumptuous as to believe, and profess, and teach all this? Is it that souls never generate? Then, of course, mules and she-mules are not male and female. Is it that souls without bodies of flesh would be unable to cohabit? Well, but this deprivation is shared by castrated men; and yet, although both the process and the motion be taken from them, their sex is not removed—some slender remnant of their male members being still left to them. Nobody ever said that a eunuch is not a male. What now becomes of your opinion, that the souls even of eunuchs have the generative organs unimpaired, and that these organs will remain entire, on your principle, in their souls, even when they are clean removed from their bodily structure? For you say, the soul knows how to withdraw itself when that part of the flesh begins to be cut off, so that the form which has been removed when amputated is not lost; but although spread over it by condensation, it retires by an extremely rapid movement, and so buries itself within as to be kept quite safe; yet that cannot, forsooth, be a male in the other world which carries with it thither the whole appendage of male organs of generation, and which, if it had not even other signs in the body, was a male by reason of those organs alone. These opinions, my son, have no truth in them; if you will not allow that there is sex in the soul, there cannot be a body either.
Chapter 34 [XXI.]—Prophetic Visions.
Not every semblance of a body is itself a body. Fall asleep and you will see this; but when you awake again, carefully discern what it is you have seen. For in your dreams you will appear to yourself as if endued with a body; but it really is not your body, but your soul; nor is it a real body, but the semblance of a body. Your body will be lying on the bed, but the soul walking; the tongue of your body will be silent, but that of your soul in the dream will talk;
your eyes will be shut, but your soul will be awake; and, of course, the limbs of your body stretched out in your bed will be alive, not dead. Consequently that congealed form, as you regard it, of your soul is not yet extracted, as it were, out of its sheath; and yet in it is seen the whole and perfect semblance of your fleshly frame. Belonging to this class of similitudes of corporeity, which are not real bodies, though they seem to be such, are all those appearances which you read of in the
Holy Scriptures in the visions even of the prophets, without, however, understanding them; by which are also signified the things which come to pass in all time—present, past, and future. You make mistakes about these, not because they are in themselves deceptive, but because you do not accept them as they ought to be taken. For in the same apocalyptic vision where “the souls of the martyrs” are seen,
Chapter 35.—Do Angels Appear to Men in Real Bodies?
It would, however, require too lengthy a discourse to enter very carefully on a discussion That is, as true apparitions indeed, but not as real bodies.
Chapter 36 [XXII.]—He Passes on to the Second Question About the Soul, Whether It is Called Spirit.
It now remains for me to show how it is that while the designation spirit is rightly predicated of a part of the soul, not the whole of it,—even as the apostle says, “Your whole spirit, and soul, and body;” [Compare On the City of God, xiv. 2, 6, and On the Trinity, x. 11, 18. Augustin denied the trichotomy of the Greek Fathers before Appollinaris, and held that the soul and spirit constituted a single substantial unity, and this one spiritual essence was “soul” (anima) so far as it was the informing and vivifying principle of the body, and “spirit” (spiritus) so far as it was the power of rational thought.—W.]
Chapter 37 [XXIII.]—Wide and Narrow Sense of the Word “Spirit.”
But now, with a view to our easier elucidation, I beg you to observe that what is the soul is also designated spirit in the scripture which narrates an incident in our Lord’s death, thus, “He bowed His head and gave up the spirit.” He seems to refer to
Chapter 38 [XXIV.]—Victor’s Chief Errors Again Pointed Out.
Wherefore if you take these books, which I have with a sincere and affectionate interest written in answer to your opinions, and read them with a reciprocal love for me; if you attend to what you have yourself declared in the beginning of your first book, and “are anxious not to insist on any opinion of your own, if it be found an improbable one,” See above in Book ii. 22 [xvi.]. See Book iii., next to last chapter.
Chapter 39.—Concluding Admonition.
If, as may possibly be the case, you desire to know whether there are many other points which appear to me to require emendation in your books, it cannot be troublesome for you to come to me,—not, indeed, as a scholar to his master, but as a person in his prime to one full of years, and as a strong man to a weak one. And although you ought not to have published your books, still there is a greater and a truer glory in a man’s being censured, when he confesses with his own lips the justice of his correction, than in being lauded out of the mouth of any defender of error. Now, while I should be unwilling to believe that all those who listened to your reading of the afore-mentioned books, and lavished their praises on you, had either previously held for themselves the opinions which sound doctrine disapproves of, or were induced by you to entertain them, I still cannot help thinking that they had the keenness of their mind blunted by the impetuous and constant flow of your elocution, and so were unable to bestow adequate attention on the contents of your discourse; or else, that when they were in any case capable of understanding what you said, it was less for any very clear statement of the truth that they praised you than for the affluence of your language, and the facility and resources of your mental powers. For praise, and fame, and kindly regard are very commonly bestowed on a young man’s eloquence in anticipation of the future, though as yet it lacks the mellowed perfection and fidelity of a fully-informed instructor. In order, then, that you may attain to true wisdom yourself, and that what you say may be able not only to delight, but even edify other people, it behoves you, after removing from your mind the dangerous applause of others, to keep conscientious watch over your own words.
a treatise against two letters of the pelagians.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 61,
On the Following Treatise,
“contra duas epistolas pelagianorum.”
————————————
Then follow four books which I wrote to Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, in opposition to two letters of the Pelagians, because when they came into his hands he had sent them to me, finding in them a calumnious mention of my name. This work commences on this wise: “I had indeed known you by the praise of your renowned fame.”
A Treatise against two letters of the pelagians, [When Augustin’s friend Alypius brought to Africa the extracts from Julian’s reply to Augustin’s first book On Marriage and Concupiscence, which were sent by Count Valerius, and which occasioned the writing of his second book on the same subject (see above, pp. 259 and 281), he also brought two letters sent by Pope Boniface; the one ascribed to Julian, and the other to eighteen bishops including Julian, which attacked the catholic faith, and Augustin
personally. It was in answer to these that this treatise was written.—W.]
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In Four Books,
written to boniface, bishop of the roman church, in opposition to two letters of the pelagians, a.d. 420, or a little later
————————————
Book I.
Augustin replies to a letter sent by Julian, as it was said, to Rome; and first of all vindicates the catholic doctrine from his calumnies; then discovers and confutes the heretical sense of the Pelagians hidden in that profession of faith which the author of the letter opposed to the catholics.
Chapter 1.—Introduction: Address to Boniface.
I Had indeed known you by the praise of your renowned fame; and by very numerous and veracious messengers I had learned how full you were of the grace of God, most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface! But after my brother Alypius saw you even in bodily presence; and, having been received by you with all kindness and sincerity, held, at the bidding of affection, conversations with you; and living with you, and, although only for a short
time, united with you in earnest affection, poured out to your mind both himself and me; and brought you back to me in his mind:—the more assured was your friendship, the greater became in me the conviction of your holiness. For you, who mind not high things, however loftily you are placed, did not disdain to be a friend of the lowly and to return the love bestowed upon you. For what else is friendship which has its name from no other source than love, The Latin words being amicitia (friendship) and amor (love).
Chapter 2.—Why Heretical Writings Must Be Answered.
For the new heretics, enemies of the grace of God which is given by Jesus Christ our Lord to small and great, although they are already shown more openly to need to be avoided by a manifest disapprobation, still do not cease by their writings to try the hearts of the less cautious and less learned. And these must certainly be answered, lest they should confirm themselves or their friends in that wicked error; even if we were not afraid that they might deceive some one
of the catholics by their plausible discourse. But since they do not cease to growl at the entrances
Chapter 3.—Why He Addresses His Book to Boniface.
But these words which I am answering to their two letters,—the one, to wit, which Julian is said to have sent to Rome, that by its means, as I believe, he might find or make as many allies as he could; and the other, which eighteen so-called bishops, sharers in his error, dared to write to Thessalonica, not to any and every body, but to the bishop of that place itself, with a view of tempting him by their craftiness and bringing him over, if it could be done, to their views;—these words which, as I said, I am writing in answer to those two letters of theirs in respect of that argument, I have determined to address especially to your sanctity, not so much for your learning as for your examination and, if perchance anything should displease you, for your correction. For my brother intimated to me that you yourself condescended to give those letters to him, which could not come into your hands except by the most watchful diligence of my brethren, your sons. And I thank your most sincere kindness to me that you have been unwilling that those letters of the enemies of God’s grace should be hidden from me, seeing that in them you have found my name calumniously as well as openly expressed. But I hope from my Lord God that not without the reward which is in heaven do those tear me with their scurrilous teeth to whom I oppose myself on behalf of the little ones, that they may not be left for destruction to the deceitful flatterer Pelagius, but may be presented for deliverance to the truthful Saviour Christ.
Chapter 4 [II.]—The Calumny of Julian,—That the Catholics Teach that Free Will is Taken Away by Adam’s Sin.
Let us now, therefore, reply to Julian’s letter. “Those Manicheans say,” says he, “with whom now we do not communicate,—that is, the whole of them with whom we differ,—that by the sin of the first man, that is, of Adam, free will perished: and that no one has now the power of living well, but that all are constrained into sin by the necessity of their flesh.” He calls the catholics Manicheans, after the manner of that Jovinian who a few years ago, as a new heretic, destroyed the virginity of the blessed Mary, and placed the marriage of the faithful on the same level with her sacred virginity. And he did not object this to the catholics on any other ground than that he wished them to seem to be either accusers or condemners of marriage.
Chapter 5.—Free Choice Did Not Perish With Adam ’s Sin. What Freedom Did Perish.
But in defending free will they hasten to confide rather in it for doing righteousness than in God’s aid, and to glory every one in himself, and not in the Lord.
Chapter 6 [III.]—Grace is Not Given According to Merits.
But lest perchance they say that they are aided to this,—that they may “have power to become the sons of God,” but that they may deserve to receive this power they have first “received Him” by free will with no assistance of grace (because this is the purpose of their endeavour to destroy grace, that they may contend that it is given according to our deservings); lest perchance, then, they so divide that evangelical statement as to refer merit to that portion of
it wherein it is said, “But as many as received Him,” and then say that in that which follows, “He gave them power to become the sons of God,” grace is not given freely, but is repaid to this merit; if it is asked of them what is the meaning of “received Him,” will they say anything else than “believed on Him”? And in order, therefore, that they may know that this also pertains to grace, let them read what the apostle says: “And that ye be in nothing terrified by your adversaries, which indeed
is to them a cause of perdition, but of your salvation, and that of God; for unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake.”
Chapter 7.—He Concludes that He Does Not Deprive the Wicked of Free Will.
It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that “all are forced into sin,” as if they were unwilling, “by the necessity of their flesh;” but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they
may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils,—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil,—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For “everything which is not of faith is sin.”
Chapter 8 [IV.]—The Pelagians Demolish Free Will.
These proud and haughty people will not have this; and yet they do not maintain free will by purifying it, but demolish it by exaggerating it. For they are angry with us who say these things, for no other reason than that they disdain to glory in the Lord. Yet Pelagius feared the episcopal judgment of Palestine; and when it was objected to him that he said that the grace of God is given according to our merits, he denied that he said so, and condemned those who
said this with an anathema. On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 30. On the Grace of Christ, 3, 34.
Chapter 9 [V.]—Another Calumny of Julian,—That “It is Said that Marriage is Not Appointed by God.”
But now let us see what follows. “They say also,” he says, “that those marriages which are now celebrated were not appointed by God, and this is to be read in Augustin’s book, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book i.
Chapter 10—The Third Calumny,—The Assertion that Conjugal Intercourse is Condemned.
“They say also,” says he, “that sexual impulse and the intercourse of married people were devised by the devil, and that therefore those who are born innocent are guilty, and that it is the work of the devil, not of God, that they are born of this diabolical intercourse. And this, without any ambiguity, is Manicheism.” Nay, as I say that marriage was appointed by God for the sake of the ordinance of the begetting of children, so I say that the propagation of children to be begotten could not have taken place without sexual impulse, and without intercourse of husband and wife, even in Paradise, if children were begotten there. But whether such impulse and intercourse would have existed, as is now the case with shameful lust, if no one had sinned, here is the question concerning which I shall argue hereafter, if God will.
Chapter 11 [VI.]—The Purpose of the Pelagians in Praising the Innocence of Conjugal Intercourse.
Yet what it is they wish, what they purpose, to what result they are striving to bring the matter, the words that are added by that writer declare, when he asserts that I say, “that therefore they who are born innocent are guilty, and that it is the work of the devil, not of God, that they are born of this diabolical intercourse.” Since, therefore, I neither say that this intercourse of husband and wife is diabolical, especially in the case of believers, which is
effected for the sake of generating children who are afterwards to be regenerated; nor that any men are made by the devil, but, in so far as they are men, by God; and nevertheless that even of believing husband and wife are born guilty persons (as if a wild olive were produced from an olive), On Marriage and Concupiscence, i. 37.
Chapter 12.—The Fourth Calumny,—That the Saints of the Old Testament are Said to Be Not Free from Sins.
“They say,” says he, “that the saints in the Old Testament were not without sins,—that is that they were not free from crimes even by amendment, but they were seized by death in their guilt.” Nay, I say that either before the law, or in the time of the Old Testament, they were freed from sins,—not by their own power, because “cursed is every one that hath put his hope in man,”
Chapter 13 [VIII.]—The Fifth Calumny,—That It is Said that Paul and the Rest of the Apostles Were Polluted by Lust.
He says, “They say that even the Apostle Paul, even all the apostles, were always polluted by immoderate lust.” What man, however profane he may be, would dare to say this? But doubtless this man thus misrepresents because they contend that what the apostle said, “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing, for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not,” On the Spirit and the Letter, 6.
Chapter 14.—That the Apostle is Speaking in His Own Person and that of Others Who Are Under Grace, Not Still Under Law.
And from this point he now begins—and, it was on account of this that I undertook the consideration of these things—to introduce his own person, and to speak as if about himself; where the Pelagians will not have it that the apostle himself is to be understood, but say that he has transfigured another person into himself,—that is, a man placed still under the law, not yet freed by grace. And here, indeed, they ought at least to concede that “in the law no one is justified,” as the same apostle says elsewhere; but that the law avails for the knowledge of sin, and for the transgression of the law itself, so that sin, being known and increased, grace may be sought for through faith. But they do not fear that those things should be understood concerning the apostle which he might also say concerning his past, but they fear those things which follow. For here he says: “I had not known lust if the law had not said, Thou shall not covet. But the occasion being taken, sin wrought in me by the commandment all manner of lust. For without the law sin was dead. But I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died, and the commandment which was for life was found for me to be death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good. Was, then, that which is good made death unto me? By no means. But sin, that it might appear sin, worked death to me by that which is good, that the sinner or the sin might become by the commandment excessive.” All these things, as I have said, the apostle can seem to have commemorated from his past life: so that from what he says, “For I was alive without the law once,” he may have wished his first age from infancy to be understood, before the years of reason; but in that he added, “But when the commandment came, sin revived, but I died,” he would fain show himself able to receive the commandment, but not to do it, and therefore a transgressor of the law.
Chapter 15 [IX.]—He Sins in Will Who is Only Deterred from Sinning by Fear.
Nor let us be disturbed by what he wrote to the Philippians: “Touching the righteousness which is in the law, one who is without blame.” For he could be within in evil affections a transgressor of the law, and yet fulfil the open works of the law, either by the fear of men or of God Himself; but by terror of punishment, not by love and delight in righteousness. For it is one thing to do good with the will of doing good, and another thing to be so inclined by the will to do evil, that one would actually do it if it could be allowed without punishment. For thus assuredly he is sinning within in his will itself, who abstains from sin not by will but by fear. And knowing himself to have been such in these his internal affections, before the grace of God which is through Jesus Christ our Lord, the apostle elsewhere confesses this very plainly. For writing to the Ephesians, he says: “And you, though ye were dead in your trespasses and sins, wherein sometime ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of that spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, in whom also we all at one time had our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of our flesh and our affections, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others also: but God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us even when we were dead in sins, quickened us together with Christ, by whose grace we are saved.” Again to Titus he says: “For we ourselves also were sometime foolish and unbelieving, erring, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and holding one another in hatred.” Such was Saul when he says that he was, touching the righteousness which is in the law, without reproach. For that he had not pressed on in the law, and changed his character so as to be without reproach after this hateful life, he plainly shows in what follows, when he says that he was not changed from these evils except by the grace of the Saviour. For adding also this very thing, here as well as to the Ephesians, he says: “But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour shone forth, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and of the renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He shed on us most abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by His grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Chapter 16.—How Sin Died, and How It Revived.
And what he says in that passage of the Epistle to the Romans, “Sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death to me by that which
Chapter 17 [X.]—“The Law is Spiritual, But I Am Carnal,” To Be Understood of Paul.
But it is not so clear how what follows can be understood concerning Paul. “For we know,” says he, “that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal.”
Chapter 18.—How the Apostle Said that He Did the Evil that He Would Not.
Or by chance do we fear what follows, “For that which I do I know not, for what I will I do not, but what I hate that I do,”
Chapter 19.—What It is to Accomplish What is Good.
And now does not what follows most plainly show whence he spoke? “For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing”?
Chapter 20.—In Me, that Is, in My Flesh.
And he declares both more plainly in what follows: “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
Chapter 21.—No Condemnation in Christ Jesus.
Then he adds the reason why he said all these things: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” And thence he concludes: “Therefore I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”
Chapter 22.—Why the Passage Referred to Must Be Understood of a Man Established Under Grace.
And it had once appeared to me also that the apostle was in this argument of his describing a man under the law. See Augustin’s Exposition of Certain Propositions in the Epistle to the Romans, 44, 45; also his Commentary on Galatians, v. 17; also his letter to Simplicianus, book i. 7, 9.
Chapter 23 [XI.]—What It is to Be Delivered from the Body of This Death.
For when he says also, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”
Chapter 24.—He Concludes that the Apostle Spoke in His Own Person, and that of Those Who are Under Grace.
On the careful consideration of these things, and things of the same kind in the context of that apostolical Scripture, the apostle is rightly understood to have signified not, indeed, himself alone in his own person, but others also established under grace, and with him not yet established in that perfect peace in which death shall be swallowed up in victory.
Chapter 25 [XII.]—The Sixth Calumny,—That Augustin Asserts that Even Christ Was Not Free from Sins.
In like manner as to what he added, that I say, See Book iii. 16, below.
Chapter 26 [XIII.]—The Seventh Calumny,—That Augustin Asserts that in Baptism All Sins are Not Remitted.
“They also say,” says he, “that baptism does not give complete remission of sins, nor take away crimes, but that it shaves them off, so that the roots of all sins are retained in the evil flesh.” Who but an unbeliever can affirm this against the Pelagians? I say, therefore, that baptism gives remission of all sins, and takes away guilt, and does not shave them off; and “that the roots of all sins are” not “retained in the evil flesh, as if of shaved hair on the head, whence the sins may grow to be cut down again.” For it was I that found out that similitude, too, for them to use for the purposes of their calumny, as if I thought and said this.
Chapter 27.—In What Sense Lust is Called Sin in the Regenerate.
But concerning that concupiscence of the flesh of which they speak, I believe that they are deceived, or that they deceive; for with this even he that is baptized must struggle with a pious mind, however carefully he presses forward, and is led by the Spirit of God. But although this is called sin, it is certainly so called not because it is sin, but because it is made by sin, as a writing is said to be some one’s “hand” because the hand has written it. But they are
sins which are unlawfully done, spoken, thought, according to the lust of the flesh, or to ignorance—things which, once done, keep their doers guilty if they are not forgiven. And this very concupiscence of the flesh is in such wise put away in baptism, that although it is inherited by all that are born, it in no respect hurts those that are born anew. And yet from these, if they carnally beget children, it is again derived; and again it will be hurtful to those that are born, unless by the
same form it is remitted to them as born again, and remains in them in no way hindering the future life, because its guilt, derived by generation, has been put away by regeneration; and thus it is now no more sin, but is called so, whether because it became what it is by sin, or because it is stirred by the delight of sinning, although by the conquest of the delight of righteousness consent is not given to it. Nor is it on account of this, the guilt of which has already been taken away in the
laver of regeneration,
Chapter 28 [XIV.]—Many Without Crime, None Without Sin.
All these products of concupiscence, and the old guilt of concupiscence itself, are put away by the washing of baptism. And whatever that concupiscence now brings forth, if they are not those products which are called not only sins, but even crimes, are purified by that method of daily prayer when we say, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive,” and by the sincerity of alms-giving. For no one is so foolish as to say that that precept of our Lord does not refer to
baptized people: “Forgive and it shall be forgiven you, give and it shall be given you.”
Chapter 29 [XV.]—Julian Opposes the Faith of His Friends to the Opinions of Catholic Believers. First of All, of Free Will.
Now therefore let us see, for the rest, in what way—after thinking that he might calumniously object against me what I believe, and feign what I do not believe—he himself professes his own faith or that of the Pelagians. “In opposition to these things,” he says, “we daily argue, and we are unwilling to yield our consent to transgressors, because we say that free will is in all by nature, and could not perish by the sin of Adam; which assertion is confirmed by the authority of all Scriptures.” If in any degree it is necessary to say this, you should not say it against the grace of God,—you should not give your consent to transgressors, but you should correct your opinion. But about this, as much as I could, and as far as it seemed to be sufficient, I have argued above.
Chapter 30.—Secondly, of Marriage.
“We say,” says he, “that that marriage which is now celebrated throughout the earth was ordained by God, and that married people are not guilty, but that fornicators and adulterers are to be condemned.” This is true and catholic doctrine; but what you want to gather from this, to wit, that from the intercourse of male and female those who are born derive no sin to be put away by the laver of regeneration,—this is false and heretical.
Chapter 31.—Thirdly, of Conjugal Intercourse.
“We say,” says he, “that the sexual impulse—that is, that the virility itself, without which there can be no intercourse—is ordained by God.” To this I reply that the sexual impulse, and, to make use of his word, virility, without which there can be no intercourse, was so appointed by God that there was in it nothing to be ashamed of. For it was not fit that His creature should blush at the work of his Creator; but by a just punishment the disobedience of the members was the retribution to the disobedience of the first man, for which disobedience they blushed when they covered with fig-leaves those shameful parts which previously were not shameful.
Chapter 32 [XVI.]—The Aprons Which Adam and Eve Wore.
For they did not use for themselves tunics to cover their whole bodies after their sin, but aprons, Succinctoria. Campestria, which, as Augustin explains, is derived from “campester,” and that from “campus.” See On the City of God, xiv. 17. i.e. “campestre-clad.”
Chapter 33.—The Shame of Nakedness.
This kind of shame—this necessity of blushing—is certainly born with every man, and in some measure is commanded by the very laws of nature; so that, in this matter, even virtuous married people are ashamed. Nor can any one go to such an extreme of evil and disgrace, as, because he knows God to be the author of nature and the ordainer of marriage, to have intercourse even with his wife in any one’s sight, or not to blush at those impulses and seek secrecy, where he can shun the sight not only of strangers, but even of all his own relatives. Therefore let human nature be permitted to acknowledge the evil that happens to it by its own fault, lest it should be compelled either not to blush at its own impulses, which is most shameless, or else to blush at the work of its Creator, which is most ungrateful. Of this evil, nevertheless, virtuous marriage makes good use for the sake of the benefit of the begetting of children. But to consent to lust for the sake of carnal pleasure alone is sin, although it may be conceded to married people with permission.
Chapter 34 [XVII.]—Whether There Could Be Sensual Appetite in Paradise Before the Fall.
But, while maintaining, ye Pelagians, the honourableness and fruitfulness of marriage, determine, if nobody had sinned, what you would wish to consider the life of those people in Paradise, and choose one of these four things. For beyond a doubt, either as often as ever they pleased they would have had intercourse; or they would bridle lust when intercourse was not necessary; or lust would arise at the summons of will, just at the time when chaste prudence would have perceived beforehand that intercourse was necessary; or, with no lust existing at all, as every other member served for its own work, so for its own work the organs of generation also would obey the commands of those that willed, without any difficulty. Of these four suppositions, choose which you please; but I think you will reject the two former, in which lust is either obeyed or resisted. For the first one would not be in accordance with so great a virtue, and the second not in harmony with so great a happiness. For be the idea far from us, that the glory of so great a blessedness as that should either be most basely enslaved by always following a preceding lust, or, by resisting it, should not enjoy the most abounding peace. Away, I say, with the thought that that mind should either be gratified by consenting to satisfy the concupiscence of the flesh, arising not opportunely for the sake of procreation, but with unregulated excitement, or that that quiet should find it necessary to restrain it by refusing.
Chapter 35.—Desire in Paradise Was Either None at All, or It Was Obedient to the Impulse of the Will.
But whichever you choose of the two other alternatives, there is no necessity for striving against you with any disputation. For even if you should refuse to elect the fourth, in which there is the highest tranquillity of all the obedient members without any lust, since already the urgency of your arguments has made you hostile
Chapter 36 [XVIII.]—Julian’s Fourth Objection, that Man is God’s Work, and is Not Constrained to Evil or Good by His Power.
“We maintain,” says he, “that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good work he is always assisted by God’s grace, while in evil he is incited by the suggestions of the devil.” To this I answer, that men, in so far as they are men, are the work of God; but in so far as they are sinners, they are under the devil, unless they are
plucked from thence by Him who became the Mediator between God and man, for no other reason than because He could not be a sinner from men. And that no one is forced by God’s power unwillingly either into evil or good, but that when God forsakes a man, he deservedly goes to evil, and that when God assists, without deserving he is converted to good. For a man is not good if he is unwilling, but by the grace of God he is even assisted to the point of being willing; because it is not vainly
written, “For it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do for His good pleasure,”
Chapter 37 [XIX.]—The Beginning of a Good Will is the Gift of Grace.
But you think that a man is so aided by the grace of God in a good work, that in stirring up his will to that very good work you believe that grace does nothing; for this your own words sufficiently declare. For why have you not said that a man is incited by God’s grace to a good work, as you have said that he is incited to evil by the suggestions of the devil, but have said that in a good work he is always aided by God’s grace?—as if by his own will, and without
any grace of God, he undertook a good work, and were then divinely assisted in the work itself, for the sake, that is to say, of the merits of his good will; so that grace is rendered as due,—not given as not due,—and thus grace is made no more grace. See above, ch. 6.
Chapter 38 [XX.]—The Power of God’s Grace is Proved.
That this is true we do not surmise by human conjecture, but we discern by the most evident authority of the divine Scriptures. It is read in the books of the Chronicles: “Also in Judah, the hand of God was made to give them one heart, to do the commandment of the king and of the princes in the word of the Lord.”
Chapter 39 [XXI.]—Julian’s Fifth Objection Concerning the Saints of the Old Testament.
“We say,” says he, “that the saints of the Old Testament, their righteousness being perfected here, passed to eternal life,—that is, that by the love of virtue they departed from all sins; because those whom we read of as having committed any sin, we nevertheless know to have amended themselves.” Of whatever virtue you may declare that the ancient righteous men were possessed, nothing saved them but the belief in the Mediator who shed His blood for the remission
of their sins. For their own word is, “I believed, and therefore I spoke.” See above, On Original Sin, 30.
Chapter 40 [XXII.]—The Sixth Objection, Concerning the Necessity of Grace for All, and Concerning the Baptism of Infants.
They say, “We confess that the grace of Christ is necessary to all, both to grown-up people and to infants; and we anathematize those who say that a child born of two baptized people ought not to be baptized.” I know in what sense you say such things as these—not according to the Apostle Paul, but according to the heretic Pelagius;—to wit, that baptism is necessary for infants, not for the sake of the remission of sins, but only for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven; for you give them outside the kingdom of heaven a place of salvation and life eternal, even if they have not been baptized. Nor do you regard what is written, “Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he who believeth not shall be condemned.”
Chapter 41 [XXIII.]—The Seventh Objection, of the Effect of Baptism.
“We condemn,” says he, “those who affirm that baptism does not do away all sins, because we know that full cleansing is conferred by these mysteries.” We also say this; but you do not say that infants are also by those same mysteries freed from the bonds of their first birth and of their hateful descent. On which account it behoves you, like other heretics also, to be separated from the Church of Christ, which holds this of old time.
Chapter 42 [XXIV.]—He Rebuts the Conclusion of Julian’s Letter.
But now the manner in which he concludes the letter by saying, “Let no one therefore seduce you, nor let the wicked deny that they think these things. But if they speak the truth, either let a hearing be given, or let those very bishops who now disagree with me condemn what I have above said that they hold with the Manicheans, as we condemn those things which they declare concerning us, and a full agreement shall be made; but if they will not, know ye that they
are Manicheans, and abstain from their company;”—this is rather to be despised than rebuked. For which of us hesitates to pronounce an anathema against the Manicheans, who say that from the good God neither proceed men, nor was ordained marriage, nor was given the law, which was ministered to the Hebrew people by Moses! But against the Pelagians also, not without reason, we pronounce an anathema, for that they are so hostile to God’s grace, which comes through Jesus Christ our Lord, as to say
that it is given not freely, but according to our merits, and thus grace is no more grace;
Book II.
He undertakes to examine the second letter of the Pelagians, filled, like the first, with calumnies against the Catholics—a letter that was sent by them to Thessalonica in the name of eighteen bishops; and, first of all, he shows, by the comparison of the heretical writings with one another, that the Catholics are by no means falling into the errors of the Manicheans in detesting the dogmas of the Pelagians. He repels the calumny of prevarication incurred by the Roman clergy in the latter condemnation of Pelagius and Cœlestius by Zosimus, showing that the Pelagian dogmas were never approved at Rome, although for some time, by the clemency of Zosimus, Cœlestius was mercifully dealt with, with a view to leading him to the correction of his errors. He shows that, under the name of grace, Catholics neither assert a doctrine of fate, nor attribute respect of persons to God; although they truly say that God’s grace is not given according to human merits, and that the first desire of good is inspired by God; so that a man does not at all make a beginning of a change from bad to good, unless the unbought and gratuitous mercy of God effects that beginning in him.
Chapter 1.—Introduction; The Pelagians Impeach Catholics as Manicheans.
Let me now consider a second letter, not of Julian’s alone, but common to him with several bishops, which they sent to Thessalonica; and let me answer it, with God’s help, as I best can. And lest this work of mine become longer than the necessity of the subject itself requires, what need is there to refute those things which do not contain the insidious poison of their doctrine, but seem only to plead for the acquiescence of the Eastern
bishops for their assistance, or, on behalf of the catholic faith, against the profanity, as they say, of the Manicheans; with no other view except, a horrible heresy being presented to them, whose adversaries they profess themselves to be, to lie hid as the enemies of grace in praise of nature? For who at any time has stirred any question of these matters against them? or what catholic is displeased because they condemn those whom the apostle foretold as departing from the faith, having their
conscience seared, forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats that they think unclean, not thinking that all things were created by God?
Chapter 2 [II.]—The Heresies of the Manicheans and Pelagians are Mutually Opposed, and are Alike Reprobated by the Catholic Church.
The Manicheans say that the good God is not the Creator of all natures; the Pelagians that God is not the Purifier, the Saviour, the Deliverer of all ages among men. The catholic Church condemns both; as well maintaining God’s creation against the Manicheans, that no nature may be denied to be framed by Him, as maintaining against the Pelagians that in all ages human nature must be sought after as ruined. The Manicheans rebuke the concupiscence of the flesh, not
as if it were an accidental vice, but as if it were a nature bad from eternity; the Pelagians approve it as if it were no vice, but even a natural good. The catholic faith condemns both, saying to the Manicheans, “It is not nature, but it is vice;” saying to the Pelagians, “It is not of the Father, but it is of the world;” in order that both may allow it as an evil sickness to be cured—the former by ceasing to believe it, as it were, incurable, the latter by ceasing to proclaim it as laudable.
The Manicheans deny that to a good man the beginning of evil came from free will; the Pelagians say that even a bad man has free will sufficiently to perform the good commandment. The catholic Church condemns both, saying to the former, “God made man upright,”
Chapter 3.—How Far the Manicheans and Pelagians are Joined in Error; How Far They are Separated.
Still, indeed, they alike oppose the grace of Christ, they alike make His baptism of no account, they alike dishonour His flesh; but, moreover, they do these things in different ways and for different reasons. For the Manicheans assert that divine assistance is given to the merits of a good nature, but the Pelagians, to the merits of a good will. The former say, God owes this to the labours of His members; the latter say, God owes this to the virtues of His servants. In both cases, therefore, the reward is not imputed according to grace, but according to debt. The Manicheans contend, with a profane heart, that the washing of regeneration—that is, the water itself—is superfluous, and is of no advantage. But the Pelagians assert that what is said in holy baptism for the putting away of sins is of no avail to infants, as they have no sin; and thus in the baptism of infants, as far as pertains to the remission of sins, the Manicheans destroy the visible element, but the Pelagians destroy even the invisible sacrament. The Manicheans dishonour Christ’s flesh by blaspheming the birth from the Virgin; but the Pelagians by making the flesh of those to be redeemed equal to the flesh of the Redeemer. Since Christ was born, not of course in sinful flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh, while the flesh of the rest of mankind is born sinful. The Manicheans, therefore, who absolutely abominate all flesh, take away the manifest truth from the flesh of Christ; but the Pelagians, who maintain that no flesh is born sinful, take away from Christ’s flesh its special and proper dignity.
Chapter 4.—The Two Contrary Errors.
Let the Pelagians, then, cease to object to the catholics that which they are not, but let them rather hasten to amend what they themselves are; and let them not wish to be considered deserving of approval because they are opposed to the hateful error of the Manicheans, but let them acknowledge themselves to be deservedly hateful because they do not put away their own error. For two errors may be opposed to one another, although both are to be reprobated because both are alike opposed to the truth. For if the Pelagians are to be loved because they hate the Manicheans, the Manicheans should also be loved because they hate the Pelagians. But be it far from our catholic mother to choose some to love on the ground that they hate others, when by the warning and help of the Lord she ought to avoid both, and should desire to heal both.
Chapter 5 [III.]—The Calumny of the Pelagians Against the Clergy of the Roman Church.
Moreover, they accuse the Roman clergy, writing, “That, driven by the fear of a command, they have not blushed to be guilty of the See On Original Sin, 9, 5, 8. See Augustin’s Letters, 181, 182, 183.
Chapter 6 [IV.]—What Was Done in the Case of Cœlestius and Zosimus.
But what need is there for us to delay longer in speaking of this matter, when there are extant here and there proceedings and writings drawn up, where all those things just as they were Augustin’s Letters, 181, 7. See On Original Sin, 3.
Chapter 7.—He Suggests a Dilemma to Cœlestius.
What was that which the same pope replied to the bishops of Numidia concerning this very cause, because he had received letters from both Councils, as well from the Council of Carthage as from the Council of Mileve—does he not speak most plainly concerning infants? For these are his words: See Augustin’s Letters, 182, 5. An address like “your Honour,” “your Love,” etc.
Chapter 8.—The Catholic Faith Concerning Infants.
What do they say to these things who dare also to write their mischievous impieties, and dare to send them to the Eastern bishops? Cœlestius is held to have given consent to the letters of the venerable Innocent; the letters themselves of the prelate mentioned are read, and he writes that infants who are not baptized cannot have life. And who will deny that, as a consequence, they have death, if they have not life? Whence, then, in infants, is so wretched a penalty as
that, if there is no original fault? How, then, are the Roman clergy charged with prevarication by those forsakers of the faith and opponents of grace under Bishop Zosimus, as if they had had any other view in the subsequent condemnation of Cœlestius and Pelagius than that which they had in a former one under Innocent? Because, certainly, since by the letters of the venerable Innocent concerning the abode of infants in eternal death unless they were baptized in Christ, the antiquity of the
catholic faith shone forth, assuredly he would rather be a prevaricator from the Roman Church who should
Chapter 9 [V.]—He Replies to the Calumnies of the Pelagians.
And now we must look to those things which they objected to us in their letters, and briefly mentioned. And to these this is my answer. We do not say that by the sin of Adam free will perished out of the nature of men; but that it avails for sinning in men subjected to the devil; while it is not of avail for good and pious living, unless the will itself of man should be made free by God’s grace, and assisted to every good movement of action, of speech, of thought. We say that no one but the Lord God is the maker of those who are born, and that marriage was ordained not by the devil, but by God Himself; yet that all are born under sin on account of the fault of propagation, and that, therefore, all are under the devil until they are born again in Christ. Nor are we maintaining fate under the name of grace, because we say that the grace of God is preceded by no merits of man. If, however, it is agreeable to any to call the will of the Almighty God by the name of fate, while we indeed shun profane novelties of words, we have no use for contending about words.
Chapter 10.—Why the Pelagians Falsely Accuse Catholics of Maintaining Fate Under the Name of Grace.
But, as I was somewhat more attentively considering for what reason they should think it well to object this to us, that we assert fate under the name of grace, I first of all looked into those words of theirs which follow. For thus they have thought that this was to be objected to us: “Under the name,” say they, “of grace, they so assert fate as to say that unless God inspired unwilling and resisting man with the desire of good, and that good imperfect, he would
neither be able to decline from evil nor to lay hold of good.” Then a little after, where they mention what they maintain, I gave heed to what was said by them about this matter. “We confess,” say they, that baptism is necessary for all ages, and that grace, moreover, assists the good purpose of everybody; but yet that it does not infuse the love of virtue into a reluctant one, because there is no acceptance of persons with God.” See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 30. See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 34.
Chapter 11 [VI.]—The Accusation of Fate is Thrown Back Upon the Adversaries.
But is it true, O children of pride, enemies of God’s grace, new Pelagian heretics, that whoever says that all man’s good deservings are preceded by God’s grace, and that God’s grace is not given to merits, lest it should not be grace if it is not given freely but be repaid as due to those who deserve it, seems to you to assert fate?
Chapter 12.—What is Meant Under the Name of Fate.
Because they who affirm fate contend that not only actions and events, but, moreover, our very wills themselves depend on the position of the stars at the time in which one is conceived or born; which positions they call “constellations.” But the grace of God stands above not only all stars and all heavens, but, moreover, all angels. In a word, the assertors of fate attribute both men’s good and evil doings and fortunes to fate; but God in the ill fortunes of men
follows up their merits with due retribution, while good fortunes He bestows by undeserved grace with a merciful will; doing both the one and the other not according to a temporal conjunction of stars, but according to the eternal and high counsel of His severity and goodness. We see, then, that neither belongs to fate. Here, if you answer that this very benevolence of God, by which He follows not merits, but bestows undeserved benefits with gratuitous bounty, should rather be called “fate,”
when the apostle calls this “grace,” saying, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God; not of works, lest perchance any one should be lifted up,”
Chapter 13 [VII.]—He Repels the Calumny Concerning the Acceptance of Persons.
And, moreover, we rightly call it “acceptance of persons” where he who judges, neglecting the merit of the cause concerning which he is judging, favours the one against the other, because he finds something in his person which is worthy of honour or of pity. But if any one have two debtors, and he choose to remit the debt to the one, to require it of the other, he gives to whom he will and defrauds nobody; nor is this to be called “acceptance of persons,” since
there is no injustice. The acceptance of persons may seem otherwise to those who are of small understanding, where the lord of the vineyard gave to those labourers who had done work therein for one hour as much as to those who had borne the burden and heat of the day, making them equal in wages in the labour of whom there had been such a difference. But what did he reply to those who murmured against the goodman of the house concerning this, as it were, acceptance of persons? “Friend,” said he,
“I do thee no wrong. Hast not thou agreed with me for a denarius? Take what thine is, and go; but I choose to give to this last as to thee. Is it not lawful to me to do what I will? Is thine eye evil because I am good?”
Chapter 14.—He Illustrates His Argument by an Example.
But that what I am saying may be made clear by the exhibition of an example, let us suppose certain twins, born of a certain harlot, and exposed that they might be taken up by others. One of them has expired without baptism; the other is baptized. What can we say was in this case the “fate” or the “fortune,” which are here absolutely nothing? What “acceptance of persons,” when with God there is none, even if there could be any such thing in these cases, seeing that they certainly had nothing for which the one could be preferred to the other, and no merits of their own,—whether good, for which the one might deserve to be baptized; or evil, for which the other might deserve to die without baptism? Were there any merits in their parents, when the father was a fornicator, the mother a harlot? But of whatever kind those merits were, there were certainly not any that were different in those who died in such different conditions, but all were common to both. If, then, neither fate, since no stars made them to differ; nor fortune, since no fortuitous accidents produce these things; nor the diversity of persons nor of merits have done this; what remains, so far as it refers to the baptized child, save the grace of God, which is given freely to vessels made unto honour; but, as it refers to the unbaptized child, the wrath of God, which is repaid to the vessels made for dishonour in respect of the deservings of the lump itself? But in that one which is baptized we constrain you to confess the grace of God, and convince you that no merit of its own preceded; but as to that one which died without baptism, why that sacrament should have been wanting to it, which even you confess to be needful for all ages, and what in that manner may have been punished in him, it is for you to see who will not have it that there is any original sin.
Chapter 15.—The Apostle Meets the Question by Leaving It Unsolved.
Since in the case of those two twins we have without a doubt one and the same case, the difficulty of the question why the one died in one way, and the other in another, is solved by the apostle as it were by not solving it; for, when he had proposed something of the same kind about two twins, seeing that it was said (not of works, since they had not as yet done anything either of good or of evil, but of Him that calleth), “The older shall serve the younger,”
Chapter 16.—The Pelagians are Refuted by the Case of the Twin Infants Dying, the One After, and the Other Without, the Grace of Baptism.
But that every lurking-place of your darkness
Chapter 17 [VIII.]—Even the Desire of an Imperfect Good is a Gift of Grace, Otherwise Grace Would Be Given According to Merits.
Let us now see, as we can, the nature of this thing which they will have to precede in man, in order that he may be regarded as worthy of the assistance of grace, and to the merit of which in him grace is not given as if unearned, but is rendered as due; and thus grace is no more grace. Let us see, however, what this is. “Under the name,” say they, “of grace, they so assert fate as to say that unless God should have inspired the desire for good, and that,
imperfect good, into unwilling and resisting man, he would neither be able to decline from evil nor to grasp after good.” I have already shown what empty things they speak about fate and grace. Now the question which I ought to consider is this, whether God inspires the desire of good into unwilling and resisting man, that he may be no longer unwilling, no longer resisting, but consenting to the good and willing the good. For those men will have it that the desire of good in man begins from man
himself; that the merit of this beginning is, moreover, attended with the grace of completion—if, at least, they will allow so much as even this. For Pelagius says that what is good is “more easily” fulfilled if grace assists. See above, On the Grace of Christ, ch. 8.
Chapter 18.—The Desire of Good is God’s Gift.
For they have thought that it was to be objected to us that we say “that God inspires into unwilling and resisting man the desire,” not of any very great good, but “even of imperfect good.” Possibly, then, they themselves are keeping open, in some sense at least, a place for grace, as thinking that man may have the desire of good without grace, but only of imperfect good; while of perfect, he could not easily have the desire with grace, but except with it they
could not have it at all. Truly, even in this way, too, they are saying that God’s grace is given according to our merits, which Pelagius, in the ecclesiastical meeting in the East, condemned, in the fear of being condemned. For if without God’s grace the desire of good begins with ourselves, merit itself will have begun—to which, as if of debt, comes the assistance of grace; and thus God’s grace will not be bestowed freely, but will be given according to our merit. But that he might furnish a
reply to the future Pelagius, the Lord does not say, “Without me it is with difficulty that you can do anything,” but He says, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Chapter 19 [IX.]—He Interprets the Scriptures Which the Pelagians Make Ill Use of.
But assuredly, as to what is written, “The preparation of the heart is man’s part, and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord,”
Chapter 20.—God’s Agency is Needful Even in Man’s Doings.
For as it is said, “It is man’s part to prepare his heart, and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord;” so also is it said, “Open thy mouth, and I will fill it.”
Chapter 21.—Man Does No Good Thing Which God Does Not Cause Him to Do.
Wherefore God does many good things in man which man does not do; but man does none which God does not cause man to do. Accordingly, there would be no desire of good in man from the Lord if it were not a good; but if it is a good, we have it not save from Him who is supremely and incommunicably good. For what is the desire for good but love, of which John the apostle speaks without any ambiguity, and
Chapter 22 [X.]—According to Whose Purpose the Elect are Called.
Why, then, is it that, in what follows, where they mention what they themselves think, they say they confess “That grace also assists the good purpose of every one, but that yet it does not infuse the desire of virtue into a reluctant heart”? Because they so say this as if man of himself, without God’s assistance, has a good purpose and a desire of virtue; and this precedent merit is worthy of being assisted by the subsequent grace of God. For they think,
perchance, that the apostle thus said, “For we know that He worketh all things for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to the purpose,”
Chapter 23.—Nothing is Commanded to Man Which is Not Given by God.
Since these things are so, I see that nothing is commanded to man by the Lord in the Holy Scriptures, for the sake of trying his free will, which is not found either to begin by His goodness, or to be asked in order to demonstrate the aid of grace; nor does man at all begin to be changed by the beginning of faith from evil to good, unless the unbought and gratuitous mercy of God effects this in him. Of which one recalling his thought, as we read in the Psalms,
says, “Shall God forget to be gracious? or will He restrain His mercies in His anger? And I said, Now have I begun; this change is of the right hand of the Most High.”
Book III.
Augustin goes on to refute other matters which are calumniously objected by the Pelagians in the same letter sent to Thessalonica; and expounds, in opposition to their heresy, what those who are truly Catholic say concerning the utility of the law; what they teach of the effect and virtue of baptism; what of the discrepancy between the two Testaments, the Old and the New; what concerning the righteousness and perfection of the prophets and apostles; what of the appellation of sin in Christ, when He is said in the likeness of sinful flesh concerning sin to have condemned sin, or to have become sin; and finally, what they profess concerning the fulfilment of the commandments in the future life.
Chapter 1 [I.]—Statement.
There still follow things which they calumniously object to us; they do not yet begin to work out those things which they themselves think. But lest the prolixity of these writings should be an offence, I have divided those matters which they object into two Books,—the former of which being completed, which is the Second Book of this entire work, I am here commencing the other, and joining it as the Third to the First and Second.
Chapter 2 [II.]—The Misrepresentation of the Pelagians Concerning the Use of the Old Law.
They declare “that we say that the law of the Old Testament was given not for the end that it might justify the obedient, but rather that it might become the cause of greater sin.” Certainly, they do not understand what we say concerning the law; because we say what the apostle says, whom they do not understand. For who can say that they are not justified who are obedient to the law, when, unless they were justified, they could not be obedient? But we say, that by
the law is effected that what God wills to be done is heard, but that by grace is effected that the law is obeyed. “For not the hearers of the law,” says the apostle, “are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” See On the Spirit and the Letter, 6.
Chapter 3.—Scriptural Confirmation of the Catholic Doctrine.
This is what we say; this is that about which they object to us that we say “that the law was so given as to be a cause of greater sin.” They do not hear the apostle saying, “For the law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression;”
Chapter 4 [III.]—Misrepresentation Concerning the Effect of Baptism.
“They assert,” say they, “that baptism, moreover, does not make men new—that is, does not give complete remission of sins; but they contend that they are partly made children of God and partly remain children of the world, that is, of the devil.” They deceive; they lay traps; they shuffle; we do not say this. For we say that all men who are children of the devil are also children of the world; but not that all children of the world are also children of the devil.
Far be it from us to say that the holy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others of this kind, were children of the devil when they were begetting in marriage, and those believers who until now and still hereafter continue to beget. And yet we cannot contradict the Lord when He says, “The children of this world marry and give in marriage.”
Chapter 5.—Baptism Puts Away All Sins, But It Does Not at Once Heal All Infirmities.
Baptism, therefore, washes away indeed all sins—absolutely all sins, whether of deeds or words or thoughts, whether original or added, whether such as are committed in ignorance or allowed in knowledge; but it does not take away the weakness which the regenerate man resists when he fights the good fight, but to which he consents when as man he is overtaken in any fault; on account of the former, rejoicing with thanksgiving, but on account of the latter, groaning
in the utterance of prayers. On account of the former, saying, “What shall I render to the Lord for all that He has given me?”
Chapter 6 [IV.]—The Calumny Concerning the Old Testament and the Righteous Men of Old.
Now if these things are so, out of these things are rebutted those which they subsequently object to us. For what catholic would say that which they charge us with saying, “that the Holy Spirit was not the assister of virtue in the old testament,” unless when we so understand “the old testament” in the manner in which the apostle spoke of it as “gendering from Mount Sinai into bondage”? But because in it was prefigured the new testament, the men of God who at that
time understood this according to the ordering of the times, were indeed the stewards and bearers of the old testament, but are shown to be the heirs of the new. Shall we deny that he belongs to the new testament who says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me”?
Chapter 7.—The New Testament is More Ancient Than the Old; But It Was Subsequently Revealed.
Here, certainly, if we ask whether this testament, which, he says, being confirmed by God was not weakened by the law, which was made four hundred and thirty years after, is to be understood as the new or the old one, who can hesitate to answer “the new, but hidden in the prophetic shadows until the time should come wherein it should be revealed in Christ”? For if we should say the old, what will that be which genders from Mount Sinai to bondage? For there was
made the law four hundred and thirty years after, by which law he asserts that this testament of the promise of Abraham could not be weakened; and he will have this which was made by Abraham to pertain rather to us, whom he will have to be children of the freewoman, not of the bondwoman, heirs by the promise, not by the law, when he says, “For if the inheritance be by the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”
Chapter 8.—All Righteous Men Before and After Abraham are Children of the Promise and of Grace.
Whether, then, Abraham, or righteous men before him or after him, even to Moses himself, by whom was given the testament gendering to bondage from Mount Sinai, or the rest of the prophets after him, and the holy men of God till John the Baptist, they are all children of the promise and of grace according to Isaac the son of the freewoman,—not of the law, but of the promise, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Far be it from us to deny that righteous Noah and the righteous men of the earlier times, and whoever from that time till the time of Abraham could be righteous, either manifestly or hiddenly, belong to the Jerusalem which is above, who is our mother, although they are found to be earlier in time than Sarah, who bore the prophecy and figure of the free mother herself. How much more evidently, then, after Abraham, to whom that promise was declared, that he should be called the father of many nations, must all, whoever have pleased God, be esteemed the children of the promise! For from Abraham, and the righteous men who followed him, the generation is not found more true, but the prophecy more plain.
Chapter 9.—Who are the Children of the Old Covenant.
But those belong to the old testament, “which gendereth from Mount Sinai to bondage,” which is Agar, who, when they have received a law which is holy and just and good, think that the letter can suffice them for life; and do not seek the divine mercy, so as they may become doers of the law, but, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, are not subject to the righteousness of God. Of this kind was that multitude which
murmured against God in the wilderness, and made an idol; and that multitude which even in the very land of promise committed fornication after strange gods. But this multitude, even in the old testament itself, was strongly rebuked. They, moreover, whoever they were at that time who followed after those earthly promises alone which God promises there, and who were ignorant of that which those promises signify under the new testament, and
Chapter 10.—The Old Law Also Given by God.
And it is for this reason that God made the old testament, because it pleased God to veil the heavenly promises in earthly promises, as if established in reward, until the fulness of time; and to give to a people which longed for earthly blessings, and therefore had a hard heart, a law, which, although spiritual, was yet written on tables of stone. Because, with the exception of the sacraments of the old books, which were only enjoined for the sake of their
significance (although in them also, since they are to be spiritually understood, the law is rightly called spiritual), the other matters certainly which pertain to piety and to good living must not be referred by any interpretation to some significancy, [i.e., they must not be treated allegorically, as if their literal sense was not important, and they were given only to teach something symbolically or typically.—W.]
Chapter 11.—Distinction Between the Children of the Old and of the New Testaments.
But there is plainly this great difference, that they who are established under the law, whom the letter killeth, do these things either with the desire of gaining, or with the fear of losing earthly happiness; and that thus they do not truly do them, since fleshly desire, by which sin is rather bartered or increased, is not healed by desire of another kind. These pertain to the old testament, which genders to bondage; because carnal fear and desire make them servants,
gospel faith and hope and love do not make them children. But they who are placed under grace, whom the Spirit quickens, do these things of faith which worketh by love in the hope of good things, not carnal but spiritual, not earthly but heavenly, not temporal but eternal; especially believing on the Mediator, by whom they do not doubt but that a Spirit of grace is ministered to them, so that they may do these things well, and that they may be pardoned when they sin. These pertain to the new
testament, are the children of promise, and are regenerated by God the Father and a free mother. Of this kind were all the righteous men of old, and Moses himself, the minister of the old testament, the heir of the new,—because of the faith whereby we live, of one and the same they lived, believing the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ
Chapter 12.—The Old Testament is Properly One Thing—The Old Instrument Another.
Therefore, by a custom of speech already prevailing, in one way the law and all the prophets who prophesied until John are called the “Old Testament;” although this is more definitely called the “Old Instrument” rather than the “Old Testament;” but this name is used in another way by the apostolical authority, whether expressly or impliedly. For the apostle is express when he says, “Until this day, as long as Moses is read, remaineth the same veil in the reading
of the old testament; because it is not revealed, because it is made of no effect in Christ.”
Chapter 13.—Why One of the Covenants is Called Old, the Other New.
But some one will say, “In what way is that called the old which was given by Moses four hundred and thirty years after; and that called the new which was given so many years before to Abraham?” Let him who on this subject is disturbed, not litigiously but earnestly, first understand that when from its earlier time one is called “old,” and from its posterior time the other “new,” it is the revelation of them that is considered in their names, not their institution.
Because the old testament was revealed through Moses, by whom the holy and just and good law was given, whereby should be brought about not the doing away but the knowledge of sin,—by which the proud might be convicted who were desirous of establishing their own righteousness, as if they had no need of divine help, and being made guilty of the letter, might flee to the Spirit of grace, not to be justified by their own righteousness, but by that of God—that
Chapter 14 [V.]—Calumny Concerning the Righteousness of the Prophets and Apostles.
They say, moreover, “that all the apostles or prophets are not defined as entirely holy by us, but that we say that they were less wicked in comparison with those that were worse; and that this is the righteousness to which God affords His testimony, so that, as the prophet says that Sodom was justified in comparison with the Jews, so also we say that the saints exercised some goodness in comparison with criminal men.” Be it far from us to say such things; but either
they are not able to understand, or they are unwilling to observe, or, for the sake of misrepresentation, they pretend that they do not know what we say. Let them hear, therefore, either themselves, or rather those whom, as inexperienced and unlearned persons, they are striving to deceive. Our faith—that is, the catholic faith—distinguishes the righteous from the unrighteous not by the law of works, but by that of faith, because the just by faith lives. By which distinction it results that the
man who leads his life without murder, without theft, without false-witness, without coveting other men’s goods, giving due honour to his parents, chaste even to continence from all carnal intercourse whatever, even conjugal, most liberal in alms-giving, most patient of injuries; who not only does not deprive another of his goods, but does not even ask again for what has been taken away from himself; or who has even sold all his own property and appropriated it to the poor, and possesses
nothing which belongs to him as his own;—with such a character as this, laudable as it seems to be, if he has not a true and catholic faith in God, must yet depart from this life to condemnation. But another, who has good works from a right faith which worketh by love, maintains his continency in the honesty of wedlock, although he does not, like the other, well refrain altogether, but pays and repays the debt of carnal connection, and has intercourse not only for the sake of offspring, but
also for the sake of pleasure, although only with his
Chapter 15.—The Perfection of Apostles and Prophets.
Since, then, all righteous men, both the more ancient and the apostles, lived from a right faith which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; and had with their faith morals so holy, that although they might not be of such perfect virtue in this life as that which should be after this life, yet whatever of sin might creep in from human infirmity might be constantly done away by the piety of their faith itself: it results from this that, in comparison with the wicked whom
God will condemn, it must be said that these were “righteous,” since by their pious faith they were so far removed into the opposite of those wicked men that the apostle cries out, “What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
Chapter 16 [VI.]—Misrepresentation Concerning Sin in Christ.
They have not a righteous advocate, who are (even if that were the only difference) distinguished absolutely and widely from the righteous. Be it far from us to say, as they themselves slanderously affirm, that this just Advocate “spoke falsely by the necessity of the flesh;” but we say that He, in the likeness of sinful flesh, in respect of sin, condemned sin. And they, perchance not understanding this, and being blinded by the desire of misrepresentation, and ignorant
of the number of ways in which the name of sin is accustomed to be used in the Holy Scriptures, declare that we affirm sin of Christ. Therefore we assert that Christ both had no sin,—neither in soul nor in the body; and that, by taking upon Him flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh, in respect of sin He condemned sin. And this assertion, somewhat obscurely made by the apostle, is explained in two ways,—either that the likenesses of things are accustomed to be called by the names of those things
to which they are like, so that the
Chapter 17 [VII.]—Their Calumny About the Fulfilment of Precepts in the Life to Come.
But who can bear their objecting to us, “that we say that after the resurrection such is to be our progress, that there men can begin to fulfil the commands of God, which they would not here;” since we say that there there will be no sin at all, no struggle with any desire of sin; as if they themselves would dare to deny this? That wisdom also and the knowledge of God, is then perfected in us, and that in the Lord there is such rejoicing that it is a full and a
true security, who will deny, unless he is so averse from the truth that on this very account he cannot attain unto it? But these things will not be in precepts, but in reward of those precepts which should here be observed; the neglect of which precepts, indeed, does not lead thither to the reward. But here the grace of God gives the desire of keeping His commandments; and if anything in these commandments is less perfectly observed, He forgives it on account of what we say in prayer, as well
“Thy will be done,” as “Forgive us our debts.” Here, then, it is prescribed that we sin not; there, the reward is that we cannot sin. Here, the precept is that we obey not the desires of sin; there, the reward that we have no desires of sin. Here, the precept is, “Understand, ye senseless among the people; and ye fools, be at some time wise;”
Chapter 18.—Perfection of Righteousness and Full Security Was Not Even in Paul in This Life.
But how impudent I do not say, but how insane, is the pride which, not yet being equal to the angels of God, thinks itself already able to have a righteousness equal to the angels of God; and does not consider so great and holy a man, who assuredly hungered and thirsted after that very perfection of righteousness, when he was unwilling to be lifted up by the greatness of his revelations; and yet that he might not be lifted up, he was not left to his own choice and will,
[The reference is to the sin of pride, by which Satan himself fell from the estate of holiness in which he was created.—W.]
Chapter 19.—In What Sense the Righteousness of Man in This Life is Said to Be Perfect.
From this it results that the virtue which is now in the righteous man is named perfect up to this point, that to its perfection belong both the true knowledge and humble confession of even imperfection itself. For, in respect to this infirmity, that little righteousness of man’s is perfect according to its measure, when it understands even what it lacks. And therefore the apostle calls himself both perfect and imperfect,
Chapter 20.—Why the Righteousness Which is of the Law is Valued Slightly by Paul.
Therefore the blessed Paul casts away those past attainments of his righteousness, as “losses” and “dung,” that “he may win Christ and be found in Him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law.” Wherefore his own, if it See above, ch. 6.
Chapter 21.—That Righteousness is Never Perfected in This Life.
Now, according to this righteousness of God, that is, which we have from God, faith now worketh by love. But it worketh that, in what way man can attain to Him on whom now, not seeing, he believes; and when he shall see Him, then that which was in faith through a glass enigmatically, shall at length be in sight face to face; and then shall be perfected even love itself. Because it is said with excessive folly, that God is loved as much before He is seen, as He
will be loved when He is seen. Further, if in this life, as no religious person doubts, the more we love God, so much the more righteous we certainly are, who can doubt that pious and true righteousness will then be perfected when the love of God shall be perfect? Then the law, therefore, shall be fulfilled; so that nothing at all is wanting to it, of which law, according to the apostle, the fulfilling is Love. And thus, when he had said, “Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law,
but that which is by the faith of Jesus Christ, which is the righteousness from God in faith,” he then added, “That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings.”
Chapter 22.—Nature of Human Righteousness and Perfection.
For from the place in which he undertook to say these things, he thus began, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, who serve God in the Spirit,”—or, as some codices have it, “who serve God the Spirit,” or “the Spirit of God,”—“and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”
Chapter 23.—There is No True Righteousness Without the Faith of the Grace of Christ.
Wherefore he who lives according to the righteousness which is in the law, without the faith of the grace of Christ, as the apostle declares that he lived blameless, must be accounted to have no true righteousness; not because the law is not true and holy, but because to wish to obey the letter which commands, without the Spirit of God which quickens, as if of the strength of free will, is not true righteousness. But the righteousness according to which the
Chapter 24 [VIII.]—There are Three Principal Heads in the Pelagian Heresy.
When, then, the Pelagians are pressed with these and such like testimonies and words of truth, not to deny original sin; not to say that the grace of God whereby we are justified is not given freely, but according to our merits; nor to say that in mortal man, however holy and well doing, there is so great righteousness that even after the washing of regeneration, until he finishes this life of his, forgiveness of sins is not necessary to him,—therefore when they
are pressed not to make these three assertions, and by their means alienate men who believe them from the grace of the Saviour, and persuade the lifted-up unto pride to go headlong unto the judgment of the devil: they introduce the clouds of other questions in which their impiety—in the sight of men more simpleminded, whether that they are more slow or less instructed in the sacred writings—may be concealed. These are the misty questions of the praise of the creature, of the praise of marriage,
of the praise of the law, of the praise of free will, of the praise of the saints; as if any one of our people were in the habit of disparaging those things, and not rather of announcing all things with due praises to the honour of the Creator and Saviour. But even the creature does not desire in such wise to be praised as to be unwilling to be healed. And the more marriage is to be praised, the less is to be attributed to it the shameful concupiscence of the flesh, which is not of the Father,
but of the world; and which assuredly marriage found and did not make in men; because, moreover, it is actually in very many without marriage, and if nobody had sinned marriage itself might be without it. And the law, holy and just and good, is neither grace itself, nor is anything rightly done by it without grace; because the law is not given that it may give life, but it was added because of transgression, that it might conclude all persons convicted under sin, and that the promise by faith
of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Chapter 25 [IX.]—He Shows that the Opinion of the Catholics is the Mean Between that of the Manicheans and Pelagians, and Refutes Both.
But since, in these five particulars which I have set forth, in which they seek lurking-places, and from which they weave misrepresentations, they are forsaken and convicted by the divine writings, they have thought to deter those whom they could by the hateful name of Manicheans, lest in opposition to their most perverse teachings their ears should be conformed to the truth; because doubtless the Manicheans blasphemously condemn the three former of those five dogmas,
saying that neither the human creature, nor
Chapter 26 [X.]—The Pelagians Still Strive After a Hiding-Place, by Introducing the Needless Question of the Origin of the Soul.
The Pelagians, indeed, add to the clouds which envelop their lurking-places the unnecessary question concerning the origin of the soul, for the purpose of erecting a hiding-place by disturbing manifest things by the obscurity of other matters. For they say “that we guard the continuous propagation of souls with the continuous propagation of sin.” And where and when they have read this, either in the addresses or in the writings of those who maintain the catholic faith against this, I do not know; because, although I find something written by catholics on the subject, yet the defence of the truth had not yet been undertaken against those men, neither was there any anxiety to answer them. But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be true. Wherefore, whoever builds up, either concerning the soul or any other obscure matter, any edifice whence he may destroy this, which is true, best founded, and best known, whether he is a son or an enemy of the Church, must either be corrected or avoided. But let this be the end of this Book, that the things which follow may have another beginning.
Book IV.
After having set aside in the former books the calumnies hurled against the Catholics, Augustin here proceeds to open up the snares which lie hidden in the remaining part of the second epistle of the Pelagians, in the five heads of their doctrine—in the praise, to wit, of the creature, the praise of marriage, the praise of the law, the praise of free will, and the praise of the saints; in connection with which heads the Pelagians malignantly boast that they are at issue not more with the Manicheans than with the Catholics. Hence these five points may bring us back to this, that they put forward their threefold error—namely, the two first, the denial of original sin; the two following, the assertion that grace is given according to merits; the fifth, their statement that the saints had not sinned in this life. Augustin shows that both heresies, that of the Manicheans and that of the Pelagians, are opposed and equally odious to the Catholic faith, whereby we profess, first, that the nature created by a good God was good, but that, nevertheless, it is in need of a Saviour because of original sin, which passed into all men from the transgression of the first man: then secondly, that marriage is good, truly instituted by God, but that that concupiscence is evil which was associated with marriage by sin: also thirdly that the law of God is good, but in such wise as only to manifest sin, not to take it away: that fourthly free will is assuredly inherent in the nature of man, but that now, however, it is so enslaved that it does not avail to the doing of righteousness, unless when it shall have been made free by grace: but that fifthly the saints, whether of the Old or New Testament, were indeed endued with a righteousness, which was true but not perfect, nor so full that they should be free from all sin. In conclusion, he brings forward the testimonies of Cyprian and Ambrose on behalf of the Catholic faith, some concerning original sin, others about the assistance of grace, and the last concerning the imperfection of present righteousness.
Chapter 1 [I.]—The Subterfuges of the Pelagians are Five.
After the matters which I have considered, and to which I have answered, they repeat the same things as those contained in the letter which I have refuted, but in a different manner. For before, they put them forward as objecting to us things which we think as it were falsely; but afterwards, as explaining what they themselves think, they have presented the same things from the opposite side, adding two certain points which they had not mentioned—that is, “that they say that baptism is necessary for all ages,” and “that by Adam death passed upon us, not sins,” which things must also themselves be considered in their own place. Hence, because in the former Book which I have just finished I said that they alleged hindrances of five matters in which lurk their dogmas hostile to God’s grace and to the catholic faith,—the praise, to wit, of the creature, the praise of marriage, the praise of the law, the praise of free will, the praise of the saints,—I think it is more convenient to make a general discrimination of all that they maintain, the contrary of which they object to us, and to show which of those things pertain to any of those five, that so my answer may be by that very distinction clearer and briefer.
Chapter 2 [II.]—The Praise of the Creature.
They accomplish the praise of the creature, inasmuch as it pertains to the human race of
They praise marriage truly according to the Scriptures, “because the Lord saith in the gospel, He who made men from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Although this is not written in that passage of the gospel, yet it is written in the law. They add, moreover, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
In the praise of the law they say, “that the old law was, according to the apostle, holy and just and good; that on those who keep its commandments, and live righteously by faith, such as the prophets and patriarchs, and all the saints, life eternal could be conferred.”
In the praise of free will they say, “that free will has not perished, since the Lord says by the prophets, ‘If ye be willing and will hear me, ye shall eat the good things of the land: if ye are unwilling, and will not hear, the sword shall devour you.’
In the praise of the saints they conceal themselves, saying “that baptism perfectly renews men, inasmuch as the apostle is a witness who testifies that, by the washing of water, the Church is made out of the heathen holy and spotless;
In all these points, whatever they say of the praise of the creature and of marriage, they endeavour to bring us back to this,—that there is no original sin; whatever of the praise of law and of free will, to this, that grace does not assist without merit, and that thus grace is no more grace; whatever of the praise of the saints, to this, that mortal life in the saints appears not to have sin, and that it is not necessary for them to pray God for the remitting of their debts.
Chapter 3 [III.]—The Catholics Praise Nature, Marriage, Law, Free Will, and the Saints, in Such Wise as to Condemn as Well Pelagians as Manicheans.
Let every one who, with a catholic mind, shudders at these impious and damnable doctrines, in this tripartite division, shun the lurking-places and snares of this fivefold error, and be so careful between one and another as in such wise to decline from the Manicheans as not to incline to the Pelagians; and again, so to separate himself from the Pelagians as not to associate himself with the Manicheans; or, if he should already be taken hold of in one or the other
bondage, that he should not so pluck himself out of the hands of either as to rush into those of the other. Because they seem to be contrary to one another; since the Manicheans manifest themselves by vituperating these five points, and the Pelagians conceal themselves by praising them. Wherefore he condemns and shuns both, whoever he may be, who according to the rule of the catholic faith so glorifies the Creator in men, that are born of the good creature of flesh and soul (for this the
Manichean
Chapter 4 [IV.]—Pelagians and Manicheans on the Praise of the Creature.
These things being so, what advantage is it to new heretics, enemies of the cross of Christ and opposers of divine grace, that they seem sound from the error of the Manicheans, if they are dying by another pestilence of their own? What advantage is it to them, that in the praise of the creature they say “that the good God is the maker of those that are born, by whom all things were made, and that the children of men are His work,” whom the Manicheans say are the
work of the prince of darkness; when between them both, or among them both, God’s creation, which is in infants, is perishing? For both of them refuse to have it delivered by Christ’s flesh and blood,—the one, because they destroy that very flesh and blood, as if He did not take upon Him these at all in man or of man; and the other, because they assert that there is no evil in infants from which they should be delivered by the sacrament of this flesh and blood. Between them lies the human
creature in infants, with a good origination, with a corrupted propagation, confessing for its goods a most excellent Creator, seeking for its evils a most merciful Redeemer, having the Manicheans as disparagers of its benefits, having the Pelagians as deniers of its evils, and both as persecutors. And although in infancy there is no power to speak, yet with its silent look and its hidden weakness it addresses the impious vanity of both, saying to the one, “Believe that I am created by Him who
creates good things;” and saying to the other, “Suffer me to be healed by Him who created me.” The Manicheans say, “There is nothing of this infant save the good soul to be delivered; the rest,” which belongs not to the good God, but to the prince of darkness, “is to be rejected.” The Pelagians say, “Certainly there is nothing of this infant to be delivered, because we have shown the whole to be safe.” Both lie; but now the accuser of the flesh alone is more bearable than the praiser, who is
convicted of cruelty against the whole. But neither does the Manichean help the human soul by blaspheming God, the Author of the entire man; nor does the Pelagian permit the divine grace to come to the help of human infancy by denying original sin. Therefore it is by the catholic faith that God has mercy, seeing that by condemning both mischievous doctrines it comes to the help of the infant for salvation. It says to the Manicheans, “Hear the apostle crying, ‘Know ye not that your body is the
temple of the Holy Ghost in you?’
Chapter 5.—What is the Special Advantage in the Pelagian Opinions?
What advantage, then, is it to them that they say “that all sin descends not from nature, but from the will,” and resist by the truth of this judgment the Manicheans, who say that evil nature is the cause of sin; when by being unwilling to admit original sin although itself also descends from the will of the first man, they make infants to depart in guilt from the body? What advantage is it to them “that they confess
Chapter 6.—Not Death Alone, But Sin Also Has Passed into Us by Means of Adam.
In that particular, indeed, wherein they say “that death passed to us by Adam, not sins,” they have not the Manicheans as their adversaries: since they, too, deny that original sin from the first man, at first of pure and upright body and spirit, and afterwards depraved by free will, subsequently passed and passes as sin into all with death; but they say that the flesh was evil from the beginning, and was created by an evil spirit and along with an evil spirit; but that a good soul—a portion, to wit, of God—for the deserts of its defilement by food and drink, in which it was before bound up, came into man, and thus by means of copulation was bound in the chain of the flesh. And thus the Manicheans agree with the Pelagians that it was not the guilt of the first man that passed into the human race—neither by the flesh, which they say was never good; nor by the soul, which they assert comes into the flesh of man with the merits of its own defilements with which it was polluted before the flesh. But how do the Pelagians say “that only death passed upon us by Adam’s means”? For if we die because he died, but he died because be sinned, they say that the punishment passed without the guilt, and that innocent infants are punished with an unjust penalty by deriving death without the deserts of death. This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death. This special prerogative of the Mediator the Pelagians endeavour to make void, so that this should no longer be special in the Lord, if Adam in such wise suffered a death due to him on account of his guilt, as that infants, drawing from him no guilt, should suffer undeserved death. For although very much good is conferred on the good by means of death, whence some have fitly argued even “of the benefit of death;” yet from this what can be declared except the mercy of God, since the punishment of sin is converted into beneficent uses?
Chapter 7.—What is the Meaning of “In Whom All Have Sinned”?
But these speak thus who wish to wrest men from the apostle’s words into their own thought. For where the apostle says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men,” [This is a distinction as to the kind of genitive involved in the phrase “sting of death.” Augustin says “of death” is genitive of the object, not of the author or subject.—W.] Commentaries by Hilary the Deacon, printed among the Works of Ambrose, vol. iv. (Patrol. Lat. xvii.)
Chapter 8.—Death Passed Upon All by Sin.
But on account of what does the same apostle say, that we are reconciled to God by Christ, except on account of what we had become enemies? And what is this but sin? Whence also the prophet says, “Your sins separate between you and God.”
Chapter 9 [V.]—Of the Praise of Marriage.
But further, concerning the praise of marriage, See On Original Sin, ch. 38.
Chapter 10.—Of the Praise of the Law.
Once more, in the praise of the law, what advantage is it to them that, in opposition to the Manicheans, they say the truth when they wish to bring men from that view to this which they hold falsely against the catholics? For they say, “We confess that even the old law, according to the apostle, is holy and just and good, and that this could confer eternal life on those that kept its commandments, and lived righteously by faith, like the prophets and patriarchs, and all
the saints.” By which words, very craftily expressed, they praise the law in opposition to grace; for certainly that law, although just and holy and good, could not confer eternal life on all those men of God, but the
Chapter 11.—The Pelagians Understand that the Law Itself is God’s Grace.
But those enemies of grace never endeavour to lay more secret snares for more vehement opposition to that same grace than when they praise the law, which, without doubt, is worthy to be praised. See On the Grace of Christ, ch. 8, and following.
Chapter 12 [VI.]—Of the Praise of Free Will.
Moreover, that, in opposition to the Manicheans, they praise free will, making use of the prophetic testimony, “If ye shall be willing and will hear me, ye shall eat what is good in the land; but if ye shall be unwilling and will not hear me, the sword shall consume you:”
Chapter 13.—God’s Purposes are Effects of Grace.
What does it profit them, that in the praise of that same free will “they say that grace assists the good purpose of every one”? See above, Book ii. ch. 11.
Chapter 14.—The Testimonies of Scripture in Favour of Grace.
For that very pride has so stopped the ears of their heart that they do not hear, “For what hast thou that thou hast not received?”
Chapter 15.—From Such Scriptures Grace is Proved to Be Gratuitous and Effectual.
What remained to the carrion skin whence it might be puffed up, and could disdain when it glories to glory in the Lord? On the Proceedings of Peliagius, 30.
Chapter 16.—Why God Makes of Some Sheep, Others Not.
But wherefore does God make these men sheep, and those not, since with Him there is no acceptance of persons? This is the very question which the blessed apostle thus answers to those who propose it with more curiosity than propriety, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Does the thing formed say to him that formed it, Wherefore hast thou made me thus?”
Chapter 17 [VII.]—Of the Praise of the Saints.
In that, indeed, in the praise of the saints, they will not drive us with the zeal of that publican See On the Perfection of Man’s Righteousness, 35, and On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 27.
Chapter 18.—The Opinion of the Saints Themselves About Themselves.
It is to be confessed that “the Holy Spirit, even in the old times,” not only “aided good dispositions,” which even they allow, but that it even made them good, which they will not have. “That all, also, of the prophets and apostles or saints, both evangelical and ancient, to whom God gives His witness, were righteous, not in comparison with the wicked, but by the rule of virtue,” is not doubtful. And this is opposed to the Manicheans, who blaspheme the patriarchs
and prophets; but what is opposed to the Pelagians is, that all of these, when interrogated concerning themselves while they lived in the body, with one most accordant voice would answer, “If we should say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” See above, Book iii. 17.
Chapter 19.—The Craft of the Pelagians.
And if these things be so, let the Pelagians cease by their most insidious praises of these five things—that is, the praise of the creature, the praise of marriage, the praise of the law, the praise of free will, the praise of the saints—from feigning that they desire to pluck men, as it were, from the little snares of the Manicheans, in order that they may entangle them in their own nets—that is, that they may deny original sin; may begrudge to infants the aid of Christ the physician; may say that the grace of God is given according to our merits, and thus that grace is no more grace; and may say that the saints in this life had not sin, and thus make the prayer of none effect which He gave to the saints who had no sin, and by which all sin is pardoned to the saints that pray unto Him. To these three evil doctrines, they by their deceitful praise of these five good things seduce careless and unlearned men. Concerning all which things, I think I have sufficiently censured their most cruel and wicked and proud vanity.
Chapter 20 [VIII.]—The Testimonies of the Ancients Against the Pelagians.
But since they say “that their enemies have taken up our words for hatred of the truth,” and complained that “throughout nearly the whole of the West a dogma not less foolish than impious is taken up, and from simple bishops sitting in their places without a Synodal congregation a subscription is extorted to confirm this dogma,”—although the Church of Christ, both Western and Eastern shuddered at the profane novelties of their words—I think it belongs to my care not only to avail myself of the sacred canonical Scriptures as witnesses against them, which I have already sufficiently done, but, moreover, to bring forward some proofs from the writings of the holy men who before us have treated upon those Scriptures with the most widespread reputation and great glory. Not that I would put the authority of any controversialist on a level with the canonical books, as if there were nothing which is better or more truly thought by one catholic than by another who likewise is a catholic; but that those may be admonished who think that these men say anything as it used to be said, before their empty talk on these subjects, by catholic teachers following the divine oracles, and may know that the true and anciently established catholic faith is by us defended against the receding presumption and mischief of the Pelagian heretics.
Chapter 21.—Pelagius, in Imitation of Cyprian, Wrote a Book of Testimonies.
Even that heresiarch of these men, Pelagius himself, mentions with the honour that is certainly due to him, the most blessed Cyprian, most glorious with even the crown of martyrdom, not only in the African and the Western, but also in the Eastern Churches, well known by the report of fame, and by the diffusion far and wide of his writings,—when, writing a book of testimonies, That is, his Capitula. See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 6. Work cited, ch. 1; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 476. Work cited, ch. 22; in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 482.
Chapter 22.—Further References to Cyprian.
For he says also this in the epistle whose title is inscribed, “On the Mortality:” Chs. 2, 18; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. pp. 469, 473. Ch. 11; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. 487. Ch. 9; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. 486.
Chapter 23.—Further References to Cyprian.
And in the epistle which he wrote with sixty-six of his joint-bishops to Bishop Fidus, when he was consulted by him in respect of the law of circumcision, whether an infant might be baptized before the eighth day, this matter is treated in such a way as if by a divine forethought the catholic Church would already confute the Pelagian heretics who would appear so long afterwards. For he who had consulted had no doubt on the subject whether children on birth
inherited original sin, which they might wash away by being born again. For be it far from the Christian faith to have at any time doubted on this matter. But he was in doubt whether the washing of regeneration, by which he made no question but that original sin was put away, ought to be given before the eighth day. To which consultation the most blessed Cyprian in reply said: “But as regards the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their
birth, and that the law of the ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For to the course which you thought was to be taken no one agreed, but we all rather judged that the grace of a merciful God was not to be denied to any one born of men; for, as the Lord says in His gospel, ‘the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’
Cyprian’s Letters, No. 64, chs. 2, 4, 5: see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 353 ( Ibid. as cited. Cyprian, as cited.
Chapter 24.—The Dilemma Proposed to the Pelagians.
What will be said to such things as these, by those who are not only the forsakers, but also the persecutors of God’s grace? What will they say to such things as these? On what ground is the “possession of Paradise” restored to us? How are we restored to Paradise if we have never been there? Or how have we been there, except because we were there in Adam? And how do we belong to that “judgment” which was spoken against the transgressor, if we do not inherit injury
from the transgressor? Finally, he thinks that infants are to be baptized, even before the eighth day; lest “by the contagion of the ancient death, contracted in the first birth,” the souls of the infants should perish. How do they perish if they who are born even of believing men are not held by the devil until they are born again in Christ, and plucked out from the power of darkness, and transferred into His kingdom? And who says that the souls of those who are born will perish unless they
are born again? No other than he who so praises the Creator and the creature, the workman and the work, as to restrain and correct the horror of human feeling with which men refuse to kiss infants fresh from the womb, by interposing the veneration of the Creator Himself, saying that in the kiss of infants of that age the recent hands of God were to be considered! Did he, then, in confessing original sin, condemn either nature or marriage? Did he, because he applied to the infant born guilty
from Adam, the cleansing of regeneration, therefore deny God as the Creator of those that were born? Because, in his dread that souls of any age whatever should perish, he, with his council of colleagues, decided that even before the eighth day they were to be delivered by the sacrament of baptism, did he therefore accuse marriage, when, indeed, in the case of an infant,—whether born of marriage or of adultery, yet because it was born a man,—he declared that the recent hands of God were worthy
even of the kiss of peace? If, then, the holy bishop and most glorious martyr Cyprian could think that original sin in infants must be healed by the medicine of Christ, without denying the praise of the creature, without denying the praise of marriage, why does a novel pestilence, although it does not dare to call such an one as him a Manichean, think that another person’s fault is to be objected against catholics who maintain these things, in order to conceal its own? So the most lauded
commentator on the divine declarations, before even the slightest taint of the Manichean plague had touched our lands, without any reproach of the divine work and of marriage, confesses original sin,—not saying that Christ was stained with any spot of sin, nor yet comparing with Him the flesh of sin in others that were born, to whom by means of the likeness of sinful flesh He might afford the aid of cleansing; neither is he deterred by the obscure question of the origin of souls, from
confessing that those who are made free by the grace of Christ return into Paradise. Does he say that the condition of death passed upon men from Adam without the contagion of sin? For it is not on account of avoiding the death of the body, but on account of the sin which entered by one man into the world,
Chapter 25 [IX.]—Cyprian’s Testimonies Concerning God’s Grace.
But now it plainly appears in what way Cyprian proclaims the grace of God against such as these, when he is arguing about the Lord’s Prayer. For he says: “We say, ‘May Thy name be made holy,’ i.e. “Hallowed be Thy name.” Cyprian, On the Lord ’s Prayer, ch. 9 (xii.), see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. p. 450. Ibid. ch. 13 (xvi.); see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. 451. Cyprian, On the Lord ’s Prayer, ch. 11 (xiv.); see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. 451. Ibid. ch. 15 (xvii.); vol. v. 452. Ibid. ch. 18 (xx.), p. 452. Cyprian, work cited, ch. 19 (xxvi.); see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. 454. Cyprian’s Testimonies, iii. 4; vol. v. p. 528. Cyprian, On Patience; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 484.
Chapter 26.—Further Appeals to Cyprian’s Teaching.
Does that holy and so memorable instructor of the Churches in the word of truth, deny that there is free will in men, because he attributes to God the whole of your righteous living? Does he reproach God’s law, because he intimates that man is not justified by it, seeing that he declares that what that law commands must be obtained from the Lord God by prayers? Does he assert fate under the name of grace, by saying that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our
own? Does he, like these, believe that the Holy Spirit is in such wise the aider of virtue, as if that very virtue which it assists springs from ourselves, when, asserting that nothing is our own, he mentions in this respect that the apostle said, “For what hast thou that thou hast not received?” and says that the most excellent virtue, that is, patience, does not begin from us, and afterwards receive aid by the Spirit of God, but from Him Himself takes its source, from Him takes its origin?
Finally, he confesses that neither good purpose, nor desire of virtue, nor good dispositions, begin to be in men without God’s grace, when he says that “we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.” What is so established in free will as what the law says, that we must not worship an idol, must not commit adultery, must do no murder? Nay, these crimes, and such like, are of such a kind that, if any one should commit them, he is removed from the communion of the body of Christ. And yet,
if the blessed Cyprian thought that our own will was sufficient for not committing these crimes, he would not in such wise understand what we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread,” as that he should assert that we ask “that we may not by the interposition of some heinous sin—by being prevented as abstaining, and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread—be separated from Christ’s body.” Let these new heretics answer
Chapter 27 [X.]—Cyprian’s Testimonies Concerning the Imperfection of Our Own Righteousness.
Let us, then, see that third point, which in these men is not less shocking to every member of Christ and to His whole body,—that they contend that there are in this life, or that there have been, righteous men having absolutely no sin. This assertion of the Pelagians was condemned in an African Council in 418. Cyprian, work cited, ch. 2; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 476. Ibid., p. 480. Ibid. work cited, chs. 3, 4, p. 470. Cyprian, ibid. Cyprian, work cited, ch. 9, p. 450. Cyprian, ibid. ch. 16 (xxii.), p. 453. Cyprian, Testimonies, iii. 54; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. p. 529.
Chapter 28.—Cyprian’s Orthodoxy Undoubted.
Let the Pelagians say, if they dare, that this man of God was perverted by the error of the Manicheans, in so praising the saints as yet to confess that no one in this life had attained to such a perfection of righteousness as to have no sin at all, confirming his judgment by the clear truth and divine authority of the canonical testimonies. For does he deny that in baptism all sins are forgiven, because he confesses that there remain frailty and infirmity, whence
he says that we sin after baptism and even to the end of this life, having unceasing conflict with the vices of the flesh? Or did he not remember what the apostle said about the Church without spot, that he prescribed that no one ought so to flatter himself in respect of a pure and spotless heart as to trust in his own innocence, and think that no medicine needed to be applied to his wounds? I think that these new heretics may concede to this catholic man that he knew “that the Holy Spirit even
in the old times aided good dispositions;” nay, even, what they themselves will not allow, that they could not have possessed good dispositions except through the Holy Spirit. I think that Cyprian knew that all the prophets and apostles or saints of any kind soever who pleased the Lord at any time were righteous—“not in comparison with the wicked,” as they falsely assert that we say, “but by the rule of virtue,” as they boast that they say; although Cyprian says, nevertheless, no one can be
without sin, and whoever should assert that he is blameless is either proud or a fool. Nor is it with reference to anything else that he understands the Scripture, “Who shall boast that he has a pure heart? or who shall boast that he is pure from sins?”
Chapter 29 [XI.]—The Testimonies of Ambrose Against the Pelagians and First of All Concerning Original Sin.
But now also to the most glorious martyr Cyprian, let me add, for the sake of more amply confuting these men, the most blessed Ambrose; because even Pelagius praised him so much as to say that in his writings could be found nothing to be blamed even by his enemies. See On the Grace of Christ, ch. 47. This work is not extant. This work is not extant. On Penitence, Book i. ch. 13. Apology of the Prophet David, ch. 56. Ibid. ch. 57. On Noah and the Ark, ch. 7 (?).
Chapter 30.—The Testimonies of Ambrose Concerning God’s Grace.
The Pelagians say that merit begins from man by free will, to which God repays the subsequent aid of grace. Let the venerable Ambrose here also refute them, when he says, in his exposition of the prophet Isaiah, “that human care without divine help is powerless for healing, and needs a divine helper.” Also, in the treatise which is inscribed, “On the Avoidance of the World,” Work cited, ch. 1. Commentary on Luke, lib. ii. ch. 3, p. 84. Ch. 15. Ch. 39.
Chapter 31.—The Testimonies of Ambrose on the Imperfection of Present Righteousness.
But now, since the Pelagians say that there either are or have been righteous men in this life who have lived without any sin, to such an extent that the future life which is to be hoped for as a reward cannot be more advanced or more perfect, let Ambrose here also answer them and refute them. For, expounding Isaiah the Prophet in reference to what is written, “I have begotten and brought up children, and they have despised me,” Work cited, chs. 9, 49
Chapter 32 [XII.]—The Pelagian’s Heresy Arose Long After Ambrose.
It would be too long if I were to seek to mention everything which the holy Ambrose said and wrote against this heresy of the Pelagians, which was to arise so long afterwards; not indeed with a view to answer them, but with a view to declare the catholic faith, and to build up men in it. Moreover, I neither could nor ought to mention all those things which Cyprian, most glorious in the Lord, wrote in his letters, whereby it is shown how this which we hold is the true and truly Christian and catholic faith, as it was delivered of old by the Holy Scriptures, and so retained and kept by our fathers and even to this time, in which these heretics have attempted to destroy it, and as it will hereafter by God’s good will be retained and kept. For that these things and things of this kind were thus delivered to Cyprian, and by Cyprian, is testified by the testimonies produced from his letters; and that thus they were maintained up to our times is shown by these things which Ambrose wrote about these matters before these heretics had begun to rage, and catholic ears had shuddered at their profane novelties which are everywhere; and that thus, moreover, they shall be maintained hereafter, was declared with sufficient vigour partly by the condemnation of such opinions as these, partly by their correction. For whatever they may dare to mutter against the sound faith of Cyprian and Ambrose, I do not think that they will break out into such a madness as to dare to call those noted and memorable men of God, Manicheans.
Chapter 33.—Opposition of the Manichean and Catholic Dogmas.
What is it, then, which in their raging blindness of mind they are now spreading about, See above, ch. 20.
Chapter 34.—The Calling Together of a Synod Not Always Necessary to the Condemnation of Heresies.
What is it, then, that they say, that “subscription was extorted from simple bishops sitting in their places without any Synodal congregation”? Was subscription extorted against such heretics as these from the most blessed and excellent men in the faith, Cyprian and Ambrose, before such heretics as these were in existence?—seeing that they overthrow their impious dogmas with such clearness that we can scarcely find anything more manifest to say against them. Or, indeed, was there any need of the congregation of a Synod to condemn this open pest, as if no heresy could at any time be condemned except by a Synodal congregation?—when, on the contrary, very few heresies can be found for the sake of condemning which any such necessity has arisen; and those have been many and incomparably more which have deserved to be accused and condemned in the place where they arose, and thence could be known and avoided over the rest of the lands. But the pride of such as these, which lifts itself up so much against God as not to be willing to glory in Him but rather in free will, is understood as grasping also at this glory, that a Synod of the East and West should be gathered together on their account. In fact, they endeavour, forsooth, to disturb the catholic world, because, the Lord being against them, they are unable to pervert it; when rather they ought to have been trodden out wherever those wolves might have appeared, by watchfulness and pastoral diligence, after a competent and sufficient judgment made concerning them; whether with a view of their being healed and changed, or with a view of their being shunned by the safety and soundness of others, by the help of the Shepherd of the sheep, who seeks the lost sheep also among the little ones, who makes the sheep holy and righteous freely; who both providently instructs them, although sanctified and justified, yet in their frailty and infirmity to pray for a daily remission for their daily sins, without which no one lives in this world, even although he may live well; and mercifully listens to their prayers.
a treatise on grace and free will.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 66,
On the Following Treatise,
“de gratia et libero arbitrio.”
————————————
There are some persons who suppose that the freedom of the will is denied whenever God’s grace is maintained, and who on their side defend their liberty of will so peremptorily as to deny the grace of God. This grace, as they assert, is bestowed according to our own merits. It is in consequence of their opinions that I wrote the book entitled On Grace and Free Will. This work I addressed to the monks of Adrumetum,
Adrumetum, a maritime city of Africa, was the metropolis of the Province of Byzacium, as Procopius informs us, De Aedificiis Justiniani VI. It was in a monastery here that the monks resided for whose instruction Augustin composed the two following treatises,—the former entitled De Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio, and the latter De Correptione et Gratiâ, in the year of Christ 426 or 427. In our opinion, no later date can
be well assigned to these writings, inasmuch as they are mentioned in The Retractations, which was published about the year 427; nor can they be placed earlier in date, because they are in that work mentioned the very last.
two letters written by augustin to valentinus and the monks of adrumetum,
and forwarded See the Second Letter, ch. 2.
————————————
Letter I.
[The 214th of Augustin’s Epistles.]
To my very dear lord and most honoured brother among the members of Christ, Valentinus, and to the brethren that are with you, Augustin sends greeting in the Lord.
1. Two young men, Cresconius and Felix, have found their way to us, and, introducing themselves as belonging to your brotherhood, have told us that your monastery was disturbed with no small commotion, because certain amongst you preach grace in such a manner as to deny that the will of man is free; and maintain—a more serious matter—that in the day of judgment God will not render to every man according to his works.
See See
2. “I beseech you therefore, brethren,” even as the apostle besought the Corinthians, “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.” For, in the first place, the Lord Jesus, as it is written in the Gospel of the Apostle John, “came not to condemn the world, but that the world by Himself might be saved.”
3. From this you may understand why I wrote the letter which has been referred to, Ep. 194.
4. Therefore I have in this letter, which has reached you, shown by passages of Holy Scripture, which you can examine for yourselves, that our good works and pious prayers and right faith could not possibly have been in us unless we had received them all from Him, concerning whom the Apostle James says, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.”
5. There were many things which I wanted to send you, by the perusal whereof you would have been able to gain a more exact and full knowledge of all that has been done by the bishops in their councils against these Pelagian heretics. But the brethren were in haste who came to us from your company. By them we have sent you this letter; which is, however, not an answer to any communication, because, in truth, they brought us no epistle from your beloved selves. Yet we had no hesitation in receiving them; for their simple manners proved to us clearly enough that there could have been nothing unreal or deceptive in their visit to us. They were, however, in much haste, as wishing to spend Easter at home with you; and my earnest prayer is, that so sacred a day may, by the Lord’s help, bring peace to you, and not dissension.
6. You will, indeed, take the better course (as I earnestly request you), if you will not refuse to send to me the very person by whom they say they have been disturbed. For either he does not understand my book, or else, perhaps, he is himself misunderstood, when he endeavours to solve and explain a question which is a very difficult one, and intelligible to few. For it is none other than the question of God’s grace which has caused persons of no understanding to
think that the Apostle Paul prescribes it to us as a rule, “Let us do evil that good may come.”
7. Take good heed, then, to these fearful words of the great apostle; and when you feel that you do not understand, put your faith in the meanwhile in the inspired word of God, and believe both that man’s will is free, and that there is also God’s grace, without whose help man’s free will can neither be turned towards God, nor make any progress in God. And what you piously believe, that pray that you may have a wise understanding of. And, indeed, it is for this
very purpose,—that is, that we may have a wise understanding, that there is a free will. For unless we understood and were wise with a free will, it would not be enjoined to us in the words of Scripture, “Understand now, ye simple among the people; and ye fools, at length be wise.”
Letter II.
[The 215th of Augustin’s Epistles.]
To my very dear lord and most honoured brother among the members of Christ, Valentinus, and to the brethren that are with you, Augustin sends greeting in the Lord.
1. That Cresconius and Felix, and another Felix, the servants of God, who came to us from your brotherhood, have spent Easter with us is known to your Love. The phrase of Christian salutation, vestra caritas which may be rendered “your loving or beloved selves;” it is a parallel phrase with the more familiar one to modern ears, “Your Honour.”
2. Touching the very difficult question of will and grace, I have felt no need of treating it further in this letter, having given them another letter also when they were about to return in greater haste. I have written a book likewise for you, The following treatise is here referred to,—On Grace and Free Will. See Epp. 175–177, and 181–183.
3. Furthermore, we have read to them the work of the most blessed martyr Cyprian on the Lord’s Prayer, and have pointed out to them how He taught that all things pertaining to our morals, which constitute right living, must be sought from our Father which is in heaven, lest, by presuming on free will, we fall from divine grace. From the same treatise we have also shown them how the same glorious martyr has taught us that it behoves us to pray even for our enemies
who have not yet believed in Christ, that they may believe; which would of course be all in vain unless the Church believed that even the evil and unbelieving wills of men might, by the grace of God, be converted to good. This book of St. Cyprian, however, we have not sent you, because they told us that you possessed it among yourselves already. My letter, also, which had been sent to Sixtus, presbyter of the Church at Rome Ep. 194.
4. As far, then, as lay in our power, we have used our influence with them, as both your brethren and our own, with a view to their persevering in the soundness of the catholic faith, which neither denies free will whether for an evil or a good life, nor attributes to it so much power that it can avail anything without God’s grace, whether that it may be changed from evil to good, or that it may persevere in the pursuit of good, or that it may attain to eternal good
when there is no further fear of failure. To yourselves, too, my most dearly beloved, I also, in this letter, give the same exhortation which the apostle addresses to us all, “not to think
5. Mark well the counsel which the Holy Ghost gives us by Solomon: “Make straight paths for thy feet, and order thy ways aright. Turn not aside to the right hand nor to the left, but turn away thy foot from the evil way; for the Lord knoweth the ways on the right hand, but those on the left are perverse. He will make thy ways straight, and will direct thy steps in peace.”
6. Decline, therefore, neither to the right hand nor to the left, although the paths on the right hand are praised, and those on the left hand are blamed. This is why he added, “Turn away thy foot from the evil way,”—that is, from the left-hand path. This he makes manifest in the following words, saying, “For the Lord knoweth the ways on the right hand; but those on the left are perverse.” In those ways we ought surely to walk which the Lord knows; and it is of
these that we read in the Psalm, “The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish;”
7. But the reply is made: Why did He say, “Turn not aside to the right hand, nor to the left,” when he clearly ought rather to have said, Keep to the right hand, and turn not off to the left, if the right-hand paths are good? Why, do we think, except this, that the paths on the right hand are so good that it is not good to turn off from them, even to the right? For that man, indeed, is to be understood as declining to the right who chooses to attribute to himself, and not to God, even those good works which appertain to right-hand ways. Hence it was that after saying, “For the Lord knoweth the ways on the right hand, but those on the left hand are perverse,” as if the objection were raised to Him, Wherefore, then, do you not wish us to turn aside to the right? He immediately added as follows: “He will Himself make thy paths straight, and will direct thy ways in peace.” Understand, therefore, the precept, “Make straight paths for thy feet, and order thy ways aright,” in such a sense as to know that whenever you do all this, it is the Lord God who enables you to do it. Then you will not turn off to the right, although you are walking in right-hand paths, not trusting in your own strength; and He will Himself be your strength, who will make straight paths for your feet, and will direct your ways in peace.
8. Wherefore, most dearly beloved, whosoever says, My will suffices for me to perform good works, declines to the right. But, on the other hand, they who think that a good way of life should be forsaken, when they hear God’s grace so preached as to lead to the supposition and belief that it of itself makes men’s wills from evil to good, and it even of itself keeps them what it has made them; and who, as the result of this opinion, go on to say, “Let us do evil
that good may come,”
A Treatise on grace and free will,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
addressed to valentinus and the monks of adrumetum, and completed in one book.
written in a.d. 426 or a.d. 427
————————————
In this treatise Augustin teaches us to beware of maintaining grace by denying free will, or free will by denying grace; for that it is evident from the testimony of Scripture that there is in man a free choice of will; and there are also in the same Scriptures inspired proofs given of that very grace of God without which we can do nothing good. Afterwards, in opposition to the Pelagians, he proves that grace is not bestowed according to our merits. He explains how eternal life, which is rendered to good works, is really of grace. He then goes on to show that the grace which is given to us through our Lord Jesus Christ is neither the knowledge of the law, nor nature, nor simply remission of sins; but that it is grace that makes us fulfil the law, and causes nature to be liberated from the dominion of sin. He demolishes that vain subterfuge of the Pelagians, to the effect that “grace, although it is not bestowed according to the merits of good works, is yet given according to the merits of the antecedent good-will of the man who believes and prays.” He incidentally touches the question, why God commands what He means Himself to give, and whether He imposes on us any commands which we are unable to perform. He clearly shows that the love which is indispensable for fulfilling the commandments is only within us from God Himself. He points out that God works in men’s hearts to incline their wills whithersoever He willeth, either to good works according to His mercy, or to evil ones in return for their deserving; His judgment, indeed, being sometimes manifest, sometimes hidden, but always righteous. Lastly, he teaches us that a clear example of the gratuitousness of grace, not given in return for our deserts, is supplied to us in the case of those infants which are saved, while others perish though their case is identical with that of the rest.
Chapter 1 [I.]—The Occasion and Argument of This Work.
With reference to those persons who so preach and defend man’s free will, as boldly to deny, and endeavour to do away with, the grace of God which calls us to Him, and delivers us from our evil deserts, and by which we obtain the good deserts which lead to everlasting life: we have already said a good deal in discussion, and committed it to writing, so far as the Lord has vouchsafed to enable us. But since there are some persons who so defend
God’s grace as to deny man’s free will, or who A form of address, like “your Honour.”
Chapter 2 [II.]—He Proves the Existence of Free Will in Man from the Precepts Addressed to Him by God.
Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God’s precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards. For they are given that no one might be able to plead the excuse of ignorance, as the Lord
says concerning the Jews in the gospel: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”
Chapter 3.—Sinners are Convicted When Attempting to Excuse Themselves by Blaming God, Because They Have Free Will.
There are, however, persons who attempt to find excuse for themselves even from God. The Apostle James says to such: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man. But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then, when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
Chapter 4.—The Divine Commands Which are Most Suited to the Will Itself Illustrate Its Freedom.
What is the import of the fact that in so many
Chapter 5.—He Shows that Ignorance Affords No Such Excuse as Shall Free the Offender from Punishment; But that to Sin with Knowledge is a Graver Thing Than to Sin in Ignorance.
The excuse such as men are in the habit of alleging from ignorance is taken away from those persons who know God’s commandments. But neither will those be without punishment who know not the law of God. “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.”
Chapter 6 [IV.]—God’s Grace to Be Maintained Against the Pelagians; The Pelagian Heresy Not an Old One.
It is, however, to be feared lest all these and similar testimonies of Holy Scripture (and undoubtedly there are a great many of them), in the maintenance of free will, be understood in such a way as to leave no room for God’s assistance and grace in leading a godly life and a good conversation, to which the eternal reward is due; and lest poor wretched man, when he leads a good life and performs good works (or rather thinks that he leads a good life and performs
good works), should dare to glory in himself and not in the Lord, and to put his hope of righteous living in himself alone; so as to be followed by the prophet Jeremiah’s malediction when he says, “Cursed is the man who has hope in man, and maketh strong the flesh of his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”
Chapter 7.—Grace is Necessary Along with Free Will to Lead a Good Life.
Therefore, my dearly beloved, as we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing. And first of all, I will say something about the very profession which you make in your brotherhood. Now your society, in which you are leading lives of
continence, could not hold together unless you de
Chapter 8.—Conjugal Chastity is Itself the Gift of God.
It is concerning conjugal chastity itself that the apostle treats, when he says, “Let him do what he will, he sinneth not if he marry;”
Chapter 9.—Entering into Temptation. Prayer is a Proof of Grace.
Wherefore, our Heavenly Master also says: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.”
Chapter 10 [V.]—Free Will and God’s Grace are Simultaneously Commended.
When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,” See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, above, ch. xiv. (30–37).
Chapter 11.—Other Passages of Scripture Which the Pelagians Abuse.
Then, again, there is the Scripture contained in the second book of the Chronicles: “The Lord is with you when ye are with Him: and if ye shall seek Him ye shall find Him; but if ye forsake Him, He also will forsake you.”
Chapter 12.—He Proves Out of St. Paul that Grace is Not Given According to Men’s Merits.
Now there was, no doubt, a decided merit in the Apostle Paul, but it was an evil one, while he persecuted the Church, and he says of it: “I am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.”
Chapter 13 [VI.]—The Grace of God is Not Given According to Merit, But Itself Makes All Good Desert.
From these and similar passages of Scripture, we gather the proof that God’s grace is not given according to our merits. The truth is, we see that it is given not only where there are no good, but even where there are many evil merits preceding: and we see it so given daily. But it is plain that when it has been given, also our good merits begin to be,—yet only by means of it; for, were that only to withdraw itself, man falls, not raised up, but precipitated by
free will. Wherefore no man ought, even when he begins to possess good merits, to attribute them to himself, but to God, who is thus addressed by the Psalmist: “Be Thou my helper, forsake me not.”
Chapter 14.—Paul First Received Grace that He Might Win the Crown.
Let us return now to the Apostle Paul, who, as we have found, obtained God’s grace, who recompenses good for evil, without any good merits of his own, but rather with many evil merits. Let us see what he says when his final sufferings were approaching, writing to Timothy: “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.”
Chapter 15.—The Pelagians Profess that the Only Grace Which is Not Given According to Our Merits is that of the Forgiveness of Sins.
When, however, the Pelagians say that the only grace which is not given according to our merits is that whereby his sins are forgiven to man, but that that which is given in the end, that is, eternal life, is rendered to our preceding merits: they must not be allowed to go without an answer. If, indeed, they so understand our merits as to acknowledge them, too, to be the gifts of God, then their opinion would not deserve reprobation. But inasmuch as they so preach
human merits as to declare that a man has them of his own self, then most rightly the apostle replies: “Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou, that thou didst not receive? Now, if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” See
Chapter 16 [VII.]—Paul Fought, But God Gave the Victory: He Ran, But God Showed Mercy.
Let us, therefore, consider those very merits of the Apostle Paul which he said the Righteous Judge would recompense with the crown of righteousness; and let us see whether these merits of his were really his own—I mean, whether they were obtained by him of himself, or were the gifts of God. “I have fought,” says he, “the good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.”
Chapter 17.—The Faith that He Kept Was the Free Gift of God.
His last clause runs thus: “I have kept the faith.” But he who says this is the same who declares in another passage, “I have obtained mercy that I might be faithful.”
Chapter 18.—Faith Without Good Works is Not Sufficient for Salvation.
Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,”
Chapter 19 [VIII.]—How is Eternal Life Both a Reward for Service and a Free Gift of Grace?
And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by the Lord’s gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: “Then He shall reward every man according to his works:”
Chapter 20.—The Question Answered. Justification is Grace Simply and Entirely, Eternal Life is Reward and Grace.
This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Chapter 21 [IX.]—Eternal Life is “Grace for Grace.”
Perhaps you ask whether we ever read in the Sacred Scriptures of “grace for grace.” Well you possess the Gospel according to John, which is perfectly clear in its very great light. Here John the Baptist says of Christ: “Of His fulness have we all received, even grace for grace.”
Chapter 22 [X.]—Who is the Transgressor of the Law? The Oldness of Its Letter. The Newness of Its Spirit.
Therefore, brethren, you ought by free will not do evil but do good; this, indeed, is the lesson taught us in the law of God, in the Holy Scriptures—both Old and New. Let us, however, read, and by the Lord’s help understand, what the apostle tells us: “Because by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Ut fiat supra modum peccator, aut peccatum, etc. [This odd reading probably arose from mistaking the Greek article ἡ for the disjunctive particle ἤ. It occurs frequently in Augustin.—W.]
Chapter 23 [XI.]—The Pelagians Maintain that the Law is the Grace of God Which Helps Us Not to Sin.
Why, therefore, do those very vain and perverse Pelagians say that the law is the grace of God by which we are helped not to sin? Do they not, by making such an allegation, unhappily and beyond all doubt contradict the great apostle? He, indeed, says, that by the law sin received strength against man; and that man, by the commandment, although it be holy, and just, and good, nevertheless dies, and that death works in him through that which is good, from which
death there is no deliverance unless the Spirit quickens him, whom the letter had killed,—as he says in another passage, “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”
Chapter 24 [XII.]—Who May Be Said to Wish to Establish Their Own Righteousness. “God’s Righteousness,” So Called, Which Man Has from God.
As many, therefore, as are led by their own spirit, trusting in their own virtue, with the addition merely of the law’s assistance, without the help of grace, are not the sons of God. Such are they of whom the same apostle speaks as “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, who have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.”
Chapter 25 [XIII.]—As The Law is Not, So Neither is Our Nature Itself that Grace by Which We are Christians.
Now who can be so insensible to the words of the apostle, who so foolishly, nay, so insanely ignorant of the purport of his statement, as to venture to affirm that the law is grace, when he who knew very well what he was saying emphatically declares, “Ye who are justified by the law are fallen from grace”? Well, but if the law is not grace, seeing that in order that the law itself may be kept, it is not the law, but only grace which can give help, will not nature
at any rate be grace? For this, too, the Pelagians have been bold enough to aver, that grace is the nature in which we were created, so as to possess a rational mind, by which we are enabled to understand,—formed as we are in the image of God, so as to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth. This, however, is not the grace which the apostle commends to us through the faith of Jesus Christ. For it is certain
that we possess this nature in common with ungodly men and unbelievers; whereas the grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ belongs only to them to whom the faith itself appertains. “For all men have not faith.”
Chapter 26.—The Pelagians Contend that the Grace, Which is Neither the Law Nor Nature, Avails Only to the Remission of Past Sins, But Not to the Avoidance of Future Ones.
They also maintain that God’s grace, which is given through the faith of Jesus Christ, and which is neither the law nor nature, avails only for the remission of sins that have been committed, and not for the shunning of future ones, or the subjugation of those which are now assailing us. Now if all this were true, surely after offering the petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” we could hardly go on and say, “And lead us
not into temptation.” Caritatem vestram, a phrase of the same sort as our common address, “your Honour.”
Chapter 27 [XIV.]—Grace Effects the Fulfilment of the Law, the Deliverance of Nature, and the Suppression of Sin’s Dominion.
It has, however, been shown to demonstration that instead of really maintaining free will, they have only inflated a theory of it, which, having no stability, has fallen to the ground. Neither the knowledge of God’s law, nor nature, nor the mere remission of sins is that grace which is given to us through our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is this very grace which accomplishes the fulfilment of the law, and the liberation of nature, and the removal of the dominion of sin. Being, therefore, convicted on these points, they resort to another expedient, and endeavour to show in some way or other that the grace of God is given us according to our merits. For they say: “Granted that it is not given to us according to the merits of good works, inasmuch as it is through it that we do any good thing, still it is given to us according to the merits of a good will; for,” say they, “the good will of him who prays precedes his prayer, even as the will of the believer preceded his faith, so that according to these merits the grace of God who hears, follows.”
Chapter 28.—Faith is the Gift of God.
I have already discussed See above, ch. vii. (16, 17, 18).
Chapter 29.—God is Able to Convert Opposing Wills, and to Take Away from the Heart Its Hardness.
Now if faith is simply of free will, and is not given by God, why do we pray for those who will not believe, that they may believe? This it would be absolutely useless to do, unless we believe, with perfect propriety, that Almighty God is able to turn to belief wills that are perverse and opposed to faith. Man’s free will is addressed when it is said, “Today, if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts.” [That is, “carnally,” the Latin phrase in
Chapter 30.—The Grace by Which the Stony Heart is Removed is Not Preceded by Good Deserts, But by Evil Ones.
In another passage, also, by the same prophet, God, in the clearest language, shows us that it is not owing to any good merits on the part of men, but for His own name’s sake, that He does these things. This is His language: “This I do, O house of Israel, In several editions and mss. there is inserted here the phrase “not for your sakes.”
Chapter 31 [XV.]—Free Will Has Its Function in the Heart’s Conversion; But Grace Too Has Its.
Lest, however, it should be thought that men themselves in this matter do nothing by free will, it is said in the Psalm, “Harden not your hearts;”
Chapter 32 [XVI.]—In What Sense It is Rightly Said That, If We Like, We May Keep God’s Commandments.
The Pelagians think that they know something great when they assert that “God would not command what He knew could not be done by man.” Who can be ignorant of this? But God commands some things which we cannot do, in order that we may know what we ought to ask of Him. For this is faith itself, which obtains by prayer what the law commands. He, indeed, who said, “If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments,” did in the same book of Ecclesiasticus afterwards say,
“Who shall give a watch before my mouth, and a seal of wisdom upon my lips, that I fall not suddenly thereby, and that my tongue destroy me not.”
Chapter 33 [XVII.]—A Good Will May Be Small and Weak; An Ample Will, Great Love. Operating and Co-operating Grace.
He, therefore, who wishes to do God’s commandment, but is unable, already possesses a good will, but as yet a small and weak one; he will, however, become able when he shall have acquired a great and robust will. When the martyrs did the great commandments which they obeyed, they acted by a great will,—that is, with great love. Of this love the Lord Himself thus speaks: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Compare Art. X. of the Church of England.
Chapter 34.—The Apostle’s Eulogy of Love. Correction to Be Administered with Love.
This charity, that is, this will glowing with intensest love, the apostle eulogizes with these words: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? (As it is written, For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Chapter 35.—Commendations of Love.
The Apostle Peter, likewise, says, “And, above all things, have fervent love among yourselves: for love shall cover the multitude of sins.”
Chapter 36.—Love Commended by Our Lord Himself.
Moreover, the Lord Jesus Himself teaches us that the whole law and the prophets hang upon the two precepts of love to God and love to our neighbour. Concerning these two commandments the following is written in the Gospel according to St. Mark: “And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him: Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him: The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.
Chapter 37 [XVIII.]—The Love Which Fulfils the Commandments is Not of Ourselves, But of God.
All these commandments, however, respecting love or charity [“Love or charity,” the disjunctive being intended to identify, not distinguish, the two. The word amor is distinguishable from the pair (dilectio and charitas) here used, though even this must not be pressed too far. See Augustin’s City of God, xiv. 7.—W.]
Chapter 38.—We Would Not Love God Unless He First Loved Us. The Apostles Chose Christ Because They Were Chosen; They Were Not Chosen Because They Chose Christ.
Let no one, then, deceive you, my brethren, for we should not love God unless He first loved us. John again gives us the plainest proof of this when he says, “We love Him because He first loved us.”
Chapter 39.—The Spirit of Fear a Great Gift of God.
The apostle also says to Timothy, “For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”
Chapter 40 [XIX.]—The Ignorance of the Pelagians in Maintaining that the Knowledge of the Law Comes from God, But that Love Comes from Ourselves.
It is no wonder that light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
Chapter 41 [XX.]—The Wills of Men are So Much in the Power of God, that He Can Turn Them Whithersoever It Pleases Him.
I think I have now discussed the point fully enough in opposition to those who vehemently oppose the grace of God, by which, however, the human will is not taken away, but changed from bad to good, and assisted when it is good. I think, too, that I have so discussed the subject, that it is not so much I myself as the inspired Scripture which has spoken to you, in the clearest testimonies of truth; and if this divine record be looked into carefully, it shows us
that not only men’s good wills, which God Himself converts from bad ones, and, when converted by Him, directs to good actions and to eternal life, but also those which follow the world are so entirely at the disposal of God, that He turns them whithersoever He wills, and whensoever He wills,—to bestow kindness on some, and to heap punishment on others, as He Himself judges right by a counsel most secret to Himself, indeed, but beyond all doubt most righteous. For we find that some sins are even
the punishment of other sins, as are those “vessels of wrath” which the apostle describes as “fitted to destruction;” See See
Chapter 42 [XXI]—God Does Whatsoever He Wills in the Hearts of Even Wicked Men.
Who can help trembling at those judgments of God by which He does in the hearts of even wicked men whatsoever He wills, at the same time rendering to them according to their deeds? Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, rejected the salutary counsel of the old men, not to deal harshly with the people, and preferred listening to the words of the young men of his own age, by returning a rough answer to those to whom he should have spoken gently. Now whence arose such
conduct, except from his own will? Upon this, however, the ten tribes of Israel revolted from him, and chose for themselves another king, even Jeroboam, that the will of God in His anger might be accomplished which He had predicted would come to pass.
Chapter 43.—God Operates on Men’s Hearts to Incline Their Wills Whithersoever He Pleases.
From these statements of the inspired word, and from similar passages which it would take too long to quote in full, it is, I think, sufficiently clear that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, whether to good deeds according to His mercy, or to evil after their own deserts; His own judgment being sometimes manifest, sometimes secret, but always righteous. This ought to be the fixed and immoveable conviction of your heart,
that there is no unrighteousness with God. Therefore, whenever you read in the Scriptures of Truth, that men are led aside, or that their hearts are blunted and hardened by God, never doubt that some ill deserts of their own have first occurred, so that they justly suffer these things. Thus you will not run counter to that proverb of Solomon: “The foolishness of a man perverteth his ways, yet he blameth God in his heart.” Latin, gratis.
Chapter 44 [XXII.]—Gratuitous Grace Exemplified in Infants.
Men, however, may suppose that there are certain good deserts which they think are precedent to justification through God’s grace; all the while failing to see, when they express such an opinion, that they do nothing else than deny grace. But, as I have already remarked, let them suppose what they like respecting the case of adults, in the case of infants, at any rate, the Pelagians find no means of answering the difficulty. For these in receiving grace have no will;
from the influence of which they can pretend to any precedent merit. We see, moreover, how they cry and struggle when they are baptized, and feel the divine sacraments. Such conduct would, of course, be charged against them as a great impiety, if they already had free will in use; and notwithstanding this, grace cleaves to them even in their resisting struggles. But most certainly there is no prevenient merit, otherwise the grace would be no longer grace. Sometimes, too, this grace is bestowed
upon the children of unbelievers, when they happen by some means or other to fall, by reason of God’s secret providence, into the hands of pious persons; but, on the other hand, the children of believers fail to obtain grace, some hindrance occurring to prevent the approach of help to rescue them in their danger. These things, no doubt, happen through the secret providence of God, whose judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out. These are the words of the apostle; and you should
observe what he had previously said, to lead him to add such a remark. He was discoursing about the Jews and Gentiles, when he wrote to the Romans—themselves Gentiles—to this effect: “For as ye, in times past, have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed,
Chapter 45 [XXIII]—The Reason Why One Person is Assisted by Grace, and Another is Not Helped, Must Be Referred to the Secret Judgments of God.
You must refer the matter, then, to the hidden determinations of God, when you see, in one and the same condition, such as all infants unquestionably have,—who derive their hereditary evil from Adam,—that one is assisted so as to be baptized, and another is not assisted, so that he dies in his very bondage; and again, that one baptized person is left and forsaken in his present life, who God foreknew would be ungodly, while another baptized person is taken away
from this life, “lest that wickedness should alter his understanding;” See
Chapter 46 [XXIV.]—Understanding and Wisdom Must Be Sought from God.
Peruse attentively this treatise, and if you understand it, give God the praise; but where you fail to understand it, pray for understanding, for God will give you understanding. Remember what the Scriptures say: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given to him.”
a treatise on rebuke and grace.
Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 67,
On the Following Treatise,
“de correptione et gratia.”
————————————
I Wrote again to the same persons Valentine, to wit, and the monks with him who inhabited the convent at Adrumetum. See above, at the beginning of the preceding treatise, On Grace and Free Will.
A Treatise on rebuke and grace,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In One Book,
addressed to valentine, and with him to the monks of adrumetum.
a.d. 426 or 427
————————————
In the beginning the writer sets forth what is the Catholic faith concerning law, concerning free will, and concerning grace. He teaches that the grace of God by Jesus Christ is that by which alone men are delivered from evil, and without which they do absolutely no good; and this not only by the fact that it points out what is to be done, but that it also supplies the means of doing it with love, since God bestows on men the inspiration of a good will and deed. He
teaches that the rebuke of evil men who have not received this grace is neither unjust—since they are evil by their own will—nor useless, although it must be confessed that it is only by God’s agency that it can avail. That perseverance in good is truly a great gift of God, but that still the rebuke of one who has not persevered must not on that account be neglected; and that if a man who has not received this gift should relapse of his own will into sin, he is not only deserving of rebuke, but
if he should continue in evil until his death, he is moreover worthy of eternal damnation. That it is inscrutable why one should receive this gift and another should not receive it. That of those who are predestinated none can perish. And that the perseverance, which all do not receive who are here called children of God, is constantly given to all those who are truly children by God’s foreknowledge and predestination. He answers the question which suggests itself concerning Adam—in what way he
sinned by not persevering, since he did not receive perseverance. He shows that such assistance was at the first given to him, as that without it he could not continue if he would, not as that with it it must result that he would. But that now through Christ is given us not only such help as that without it we cannot continue even if we will, but moreover such and so great as that by it we will. He proves that the number of the predestinated, to whom a gift of this kind is appropriated, is
certain, and can neither be increased nor
Chapter 1 [I.]—Introductory.
I Have read your letter—Valentine, my dearly beloved brother, and you who are associated with him in the service of God—which your Love sent by brother Florus and those who came to us with him; and I gave God thanks that I have known your peace in the Lord and agreement in the truth and ardour in love, by your discourse delivered to us. But that an enemy has striven among you to the subversion of some, has, by the mercy of God and His
marvellous goodness in turning his arts to the advantage Or according to some mss., “progress.” Treatise on Grace and Free Will, see above. Or, “most clearly.”
Chapter 2.—The Catholic Faith Concerning Law, Grace, and Free Will.
Now the Lord Himself not only shows us what evil we should shun, and what good we should do, which is all that the letter of the law is able to effect; but He moreover helps us that we may shun evil and do good,
Chapter 3 [II.]—What the Grace of God Through Jesus Christ is.
For the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord must be apprehended,—as that by which alone men are delivered from evil, and without which they do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or will and affection, or in action; not only in order that they may know, by the manifestation of that grace, what should be done, but moreover in order that, by its enabling, they may do with love what they know. Certainly the apostle asked for this inspiration of good
will and work on behalf of those to whom he said, “Now we pray to God that ye do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is good.” In aperto.
Chapter 4—The Children of God are Led by the Spirit of God.
Let those, therefore, not deceive themselves who ask, “Wherefore is it preached and prescribed to us that we should turn away from evil and do good, if it is not we that do this, but ‘God who worketh in us to will and to do it’?” Some mss. have “his land.”
Chapter 5 [III.]—Rebuke Must Not Be Neglected.
“Then,” say they, “let those who are over us only prescribe to us what we ought to do, and pray for us that we may do it; but let them not rebuke and censure us if we should not do it.” Certainly let all be done, since the teachers of the churches, the apostles, were in the habit of doing all,—as well prescribing what things should be done, as rebuking if they were not done, and praying that they might be done. The apostle prescribes, saying, “Let all your things be
done with love.”
Chapter 6 [IV.]—Objections to the Use of Rebuke.
“How,” says he, i.e. the objecting Pelagian. So the mss.; the older editors read fiant, that is, “may be observed.”
Chapter 7 [V.]—The Necessity and Advantage of Rebuke.
To this we answer: Whoever you are that do not the commandments of God that are already known to you, and do not wish to be rebuked, you must be rebuked even for that very reason that you do not wish to be rebuked. For you do not wish that your faults should be pointed out to you; you do not wish that they should be touched, and that such a useful pain should be caused you that you may seek the Physician; you do not desire to be shown to yourself, that, when you see
yourself to be deformed, you may wish for the Reformer, and Or, “more earnest desire for prayer.”
Chapter 8.—Further Replies to Those Who Object to Rebuke.
But wherefore do they, who are unwilling be rebuked, say, “Only prescribe to me, and pray for me that I may do what you prescribe?” Why do they not rather, in accordance with their own evil inclination, reject these things also, and say, “I wish you neither to prescribe to me, nor to pray for me”? For what man is shown to have prayed for Peter, that God should give him the repentance wherewith he bewailed the denial of his Lord? What man instructed Paul in the
divine precepts which pertain to the Christian faith? When, therefore, he was heard preaching the gospel, and saying, “For I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it from man, nor did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ,”
Chapter 9 [VI]—Why They May Justly Be Rebuked Who Do Not Obey God, Although They Have Not Yet Received the Grace of Obedience.
“The apostle says,” say they, “‘For who maketh thee to differ? And what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now also if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?’
Chapter 10—All Perseverance is God’s Gift.
Is such an one as is unwilling to be rebuked still able to say, “What have I done,—I who have not received?” when it appears plainly that he has received, and by his own fault has lost that which he has received? “I am able,” says he, “I am altogether able,—when you reprove me for having of my own will relapsed from a good life into a bad one,—still to say, What have I done,—I who have not received? For I have received faith, which worketh by love, but I have not
received perseverance therein to the end. Will any one dare to say that this perseverance is not the gift of God, and that so great a possession as this is ours in such wise that if any one have it the apostle could not say to him, ‘For what hast thou which thou hast not received?’ [The editors have without reason inserted a “not” before “ought” in this sentence, yielding the sense: “who forsakes good, even that from which he ought not to turn away;” Erasmus changes the place of “and,” reading: “who forsakes good from which he ought not to turn aside, and is inclined to evil.” The ms. text is entirely satisfactory.—W.] Many mss. read “communication.” Nearly all mss.: “even as I am holy.” Cyprian, Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, ch. 12; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 450.
Chapter 11 [VII.]—They Who Have Not Received the Gift of Perseverance, and Have Relapsed into Mortal Sin and Have Died Therein, Must Righteously Be Condemned.
If, then, these things be so, we still rebuke those, and reasonably rebuke them, who, although they were living well, have not persevered therein; because they have of their own will been changed from a good to an evil life, and on that account are worthy of rebuke; and if rebuke should be of no avail to them, and they should persevere in their ruined life until death, they are also worthy of divine condemnation for ever. Neither shall they excuse themselves,
saying,—as now they say, “Wherefore are we rebuked?”—so then, “Wherefore are we condemned, since indeed, that we might return from good to evil, we did not receive that perseverance by which we should abide in good?” They shall by no means deliver themselves by this excuse from righteous condemnation. For if, according to the word of truth, no one is delivered from the condemnation which was incurred through Adam except through the faith of Jesus Christ, and yet from this condemnation they
shall not deliver themselves who shall be able to say that they have not heard the gospel of Christ, on the ground that “faith cometh by hearing,”
Chapter 12.—They Who Have Not Received Perseverance are Not Distinguished from the Mass of Those that are Lost.
And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe on Him, since He Himself says, “No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,” Cyprian, Testimonies, Book iii. ch. 4; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. pp. 528 and 533.
Chapter 13.—Election is of Grace, Not of Merit.
Whosoever, then, are made to differ from that original condemnation by such bounty of divine
Chapter 14.—None of the Elect and Predestinated Can Perish.
Of such says the apostle, “We know that to those that love God He worketh together all things for good, to them who are called according to His purpose; because those whom He before foreknew, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”
Chapter 15.—Perseverance is Given to the End.
Rightly follows the word to the kingdom of the elect: “If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how has He not also with Him given us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? God who justifieth? Who condemneth? Christ who died? yea, rather who rose again also, who is at the right hand of God, who also soliciteth on our behalf?”
Chapter 16.—Whosoever Do Not Persevere are Not Distinguished from the Mass of Perdition by Predestination.
Such as these were they who were signified to Timothy, where, when it had been said that Hymenæus and Philetus had subverted the faith of some, it is presently added, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord has known them that are His.”
Chapter 17 [VIII.]—Why Perseverance Should Be Given to One and Not Another is Inscrutable.
Here, if I am asked why God should not have given them perseverance to whom He gave that love by which they might live Christianly, I answer that I do not know. For I do not speak arrogantly, but with acknowledgment of my small measure, when I hear the apostle saying, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
Chapter 18.—Some Instances of God’s Amazing Judgments.
It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children—whom He has regenerated in Christ—to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also, when to children of another He forgives such wickedness, and, by the bestowal of His grace, makes them His own children. Who would not wonder at this? Who would not be exceedingly astonished at this? But, moreover, it is not less marvellous, and still true, and
so manifest that not even the enemies of God’s grace can find any means of denying it, that some children of His friends, that is, of regenerated and good believers, departing this life as infants without baptism,—although He certainly might provide the grace
Chapter 19.—God’s Ways Past Finding Out.
Nor let us wonder that we cannot trace His unsearchable ways. For, to say nothing of innumerable other things which are given by the Lord God to some men, and to others are not given, since with Him is no respect of persons; such things as are not conferred on the merits of will, as bodily swiftness, strength, good health, and beauty of body, marvellous intellects and mental natures capable of many arts, or such as fall to man’s lot from without, such as are wealth,
nobility, honours, and other things of this kind, which it is in the power of God alone that a man should have; not to dwell even on the baptism of infants (which none of those objectors can say does not pertain, as might be said of those other matters, to the kingdom of God), why it is given to this infant and not given to that, since both of them are equally in God’s power, and without that sacrament none can enter into the kingdom of God;—to be silent, then, on these matters, or to leave
them on one side, let men consider those very special cases of which we are treating. For we are discoursing of such as have not perseverance in goodness, but die in the decline of their good will from good to evil. Let the objectors answer, if they can, why, when these were living faithfully and piously, God did not then snatch them from the perils of this life, “lest wickedness should change their understanding, and lest deceit should beguile their souls”?
Chapter 20 [IX.]—Some are Children of God According to Grace Temporally Received, Some According to God’s Eternal Foreknowledge.
Nor let it disturb us that to some of His children God does not give this perseverance. Be this far from being so, however, if these were of those who are predestinated and called according to His purpose,—who are truly the children of the promise. For the former, while they live piously, are called children of God; but because they will live wickedly, and die in that impiety, the foreknowledge of God does not call them God’s children. For they are children of God
whom as yet we have not, and God has already, of whom the Evangelist John says, “that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad;”
Chapter 21.—Who May Be Understood as Given to Christ.
Those, then, were of the multitude of the called, but they were not of the fewness of the elected. It is not, therefore, to His predestinated children that God has not given perseverance for they would have it if they were in that number of children; and what would they have which they had not received, according to the apostolical and true judgment?
Chapter 22.—True Children of God are True Disciples of Christ.
Finally, the Saviour Himself says, “If ye continue in my word, ye are indeed my disciples.”
Chapter 23.—Those Who are Called According to the Purpose Alone are Predestinated.
For this reason the apostle, when he had said, “We know that to those who love God He work
Chapter 24.—Even the Sins of the Elect are Turned by God to Their Advantage.
To such as love Him, God co-worketh with all things for good; so absolutely all things, that even if any of them go astray, and break out of the way, even this itself He makes to avail them for good, so that they return more lowly and more instructed. For they learn that in the right way Or, “life.”
Chapter 25.—Therefore Rebuke is to Be Used.
Let no one therefore say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, but that his return and perseverance must only be asked for from the Lord for him. Let no considerate and believing man say this. For if such an one is called according to the purpose, beyond all doubt God is co-working for good to him even in the fact of his being rebuked. But since he who rebukes is ignorant whether he is so called, let him do with love what he knows ought
to be done; for he knows that such an one ought to be rebuked. God will show either mercy or judgment; mercy, indeed, if he who is rebuked is “made to differ” by the bestowal of grace from the mass of perdition, and is not found among the vessels of wrath which are completed for destruction, but among the vessels of mercy which God has prepared for glory;
Chapter 26 [X.]—Whether Adam Received the Gift of Perseverance.
Here arises another question, not reasonably to be slighted, but to be approached and solved in the help of the Lord in whose hand are both we and our discourses.
Chapter 27.—The Answer.
Wherefore we most wholesomely confess what we most correctly believe, that the God and Lord of all things, who in His strength created all things good, and foreknew that evil things would arise out of good, and knew that it pertained to His most omnipotent goodness even to do good out of evil things rather than not to allow evil things to be at all, so ordained the life of angels and men that in it He might first of all show what their free will was capable of, and
then what the kindness of His grace and the judgment of His righteousness was capable of. Finally, certain angels, of whom the chief is he who is called the devil, became by free will outcasts from the Lord God. Yet although they fled from His goodness, wherein they had been blessed, they could not flee from His judgment, by which they were made most wretched. Others, however, by the same free will stood fast in the truth, and merited the knowledge of that most certain truth that they should
never fall. “Eamque [scil. veritatem] de suo casu nunquam futuro certissimam scire.”
Chapter 28.—The First Man Himself Also Might Have Stood by His Free Will.
Thus also He made man with free will; and although ignorant of his future fall, yet therefore happy, because he thought it was in his own power both not to die and not to become miserable. And if he had willed by his own free will to continue in this state of uprightness and freedom from sin, assuredly without any experience of death and of unhappiness he would have received by the merit of that continuance the fulness of blessing with which the holy angels also are
blessed; that is, the impossibility of falling any more, and the knowledge of this with absolute certainty. For even he himself could not be blessed although in Paradise, nay, he would not be there, where it would not become him to be miserable, if the foreknowledge of his fall had made him wretched with the dread of such a disaster. But because he forsook God of his free will, he experienced the just judgment of God, that with his whole race, which being as yet all placed in him had sinned
with him, he should be condemned. For as mary of this race as are delivered by God’s grace are certainly delivered from the condemnation in which they are already held bound. Whence, even if none should be delivered, no one could justly blame the judgment of God. That, therefore, in comparison of those that perish few, but in their absolute number many, are delivered, is effected by grace, Gratiâ—gratis. Gratiâ—gratis.
Chapter 29 [XI.]—Distinction Between the Grace Given Before and After the Fall.
What then? Did not Adam have the grace of God? Yes, truly, he had it largely, but of a different kind. He was placed in the midst of benefits which he had received from the goodness of his Creator; for he had not procured those benefits by his own deservings; in which benefits he suffered absolutely no evil. But saints in this life, to whom pertains this grace of deliverance, are in the midst of evils out of which they cry to God, “Deliver us from evil.”
Chapter 30.—The Incarnation of the Word.
Hence, although these do not now require a grace more joyous for the present, they nevertheless need a more powerful grace; and what grace is more powerful than the only-begotten Son of God, equal to the Father and co-eternal, made man for them, and, without any sin of His own, either original or actual, crucified by men who were sinners? And although He rose again on the third day, never to die any more, He yet bore death for men and gave life to the dead, so
Some editions have, instead of “and not being made,” etc., “lest being made of evil he should not always be good.”
Chapter 31.—The First Man Had Received the Grace Necessary for His Perseverance, But Its Exercise Was Left in His Free Choice.
The first man had not that grace by which he should never will to be evil; but assuredly he had that in which if he willed to abide he would never be evil, and without which, moreover, he could not by free will be good, but which, nevertheless, by free will he could forsake. God, therefore, did not will even him to be without His grace, which He left in his free will; because free will is sufficient for evil, but is too little Some mss. read, “of no avail.” There are other readings of this passage, but coming to the same substantial result.
Chapter 32.—The Gifts of Grace Conferred on Adam in Creation.
At that time, therefore, God had given to man a good will, Some mss. read, “a free will.”
Chapter 33 [XII.]—What is the Difference Between the Ability Not to Sin, to Die, and Forsake Good, and the Inability to Sin, to Die, and to Forsake Good?
On which account we must consider with diligence and attention in what respect those pairs differ from one another,—to be able not to sin, and not to be able to sin; to be able not to die, and not to be able to die; to be able not to forsake good, and not to be able to forsake good. For the first man was able not to sin, was able not to die, was able not to forsake good. Are we to say that he who had such a free will could not sin? Or that he to whom it was said, “If thou shalt sin thou shalt die by death,” could not die? Or that he could not forsake good, when he would forsake this by sinning, and so die? Therefore the first liberty of the will was to be able not to sin, the last will be much greater, not to be able to sin; the first immortality was to be able not to die, the last will be much greater, not to be able to die; the first was the power of perseverance, to be able not to forsake good—the last will be the felicity of perseverance, not to be able to forsake good. But because the last blessings will be preferable and better, were those first ones, therefore, either no blessings at all, or trifling ones?
Chapter 34.—The Aid Without Which a Thing Does Not Come to Pass, and the Aid with Which a Thing Comes to Pass.
Moreover, the aids themselves are to be distinguished. The aid without which a thing does not come to pass is one thing, and the aid by which a thing comes to pass is another. For without food we cannot live; and yet although food should be at hand, it would not cause a man to live who should will to die. Therefore the aid of food is that without which it does not come to pass that we live, not that by which it comes to pass that we live. But, indeed, when the
blessedness which a man has not is given him, he becomes at once blessed. For the aid is not only that without which that does not happen, but also with which that does happen for the sake of which it is given. Wherefore this is an assistance both by which it comes to pass, and without which it does not come to pass; because, on the one hand, if blessedness should be given to a man, he becomes at once blessed; and, on the other, if it should never be given he will never be so. But food does not
of necessity cause a man to live, and yet without it he cannot live. Therefore to the first man, who, in that good in which he had been made upright, had received the ability not to sin, the ability not to die, the ability not to forsake that good itself, was given the aid of perseverance,—not that by which it should be brought about that he should persevere, but that without which he could not of free will persevere. But now to the saints predestinated to the kingdom of God by God’s grace, the
aid of perseverance that is given is not such as the former, but such that to them perseverance itself is bestowed; not only so that without that gift they cannot persevere, but, moreover, so that by means of this gift they cannot help persevering. For not only did He say, “Without me ye can do nothing,”
Chapter 35.—There is a Greater Freedom Now in the Saints Than There Was Before in Adam.
Certainly a greater liberty is necessary in the face of so many and so great temptations, which had no existence in Paradise,—a liberty fortified and confirmed by the gift of perseverance, so that this world, with all its loves, its fears, its errors, may be overcome: the martyrdoms of the saints have taught this. In fine, he [Adam], not only with nobody to make him afraid, but, moreover, in spite of the authority of God’s fear, using free will, did not stand in
such a state of happiness, in such a facility The original is in tanti peccandi facilitate. Of course, non must be inserted, but the translator ventures to conjecture facultate instead of facilitate.
Chapter 36.—God Not Only Foreknows that Men Will Be Good, But Himself Makes Them So.
It is He Himself, therefore, that makes those men good, to do good works. For He did not promise them to Abraham because He foreknew that of themselves they would be good. For if this were the case, what He promised was not His, but theirs. But it was not thus that Abraham believed, but “he was not weak in faith, giving glory to God;” and “most fully believing that what He has promised He is able also to perform.”
Chapter 37.—To a Sound Will is Committed the Power of Persevering or of Not Persevering.
As, therefore, the first man did not receive this gift of God,—that is, perseverance in good, but it was left in his choice to persevere or not to persevere, his will had such strength,—inasmuch as it had been created without any sin, and there was nothing in the way of concupiscence of himself that withstood it,—that the choice of persevering could worthily be entrusted to such goodness and to such facility in living well. But God at the same time foreknew what he
would do in unrighteousness; foreknew, however, but did not compel him to this; but at the same time He knew what He Himself would do in righteousness concerning him. But now, since that great freedom has been lost by the desert of sin, our weakness has remained to be aided by still greater gifts. For it pleased God, in order most effectually to quench the pride of human presumption, “that no flesh should glory in His presence”—that is, “no man.”
Chapter 38.—What is the Nature of the Gift of Perseverance that is Now Given to the Saints.
And thus God willed that His saints should not—even concerning perseverance in goodness itself—glory in their own strength, but in Himself, who not only gives them aid such as He gave to the first man, without which they cannot persevere if they will, but causes in them also the will; that since they will not persevere unless they both can and will, both the capability and the will to persevere should be bestowed on them by the liberality of divine grace. Because by
the Holy Spirit their will is so much enkindled that they therefore can, because they so will; and they therefore so will because God works in them to will. For if in so much weakness of this life (in which weakness, however, for the sake of checking pride, strength behoved to be perfected) their own will should be left to themselves, that they might, if they willed, continue in the help of God, without which they could not persevere, and God should not work in them to will, in the midst of so
many and so great weaknesses their will itself would give way, and they would not be able to persevere, for the reason that failing from infirmity they would not will, or in the weakness of will they would not so will that they would be able. Therefore aid is brought to the infirmity of human will, so that it might be unchangeably and invincibly “Insuperabiliter,” the reading of the best mss. Some editions read “inseparabiliter,” in a dogmatic interest.
Chapter 39 [XIII.]—The Number of the Predestinated is Certain and Defined.
I speak thus of those who are predestinated to the kingdom of God, whose number is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor taken from them; not of those who, when He had
Chapter 40.—No One is Certain and Secure of His Own Predestination and Salvation.
But, moreover, that such things as these are so spoken to saints who will persevere, as if it were reckoned uncertain whether they will persevere, is a reason that they ought not otherwise to hear these things, since it is well for them “not to be high-minded, but to fear.”
Chapter 41.—Even in Judgment God’s Mercy Will Be Necessary to Us.
For the Holy Scripture testifies that God’s mercy is then also necessary for them, when the Saint says to his soul concerning the Lord its God, “Who crowneth thee in mercy and compassion.”
Chapter 42.—The Reprobate are to Be Punished for Merits of a Different Kind.
But those who do not belong to this number of the predestinated, whom—whether that they have not yet any free choice of their will, or with a choice of will truly free, because freed by grace itself—the grace of God brings to His kingdom,—those, then, who do not belong to that most certain and blessed number, are most righteously judged according to their deservings. For either they lie under the sin which they have inherited by original generation, and depart hence with that inherited debt which is not put away by regeneration, or by their free will have added other sins besides; their will, I say, free, but not freed,—free from righteousness, but enslaved to sin, by which they are tossed about by divers mischievous lusts, some more evil, some less, but all evil; and they must be adjudged to diverse punishments, according to that very diversity. Or they receive the grace of God, but they are only for a season, and do not persevere; they forsake and are forsaken. For by their free will, as they have not received the gift of perseverance, they are sent away by the righteous and hidden judgment of God.
Chapter 43 [XIV.]—Rebuke and Grace Do Not Set Aside One Another.
Let men then suffer themselves to be rebuked when they sin, and not conclude against grace from the rebuke itself, nor from grace against rebuke; because both the righteous penalty of sin is due, and righteous rebuke belongs to it, if it is medicinally applied, even although the salvation of the ailing man is uncertain; so that if he who is rebuked belongs to the number of the predestinated, rebuke may be to him a wholesome medicine; and if he does not belong to that number, rebuke may be to him a penal infliction. Under that very uncertainty, therefore, it must of love be applied, although its result is unknown; and prayer must be made on his behalf to whom it is applied, that he may be healed. But when men either come or return into the way of righteousness by means of rebuke, who is it that worketh salvation in their hearts but that God who giveth the increase, whoever plants and waters, and whoever labours on the fields or shrubs,—that God whom no man’s will resists when He wills to give salvation? For so to will or not to will is in the power of Him who willeth or willeth not, as not to hinder the divine will nor overcome the divine power. For even concerning those who do what He wills not, He Himself does what He will.
Chapter 44.—In What Way God Wills All Men to Be Saved.
And what is written, that “He wills all men to be saved,” Enchirid, c. 103; City of God, xxii. 1, 2. Against Julian, iv. 8.
Chapter 45.—Scriptural Instances Wherein It is Proved that God Has Men’s Wills More in His Power Than They Themselves Have.
It is not, then, to be doubted that men’s wills cannot, so as to prevent His doing what he wills, withstand the will of God, “who hath done all things whatsoever He pleased in heaven and in earth,”
Chapter 46 [XV.]—Rebuke Must Be Varied According to the Variety of Faults. There is No Punishment in the Church Greater Than Excommunication.
Therefore, let brethren who are subject be rebuked by those who are set over them, with rebukes that spring from love, varied according to the diversity of faults, whether smaller or greater. Because that very penalty that is called condemnation, Query, Excommunication?
Chapter 47.—Another Interpretation of the Apostolic Passage, “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved.”
That, therefore, in our ignorance of who shall be saved, God commands us to will that all to whom we preach this peace may be saved, and Himself works this in us by diffusing that love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us,—may also thus be understood, that God wills all men to be saved, because He makes us to will this; just as “He sent the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father;”
Chapter 48.—The Purpose of Rebuke.
Although, therefore, even while the faith of some is subverted, the foundation of God standeth sure, since the Lord knoweth them that are His, still, we ought not on that account to be indolent and negligent in rebuking those who should be rebuked. For not for nothing was it said, “Evil communications corrupt good manners;”
Chapter 49.—Conclusion.
Hence, as far as concerns us, who are not able to distinguish those who are predestinated from those who are not, we ought on this very account to will all men to be saved. Severe rebuke should be medicinally applied to all by us that they perish not themselves, or that they may not be the means of destroying others. It belongs to God, however, to make that rebuke useful to them whom He Himself has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son.
For, if at any time we abstain from rebuking, for fear lest by rebuke a man should perish, why do we not also rebuke, for fear lest a man should rather perish by our withholding it? For we have no greater bowels of love than the blessed apostle who says, “Rebuke those that are unruly; comfort the feeble-minded; support the weak; be patient towards all men. See that none render to any man evil for evil.”
a treatise on the predestination of the saints.
A Treatise on the predestination of the saints,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
The First Book, This Treatise is the first portion of a work, of which the following, On the Gift of Perseverance, is the second.
addressed to prosper and hilary. [3415]
a.d. 428 or 429
————————————
Wherein the truth of predestination and grace is defended against the semi-Pelagians,—those people to wit, who by no means withdraw altogether from the Pelagian heresy, in that they contend that the beginning of salvation and of faith is of ourselves; so that in virtue, as it were, of this precedent merit, the other good gifts of God are attained. Augustin shows that not only the increase, but the very beginning also of faith is in God’s gift. On this matter he does
not disavow that he once thought differently, and that in some small works, written before his episcopate, he was in error, as in that exposition, which they object to him, of propositions from the epistle to the Romans. But he points out that he was subsequently convinced chiefly by this testimony, “but what hast thou that thou hast not received?” which he proves is to be taken as a testimony concerning faith itself also. He says that faith is to be counted among other works, which the apostle
denies to anticipate God’s grace when He says, “not of works.” He declares that the hardness of the heart is taken away by grace, and that all come to Christ who are taught to come by the Father; but that those whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not. That the passage from his hundred and second epistle, Question 2, “concerning the time of the Christian religion” which is alleged by the semi-Pelagians, may rightly be explained without
detriment to the doctrine of grace and predestination. He teaches what is the difference between grace and predestination. Further, he says that God in his predestination foreknew what he had purposed to do. He marvels greatly that the adversaries of predestination, who are said to be unwilling to be dependent on the uncertainty of God’s will, prefer rather to trust themselves to their own weakness than to
Chapter 1 [I.]—Introduction.
We know that in the Epistle to the Philippians the apostle said, “To write the same things to you to me indeed is not grievous but for you it is safe;”
Chapter 2.—To What Extent the Massilians [The party which Augustin is here opposing had its chief centre in Marseilles, and hence is called “Massilians.” Prosper in his letter called them reliquiæ Pelagianorum, i.e., “the remnants of the Pelagians.” They are now most commonly called “Semi-Pelagians.”—W.]
For on consideration of your letters, I seem to see that those brethren on whose behalf you exhibit a pious care that they may not hold the poetical opinion in which it is affirmed, “Every one is a hope for himself,” Virg. Æneid, xi. 309. Some mss. read aperta, scil. “plain.”
Chapter 3 [II.]—Even the Beginning of Faith is of God’s Gift.
Therefore I ought first to show that the faith by which we are Christians is the gift of God, if I can do that more thoroughly than I have already done in so many and so large volumes. But I see that I must now reply to those who say that the divine testimonies which I have adduced concerning this matter are of avail for this purpose, to assure us that we have faith itself of ourselves, but that its increase is of God; as if faith were not given to us by Him, but
were only increased in us by Him, on the ground of the merit of its having begun from us. Thus there is here no departure from that opinion which Pelagius himself was constrained to condemn in the judgment of the bishops of Palestine, as is testified in the same Proceedings, “That the grace of God is given according to our merits,” On the Proceedings of Peliagus, ch. 30.
Chapter 4.—Continuation of the Preceding.
But why do we not in opposition to this, rather hear the words, “Who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed to him again? since of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” The Acts of the Apostles were read during Easter.
Chapter 5.—To Believe is to Think with Assent.
And, therefore, commending that grace which is not given according to any merits, but is the cause of all good merits, he says, “Not that we are sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God.”
Chapter 6.—Presumption and Arrogance to Be Avoided.
Care must be taken, brethren, beloved of God, that a man do not lift himself up in opposition to God, when he says that he does what God has promised. Was not the faith of the nations promised to Abraham, “and he, giving glory to God, most fully believed that what He promised He is able also to perform”?
Chapter 7 [III.]—Augustin Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God.
It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought—I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said “that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.” Cyprian, Testimonies to Quirinus, Book iii. ch. 4; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 528. Hilary’s Letter, No. 226 in the collection of Augustin’s Letters. Retractations, Book i. ch. 23, Nos. 3, 4.
Chapter 8 [IV.]—What Augustin Wrote to Simplicianus, the Successor of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
You see plainly what was at that time my opinion concerning faith and works, although I was labouring in commending God’s grace; and in this opinion I see that those brethren of ours now are, because they have not been as careful to make progress with me in my writings as they were in reading them. For if they had been so careful, they would have found that question solved in accordance with the truth of the divine Scriptures in the first book of the two which I
wrote in the very beginning of my episcopate to Simplicianus, of blessed memory, Bishop of the Church of Milan, and successor to St. Ambrose. Unless, perchance, they may not have known these books; in which case, take care that they do know them. Of this first of those two books, I first spoke in the second book of the Retractations; and what I said is as follows: “Of the books, I say, on which, as a bishop, I have laboured, the first two are addressed to Simplicianus, president of the
Church of Milan, who succeeded the most blessed Ambrose, concerning divers questions, two of which I gathered into the first book from the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. The former of them is about what is written: ‘What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? By no means;’ Cypr. Test. Book iii. ch. 4; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p 528. Augustin’s Retractations, II. i. 1.
Chapter 9 [V.]—The Purpose of the Apostle in These Words.
The notion, however, which they entertain, “that these words, ‘What hast thou that thou hast not received?’ cannot be said of this faith, because it has remained in the same nature, although corrupted, which at first was endowed with health and perfection,” See Epistle of Hilary (Augustin’s Epistles, 226).
Chapter 10.—It is God’s Grace Which Specially Distinguishes One Man from Another.
In this the apostle’s most evident intention, in which he speaks against human pride, so that none should glory in man but in God, it is too absurd, as I think, to suppose God’s natural gifts, whether man’s entire and perfected nature itself as it was bestowed on him in his first state, or the remains, whatever they may be, of his degraded nature. For is it by such gifts as these, which are common to all men, that men are distinguished from men? But here he first
said, “For who maketh thee to differ?” and then added, “And what hast thou that thou hast not received?” Because a man, puffed up against another, might say, “My faith makes me to differ,” or “My righteousness,” or anything else of the kind. In reply to such notions, the good teacher says, “But what hast thou that thou hast not received?” And from whom but from Him who maketh thee to differ from another, on whom He bestowed not what He bestowed on thee? “Now if,” says he, “thou hast received
it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?” Is he concerned, I ask, about anything else save that he who glorieth should glory in the Lord? But nothing is so opposed to this feeling as for any one to glory concerning his own merits in such a way as if he himself had made them for himself, and not the grace of God,—a grace, however, which makes the good to differ from the wicked, and is not common to the good and the wicked. Let the grace, therefore, whereby we are living and
reasonable creatures, and are distinguished from cattle, be attributed to nature; let that grace also by which, among men themselves, the handsome are made to differ from the ill-formed, or the intelligent from the stupid, or anything of that kind, be ascribed to nature. But he whom the apostle was rebuking did not puff himself up as contrasted with cattle, nor as contrasted with any other man, in respect of any natural endowment which might be found even in the worst of men. But he ascribed to
himself, and not to God, some good gift which pertained to a holy life, and was puffed up therewith when he deserved to hear the rebuke, “Who hath made thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?” For though the capacity to have faith is of nature, is it also of nature to have it? “For all men have not faith,” Thence says Bernard, in his treatise On Grace and Free Will, ch. i.: “God is the author of salvation. Free will is only capable of it.” Comp. On the Calling of the Gentiles, Book ii. ch. 2, and Fulgentius, On the Incarnation and Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, chs. 22, 23, and 24.
Chapter 11 [VI.]—That Some Men are Elected is of God’s Mercy.
“Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will.” Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God’s mercy, and what from His judgment. “What Israel sought for,” says the apostle, “he hath not obtained, but the election hath obtained it; and
the rest were blinded, as it is written, God gave to them the spirit of compunction,—eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, even to this day. And David said, Let their table be made a snare, a retribution, and a stumblingblock to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see; and bow down their back always.” According to the Vatican mss. is read, “The former who willed,” and below, “The latter who willed not.”
Chapter 12 [VII.]—Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works.
But perhaps it may be said: “The apostle distinguishes faith from works; he says, indeed, that grace is not of works, but he does not say that it is not of faith.” This, indeed, is true. But Jesus says that faith itself also is the work of God, and commands us to work it. For the Jews said to Him, “What shall we do that we may work the work of God? Jesus answered, and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.”
Chapter 13 [VIII.]—The Effect of Divine Grace.
Accordingly, our only Master and Lord Himself, when He had said what I have above mentioned,—“This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent,”—says a little afterwards in that same discourse of His, “I said unto you that ye also have seen me and have not believed. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” Or, “docile towards God.”
Chapter 14.—Why the Father Does Not Teach All that They May Come to Christ.
Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ, except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not? Since, “On whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”
Chapter 15.—It is Believers that are Taught of God.
“Why,” say they, “does He not teach all men?” If we should say that they whom He does not teach are unwilling to learn, we shall be met with the answer: And what becomes of what is said to Him, “O God, Thou wilt turn us again, and quicken us”? Cypr. Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer.
Chapter 16.—Why the Gift of Faith is Not Given to All.
Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no
just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,—“His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.”
Chapter 17 [IX.]—His Argument in His Letter Against Porphyry, as to Why the Gospel Came So Late into the World.
But that which you remember my saying in a certain small treatise of mine against Porphyry, under the title of The Time of the Christian Religion, I so said for the sake of escaping this more careful and elaborate argument about grace; although its meaning, which could be unfolded elsewhere or by others, was not wholly omitted, although I had been unwilling in that place to explain it. For, among other matters, I spoke thus in answer to the question proposed, why
it was after so long a time that Christ came: “Accordingly, I say, since they do not object to Christ that all do not follow His teaching (for even they themselves feel that this could not be objected at all with any justice, either to the wisdom of the philosophers or even to the deity of their own gods), what will they reply, if—leaving out of the question that depth of God’s wisdom and knowledge where perchance some other divine plan is far more secretly hidden, without prejudging also other
causes, which cannot be traced out by the wise—we say to them only this, for the sake of brevity in the arguing of this question, that Christ willed to appear to men, and that His doctrine should be preached among them, at that time when He knew, and at that place where He knew, that there were some who would believe on Him. For at those times, and in those places, at which His gospel was not preached, He foreknew that all would be in His preaching such as, not indeed all, but many were in His
bodily presence, who would not believe on Him, even when the dead were raised by Him; such as we see many now, who, although the declarations of the prophets concerning Him are fulfilled by such manifestations, are still unwilling to believe, and prefer to resist by human astuteness, rather than yield to divine authority so clear and perspicuous, and so lofty, and sublimely made known, so long as the human understanding is small and weak in its approach to divine truth. What wonder is it, then,
if Augustin’s Epistles, 102, chs. 14, 15.
Chapter 18.—The Preceding Argument Applied to the Present Time.
Do you not see that my desire was, without any prejudgment of the hidden counsel of God, and of other reasons, to say what might seem sufficient about Christ’s foreknowledge, to convince the unbelief of the pagans who had brought forward this question? For what is more true than that Christ foreknew who should believe on Him, and at what times and places they should believe? But whether by the preaching of Christ to themselves by themselves they were to have faith, or whether they would receive it by God’s gift,—that is, whether God only foreknew them, or also predestinated them, I did not at that time think it necessary to inquire or to discuss. Therefore what I said, “that Christ willed to appear to men at that time, and that His doctrine should be preached among them when He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who would believe on Him,” may also thus be said, “That Christ willed to appear to men at that time, and that His gospel should be preached among those, whom He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who had been elected in Himself before the foundation of the world.” But since, if it were so said, it would make the reader desirous of asking about those things which now by the warning of Pelagian errors must of necessity be discussed with greater copiousness and care, it seemed to me that what at that time was sufficient should be briefly said, leaving to one side, as I said, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God, and without prejudging other reasons, concerning which I thought that we might more fittingly argue, not then, but at some other time.
Chapter 19 [X]—In What Respects Predestination and Grace Differ.
Moreover, that which I said, “That the salvation of this religion has never been lacking to him who was worthy of it, and that he to whom it was lacking was not worthy,”—if it be discussed and it be asked whence any man can be worthy, there are not wanting those who say—by human will. But we say, by divine grace or predestination. Further, between grace and predestination there is only this difference, that predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace
is the donation itself. When, therefore the apostle says, “Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works,”
Chapter 20.—Did God Promise the Good Works of the Nations and Not Their Faith, to Abraham?
Did God, perchance, promise to Abraham in his seed the good works of the nations, so as to promise that which He Himself does, but did not promise the faith of the Gentiles, which men do for themselves; but so as to promise what He Himself does, did He foreknow that men would effect that faith? The apostle, indeed, does not speak thus, because God promised children to Abraham, who should follow the footsteps of his faith, as he very plainly says. But if He
promised the works, and not the faith of the Gentiles certainly since they are not good works unless they are of faith (for “the righteous lives of faith,”
Chapter 21.—It is to Be Wondered at that Men Should Rather Trust to Their Own Weakness Than to God’s Strength.
Certainly, when the apostle says, “Therefore it is of faith that the promise may be sure according to grace,”
Chapter 22.—God’s Promise is Sure.
“But,” say they, “when it is said, ‘If thou believest, thou shalt be saved,’ one of these things is required; the other is offered. What is required is in man’s power; what is offered is in God’s.” See Hilary’s Letter in Augustin’s Letters, 226, ch. 2.
Chapter 23 [XII.]—Remarkable Illustrations of Grace and Predestination in Infants, and in Christ.
But all this reasoning, whereby we maintain that the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord is truly grace, that is, is not given according to our merits, although it is most manifestly asserted by the witness of the divine declarations, yet, among those who think that they are withheld from all zeal for piety unless they can attribute to themselves something, which they first give that it may be recompensed to them again, involves somewhat of a difficulty in respect of the condition of grown-up people, who are already exercising the choice of will. But when we come to the case of infants, and to the Mediator between God and man Himself, the man Christ Jesus, there is wanting all assertion of human merits that precede the grace of God, because the former are not distinguished from others by any preceding good merits that they should belong to the Deliverer of men; any more than He Himself being Himself a man, was made the Deliverer of men by virtue of any precedent human merits.
Chapter 24.—That No One is Judged According to What He Would Have Done If He Had Lived Longer.
For who can hear that infants, baptized in the condition of mere infancy, are said to depart from this life by reason of their future merits, and that others not baptized are said to die in the same age because their future merits are foreknown,—but as evil; so that God rewards or condemns in them not their good or evil life, but no life at all? See Prosper’s Letter in Augustin’s Letters, 225, ch. 5. Prænosci possit, nec possit ignosci.
Chapter 25 [XIII.]—Possibly the Baptized Infants Would Have Repented If They Had Lived, and the Unbaptized Not.
But if, perchance, they say that sins are re-remitted to penitents, and that those who die in infancy are not baptized because they are foreknown as not such as would repent if they should live, while God has foreknown that those who are baptized and die in infancy would have repented if they had lived, let them observe and see that if it be so it is not in this case original sins which are punished in infants that die without baptism, but what would have been the sins of each one had he lived; and also in baptized infants, that it is not original sins that are washed away, but their own future sins if they should live, since they could not sin except in more mature age; but that some were foreseen as such as would repent, and others as such as would not repent, therefore some were baptized, and others departed from this life without baptism. If the Pelagians should dare to say this, by their denial of original sin they would thus be relieved of the necessity of seeking, on behalf of infants outside of the kingdom of God, for some place of I know not what happiness of their own; especially since they are convinced that they cannot have eternal life because they have not eaten the flesh nor drank the blood of Christ; and because in them who have no sin at all, baptism, which is given for the remission of sins, is falsified. For they would go on to say that there is no original sin, but that those who as infants are released are either baptized or not baptized according to their future merits if they should live, and that according to their future merits they either receive or do not receive the body and blood of Christ, without which they absolutely cannot have life; and are baptized for the true remission of sins although they derived no sins from Adam, because the sins are remitted unto them concerning which God foreknew that they would repent. Thus with the greatest ease they would plead and would win their cause, in which they deny that there is any original sin, and contend that the grace of God is only given according to our merits. But that the future merits of men, which merits will never come into existence are beyond all doubt no merits at all, it is certainly most easy to see: for this reason even the Pelagians were not able to say this; and much rather these ought not to say it. For it cannot be said with what pain I find that they who with us on catholic authority condemn the error of those heretics, have not seen this, which the Pelagians themselves have seen to be most false and absurd.
Chapter 26 [XIV]—Reference to Cyprian’s Treatise “On the Mortality.”
Cyprian wrote a work On the Mortality, Cyprian, Works in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 469.
Chapter 27.—The Book of Wisdom Obtains in the Church the Authority of Canonical Scripture.
And since these things are so, the judgment of the book of Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority. For assuredly, if, from those who have been before me in commenting on the divine Scriptures, I should bring forward a defence of this judgment, which we are now called upon to defend more carefully and copiously than usual against the new error of the Pelagians,—that is, that God’s grace is not given according to our merits, and that it is given freely to whom it is given, because it is neither of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy; but that by righteous judgment it is not given to whom it is not given, because there is no unrighteousness with God;—if, therefore, I should put forth a defence of this opinion from catholic commentators on the divine oracles who have preceded us, assuredly these brethren for whose sake I am now discoursing would acquiesce, for this you have intimated in your letters. What need is there, then, for us to look into the writings of those who, before this heresy sprang up, had no necessity to be conversant in a question so difficult of solution as this, which beyond a doubt they would have done if they had been compelled to answer such things? Whence it arose that they touched upon what they thought of God’s grace briefly in some passages of their writings, and cursorily; but on those matters which they argued against the enemies of the Church, and in exhortations to every virtue by which to serve the living and true God for the purpose of attaining eternal life and true happiness, they dwelt at length. But the grace of God, what it could do, shows itself artlessly by its frequent mention in prayers; for what God commands to be done would not be asked for from God, unless it could be given by Him that it should be done.
Chapter 28.—Cyprian’s Treatise “On the Mortality.”
But if any wish to be instructed in the opinions of those who have handled the subject, it behoves them to prefer to all commentators the book of Wisdom, where it is read, “He was taken away, that wickedness should not alter his understanding;” because illustrious commentators, even in the times nearest to the apostles, preferred it to themselves, seeing that when they made use of it for a testimony they believed that they were making use of nothing but a divine
testimony; and certainly it appears that the most blessed Cyprian, in order to commend the advantage of an earlier death, contended that those who end this life, wherein sin is possible, are taken away from the risks of sins. In the same treatise, among other things, he says, “Why, when you are about to be with Christ, and are secure of the divine promise, do you not embrace being called to Christ, and rejoice that you are free from the devil?” Cyprian, On the Mortality, as above. Cyprian, On the Mortality, as above. Cyprian, On the Mortality, as above.
Chapter 29.—God’s Dealing Does Not Depend Upon Any Contingent Merits of Men.
And thus, unless we indulge in reckless disputation, the entire question is concluded concerning him who is taken away lest wickedness should alter his understanding. And the book of Wisdom, which for such a series of years has deserved to be read in Christ’s Church, and in which this is read, ought not to suffer injustice because it withstands those who are mistaken on behalf of men’s merit, so as to come in opposition to the most manifest grace of God: and this grace chiefly appears in infants, and while some of these baptized, and some not baptized, come to the end of this life, they sufficiently point to God’s mercy and His judgment,—His mercy, indeed, gratuitous, His judgment, of debt. For if men should be judged according to the merits of their life, which merits they have been prevented by death from actually having, but would have had if they had lived, it would be of no advantage to him who is taken away lest wickedness should alter his understanding; it would be of no advantage to those who die in a state of lapse if they should die before. And this no Christian will venture to say. Wherefore our brethren, who with us on behalf of the catholic faith assail the pest of the Pelagian error, ought not to such an extent to favour the Pelagian opinion, wherein they conceive that God’s grace is given according to our merits, as to endeavour (which they cannot dare) to invalidate a true sentiment, plainly and from ancient times Christian,—“He was taken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding;” and to build up that which we should think, I do not say, no one would believe, but no one would dream,—to wit, that any deceased person would be judged according to those things which he would have done if he had lived for a more lengthened period. Surely thus what we say manifests itself clearly to be incontestable,—that the grace of God is not given according to our merits; so that ingenious men who contradict this truth are constrained to say things which must be rejected from the ears and from the thoughts of all men.
Chapter 30 [XV.]—The Most Illustrious Instance of Predestination is Christ Jesus.
Moreover, the most illustrious Light of predestination and grace is the Saviour Himself,—the Mediator Himself between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. And, pray, by what preceding merits of its own, whether of works or of faith, did the human nature which is in Him procure for itself that it should be this? Let this have an answer, I beg. That man, whence did He deserve this—to be assumed by the Word co-eternal with the Father into unity of person, and be the
only-begotten Son of God? Was it because any kind of goodness in Him preceded? What did He do before? What did He believe? What did He ask, that He should attain to this unspeakable excellence? Was it not by the act and the assumption of the Word that that man, from the time He began to be, began to be the only Son of God? Did not that woman, full of grace, conceive the only Son of God? Was He not born the only Son of God, of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,—not of the lust of the flesh,
but by God’s peculiar gift? Was it to be feared that as age matured this man, He would sin of free will? Or was the will in Him not free on that account? and was it not so much the more free in proportion to the greater impossibility of His becoming the servant of sin? Certainly, in Him human nature—that is to say, our nature—specially received all those specially admirable gifts, and any others that may most truly be said to be peculiar to Him, by virtue of no preceding merits of its own. Let
a man here answer to God if he dare, and say, Why was it not I also? And if he should hear, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
Chapter 31.—Christ Predestinated to Be the Son of God.
Therefore in Him who is our Head let there appear to be the very fountain of grace, whence, according to the measure of every man, He diffuses Himself through all His members. It is by that grace that every man from the beginning of his faith becomes a Christian, by which grace that one man from His beginning became
Chapter 32 [XVI.]—The Twofold Calling.
God indeed calls many predestinated children of His, to make them members of His only predestinated Son,—not with that calling with which they were called who would not come to the marriage, since with that calling were called also the Jews, to whom Christ crucified is an offence, and the Gentiles, to whom Christ crucified is foolishness; but with that calling He calls the predestinated which the apostle distinguished when he said that he preached Christ, the
wisdom of God and the power of God, to them that were called, Jews as well as Greeks. For thus he says “But unto them which are called,”
Chapter 33.—It is in the Power of Evil Men to Sin; But to Do This or That by Means of that Wickedness is in God’s Power Alone.
Moreover, it was this that he had in view when he said, “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
Chapter 34 [XVII.]—The Special Calling of the Elect is Not Because They Have Believed, But in Order that They May Believe.
Let us, then, understand the calling whereby
Chapter 35 [XVIII.]—Election is for the Purpose of Holiness.
Who can hear the apostle saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without spot in His sight; in love predestinating us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will, wherein He hath shown us favour in His beloved Son; in whom we
have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins according to the riches of His grace, which hath abounded to us in all wisdom and prudence; that He might show to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He hath purposed in Himself, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven, and in the earth, in Him: in whom also we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose; who worketh all things
according to the counsel of His will, that we should be to the praise of his glory;”
Chapter 36.—God Chose the Righteous; Not Those Whom He Foresaw as Being of Themselves, But Those Whom He Predestinated for the Purpose of Making So.
“Therefore,” says the Pelagian, “He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them
Chapter 37.—We Were Elected and Predestinated, Not Because We Were Going to Be Holy, But in Order that We Might Be So.
It would be too tedious to argue about the several points. But you see without doubt, you see with what evidence of apostolic declaration this grace is defended, in opposition to which human merits are set up, as if man should first give something for it to be recompensed to him again. Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate,
but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God’s will towards himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace, according to His good-will, which He purposed in His beloved Son; in whom we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose, not ours, but His, who worketh all things to such an extent as that He worketh in us to will
also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory.
Chapter 38 [XIX.]—What is the View of the Pelagians, and What of the Semi-Pelagians, Concerning Predestination.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in
love; and since God foresaw
Chapter 39—The Beginning of Faith is God’s Gift.
Finally, also, in what follows this testimony, the apostle gives thanks to God on behalf of those who have believed;—not, certainly, because the gospel has been declared to them, but because they have believed. For he says, “In whom also after ye had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the pledge of our inheritance, to the redemption of the purchased
possession unto the praise of His glory. Wherefore I also, after I had heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and with reference to all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you.”
Chapter 40 [XX.]—Apostolic Testimony to the Beginning of Faith Being God’s Gift.
Moreover, we are admonished that the beginning of men’s faith is God’s gift, since the apostle signifies this when, in the Epistle to the Colossians, he says, “Continue in prayer, and watch in the same in giving of thanks. Withal praying also for us that God would open unto us the door of His word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which also I am in bonds, that I may so make it manifest as I ought to speak.”
Chapter 41.—Further Apostolic Testimonies.
And again, the same apostle says to the same people, in his second Epistle: “When I had come to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and a door had been opened unto me in the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus, my brother: but, making my farewell to them, I went away into Macedonia.”
Chapter 42.—Old Testament Testimonies.
Therefore also it is in vain that objectors have alleged, that what we have proved by Scripture testimony from the books of Kings and Chronicles is not pertinent to the subject of which we are discoursing: Hilary’s Letter in Augustin’s Letters, 226, sec. 7.
Chapter 43 [XXI.]—Conclusion.
I have said a great deal, and, perchance, I could long ago have persuaded you what I wished, and am still speaking this to such intelligent minds as if they were obtuse, to whom even what is too much is not enough. But let them pardon me, for a new question has compelled me to this. Because, although in my former little treatises I had proved by sufficiently appropriate proofs that faith also was the gift of God, there was found this ground of contradiction, viz., that those testimonies were good for this purpose, to show that the increase of faith was God’s gift, but that the beginning of faith, whereby a man first of all believes in Christ, is of the man himself, and is not the gift of God,—but that God requires this, so that when it has preceded, other gifts may follow, as it were on the ground of this merit, and these are the gifts of God; and that none of them is given freely, although in them God’s grace is declared, which is not grace except as being gratuitous. And you see how absurd all this is. Wherefore I determined, as far as I could, to set forth that this very beginning also is God’s gift. And if I have done this at a greater length than perhaps those on whose account I did it might wish, I am prepared to be reproached for it by them, so long as they nevertheless confess that, although at greater length than they wished, although with the disgust and weariness of those that understand, I have done what I have done: that is, I have taught that even the beginning of faith, as continence, patience, righteousness, piety, and the rest, concerning which there is no dispute with them, is God’s gift. Let this, therefore, be the end of this treatise, lest too great length in this one may give offence.
a treatise on the gift of perseverance.
A Treatise on the gift of perseverance, [In some editions and in many mss. the title is, On the Benefit of Perseverance, and the book is so cited by Remigius, Florus (or Bede), Hincmar, and others. Probably neither title is authentic. Prosper speaks of it to Hilary as if it simply bore the name of the second book of the Predestination of the Saints. “In the books,” he writes, “of Bishop Augustin, of blessed memory, which bear the title, On the
Predestination of the Saints.”—W.]
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
Being the Second Book,
Of the Treatise “On the Predestination of the Saints.”
addressed to prosper and hilary.
a.d. 428 or 429
————————————
In the first part of the book he proves that the perseverance by which a man perseveres in Christ to the end is God’s gift; for that it is a mockery to ask of God that which is not believed to be given by God. Moreover, that in the Lord’s prayer scarcely anything is asked for but perseverance, according to the exposition of the martyr Cyprian, by which exposition the enemies to this grace were convicted before they were born. He teaches that the grace of perseverance
is not given according to the merits of the receivers, but to some it is given by God’s mercy; to others it is not given, by His righteous judgment. That it is inscrutable why, of adults, one rather than another should be called; just as, moreover, of two infants it is inscrutable why the one should be taken, the other left. But that it is still more inscrutable why, of two pious persons, to one it should be given to persevere, to the other it should not be given; but that this is most certain,
that the former is of the predestinated, the latter is not. He observes that the mystery of predestination is set forth in our Lord’s words concerning the people of Tyre and Sidon, who would have repented if the same miracles had been done among them which had been done in Chorazin. He shows that the case of infants is of force to confirm the truth of predestination and grace in older people; and he answers the passage of his third book on free will, unsoundly alleged on this point by his
adversaries. Subsequently, in the second part of this work, he rebuts what they say,—to wit, that the definition of predestination is opposed to the usefulness of exhortation and rebuke. He asserts, on the other hand, that it is advantageous to preach predestination, so that man may not glory in himself, but in the Lord. As to the objections, how
Chapter 1 [I.]—Of the Nature of the Perseverance Here Discoursed of.
I Have now to consider the subject of perseverance with greater care; for in the former book also I said some things on this subject when I was discussing the beginning of faith. I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? For if any one have continence, and fall away from that virtue and become incontinent,—or, in like manner, if he have righteousness, if patience, if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was continent, or he was righteous, or he was patient, or he was believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. But how should he who has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only by persevering that any one shows himself persevering,—and this he has not done? But lest any one should object to this, and say, If from the time at which any one became a believer he has lived—for the sake of argument—ten years, and in the midst of them has fallen from the faith, has he not persevered for five years? I am not contending about words. If it be thought that this also should be called perseverance, as it were for so long as it lasts, assuredly he is not to be said to have had in any degree that perseverance of which we are now discoursing, by which one perseveres in Christ even to the end. And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years’ standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the stedfastness of his faith.
Chapter 2 [II.]—Faith is the Beginning of a Christian Man. Martyrdom for Christ’s Sake is His Best Ending.
This matter being settled, let us see whether this perseverance, of which it was said, “He that persevereth unto the end, the same shall be saved,”
Chapter 3.—God is Besought for It, Because It is His Gift.
But why is that perseverance asked for from God if it is not given by God? Is that, too, a mocking petition, when that is asked from Him which it is known that He does not give, but, though He gives it not, is in man’s power; just as that giving of thanks is a mockery, if thanks are given to God for that which He did not give nor do? But what I have said there, On the Predestination of the Saints, above, ch. 39. Some editions read “recalled.”
Chapter 4.—Three Leading Points of the Pelagian Doctrine.
Read with a little more attention its exposition in the treatise of the blessed martyr Cyprian, which he wrote concerning this matter, the title of which is, On the Lord’s Prayer; and see how many years ago, and what sort of an antidote was prepared against those poisons which the Pelagians were one day to use. For there are three points, as you know, which the catholic Church chiefly maintains against them. One of these is, that the grace of God is not
given according to our merits; because even every one of the merits of the righteous is God’s gift, and is conferred by God’s grace. The second is, that no one lives in this corruptible body, however righteous he may be, without sins of some kind. The third is, that man is born obnoxious to the first man’s sin, and bound by the chain of condemnation, unless the guilt which is contracted by generation be loosed by regeneration. Of these three points, that which I have placed last is the only one
that is not treated of in the above-named book of the glorious martyr; but of the two others the discourse there is of such perspicuity, that the above-named heretics, modern enemies of the grace of Christ, are found to have been convicted long before they were born. Among these merits of the saints, then, which are no merits unless they are the gifts of God, he says that perseverance also is God’s gift, in these words: “We say, ‘Hallowed be Thy name;’ not that we ask for God that He may be
hallowed by our prayers, but that we beseech of Him that His name may be hallowed in us. But by whom is God sanctified, since He Himself sanctifies? Well, because He says, Be ye holy because I also am holy, we ask and entreat that we, who were sanctified in baptism, may persevere in that which we have begun to be.” Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 450. Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer, as above.
Chapter 5.—The Second Petition in the Lord’s Prayer.
What, when we say, “Thy kingdom come,” do we ask else, but that that should also come to us which we do not doubt will come to all saints? And therefore here also, what do they who are already holy pray for, save that they may persevere in that holiness which has been given them? For no otherwise will the kingdom of God come to them; which it is certain will come not to others, but to those who persevere to the end.
Chapter 6 [III.]—The Third Petition. How Heaven and Earth are Understood in the Lord’s Prayer.
The third petition is, “Thy will be done in heaven and in earth;” or, as it is read in many codices, and is more frequently made use of by petitioners, “As in heaven, so also in earth,” which many people understand, “As the holy angels, so also may we do thy will.” That teacher and martyr will have heaven and earth, however, to be understood as spirit and flesh, and says that we pray that we may do the will of God with the full concord of both. He saw in these words also another meaning, congruous to the soundest faith, of which meaning I have already spoken above,—to wit, that for unbelievers, who are as yet earth, bearing in their first birth only the earthly man, believers are understood to pray, who, being clothed with the heavenly man, are not unreasonably called by the name of heaven; where he plainly shows that the beginning of faith also is God’s gift, since the holy Church prays not only for believers, that faith may be increased or may continue in them, but, moreover, for unbelievers, that they may begin to have what they have not had at all, and against which, besides, they were indulging hostile feelings. Now, however, I am arguing not concerning the beginning of faith, of which I have already spoken much in the former book, but of that perseverance which must be had even to the end,—which assuredly even the saints, who do the will of God, seek when they say in prayer, “Thy will be done.” For, since it is already done in them, why do they still ask that it may be done, except that they may persevere in that which they have begun to be? Nevertheless, it may here be said that the saints do not ask that the will of God may be done in heaven, but that it may be done in earth as in heaven,—that is to say, that earth may imitate heaven, that is, that man may imitate the angel, or that an unbeliever may imitate a believer; and thus that the saints are asking that that may be which is not yet, not that that which is may continue. For, by whatever holiness men may be distinguished, they are not yet equal to the angels of God; not yet, therefore, is the will of God done in them as it is in heaven. And if this be so, in that portion indeed in which we ask that men from unbelievers may become believers, it is not perseverance, but beginning, that seems to be asked for; but in that in which we ask that men may be made equal to the angels of God in doing God’s will,—where the saints pray for this, they are found to be praying for perseverance; since no one attains to that highest blessedness which is in the kingdom, unless he shall persevere unto the end in that holiness which he has received on earth.
Chapter 7 [IV.]—The Fourth Petition.
The fourth petition is, “Give us this day our daily bread,” Cyprian, On the Lord ’s Prayer, as above.
Chapter 8 [V.]—The Fifth Petition. It is an Error of the Pelagians that the Righteous are Free from Sin.
In the fifth sentence of the prayer we say, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors,” “Potens” or “ponens” are different readings. Cyprian, as
above.
Chapter 9.—When Perseverance is Granted to a Person, He Cannot But Persevere.
Now, moreover, when the saints say, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,”
Chapter 10 [VI.]—The Gift of Perseverance Can Be Obtained by Prayer.
But you write that “these brethren will not have this perseverance so preached as that it cannot be obtained by prayer or lost by obstinacy.” Hilary’s Letter in Augustin’s Letters, 226, ch. 3.
Chapter 11.—Effect of Prayer for Perseverance.
But, lest perchance it be said that perseverance even to the end is not indeed lost when it has once been given,—that is, when a man has persevered unto the end,—but that it is lost, in some sense, when a man by contumacy so acts that he is not able to attain to it; just as we say that a man who has not persevered unto the end has lost eternal life or the kingdom of God, not because he had already received and actually had it, but because he would have received and had it if he had persevered;—let us lay aside controversies of words, and say that some things even which are not possessed, but are hoped to be possessed, may be lost. Let any one who dares, tell me whether God cannot give what He has commanded to be asked from Him. Certainly he who affirms this, I say not is a fool, but he is mad. But God commanded that His saints should say to Him in prayer, “Lead us not into temptation.” Whoever, therefore, is heard when he asks this, is not led into the temptation of contumacy, whereby he could or would be worthy to lose perseverance in holiness.
Chapter 12.—Of His Own Will a Man Forsakes God, So that He is Deservedly Forsaken of Him.
But, on the other hand, “of his own will a man forsakes God, so as to be deservedly forsaken by God.” Who would deny this? But it is for that reason we ask not to be led into temptation, so that this may not happen. And if we are heard, certainly it does not happen, because God does not allow it to happen. For Cyprian, On the Lord ’s Prayer, as above.
Chapter 13 [VII.]—Temptation the Condition of Man.
If, then, there were no other proofs, this Lord’s Prayer alone would be sufficient for us on behalf of the grace which I am defending; because it leaves us nothing wherein we may, as it were, glory as in our own, since it shows that our not departing from God is not given except by God, when it shows that it must be asked for from God. For he who is not led into temptation does not depart from God. This is absolutely not in the strength of free will, such as it now is; but it had been in man before he fell. And yet how much this freedom of will availed in the excellence of that primal state appeared in the angels; who, when the devil and his angels fell, stood in the truth, and deserved to attain to that perpetual security of not falling, in which we are most certain that they are now established. But, after the fall of man, God willed it to pertain only to His grace that man should approach to Him; nor did He will it to pertain to aught but His grace that man should not depart from Him.
Chapter 14.—It is God’s Grace Both that Man Comes to Him, and that Man Does Not Depart from Him.
This grace He placed “in Him in whom we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things.”
Chapter 15.—Why God Willed that He Should Be Asked for that Which He Might Give Without Prayer.
Wherefore, also He willed that He should be asked that we may not be led into temptation, because if we are not led, we by no means depart from Him. And this might have been given to us even without our praying for it, but by our prayer He willed us to be admonished from whom we receive these benefits. For from whom do we receive but from Him from whom it is right for us to ask? Truly in this matter let not the Church look for laborious disputations, but consider
its own daily prayers. It prays that the unbelieving may believe; therefore God converts to the faith. It prays that believers may persevere; therefore God gives perseverance to the end. God foreknew that He would do this. This is the very predestination of the saints, “whom He has chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and unspotted before Him in love; predestinating them unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good
pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath shown them favour in His beloved Son, in whom they have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace, which has abounded towards them in all wisdom and prudence; that He might show them the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Him, in the dispensation of the fulness of times to restore all things in Christ which are in heaven and
which are in earth; in Him, in whom also we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.”
Chapter 16 [VIII.]—Why is Not Grace Given According to Merit?
But “why,” says one, “is not the grace of God given according to men’s merits?” I answer, Because God is merciful. “Why, then,” it is asked, “is it not given to all?” And here I reply, Because God is a Judge.
Chapter 17.—The Difficulty of the Distinction Made in the Choice of One and the Rejection of Another.
“But why,” it is said, “in one and the same case, not only of infants, but even of twin children, is the judgment so diverse?” Is it not a similar question, “Why in a different case is the judgment the same?” Let us recall, then, those labourers in the vineyard who worked the whole day, and those who toiled one hour. Certainly the case was different as to the labour expended, and yet there was the same judgment in paying the wages. Did the murmurers in this case
hear anything from the householder except, Such is my will? Certainly such was his liberality towards some, that there could be no injustice towards others. And both these classes, indeed, are among the good. Nevertheless, so far as it concerns justice and grace, it may be truly said to the guilty who is condemned, also concerning the guilty who is delivered, “Take what thine is, and go thy way;”
Chapter 18.—But Why Should One Be Punished More Than Another?
“But if,” it is said, “it was necessary that, although all were not condemned, He should still show what was due to all, and so He should commend His grace more freely to the vessels of mercy; why in the same case will He punish me more than another, or deliver him more than me?” I say not this. If you ask wherefore; because I confess that I can find no answer to make. And if you further ask why is this, it is because in this matter, even as His anger is righteous and as His mercy is great, so His judgments are unsearchable.
Chapter 19.—Why Does God Mingle Those Who Will Persevere with Those Who Will Not?
Let the inquirer still go on, and say, “Why is
Chapter 20.—Ambrose on God’s Control Over Men’s Thoughts.
And when Ambrose said this, he was speaking in that treatise which he wrote concerning Flight from the World, wherein he taught that this world was to be fled not by the body, but by the heart, which he argued could not be done except by God’s help. For he says: “We hear frequent discourse concerning fleeing from this world, and I would that the mind was as careful and solicitous as the discourse is easy; but what is worse, the enticement of earthly lusts
constantly creeps in, and the pouring out of vanities takes possession of the mind; so that what you desire to avoid, this you think of and consider in your mind. And this is difficult for a man to beware of, but impossible to get rid of. Finally, the prophet bears witness that it is a matter of wish rather than of accomplishment, when he says, ‘Incline my heart to Thy testimonies, and not to covetousness.’ Ambrose, On Flight from the World, ch. 1.
Chapter 21 [IX.]—Instances of the Unsearchable Judgments of God.
Therefore, of two infants, equally bound by original sin, why the one is taken and the other left; and of two wicked men of already mature years, why this one should be so called as to follow Him that calleth, while that one is either not called at all, or is not called in such a manner,—the judgments of God are unsearchable. But of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are
even more unsearchable. Yet to believers it ought to be a most certain fact that the former is of the predestinated, the latter is not. “For if they had been of us,” says one of the predestinated, who had drunk this secret from the breast of the Lord, “certainly they would have continued with us.”
Chapter 22.—It is an Absurdity to Say that the Dead Will Be Judged for Sins Which They Would Have Committed If They Had Lived.
For not to say how possible it may be for God to convert the wills of men averse and opposed to His faith, and to operate on their hearts so that they yield to no adversities, and are overcome by no temptation so as to depart from Him,—since He also can do what the apostle says, namely, not allow them to be tempted above that which they are able;—not, then, to say this, God foreknowing that they would fall, was certainly able to take them away from this life before that fall should occur. Are we to return to that point of still arguing how absurdly it is said that dead men are judged even for those sins which God foreknew that they would have committed if they had lived? which is so abhorrent to the feelings of Christians, or even of human beings, that one is even ashamed to rebut it. Why should it not be said that even the gospel itself has been preached, with so much labour and sufferings of the saints, in vain, or is even still preached in vain, if men could be judged, even without hearing the gospel, according to the contumacy or obedience which God foreknew that they would have had if they had heard it? Tyre and Sidon would not have been condemned, although more slightly than those cities in which, although they did not believe, wonderful works were done by Christ the Lord; because if they had been done in them, they would have repented in dust and ashes, as the utterances of the Truth declare, in which words of His the Lord Jesus shows to us the loftier mystery of predestination.
Chapter 23.—Why for the People of Tyre and Sidon, Who Would Have Believed, the Miracles Were Not Done Which Were Done in Other Places Which Did Not Believe.
For if we are asked why such miracles were done among those who, when they saw them, would not believe them, and were not done among those who would have believed them if they had seen them, what shall we answer? Shall we say what I have said in that book Epistle 102, question 2; see the first volume of this series, p. 418.
Chapter 24 [X.]—It May Be Objected that The People of Tyre and Sidon Might, If They Had Heard, Have Believed, and Have Subsequently Lapsed from Their Faith.
A certain catholic disputant of no mean reputation so expounded this passage of the gospel as to say, that the Lord foreknew that the Tyrians and Sidonians would have afterwards departed from the faith, although they had believed the miracles done among them; and that in mercy He did not work those miracles there, because they would have been liable to severer punishment if they had forsaken the faith which they had once held, than if they had at no time held it. In which opinion of a learned and exceedingly acute man, why am I now concerned to say what is still reasonably to be asked, when even this opinion serves me for the purpose at which I aim? For if the Lord in His mercy did not do mighty works among them, since by these works they might possibly become believers, so that they might not be more severely punished when they should subsequently become unbelievers, as He foreknew that they would,—it is sufficiently and plainly shown that no dead person is judged for those sins which He foreknew that he would have done, if in some manner he were not helped not to do them; just as Christ is said to have come to the aid of the Tyrians and Sidonians, if that opinion be true, who He would rather should not come to the faith at all, than that by a much greater wickedness they should depart from the faith, as, if they had come to it, He foresaw they would have done. Although if it be said, “Why was it not provided that they should rather believe, and this gift should be bestowed on them, that before they forsook the faith they should depart from this life”? I am ignorant what reply can be made. For he who says that to those who would forsake their faith it would have been granted, as a kindness, that they should not begin to have what, by a more serious impiety, they would subsequently forsake, sufficiently indicates that a man is not judged by that which it is foreknown he would have done ill, if by any act of kindness he may be prevented from doing it. Therefore it is an advantage also to him who is taken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding. But why this advantage should not have been given to the Tyrians and Sidonians, that they might believe and be taken away, lest wickedness should alter their understanding, he perhaps might answer who was pleased in such a way to solve the above question; but, as far as concerns what I am discussing, I see it to be enough that, even according to that very opinion, men are shown not to be judged in respect of those things which they have not done, even although they may have been foreseen as certain to have done them. However, as I have said, let us think shame even to refute this opinion, whereby sins are supposed to be punished in people who die or have died because they have been foreknown as certain to do them if they had lived; lest we also may seem to have thought it to be of some importance, although we would rather repress it by argument than pass it over in silence.
Chapter 25 [XI.]—God’s Ways, Both in Mercy and Judgment, Past Finding Out.
Accordingly, as says the apostle, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,”
Chapter 26.—The Manicheans Do Not Receive All the Books of the Old Testament, and of the New Only Those that They Choose.
But wherefore is “the case of infants not allowed,” as you write, “to be alleged as an example for their elders,” by men who do not hesitate to affirm against the Pelagians that there is original sin, which entered by one man into the world, and that from one all have gone into condemnation? See the Letter of Hilary in Augustin’s Letters, 226, ch. 8.
Chapter 27.—Reference to the “Retractations.”
Finally, in the first book of the Retractations, Retractations, Book i. ch. 9. Retractations, Book i. ch. 20.
Chapter 28 [XII.]—God’s Goodness and Righteousness Shown in All.
It is therefore settled that God’s grace is not given according to the deserts of the recipients, but according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise and glory of His own grace; so that he who glorieth may by no means glory in himself, but in the Lord, who gives to those men to whom He will, because He is merciful, what if, however, He does not give, He is righteous: and He does not give to whom He will not, that He may make known the riches of His glory
to the vessels of mercy.
Chapter 29.—God’s True Grace Could Be Defended Even If There Were No Original Sin, as Pelagius Maintains.
But God’s grace, that is, true grace without merits, is maintained, even if infants, when baptized, according to the view of the Pelagians, are not plucked out of the power of darkness, because they are held guilty of no sin, as the Pelagians think, but are only transferred into the Lord’s kingdom: for even thus, without any good merits, the kingdom is given to those to whom it is given; and without any evil merits it is not given to them to whom it is not given.
And this we are in the habit of saying in opposition to the same Pelagians, when they object to us that we attribute God’s grace to fate, when we say that it is given not in respect to our merits. For they themselves rather attribute God’s grace to fate in the case of infants, if they say that when there is no merit it is fate. See above, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book ii. chs. 11, 12.
Chapter 30.—Augustin Claims the Right to Grow in Knowledge.
Therefore it is in vain that it is prescribed to me from that old book of mine, that I may not argue the case as I ought to argue it in respect of infants; and that thence I may not persuade my opponents by the light of a manifest truth, that God’s grace is not given according to men’s merits. For if, when I began my books con
Chapter 31.—Infants are Not Judged According to that Which They are Foreknown as Likely to Do If They Should Live.
For you see, beloved, how absurd it is, and how foreign from soundness of faith and sincerity of truth, for us to say that infants, when they die, should be judged according to those things which they are foreknown to be going to do if they should live. For to this opinion, from which certainly every human feeling, on however little reason it may be founded, and especially every Christian feeling, revolts, they are compelled to advance who have chosen in such wise
to be withdrawn from the error of the Pelagians as still to think that they must believe, and, moreover, must profess in argument, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, by which alone after the fall of the first man, in whom we all fell, help is afforded to us, is given according to our merits. And this belief Pelagius himself, before the Eastern bishops as judges, condemned in fear of his own condemnation. And if this be not said of the good or bad works of those who have died,
which they would have done if they had lived,—and thus of no works, and works that would never exist, even in the foreknowledge of God,—if this, therefore, be not said, and you see under how great a mistake it is said, what will remain but that we confess, when the darkness of contention is removed, that the grace of God is not given according to our merits, which position the catholic Church defends against the Pelagian heresy; and that we see this in more evident truth especially in infants?
For God is not compelled by fate to come to the help of these infants, and not to come to the help of those,—since the case is alike to both. Or shall we think that human affairs in the case of infants are not managed by Divine Providence, but by fortuitous chances, when rational souls are either to be condemned or delivered, although, indeed, not a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Father which is in heaven?
Chapter 32 [XIII.]—The Inscrutability of God’s Free Purposes.
But now, since we are now treating of the gift of perseverance, why is it that aid is afforded to the person about to die who is not baptized, while to the baptized person about to fall, aid is not afforded, so as to die before? Unless, perchance, we shall still listen to that absurdity by
Chapter 33.—God Gives Both Initiatory and Persevering Grace According to His Own Will.
From all which it is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called, Above, ch. xiv. Ambrose, On Flight from the World, ch. 1. LXX.: “In his heart he has purposed to go up.” [An allusion to the Sursum Corda in the “Preface” of the Communion service. For its history see Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, p. 1693. Cyprian in his treatise on the Lord’s Prayer already mentions it. It still has a place in the liturgies of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.—W.]
Chapter 34 [XIV.]—The Doctrine of Predestination Not Opposed to the Advantage of Preaching.
But they say that the “definition of predestination is opposed to the advantage of preaching,” In the Letters of Hilary and Prosper.
Chapter 35.—What Predestination is.
Will any man dare to say that God did not foreknow those to whom He would give to believe, or whom He would give to His Son, that of them He should lose none?
Chapter 36.—The Preaching of the Gospel and the Preaching of Predestination the Two Parts of One Message.
Therefore, by the preaching of predestination, the preaching of a persevering and progressive faith is not to be hindered; and thus they may hear what is necessary to whom it is given that they should obey. For how shall they hear without a preacher? Neither, again, is the preaching of a progressive faith which continues even to the end to hinder the preaching of predestination, so that he who is living faithfully and Cyprian, Testimonies, iii. 4; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. p. 528.
Chapter 37.—Ears to Hear are a Willingness to Obey.
Although, therefore, we say that obedience is the gift of God, we still exhort men to it. But to those who obediently hear the exhortation of truth is given the gift of God itself—that is, to hear obediently; while to those who do not thus hear it is not given. For it was not some one only, but Christ who said, “No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father;”
Chapter 38 [XV.]—Against the Preaching of Predestination the Same Objections May Be Alleged as Against Predestination.
But they say, as you write: “That no one can be aroused by the incentives of rebuke if it be said in the assembly of the Church to the multitude of hearers: The definite meaning of God’s will concerning predestination stands in such wise, that some of you will receive the will to obey and will come out of unbelief unto faith, or will receive perseverance and abide in the faith; but others who are lingering in the delight of sins have not yet arisen, for the reason that
the aid of pitying grace has not yet
Chapter 39 [XVI]—Prayer and Exhortation.
There are some, moreover, who either do not pray at all, or pray coldly, because, from the Lord’s words, they have learnt that God knows what is necessary for us before we ask it of Him. Must the truth of this declaration be given up, or shall we think that it should be erased from the gospel because of such people? Nay, since it is manifest that God has prepared some things to be given even to those who do not pray for them, such as the beginning of faith, and other things not to be given except to those who pray for them, such as perseverance even unto the end, certainly he who thinks that he has this latter from himself does not pray to have it. Therefore we must take care lest, while we are afraid of exhortation growing lukewarm, prayer should be stifled and arrogance stimulated.
Chapter 40.—When the Truth Must Be Spoken, When Kept Back.
Therefore let the truth be spoken, especially when any question impels us to declare it; and let them receive it who are able, lest, perchance, while we are silent on account of those who cannot receive it, they be not only defrauded of the truth but be taken captive by falsehood, who are able to receive the truth whereby falsehood may be avoided. For it is easy, nay, and it is useful, that some truth should be kept back because of those who are incapable of
apprehending it. For whence is that word of our Lord: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now”?
Chapter 41.—Predestination Defined as Only God’s Disposing of Events in His Foreknowledge.
For either predestination must be preached, in the way and degree in which the Holy Scripture plainly declares it, so that in the predestinated the gifts and calling of God may be without repentance; or it must be avowed that God’s grace is given according to our merits,—which is the opinion of the Pelagians; although that opinion of theirs, as I have often said already, may be read in the Proceedings of the Eastern bishops to have been condemned by the lips of
Pelagius himself. See above, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 30.
Chapter 42.—The Adversaries Cannot Deny Predestination to Those Gifts of Grace Which They Themselves Acknowledge, and Their Exhortations are Not Hindered by This Predestination Nevertheless.
And what I said of chastity, can be said also of faith, of piety, of love, of perseverance, and, not to enumerate single virtues, it may be said with the utmost truthfulness of all the obedience with which God is obeyed. But those who place only the beginning of faith and perseverance to the end in such wise in our power as not to regard them as God’s gifts, nor to think that God works on our thoughts and wills so as that we may have and retain them, grant,
nevertheless, that He gives other things,—since they are obtained from Him by the faith of the believer. Why are they not afraid that exhortation to these other things, and the preaching of these other things, should be hindered by the definition of predestination? Or, perchance, do they say that such things are not predestinated? Then they are not given by God, or He has not known that He would give them. Because, if they are both given, and He foreknew that He would give them, certainly He
predestinated them. As, therefore, they themselves also exhort to chastity, charity, piety, and other things which they confess to be God’s gifts, and cannot deny that they are also foreknown by Him, and
Chapter 43.—Further Development of the Foregoing Argument.
And in order that I may more openly unfold this for the sake of those who are somewhat slow of apprehension, let those who are endowed with an intelligence that flies in advance bear with my delay. The Apostle James says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.” Cyprian, Testimonies, iii. 4; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v. 528.
Chapter 44.—Exhortation to Wisdom, Though Wisdom is God’s Gift.
Now, to say nothing more of continency, and to argue in this place of wisdom alone, certainly the Apostle James above mentioned says, “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, modest, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, inestimable, without simulation.”
Chapter 45.—Exhortation to Other Gifts of God in Like Manner.
Nor do those on whose account I am saying these things, who cry out that exhortation is checked by the preaching of predestination and grace, exhort to those gifts alone which they contend are not given by God, but are from ourselves, such as are the beginning of faith, and perseverance in it even to the end. This certainly they ought to do, in such a way as only to exhort unbelievers to believe, and believers to continue to believe. But those things which with us they do not deny to be God’s gifts, so as that with us they demolish the error of the Pelagians, such as modesty, continence, patience, and other virtues that pertain to a holy life, and are obtained by faith from the Lord, they ought to show as needing to be prayed for, and to pray for only, either for themselves or others; but they ought not to exhort any one to strive after them and retain them. But when they exhort to these things, according to their ability, and confess that men ought to be exhorted,—certainly they show plainly enough that exhortations are not hindered by that preaching, whether they are exhortations to faith or to perseverance to the end, because we also preach that such things are God’s gifts, and are not given by any man to himself, but are given by God.
Chapter 46.—A Man Who Does Not Persevere Fails by His Own Fault.
But it is said, “It is by his own fault that any one deserts the faith, when he yields and consents to the temptation which is the cause of his desertion of the faith.” Who denies it? But because of this, perseverance in the faith is not to be said not to be a gift of God. For it is this that a man daily asks for when he says, “Lead us not into temptation;”
Chapter 47.—Predestination is Sometimes Signified Under the Name of Foreknowledge.
These gifts, therefore, of God, which are given to the elect who are called according to God’s purpose, among which gifts is both the beginning of belief and perseverance in the faith to the termination of this life, as I have proved by such a concurrent testimony of reasons and authorities,—these gifts of God, I say, if there is no such predestination as I am maintaining, are not foreknown by God. But they are foreknown. This, therefore, is the predestination
which I maintain. [XVIII.] Consequently sometimes the same predestination is signified also under the name of foreknowledge; as says the apostle, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.”
Chapter 48 [XIX.]—Practice of Cyprian and Ambrose.
What, then, hinders us, when we read of God’s foreknowledge in some commentators on God’s word, and they are treating of the calling of the elect, from understanding the same predestination? For they would perchance have rather used in this matter this word which, moreover, is better understood, and which is not inconsistent with, nay, is in accordance with, the truth which is declared concerning the predestination of grace. This I know, that no one has been able
to dispute, except erroneously, against that predestination which I am maintaining in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. Yet I think that they who ask for the opinions of commentators on this matter ought to be satisfied with men so holy and so laudably celebrated everywhere in the faith and Christian doctrine as Cyprian and Ambrose, of whom I have given such clear testimonies; and that for both doctrines—that is, that they should both believe absolutely and preach everywhere that the grace
of God is gratuitous, as we must believe and declare it to be; and that they should not think that preaching opposed to the preaching whereby we exhort the indolent or rebuke the evil; because these celebrated men also, although they were preaching God’s grace in such a manner as that one of them said, “That we must boast in nothing, because nothing is our own;” Cyprian, Testimonies, iii. 4, as above. Ambrose, On Flight from the World, ch. 1.
Chapter 49.—Further References to Cyprian and Ambrose.
Wherefore, the above-mentioned most excellent commentators on the divine declarations both preached the true grace of God as it ought to be preached,—that is, as a grace preceded by no human deservings,—and urgently exhorted to the doing of the divine commandments, that they who might have the gift of obedience should hear what commands they ought to obey. For if any merits of ours precede grace, certainly it is the merit of some deed, or word, or thought, wherein also
is understood a good will itself. But he very briefly summed up the kinds of all deservings who said, “We must glory in nothing, because nothing is our own.” And he who says, “Our heart and our Ambrose On Luke, in the exposition of the prologue. Ambrose, On Luke, Book 7, ch. 27. Greg. of Nazianz. Orat. 44 in Pentecosten.
Chapter 50.—Obedience Not Discouraged by Preaching God’s Gifts.
Such doctors, and so great as these, when they say that there is nothing of which we may boast as if of our own which God has not given us, and that our very heart and our thoughts are not in our own power; and when they give the whole to God, and confess that from Him we receive that we are converted to Him in such wise as to continue,—that that which is good appears also to us to be good, and we wish for it,—that we honour God and receive Christ,—that from undevout people we are made devout and religious,—that we believe in the Trinity itself, and also confess with our voice what we believe:—certainly attribute all these things to God’s grace, acknowledge them as God’s gifts, and testify that they come to us from Him, and are not from ourselves. But will any one say that they in such wise confessed that grace of God as to venture to deny His foreknowledge, which not only learned but unlearned men also confess? Again, if they had so known that God gives these things that they were not ignorant that He foreknew that He would give them, and could not have been ignorant to whom He would give them: beyond a doubt they had known the predestination which, as preached by the apostles, we laboriously and diligently maintain against the modern heretics. Nor would it be with any manner of justice said, nevertheless, to them because they preach obedience, and fervently exhort, to the extent of the ability of each one, to its practice, “If you do not wish that the obedience to which you are stirring us up should grow cold in our heart, forbear to preach to us that grace of God by which you confess that God gives what you are exhorting us to do.”
Chapter 51 [XX.]—Predestination Must Be Preached.
Wherefore, if both the apostles and the teachers of the Church who succeeded them and imitated them did both these things,—that is, both truly preached the grace of God which is not given according to our merits, and inculcated by wholesome precepts a pious obedience,—what is it which these people of our time think themselves rightly bound by the invincible force of truth to say, “Even if what is said of the predestination of God’s benefits be true, yet it In the Letters of Prosper and Hilary, printed among Augustin’s Letters, Nos. 225 and 226.
Chapter 52.—Previous Writings Anticipatively Refuted the Pelagian Heresy.
But in respect of their saying “that it was not necessary that the hearts of so many people of little intelligence should be disquieted by the uncertainty of this kind of disputation, since the catholic faith has been defended for so many years, with no less advantage, without this definition of predestination, as well against others as especially against the Pelagians, in so many books that have gone before, as well of catholics and others as our own;”
The Epistle of Hilary in Augustin’s Letters, 226, ch. 8.
Chapter 53.—Augustin’s “Confessions.”
And which of my smaller works has been able to be more generally and more agreeably known than the books of my Confessions? And although I published them before the Pelagian heresy had come into existence, certainly in them I said to my God, and said it frequently, “Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou willest.” Confessions, Book x. chs. 19, 31, and 37. Confessions, Book iii. chs. 11 and 12, Book ix. ch. 8.
Chapter 54 [XXI.]—Beginning and End of Faith is of God.
Therefore that this opinion, which is unpleasing to God, and hostile to those gratuitous benefits of God whereby we are delivered, may be destroyed, I maintain that both the beginning of faith and the perseverance therein, even to the end, are, according to the Scriptures—of which I have already quoted many—God’s gifts. Because if we say that the beginning of faith is of ourselves, so that by it we deserve to receive
Chapter 55.—Testimony of His Previous Writings and Letters.
And, indeed, in that treatise of which the title is, Of Rebuke and Grace, On Rebuke and Grace, ch. 10. Two books to Simplicianus. Letter to Paulinus, 168. Letter to Sixtus, 194.
Chapter 56.—God Gives Means as Well as End.
Wherefore if I am unwilling to appear ungrateful to men who have loved me, because some advantage of my labour has attained to them before they loved me, how much rather am I unwilling to be ungrateful to God, whom we should not love unless He had first loved us and made us to love Him! since love is of Him,
Chapter 57 [XXII.]—How Predestination Must Be Preached So as Not to Give Offence.
And yet this doctrine must not be preached to congregations in such a way as to seem to an unskilled multitude, or a people of slower understanding, to be in some measure confuted by that very preaching of it. Just as even the foreknowledge of God, which certainly men cannot deny, seems to be refuted if it be said to them, “Whether you run or sleep, you shall be that which He who cannot be deceived has foreknown you to be.” And it is the part of a deceitful or an
unskilled physician so to compound even a useful medicament, that it either does no good or does harm. But it must be said, “So run that you may lay hold;
Chapter 58.—The Doctrine to Be Applied with Discrimination.
Now, therefore, the definite determination of God’s will concerning predestination is of such a kind that some from unbelief receive the will to obey, and are converted to the faith or persevere in the faith, while others who abide in the delight of damnable sins, even if they have been predestinated, have not yet arisen, because the aid of pitying grace has not yet lifted them up. For if any are not yet called whom by His grace He has predestinated to be elected, they will receive that grace whereby they may will to be elected, and may be so; and if any obey, but have not been predestinated to His kingdom and glory, they are for a season, and will not abide in the same obedience to the end. Although, then, these things are true, yet they must not be so said to the multitude of hearers as that the address may be applied to themselves also, and those words of those people may be said to them which you have set down in your letter, and which I have above introduced: “The definite determination of God’s will concerning predestination is of such a kind that some of you from unbelief shall receive the will to obey, and come to the faith.” What need is there for saying, “Some of you”? For if we speak to God’s Church, if we speak to believers, why do we say that “some of them” had come to the faith, and seem to do a wrong to the rest, when we may more fittingly say the definite determination of the will of God concerning predestination is of such a kind that from unbelief you shall receive the will to obey, and come to the faith, and shall receive perseverance, and abide to the end?
Chapter 59.—Offence to Be Avoided.
Neither is what follows by any means to be said,—that is, “But others of you who abide in the delight of sins have not yet arisen, because the aid of pitying grace has not yet lifted you up;” when it may be and ought to be well and conveniently said, “But if any of you are still delaying in the delightfulness of damnable sins, lay hold of the most wholesome discipline; and yet when you have done this be not lifted up, as if by your own works, nor boast as if you
had not received this. For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do for His good will,
Chapter 60.—The Application to the Church in General.
Moreover, what follows where it is said, “But yet if any of you are not yet called, whom by his grace He has predestinated to be called, you shall receive that grace whereby you shall will to be, and be, elected,” is said more hardly than it could be said if we consider that we are speaking not to men in general, but to the Church of Christ. For why is it not rather said thus: “And if any of you are not yet called, let us pray for them that they may be called. For perchance they are so predestinated as to be granted to our prayers, and to receive that grace whereby they may will, and be made elected”? For God, who fulfilled all that He predestinated, has willed us also to pray for the enemies of the faith, that we might hence understand that He Himself also gives to the unbelievers the gift of faith, and makes willing men out of those that were unwilling.
Chapter 61.—Use of the Third Person Rather Than the Second.
But now I marvel if any weak brother among
Chapter 62.—Prayer to Be Inculcated, Nevertheless.
But I do not think that manner which I have said should be adopted in the preaching of predestination ought to be sufficient for him who speaks to the congregation, except he adds this, or something of this kind, saying, “You, therefore, ought also to hope for that perseverance in obedience from the Father of Lights, from whom cometh down every excellent gift and every perfect gift,
Chapter 63 [XXIII.]—The Testimony of the Whole Church in Her Prayers.
And I wish that those who are slow and weak of heart, who cannot, or cannot as yet, understand the Scriptures or the explanations of them, would so hear or not hear our arguments in this question as to consider more carefully their prayers, which the Church has always used and will use, even from its beginnings until this age shall be completed. For of this matter, which I am now compelled not only to mention, but even to protect and defend against these new heretics,
the Church has never been silent in its prayers, although in its discourses it has not thought that it need be put forth, as there was no adversary compelling it. For when was not prayer made in the Church for unbelievers and its opponents that they should believe? When has any believer had a friend, a neighbour, a wife, who did not believe, and has not asked on their behalf from the Lord for a mind obedient to the Christian faith? And who has there ever been who has not prayed for himself that
he might abide in the Lord? And who has dared, not only with his
Chapter 64.—In What Sense the Holy Spirit Solicits for Us, Crying, Abba, Father.
And this especially since “we know not what to pray for as we ought,” says the apostle, “but the Spirit Himself maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered; and He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to God.” Ambrose, Commentary on Isaiah.
Chapter 65.—The Church’s Prayers Imply the Church’s Faith.
These things, therefore, which the Church asks from the Lord, and always has asked from the time she began to exist, God so foreknew that He would give to His called, that He has already given them in predestination itself; as the apostle declares without any ambiguity. For, writing to Timothy, he says, “Labour along with the gospel according to the power of God, who saves us, and calls us with His holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own
purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of eternity, but is now made manifest by the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Chapter 66 [XXIV.]—Recapitulation and Exhortation.
But what more shall I say? I think that I
Chapter 67.—The Most Eminent Instance of Predestination is Christ Jesus.
But there is no more illustrious instance of predestination than Jesus Himself, concerning which also I have already argued in the former treatise; On the Predestination of the Saints, Book i. ch. 30.
Chapter 68.—Conclusion.
Let those who read this, if they understand, give God thanks, and let those who do not understand, pray that they may have the inward Teacher, from whose presence comes knowledge and understanding.
"Ability," distinguished from "will," 106, 219; distinguished from "necessity," 107, 139.
"Ability not," and "inability," 48.
Abimelech, 293.
Abraham, 102, 175, 291, 248-249, 405; how saved, 248.
"Acceptance of persons," 397.
"Action" in Pelagian system, 218.
"Actuality" in Pelagian system, 219.
Adam, 128; unfallen state of, 58 sq., 147, 482; grace given to, 483 sq.; penalty of his sin, 23; sin and death by, 15, 86, 174, 237 sq., 241, 254; saved by Christ, 128; the second Adam, 86, 476, 484.
Adoption, senses of, 404; relation of baptism to, 396.
Advocate, Christ our, 409.
Africa, councils in, 239, 391, 439; letters to, from Rome, 239, 393.
"Aid by which," and "without which not," 485.
Almsgiving, 164, 172, 386, 408, 426.
Ambrose, 147, 233 sq., 254, 279, 304, 431 sq., 532, 545.
Άνημάρτητος, 240.
Anathemas, by Augustin, 176; by Pelagius, 190, 196, 202, 209, 218, 241, 379.
Angels, 133, 254, 368-369, 410, 413.
Animals, condition of lower, 190, 254.
Antediluvians, longevity of, 246; the good, 405.
Apostle, "the" (i.e., St. Paul), 403.
Apostles, sinners, 381.
Arians, 298.
Assistance, need of divine, 127, 145, 218, 227; ambiguously confessed by Pelagius, 218, 221, 226; different kinds of, in human things, 184.
Assurance of salvation impossible, 488.
Astrology, 396.
Astronomy, 246.
Augustin, occupations of, 217; not author of original sin, 292; development in doctrine, 536, 548; letter of, to Pelagius, 205; good wishes for Pelagius, 146, 204-205, 240; wishes to interpret Pelagius favourably, 196, 231, 244; books on Free Will, 149.
Bad men mingled with good, 172.
Baptism, conveys pardon of sin, 110, 164, 172, 195, 253, 386, 424; regeneration in, 195, 273, 392-393, 396, 404; remission of sins in, 43, 63, 278 sq., 385, 390, 403; gift of Holy Ghost by, 142; leaves a sinful tendency, 43, 142, 385, 404; words of, 230, 237, 244; ritual of, 253; called salvation, 28; necessity of, for salvation, 23, 28, 29, 78, 319, 337-338, 348 sq., 350, 394; why needed by infants, even of baptized parents, 31, 37, 62, 238, 243, 253, 273, 394; why it does not abolish death, 64; how dealt with by Pelagius, 23, 37, 230, 237, 243; by Cœlestius, 237-238; set aside by Manicheans, 392; of blood, 319, 339.
Baptized, "contrary flesh" even in the, 142.
Bishops, eighteen Pelagianizing, 377.
Blamelessness different from sinlessness, 167, 173.
Body, man's, mysteries of, 356; effect of sin on, 19; effect of, on soul, 147, 163; the body of this death, 142, 144, 164; the resurrection body, 383; death of, from Adam's sin, 15 sq.
Body, Christ's, reception of, in the sacrament, 390, 394; spoken of in
Born of God, 173.
Breath, senses of, in the Scriptures, 322 sq.; the creative, 345; the creative, assigned by Victor to man, 346.
Breathing, 345.
Cain, 136.
Called, the, "according to purpose," 401, 477, 513.
Calling, different calls distinguished, 479, 513; grounds of calling "according to purpose," 514; to different blessings, 479.
Campester and Campestrati, 304, 387.
Canonical books, authority of, 146.
"Capacity," and "actuality," 503; in Pelagius' scheme, 139 sq., 218 sq.
Catechising, 184.
Catechumens, 61.
Catholic faith, necessity of, 408.
Catholics and heresy, 212, 245.
Caution needed in reading Pelagius, 237.
Ceremonial law abolished, 93, 97, 406.
Charus, deacon, 207.
Chastity a gift of God, 447.
Cheerfulness, interruptions of, 164.
Children of the world, of the devil, and of God, 403.
Christ, sinlessness of, 83, 130, 168, 169, 176, 250, 385, 409, 417; in what sense called "sin," 250; our Head, 38, 176, 198, 248; incarnation of, due to man's sin, 32; reason for His coming, 30; why born an infant, 42; infancy of, 63; His baptism, 405; "the Rock," 234; the only source of blessings, 104; none saved except by, 36, 37, 40, 63, 71, 248, 306.
Chrysostom quoted, 148.
Church, Christ's body, 172; authority of, 202; when to be spotless, 172, 194, 424; "mother," 30, 128, 393; visible and invisible, 480; served by kings, 172.
Circumcision, 88, 104, 249, 292; the spiritual, 88.
Cœlestius, 240, 394; relation of, to Pelagius, 12, 239; trial of, at Carthage, 12, 193, 207, 210, 237 sq., 240, 244; examination of, at Rome, 237, 241, 393; "Definitions" ascribed to, 159; quotations from a work of, 195 sq., 202, 211; other writings of, 159, 228, 237, 238; "profession of faith" by, 238, 245, 393; character of, 201, 230, 239, 241; teachings of, 159 sq.; exegesis of, 174.
Co-equality of Divine Persons, 98, 249.
Co-eternity of Divine Persons, 248.
Coming, Christ's, delay in, 506; reason for, 30; why, as an infant, 42.
Commandments, can they be kept? 151, 165, 222; why sometimes given when they cannot be kept, 54; all that is commanded, given, 401; how not grievous, 151, 166, 222.
Communion, nature of the, 25; daily, 428; administered to infants, 25, 394, 418, 420.
Concupiscence, 97, 162, 168, 170, 192, 263 sq., 383, 385, 392; origin of, 264, 288, 294, 304; a disease, 267, 306; relation to marriage, 37, 263 sq., 265, 270, 288, 304; gratification of, by the married, 270; shamefulness of, 289; when and in what sense sin, 274; not sin when not consented to, 45, 274; and the transmission of sin, 271, 274, 288; not the source of the offspring, 293; relation to propagation, 37; to guilt, 63; none in paradise, 307 sq., 387 sq.
Condemned, all justly, 123.
Conjugal intercourse, 380.
Constantius, Bishop, 230.
Conversions, sudden, 388.
Co-operation of God and man, 111, 227, 233.
Councils, at Carthage, 237, 240, 394, 439; at Diospolis, 240 sq.; at Mileve, 394, 439; another not needed, 434.
Creation, good, 162, 391, 418; is it an eternal process? 364 sq.; proof of God from, 91.
Creator versus Saviour, 134.
Credulity not good, 107.
Creed, the, 184.
Cross made of none effect, 124, 413.
Cynics, shamelessness of, 274.
Cyprian, 72, 194, 304, 319, 425 sq., 433, 439, 454, 476, 500, 505, 510 sq., 527 sq., 540, 543, 545.
Death, origin of, from Adam, 15 seq.; origin in sin, 15 seq., 129, 252; some Pelagians admit its origin in the world from Adam, 417; ministered by the law, 96; its "reign" not removed by law, 19, 247; why not abolished by baptism, 64; its sting, 76; not terrible, 250; good of, 418; why the devil is said to hold the power of, 65; Julian's view of the origin of, 417.
Debt in contrast to grace, 99, 198, 229, 398, 421.
Decalogue, 93, 406; summary of, 162.
Delight in duty, 84; a divine gift, 90, 105.
Deluge, the, 249.
Demetrias, 225 seq.
Departing from sin, 170.
Desire of good, God's gift, 399.
Devil the author of sin, 301.
Differ, who makes to, 398.
Difficulty of keeping the law, 150; in obedience, 149, 150.
Digamy, 408.
Diseases, illustration from, 392.
Distractions, worldly, 431.
"Dominus," epistolary use of, 205.
Donatists, 203, 316, 343, 344.
Drawing of man by God, 389.
"Dung," Paul's attainments why so counted, 412.
Eaglets, fable about, 190.
Eclipses, 246.
Elect, the sins of, 481.
Election, 477, 503; not on foreseen conduct, 398, 514; certainty of, 477; purpose of, 515; and holiness, 515 seq.
Elements, the four, or more, 251.
Eternal punishment, 162, 186; degrees in, 103.
Eucharist, a sacrifice, 90; only for the baptized, 25; called life, 28, 90.
Eulogius, 187.
Evil spirits, 354.
Examples of holiness, 175.
Excess in lawful things, 164.
Excommunication, 428.
Exegesis, Cœlestius', 174.
Exhortation, 221.
Eyes, good and bad use of, 224.
Faculty, certain uses of, impossible, 140; distinguished from the use of it, 109, 503.
Faith, the law of, 90, 92, 96, 101, 103, 408; voluntary, 107; but this will itself of God's gift, 109, 110, 450; given by God, 105, 107, 455, 504; even the beginnings of, 198, 229, 499, 517, 547; sovereignly given, 506; works by love, 94, 103, 198, 405, 406; a "work," 504; obtains justification, 105, 198, and further grace, 105, 108, but not the meritorious ground of either, 504; the ground of all righteousness, 105; the "life" of a just man, 168; dispenses with demonstration, 251; what true faith is, 188; under the Old Testament, 138; relation to good works, 451; needed by all alike, 104; Augustin's former error as to the origin of, 500; questions not of the, 246.
Fall, its nature, 59; estate of man before, 59; denied by the Pelagians, 193, 207.
Fasting, 164.
Fatalism charged and refuted, 395.
Fear, an inadequate motive, 88, 95, 105, 144, 227, 382, 405; produced by law, 96, 98, 105, 121, 247; use of, under the Gospel, 105, 132, 150; will cease when love is perfect, 167.
Felix (another), 439.
Fire, saved as by, 186.
Firmus, 260.
Fleece, Gideon's, 248.
Flesh, sense of, 141, 143, 277, 384; resurrection of, 105, 253; Christ's, how dishonoured by Manicheans and Pelagians, 392; the, and the spirit, 143, 144.
Florus, 472.
"Folly" distinguished from "heresy," 190.
Forgiveness, of sin, needed and prayed for by all, 113, 135, 164, 194, 409, 414, 428; of injuries, 164, 172.
"Form," 363.
Freedom in Adam and in the saints, 486.
Free will, in Adam, 109, 378, 484; how injured in the fall, 378; as a faculty distinct from the use of it, 109; a "midway" power, 109; certainly possessed by man, 444 sq.; capable of evil 186, 378; not capable of good, 84, 148, 378, 395, 415; healed by grace, 89, 106, 415, 417; relation to grace, 106, 226, 235, 421 seq., 443 seq., 456; not made void by grace, 106, 110, 285, 379, 395, 437, 439, 443 sq.; led by God, 185; not the source of faith, 110; Pelagian doctrine of, 226, 379, 421.
Friendship, Christian, 377.
Generation, carnal, 50.
Gentiles, salvation of, 104, 122; condition of, 101, 122, 124; virtues of, 104, 264.
Gifts, diversity of, 197; our duties in relation to, 546.
"Give what Thou commandest," 92, 508.
Glorification of Christ, 172.
Glorying in self forbidden, 104, 428.
God, impossibilities to, 140; only good, 170.
Good, all from God, 400.
Good desires, equivalent to love, 225; produced by grace, 225, 388, 399.
Good fruit, how produced, 225.
Goodness, human, comparative, 170; among the heathen, 104, 264.
Good will, from God even in its beginnings, 388, 455.
Grace, meaning of, 84, 92, 97, 122, 142, 146, 192, 193, 220, 222, 226, 247, 472; Pelagian meaning of, 218, 220, 229, 231; Pelagius' ambiguous acknowledgment of, 124, 125, 131, 139, 141, 192, 218, 220, 225, 229, 231; Cœlestius' understanding of, 228; difference from natural powers, 125, 141, 192, 210, 218, 454; relation to law and teaching, 96, 192, 210, 220, 231, 452, 453; relation to Christ's example, 218, 231; relation to forgiveness of sins, 135, 210, 231, 450, 454; relation to free will, 235, 443 sq.; does not make free will void, 46, 106, 436, 437, 443 seq.; relation to good will, 455; relation to predestination, 507; not given according to merits, 227 seq., 379, 422 seq., 437, 439, 448, 456, 531; grace for grace, 452; prevenient, 110, 133, 401, 421, 459; gratuitousness of, 122, 484; distinguishes men, 503; and the law under the Old Testament, 247; not absolutely bound to the means, 29; necessity of, 28, 122; even in a perfect nature, 140, 142, 232, 390, 446.
Greek, appeal to the, 29.
Guidance, no one should trust to his own, 185.
Hagar and Sarah, 189, 403, 406, 408.
"Hardening the heart," 464.
Heart, a pure, what? 171; God's government of the, 463; inclined at God's will, 226; hardening the, 464.
Hebrews, canonical authority of the Epistle to the, 34.
Heredity, 335.
Heros and Lazarus, 183, 201, 210.
Hilary the commentator, 420.
Hilary of Poitiers, 146.
Hilary of Sicily, 193, 206, 241, 497, 498, 525.
Holy Spirit, presence of, in the heart, 98; the "finger of God," 95; of the Father and the Son, 110.
Hope, distinct from possession, 253.
Human nature assumed by the Word, 198.
Humility, true and false, 134; attends to truth, 134; condition of divine help, 163; shown by the saints, 51, 96, 199.
Hymn, an Ambrosian, 147.
Idiots and simpletons, 27, 41.
Idolatry caused by self-reliance, 90.
Ignorance, human as to itself, 354 seq.; how far an excuse, 445; may be sinful 127, 202, 404; sins of, 44; and weakness, 44; of infants, 41, 42.
Image of God, the, 103.
"Imitation," 18, 124, 242, 301; whom sinners "imitate," 21.
Immaculateness, 173.
Imperial authority against Pelagians, 243.
Impossible, the, how not exacted by God, 44, 54, 139, 151.
"Inability," and "ability not," 485.
Infants, ignorance and infirmity of, 43; why baptized, 23; not enlightened at birth, 29; lost unless baptized, 28, 29, 31, 124, 244, 319, 337 sq., 348, 463; vicarious confession of, 30; called "believers," 24, 30, 69; many permitted to die unbaptized 396, 397; unbaptized, condemned to lightest punishment, 23; original sin of, proved from the Scriptures, 30 sq., 39, 71, 303, but denied by Cœlestius, 230, and the Pelagians, 263; original sin of, enough to condemn them, 439; born in sin, 24, 240, 250, 254, 383, 390, 418, 431; have no actual sin, 23, 41; exemplify gratuitous grace, 463; Christ died for them, 28, 71, 306; why Christ was born an infant, 42.
Inferiority of the Son, as man, to the Father, 249.
Infirmity, remains of, 174; sins of, 44, 168, 386, 404; of infants, 43.
Innocent I., 239-240, 243, 245, 393, 439.
Inscrutableness of divine judgments, 26, 111, 188.
Insidious questions of the Pelagians, 414.
Intelligence, spiritual, not alike in all Christians, 100.
Intercession of the Holy Ghost, 359.
Intercessory prayers, 429.
Isaac, 403.
Israel, the spiritual, 99, 102, 103.
James, St., misinterpreted by the Pelagians, 126.
James and Timasius, 121.
Jerome, attack on, 212; quoted, 148.
Jerusalem, conference at, 199, the earthly and heavenly, 189, 405, 408.
Jesus, its meaning, 128, 308; no other name saving, 137.
Jews, boasting of, 88, 103; dispersion of, 406; rejection of, 248.
Job, 49, 146, 175; language of, 146, 167.
John, the Baptist, 87, 132, 405, 407, 414; of Constantinople (Chrysostom), 148; of Jerusalem, 200, 206.
Joseph, why called Christ's father, 269.
Joshua, 175.
Judgment, the future, 109, 171, 187, 426; God's, according to works, 110; not according to foreseen works, 317, 321, 509, 512, 533-537; unsearchable, 532.
Julian, 258, 281, 283, 378, 386, 391; his "confession of faith," 386.
Justification, through faith and grace, 18, 92, 105, 108, 220; prior to works, 102; by Christ alone, 21.
Kingdom of heaven, not different from salvation, 23, 28; Pelagian view of it, 243, 390; promised in Old Testament, 189.
"Kiss of peace," 427.
Knowledge, without grace, effect of, 192; of God in this world, imperfect, 100, 433; of the law attainable by all, 184.
Labourers in the vineyard, parable of, 397.
Lactantius quoted, 146.
Lamb of God, 406.
Latin not understood by the Eastern bishops, 185.
Law, under the, what, 145; a schoolmaster to Christ, 121; true doctrine of, 402; utility of, 221; right use of, 89, 97, 162, 175, 220, 246, 421; Pelagian view of, 248, 390, 420 sq.; and teaching, 220; cannot take away sin, 19; and grace, 421; fulfilled through grace, 89, 97, 106; the moral law good, 85, 89, 92, 192, 417, and permanent, 122, 124, 147, 406; written on the hearts, 96, 97.
Law of sin, the, 62.
"Letter and spirit," the, 82, 94, 97, 110, 145, 192, 220, 403, 406, 415.
"Liberty" through grace, 149, 161, 164, 378.
Lie, is it right to, for humility? 134; is every man a liar? 169.
Life, eternal, a gift and yet a reward, 451; none outside of God's kingdom, 28.
"Lighteth," meaning of, 29.
Literal interpretation not always tenable, 85.
Lord's Day, the, 250.
Lord's Prayer, the, 428; and Pelagianism, 527 seq.
Love, the gift of the Spirit, 151; the spring of all right action, 151, 457; the root of all good, 224, 225, 457; the fulfilling of the law, 151, 457; when it fulfils the law, 165; how bestowed, 225; infused by God, 84, 108, 144, 151, 162, 227; necessary for well-doing, 84; duties easy to, 151; greater than faith and hope, 165; degrees of, 151, 163; perfected in the next world, 112, 163, 165, 222.
Manicheans, the catholics charged with being, 285, 298, 303, 378, 380, 390, 391 seq., 417, 418, 433; catholics and Pelagians distinguished from, 286, 292, 414; their attitude towards the canon, 535.
Mankind, "mass of," justly condemned, 123, 250, 396.
Mansions in the Father's house not outside the kingdom of God, 349.
Manuscripts of the Old Testament, 246.
Marcellinus, 15, 44, 69, 80, 83, 89, 130, 193.
Marriage, is it evil? 250, 263 seq., 283, 299, 300, 380, 394, 420; the good of, 37, 321, 265, 268, 271; in our first parents, 251, 298; in Paradise, 298; relation to concupiscence, 252, 263 sq., 270, 288; sins and virtues in, 270; chastity in, the gift of God, 264; but less than continence, 264, 271; and continence, 268, 271; before and after Christ's coming, 269; Paul's teaching as to, 269 seq.
Mary the Virgin, 253; perpetual virginity of, 269, 378; is she sinless? 135.
Massilians, 498.
Means given with the end, 548.
Mediator, Christ the, 24, 63, 83, 103, 131, 139, 172, 175, 176, 236, 247, 248, 249, 250, 419.
Medical language, 175.
Medical schools, 357.
Medicine, the law compared to, 86.
Melchisedech, 249.
Mercy, works of, 44, 150; need of, even in the last judgment, 488.
Merits, 225; grace not given in reference to, 196, 201, 225, 227, 229, 379, 388, 395, 399, 414; are themselves God's gifts, 199, 247.
Methuselah, 246.
Monastic life, 207, 217, 437, 439, 443, 471.
"More easily," 220, 225, 228, 232, 399.
"Mortal" distinct from "subject to death" and "dead," 16.
Mysteriousness of God's dealings with souls, 25, 110, 398, 423.
Nations, a few yet unevangelized, 122.
Nature, created by God, 298; created sound, 59, 122, 298, but has fallen into unsoundness, 59, 122; injured by the fall, 122, 127, 137, 141, 142, 148, 150, 160, 161, 191, 224, 249; good in itself, 122, 162, 163, 225, 250, 298, 392, 395, 414, 418; not sufficient to itself for holiness, 122; even when unfallen needing God's help, 140; in need of Christ as a Saviour, 144; and will, 302; and its corruption, 59, 303; restored by grace, 103, 137; Pelagius' idea of it, 141, 145, 418; Pelagius contends it is whole, 127, and wrongly extols it, 130, 134, 228.
Necessity to sin, 149.
Necessity, not incompatible with free will, 139; a "happy," 162.
Neophytes, 184.
Novatians, 254.
Numidia, 394.
Old Testament, senses of the phrase, 188, 406; utility of, 35; its holy men lived by faith in Christ, 139, 175, 246, 250, 389.
Olive and Oleaster, a natural type of transmitted sin, 272, 307.
Opening of eyes, 266.
Open questions, specimens of, 206, 247.
Optatus, 311.
Ordination, qualifications for, 173, 386.
Origenism, 187.
Original sin, 122, 238, 242, 243, 245, 250, 253, 382, 414, 415, 422, 431; universal, 30; distinct from actual sin, 19; clearly taught by Scripture, 28 sq., and by the fathers, 72 seq.; Pelagius' view of, 241; when alone, deserves lightest condemnation, 23.
Orosius, 201.
Palestine, Council of, 183 sq.; catholic, 194, 241; deceived by Pelagius, 191, 225, 240, 247, 379, 388, 395; condemned Pelagianism, 194, 196, 202, 209, 212, 243; official records of, 183, 206, 240, summary of, 209.
Pammachius, 238.
Paradise, 58 seq., 246, 378, 383, 426.
Parents, Christian, why not have Christian offspring? 61, 75.
Passover, the, 95.
Patience, trials of, 129, 168; a high virtue, 428.
Paul, St., a sinner, 52; his converson, 382, 383, 388; had many but not all gifts, 197; rapture of, 246; a preacher of grace, 90, 199.
Pedagogues, 184.
Pelagianism, origin of, 203 seq., 245, novelty of, 12, 380, 390, 395, 415, 425, 432, 445; propositions of, 193, 207, 211, 241; three chief points in, 414, 527; five lesser questions, 414, 416 seq.; a true heresy, 146, 209, 246-250; and Manicheanism, 414, 415; how opposed, 12; condemnation of, 434.
Pelagius, his character and motives, 69, 121, 241, 244; a "monk," 145; long residence in Rome, 245; visits Africa, 203; high reputation of, 69, 70, 203; letters from bishops to, 205; ability of, 123; notes on Paul's Epistles, 69, 200; why he does not speak in his own person, 71; letter to Paulinus from, 230; work by, discussed in On Nature and Grace, 116, 121, 192, 196, 201; "Chapters" or "Testimonies" by, 185, 206, 425; his letter to Demetrias, 225, 228, 231, 232; his explanations made in Palestine, 183 seq., 193, 200; disingenuous professions by, 201, 218, 221, 240, 395; a "paper" from, 183, 191, 207; letter to a presbyter from, 206, 207; a "Defence of Free Will" by, 218, 224, 232; letter to Innocent from, 218, 229; profession of faith by, 229, 230, 244; ambiguous language of, 193, 197, 204, 218, 229, 235, 243, 245; really of one mind with Cœlestius, 239, 241, 243; his doubtful anathemas, 218, 241; his distinction between "possibility" and "actuality," 123, 218; his distinction between "possibility" and "will," 139, 218; his sincerity, 225, 237, 241, 244; his writings, 69, 116, 218, 231 sq., 237, 243, 245, 425.
Penal blindness, 129.
Penance, 245.
Pentecost, 95.
Perdition, vessels of, 186, 424.
Perfection, possibility of, in this life, 46, 111, 235, 409 seq., 412; four questions distinguished, 46; relative degrees of, 52, 53, 112, 411; compared with that of the future life, 113, 165, 410; when to be attained, 48, 165, 168, 276.
Perseverance, from God, 475, 477, 527, 547; and faith, 526; and prayer, 428, 529.
Personal union, the, in Christ, 197.
Pertinacity in error, 191.
Pharisee, prayer of, 93; his sin in it, 45.
Phoenix, 368.
Physician, Christ the true, 128, 131, 137, 142, 144, 236.
Platonist opinion of pre-existence wrong, 250.
Πνοή, 323.
Polyandry, why wicked, 267.
Polygamy in the Old Testament, why permitted, 267.
Porphyry, 506.
"Possibility" in the Pelagian scheme, 123, 139 sq., 218, 224.
Possible, the, not always realized, 83, 185.
Praise, of the creature, 416, 418; of marriage, 417, 420; of the law, 417, 420; of free will, 417, 421; of the saints, 417, 424.
Prayer, prompted by grace, 431; a proof of grace, 447; use of, 150, 164, 166; and predestination, 541; for divine aid, not to be condemned, 125; for forgiveness, allowed by Pelagius, 127, 228; in what sense needed, according to Pelagius, 233; Pelagian view of, 121, 145, 232; the Lord's Prayer and Pelagianism, 527 seq.
Predestination to life, 176, 186, 222; to punishment, 170, 361; what it is, 481, 539, 542 seq.; can it fail? 348, 477; its number fixed, 487; and foreknowledge, 486; and grace, 507, 542; and prayer, 541, 550; and Jesus, 512, 552; shall it be preached? 538 sq., 546, 549; Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian view of it, 516.
Pre-existence of souls, 26, 250.
Prevenient mercy, 133, 401, 423.
Pride, its character as sin, 87, 133; in what sense the root of sin, 132; its danger, 412; the divine remedy for, 55.
Priests under the law, 173, 409.
Progress in spiritual life, 170, 175, 400.
Prohibition, irritating effect of, 85, 90, 94, 163, 403.
Promises, in Old and New Testaments, 97, 189, 405, 407; conditional, 175; surety of God's, 508.
"Propagation," or "imitation," of sin? 20.
Prophets, the, 88.
Punishment, degrees in future, 23, 104; good heathen mildly punished, 104; unbaptized infants lightly punished, 23; both in wrath and in mercy, 55; why inflicted on the forgiven, 66; by the gift of "ability," 107.
Purity of heart, 171.
Purpose, God's, in election, 401; man's, for good the result of grace, 401.
Rash judgments, 190.
Reason, 190.
Rebuke, and grace, 468, 471 seq., 489; duty of, 473; grades of, 490; purpose of, 491; objection to, 473.
Reconciliation, 420.
Redemption, necessity of, 254, 381; senses of, 404; ambiguously acknowledged by Pelagius, 244.
Regeneration, senses of, 47, 253, 404, 429.
Renewal, gradual, 47, 99, 161, 173.
Renunciations in baptism, 254.
Repentance a gift of God, 234.
Resurrection, spiritual, 105; of Christ, spiritual renewal represented by, 86, 105; of the body, 245, 253, 414; called regeneration, 47.
Retractations quoted, 501, 535.
Riches, Pelagian view of, 193, 241; the spiritual, 172.
Righteousness, of the law, 411, 453; of faith, 413; of God, 88, 90, 96, 121, 403, 412, 453; produced by God, 111; how men seek to establish their own, 88, 133, 137, 402, 408, 412; imperfect in this life, 53, 112, 145, 150, 164, 169, 235, 410 seq., 424, 429, 432; of the apostles and prophets, 408; why not propagated, 48.
Rogatus, 343.
Rogatians, 311, 316, 343, 344.
Roman church, faithful, 233, 240; its clergy defended, 392 seq.; members of, 377; see of, most eminent, 377.
Romans, Epistle to, 87 seq.
Roots of good and evil, 225.
Rufinus, 238.
Sabbath, the literal, abolished, 93, 98, 395; symbolism of, 95.
Sabellians, 298.
Sacraments, importance of, 28, 78; imply original sin, 253; of catechumens, 61.
Sacrifice of body and blood, for whom offered, 320, 338.
Saints under the Old Testament, not free from sin, 381, 389, 424; how saved, 248, 404.
Salvation, senses of, 404; under the law in the Old Testament, 247; none outside God's kingdom, 28.
Samaritan, parable of the, 138, 142.
Samuel, 175.
Sanctification a divine work, 173.
Sarah, 291.
Satan, fall of, 410; author of sin, 132, 253; power over man, 254, 388; binding of, 254; some delivered to, 132; sons of, 403.
Saviour, need of a, 134, 142, 414; versus Creator, 134; universal need of a, 36, 63, 71.
Scandals, 172.
Scripture, authority of, 28, 67, 111, 137; silence of, 135, 340; omits many things, 67, 136.
Secular courts not resorted to, 408.
Self accusing, 168.
Self-excusing, 121.
Self-righteousness, 96.
Semi-Pelagians, 49 sq.; how differ from Pelagians, 498, 516; anticipated, 388.
Senses and sensibilities, 332.
Service, the eucharistic, referred to, 90, 111, 135.
Servile temper, the, 107, 144, 223, 407.
Sextus, a Pythagorean, 116, 178.
Shame, origin of, in the body, 265, 304, 387; and marriage, 298.
Sicily, Pelagianism in, 159, 193, 241.
Sight as opposed to faith, 104, 110, 174, 410, 412.
Silence of Scripture, as to men's sins, 135; danger of arguing from, 328, 340.
Silver-workers, 90.
Simplicianus, Augustin's letter to, 384, 500, 501, 547, 548.
Simplicius, his remarkable memory, 358.
Sin, original, 19, 30 seq., 237 seq.; clearly taught by the Scriptures, 28 sq., and by the fathers, 72 sq. (See under Original Sin.)
Sin, Adam's, 307; nature of, 128, 148, 160, 169; penal results of, 197, 122, 129, 150, 162, 163; universality of, 51, 122, 123, 235; unbelief specially so called, 403; knowledge of, through the law, 88, 106, 192, 407; struggle against, 136, 168, 169, 404, 429; lessening power of, 168, 170; as punishment of sin, 128, 129; cured by sin, 131; actual and original, 19; not a "thing," 160; from will, 160; and of nature, 160; by natural descent, 22; can it be avoided? 160, 164; Pelagius' definition of, 127; Pelagius denies all subsequent effect of, 127, 128; the law of, 43, 277 seq., how Christ is made sin, 250, 409 seq.
Sinful, all men born, 51, 298.
Sinlessness, distinct from holiness, 194; possibility of, 46, 111, 124, 138, 146, 148, 176, 235; possibility of an open question, 46 sq., 138, 146, 207; open in a sense, 176; not open, 386, 429; various standards of, 235; four questions distinguished, 46 sq., of the Scripture saints, 35, 381, 401; of Abel, 136; of the Virgin Mary, 135; of Christ alone, complete, 57; unreality of, 47; why none in this life, 55; commanded, 164.
Sins, venial, 104, 136, 166, 270, 274; not yet committed, no sins, 317, 321.
Sodom, destruction of, 250.
Song of Songs, spiritual sense of, 85, 198.
Sons of God, 403.
Soul, origin and nature of, 310, 315 seq., 415, 427; not of substance of God, 316, 332, 344; not of pre-existent material, 316; out of nothing, 316; not corporeal, 317, 333, 361, 363 seq.; not existent prior to birth, 335, 347; not good or evil prior to birth, 317, 318, 335, 347; given by God, 325 seq.; are they propagated? 67, 76, 321; are they created? 322 seq.; creationist passages, 322; and body, 366; and spirit, 331, 362, 369; Augustin's position as to origin of, 329; heresies as to origin of, 330; Manichean view of, 392.
Sovereignty of God's grace, 26, 57, 174, 456, 463, 478, 489, 532, 538.
Spain, 191.
Spirit, the Holy, how He intercedes for us, 359, 551.
Spirit and soul, 331, 362, 369.
"Stainless," senses of, 166, 169.
Stephen, St., his prayer, 388.
Subterfuges, Pelagius', 244; chief Pelagian, 416.
Supper, Lord's, called life, 28, 90; service referred to, 90, 111, 135; a sacrifice, 90, 320, 328; partaken of by infants, 25, 394, 418, 420; only for the baptized, 25.
Teaching, 220; insufficient without grace, 85, 113, 176.
Temptation to be prayed against, 142, 145, 176, 428; various forms of, 429.
Tertullian, 334.
Testament, the Old, use and teaching of, 35.
Testaments, relation of Old and New, 35, 92, 100, 247, 405 seq.
Texts cited by the Pelagians, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172 seq., 400.
Theodicy with reference to grace, 423, 464; with reference to the heathen, 104.
Θεοσέβεια, 90.
Thief, dying, 319; a martyr, 319; perhaps baptized, 319.
Thorn in the flesh, Paul's, 113, 131, 222, 411.
Thought, grace needed for good, 401; sense of "about evil," 188; sins of, 113, 176; less than desire, and yet from God, 400.
Threatenings of the law, 89, 92, 125.
Three periods of the world according to Pelagius, 248.
Timasius and James, 121, 203 seq.
Tongue, taming the, 126.
Transmission of sin, 18, 20, 69, 238, 245, 272, 415.
Trinity, of one Godhead, 246; inseparable, 110, 411.
Types, 406.
Tyre and Sidon, comparatively tolerable for, 533.
Unbaptized infants, 23, 25, 36, 273, 319, 337, 348.
Universal need of salvation, 36, 63, 71, 134, 142, 414.
Unregenerate children of the regenerate, 272.
Unsearchable judgments of God, 25, 110, 398, 423, 532.
Valentinus, 437, 439, 444, 472.
Valerius, comes, 258, 259, 260, 263, 281, 283.
Various readings in text of Scriptures, 199, 219, 246, 412.
Venial sins, 104, 136, 166, 224, 270, 274.
"Very easily," to obey, 162.
Vincentius the Rogatian, 343.
Vincentius Victor, 310, 311, 315, 331, 343; his errors, 316 sq., 352, 370.
Vindemialis, 260.
Virgin, the, Mary. (See under Mary.)
Vision, the beatific, 110, 174, 410.
"Volition" distinct from "ability," 106, 218.
Wicked men, God's government of, 462.
Widow, tracts addressed to a, 190, 191.
Wilderness, sins of Israel in, 405.
Will of God invincible, 109.
Will, its relation to ability, 106, 219; weakness of, 45, 358; needs God's help, 45; in God's power, 461; acts even in cases of reluctance, 106; can assent and dissent when God calls, 110; prepared by God, 400; good, how bestowed, 56, 225, 388; to believe, wrought in man by God's power, 111, 388, 400; good will and grace, 455; is good will a merit? 455.
Willing and running, 174.
Wisdom, Book of, canonicity of, 511.
Wisdom, the true, 90; of words, 137.
Working of God in us, 84, 98, 107, 219, 389.
Works, law of, 91; of the law, 93, 104; every one has some good, 104.
"World" used for men in it, 224.
Xystus quoted by mistake for Sextus, 116, 148.
Young children. (See Infants.)
Young and old alike capable of redemption, 254.
Zosimus, 237, 239, 240, 245, 393, 439; his dealings with Cœlestius, 239, 393.
Genesis
1:2 1:20 1:24 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:29 1:31 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:17 2:17 2:17 2:19 2:19 2:22 2:22-23 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:5 3:5 3:5-6 3:6 3:6 3:6-7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:10 3:16 3:18-19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:20 4:1 5:4 5:24 7 7:8-9 7:21-22 9:1 9:21 12:3 14:18-20 15:6 15:6 17:5 17:5 17:10 17:14 17:14 18:18 19 19:24 20:2 20:4 20:5 20:8 20:14 20:17 20:18 21:1-2 21:17-19 21:19 21:19 22:18 22:18 24:2-3 25:17 46:26 47:29
Exodus
1:5 3:14 4:12 4:21 4:25 7:3 7:3 8:32 10:1 12:3 14:4 19:12 19:16 20:5 20:7 20:7 20:13-14 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:27 31:18 33:19 33:19
Leviticus
Numbers
14:29 14:31 21:6-9 21:9 24:3 24:15
Deuteronomy
6:4-5 6:5 6:5 6:5 8:17 18:13 23:17 24 29:5 30:2 30:9-14 30:14 30:15 30:19 31:3 31:3
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
8:46 8:46 8:57 12:8-14 12:15 19:8
2 Kings
2:11 4:18-37 4:29 4:34 14 14:10
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
15:2 21:16-17 25:7-8 25:20 30:12
Esther
Job
1:1 1:8 1:8 1:22 6:2-3 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:14 7:15 8:26-14:5 9:2-3 9:17 9:19-20 9:30 12:4 13:18 14:1-5 14:2 14:4 14:4-5 14:4-5 14:4-5 14:4-5 14:4-5 14:5 14:16-17 14:16-17 16:18 17:8 19:25 23:11-12 25:4 27:6 28:28 28:28 29:14 30:3-4 32:7-8 39:34 40:4 42:5-6 42:6
Psalms
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:2 1:2 1:6 2:4 2:4 2:8 2:11 2:11-12 2:12 2:12 3 3:2 3:2-4 3:2-5 3:3 3:3 3:4 3:4 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:8 3:8 3:10 4:6 4:27 5:25 6:2 7:20 8:2 9:18 10:4 12:1 12:6 13:3 14:1 14:1 14:1 14:2 14:3 14:8 15:1-2 15:2 15:2 16:3 16:4 16:4 16:4 16:10 16:10 16:11 16:12 17:4 17:15 18:1 18:1 18:8 18:23 19:1 19:4 19:5-6 19:5-6 19:7 19:12 19:36 19:36 19:36 19:37 19:68 19:73 19:73 19:73 19:80 19:85 19:108 19:133 19:133 19:133 19:133 19:175 19:176 21 21:3 22:23 22:25 23:6 23:6 24:3-4 24:3-4 24:7 25:4 25:7 25:10 25:10 25:10 25:15 25:17 25:17 25:17 25:22 26:2 27:1 27:1 27:4 27:9 27:9 27:9 27:9 28:9 30:2 30:5 30:6 30:6 30:6 30:6 30:7 30:7 30:7 30:7 30:7 30:8 31:7 31:9 31:19 32:2 32:2 32:2 32:2 32:5 32:6 32:9 32:9 32:9 33:1 33:1-2 34:2 34:2 34:13 35:6 35:6 36:3 36:3 36:6 36:7 36:8-10 36:9 36:9 36:9 36:10 36:10 36:11 36:11-12 36:23 37:3 37:5 37:6 37:23 37:23 37:23 37:23 37:23 37:27 38:3 38:3 38:8 39:1 39:5 39:6 39:9 39:10 40:2-3 40:8 40:8 40:17 41:3 41:3 41:4 41:4 41:4 41:4 41:5 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:2 43:10 44:4 44:18 44:22 45:6-7 45:8 47:20 48:2 48:12 49:6 49:12 49:12 49:12 49:12-13 50:6 51:5 51:5 51:5 51:5 51:5 51:5 51:5 51:5 51:5 51:10 51:10 51:11 51:12 51:12 51:15 54:6 55:8 58:11 59:10 59:10 59:10 59:10 59:10 59:10 59:10 59:10 62:11-12 62:12 65:2 66:9 67:10 68:9 68:18 68:18 68:30 69:6 70:5 71:5 73:27 73:28 73:28 76:10 77:2 77:9-10 80:3 80:3-4 80:7 80:7 80:17-18 81:1 81:10 84:5 84:5 84:6 84:6 84:11 85:4 85:4 85:4 85:6 85:6 85:7 85:7 85:10 85:12 85:12 86:11 94:7 94:8 94:8 95 95:6 95:6 95:6-7 95:7-8 95:8 99:6 99:8 119:21 119:118
Proverbs
1:8 1:30 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:20 2:21 3:1 3:7 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:18 3:27 3:29 4:26-27 4:27 5:2 8 8 8:35 8:35 8:35 8:35 8:35 8:35 8:36 11:20 16:1 16:1 18:17 18:21 19:3 19:3 19:24 20:8 20:8 20:8-9 20:9 20:9 20:9 20:9 20:9 20:24 21:1 21:1 21:2 27:2 29:19
Ecclesiastes
1:2-3 1:18 3:5 3:21 7:20 7:20 7:21 7:30 7:30
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1:2 1:18 1:19 1:19 1:19-20 1:19-20 1:19-20 6:10 7:14 8:20 8:20 11:2 11:2 26:10 40:5 42:5 42:5 45:11 45:11 45:11 45:25 52:7 53:1 53:3-12 53:6 53:7 53:7 53:9 54:1 54:13 56:1 56:1 57:16 57:16 57:16 59:2 61:1
Jeremiah
1:5 2:29 9:23-24 9:24 10:23 10:23 10:24 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 30:1 30:33 31:31 31:31-32 31:31-34 31:31-34 31:32 31:32 31:32-33 31:33 31:33 31:33 31:33 31:33-34 31:34 31:34 31:34 31:34 31:34 31:34 32:32 32:40 32:40 32:40-41
Ezekiel
3:18 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:19-20 14:9 14:9 14:14 16:49 18 18:1-4 18:6 18:31-32 28:3 36:22 36:22 36:22 36:22-27 36:26 36:26 36:26 36:26-27 36:27 36:27 36:27 36:32
Daniel
Joel
Jonah
Habakkuk
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
1:16 1:16 1:20 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:23 3:8-9 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:14-15 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:32 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:48 5:48 6:1 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:11 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12-13 6:12-13 6:12-13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:14 6:14 6:19 6:30 7:2 7:7 7:7 7:11 7:11 7:11 7:16 7:17 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:23 7:23 8:22 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:12-13 9:12-13 9:13 9:13 9:13 10:19-20 10:20 10:20 10:20 10:20 10:22 10:22 10:26 10:28 10:28 10:29 10:39 10:39 11:22 11:28 11:28-30 11:30 11:30 12:29 12:30 12:33 12:35 13:11 13:11 13:43 16:17 16:17 16:24 16:27 16:27 16:27 16:27 17:20 18:4 18:11 18:15 18:17 19:3 19:4 19:4 19:4-6 19:5-6 19:6 19:6 19:8 19:9 19:10 19:10-11 19:11 19:12 19:12 19:14 19:16 19:24 19:24 19:26 19:28 19:28 19:28 20:1-16 20:8 20:9 20:9 20:14 20:16 20:16 20:16 20:16 21:9 21:21 22:11-13 22:14 22:30 22:37 22:37 22:37 22:37 22:37 22:39 22:39 22:40 22:40 22:40 23:15 25:1-10 25:33 25:33 25:34 25:35 25:35 25:46 25:46 25:46 25:46 25:46 26 26:28 26:28 26:28 26:28 26:41 26:41 26:53 26:53 26:69 26:69-75 26:71 27:51 27:51 33
Mark
2:17 7:9 7:19 9:49 10:8 10:27 10:46-52 11 11:23 12:28-31 14:38 14:38 14:66 16:15-16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:18
Luke
1:3 1:3 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:6-9 1:27 1:34 1:35 1:37 1:38 1:38 2:11 2:11 2:14 2:19 2:33 2:41 2:41 2:48 2:49 2:50-51 3:6 3:22 3:23 4:16-21 5:31-32 5:32 6:30 6:37-38 6:37-38 6:38 7:41 8:8 8:10 8:18 9:53 9:53 9:53 9:56 9:56 9:60 10:5-6 10:12 10:13 10:27-28 10:29 10:30 10:34 10:34 10:41 11:4 11:4 11:4 11:9 11:20 11:41 11:42 12:4 12:5 12:37 12:47-48 13:25-27 13:32 15:4 15:8 16:19-31 16:22-23 16:23 16:23 16:24 16:24 16:24 16:24 17:6 18:1 18:10-14 18:11-12 18:11-12 18:19 19:9-10 19:10 19:10 19:10 19:10 19:10 19:20-24 19:26 19:27 20:34 20:34 20:34 20:34 22:32 22:32 22:32 22:32 22:32 22:55 22:61 22:61 22:61 22:61 23:43 23:43 24:31 24:44-47 24:45 24:46-47
John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:3 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12-13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:47 2:6 2:7-8 2:19 3:1-21 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3-6 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:6 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:13 3:13 3:14-15 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:17 3:18 3:18 3:19 3:21 3:27 3:35-36 3:36 3:36 4:24 4:34 5:14 5:21 5:26 5:30 5:35 5:35 6 6:27 6:28 6:28 6:34 6:36 6:37 6:39 6:39 6:43 6:44 6:44 6:44 6:44 6:44 6:45 6:45 6:45 6:45 6:51 6:51 6:51 6:51 6:53 6:53 6:53 6:54 6:54-66 6:59 6:60 6:62-65 6:63 6:64 6:64 6:65 6:65 6:65 6:65 6:66 6:66 6:66 6:66 6:66 6:70 7:39 8 8:24 8:31 8:31 8:36 8:36 8:36 8:36 8:36 8:36 8:36 8:36 8:38 8:56 9:39 10:27-28 10:30 11:51-52 12:31 12:37 12:46 12:46 13:10 13:34 13:34-35 13:37 13:37 14:1 14:1 14:2 14:2 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:8-9 14:21 14:21 14:28 14:30 14:30 14:30 14:30 14:30 14:30-31 14:30-31 14:31 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:7 15:13 15:13 15:13 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:16 15:22 15:22 15:26 16:7 16:8 16:8-10 16:9 16:12 16:16 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:12 18:9 18:16 19:11 19:30 19:30 19:34 20:2 20:22
Acts
2:1-47 2:2 2:2 3:14-15 4:11-12 4:12 4:12 4:24 4:31 5:30-31 8:30-37 9:1 9:18 10 10:43 10:43 13:9 13:38-39 13:48 13:48 14:8-9 15:10-11 15:10-11 16:14 17:25 17:26 17:28 17:31 28:5
Romans
1:1 1:7 1:8 1:14-17 1:16 1:16 1:16-17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18-20 1:18-23 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21-31 1:22 1:23 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:25-26 1:26 1:26-27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28-31 2 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:8-9 2:8-13 2:9 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:12 2:12 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:14-15 2:15 2:15-16 2:17-29 2:26 3:6 3:6 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:19 3:19-20 3:19-21 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20-21 3:20-26 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:22 3:22-23 3:22-24 3:22-24 3:22-26 3:23 3:23 3:23 3:23 3:23-24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:26 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:28 3:28 3:29 3:30 3:30 3:31 3:31 4:2 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4-8 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:10-11 4:11 4:13 4:14 4:14 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:16 4:16 4:16-17 4:19 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:21 4:21 4:21 4:23-25 4:25 4:25 5 5:1 5:3-5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:6 5:6 5:8 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12-19 5:12-19 5:12-21 5:13 5:13 5:13 5:13 5:13 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:16 5:16 5:16 5:17 5:17-18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20-21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:28-31 6 6:1 6:1-2 6:2 6:3-11 6:4 6:6 6:6 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12-13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:14 6:14 6:14 6:17 6:18 6:20 6:20 6:23 6:23 6:23 7 7:1-2 7:4 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6-7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7-8 7:7-8 7:7-12 7:7-13 7:7-25 7:8 7:11 7:12 7:12-13 7:12-13 7:13 7:13 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14-16 7:14-25 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15-25 7:16 7:16 7:17 7:17 7:17 7:17 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:19 7:19-20 7:19-21 7:20 7:20 7:21 7:21-22 7:22 7:22-23 7:22-23 7:22-23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:23 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:24-25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 8:1 8:1 8:1-4 8:1-11 8:2 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3-4 8:3-4 8:6 8:6 8:7 8:7-8 8:8-9 8:9 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10-11 8:10-11 8:10-11 8:11 8:11 8:12-13 8:12-13 8:12-17 8:13 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:20 8:23 8:23 8:23 8:23 8:23 8:23-25 8:24-25 8:24-25 8:24-25 8:24-25 8:24-25 8:26 8:26 8:26 8:26 8:26-27 8:28 8:28 8:28 8:28 8:28 8:28 8:28 8:28 8:29 8:29 8:29 8:29 8:29-30 8:29-30 8:29-30 8:29-30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:31 8:31-32 8:32 8:35 8:35-39 8:37 9 9:6 9:7-12 9:8 9:8 9:10 9:10 9:11 9:11 9:11 9:11 9:11 9:11 9:11 9:11 9:11 9:11-12 9:12 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:15 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:18 9:18 9:18 9:18 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:20 9:20 9:20 9:20 9:20 9:20-21 9:21 9:21 9:21 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:22-23 9:22-23 9:22-23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:26 9:28 9:29 9:30 9:31 9:31-32 9:32 9:32 9:33 10:1 10:2 10:2-3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3-4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:6 10:6-9 10:8 10:8 10:10 10:10 10:13 10:14 10:14 10:14 10:14 10:17 10:17-18 10:21 11:2 11:4 11:5 11:5 11:5 11:5 11:5 11:5-6 11:6 11:6 11:6 11:6 11:6 11:6 11:6 11:6 11:6 11:7 11:7 11:7 11:20 11:20 11:24 11:24 11:25 11:28 11:28 11:29 11:29 11:29 11:29 11:29 11:29 11:30-32 11:32 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33-36 11:33-36 11:35 11:36 11:36 12:1 12:1 12:1-2 12:2 12:2 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:12 12:16 12:21 12:21 13:1 13:8 13:8 13:8-10 13:9 13:9-10 13:10 13:10 13:10 13:10 13:10 13:10 13:10 14:4 14:4 14:17 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23
1 Corinthians
1:1 1:3 1:12 1:13 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:24 1:27 1:29 1:30 1:30 1:30-31 1:30-31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 2:2 2:12 2:12 2:14 2:14 2:16 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:5 3:6-7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:10 3:12 3:12 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:21 3:21 3:32-33 4:6 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:16 6:7 6:15 6:17 6:17 6:17 6:19 6:19 6:19-20 7:1 7:2 7:3-6 7:4 7:5 7:5 7:6 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:9 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:28 7:29-31 7:36 7:36 7:36 7:36 7:36-37 7:37 7:38 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:11 8:11 9:7 9:17 9:23 9:24 9:24 9:27 9:27 10:4 10:12 10:12 10:12 10:13 10:31 10:33 11:1 11:1 11:3 11:3 11:12 11:12 11:19 11:19 12:6 12:11 12:12 12:13 12:17 12:28 12:31 13:4 13:4 13:5 13:5 13:7 13:8 13:8 13:10 13:10 13:10 13:11 13:11 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:13 13:13 14:1 14:14 14:18 14:20 15 15:3 15:9 15:9 15:9 15:9 15:9 15:9-10 15:9-10 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:21 15:21 15:21 15:21-22 15:21-22 15:21-22 15:21-22 15:21-22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:26 15:33 15:34 15:34 15:35-36 15:36 15:36 15:37 15:38 15:38 15:40 15:41 15:44 15:44 15:46 15:52-53 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:53-56 15:54 15:54 15:55 15:55 15:56 15:56 15:56 15:57 15:57 15:57 15:57 16:8 16:14 16:14
2 Corinthians
2:12-13 2:14 2:16 3:2-3 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3-9 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5-6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:9 3:13 3:14 3:16 3:17 3:17 3:17 4:1-2 4:5-6 4:6 4:7 4:7 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 5:1-4 5:2-4 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:10 5:10 5:14-21 5:17 5:17-18 5:20 5:20-21 5:20-21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 6:1 6:1 6:1-2 6:14 8:9 8:11 8:16 9:7 9:7 10:17 10:17 10:17 10:17 11:14 12:2 12:4 12:7 12:7 12:7 12:7-8 12:7-8 12:7-9 12:7-9 12:8-9 12:9 12:9 12:9 13:7 13:7 13:7 13:7 13:7 13:11
Galatians
1:3 1:3-4 1:11 2:14-16 2:15-16 2:16 2:16 2:20 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:21 3:5 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19-22 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21-22 3:21-22 3:22 3:22 3:22 3:22 3:23 3:23 3:23 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:21 4:21-26 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:25 4:25-26 4:28 4:30 4:31 4:31 5:4 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:11 5:13-14 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17-21 5:18 5:22-23 6:3 6:6 6:7 6:17
Ephesians
1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:4 1:4-11 1:5 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:11 1:11 1:13 1:18 1:22-23 2:1-5 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3-5 2:4-5 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8-9 2:8-9 2:8-10 2:8-10 2:9 2:9-10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:12-18 3:19 3:20 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:13 4:21-24 4:23 4:24 4:30 5:8 5:8 5:14 5:23 5:25 5:25 5:25 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26-27 5:27 5:27 5:27 5:27 5:32 5:32 6:7 6:14 6:23 6:23 6:23 6:23 6:23 6:23
Philippians
1:3 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:8 1:13 1:19 1:21 1:28-29 1:29 1:29 1:29 2:6 2:6 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:12-13 2:12-13 2:12-13 2:12-13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:14-15 2:21 2:29 3:1 3:2-3 3:4 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6-8 3:6-16 3:7-11 3:8 3:8-9 3:9 3:9 3:9-10 3:11-12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12-13 3:12-14 3:12-15 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13-14 3:13-14 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15-16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:20 4:4
Colossians
1:12-13 1:12-14 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:15 1:21-22 1:28 2:10-15 2:11 2:11 2:13 2:14 3:1 3:3 3:4 3:4 3:5 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:14 3:18 3:19 3:25 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:12
1 Thessalonians
2:13 3:5 3:12 3:12 4:3-5 4:3-5 4:5 4:5 4:9 4:10 4:13 4:17 5:14 5:14-15 5:21 5:23 5:23 5:23
2 Thessalonians
1:3 1:7-8 2:10-12 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2
1 Timothy
1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15-16 1:15-16 1:20 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5-6 2:5-6 2:5-6 2:7 2:7 2:9-10 3:10 3:16 4 4:1 4:5 4:14 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:20 5:22 6:10 6:17
2 Timothy
1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:8 1:8 1:8-9 1:8-10 1:9 1:12 2:19 2:21 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:25-26 3:7 3:12 3:13 4:6 4:6-7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:8
Titus
1:6 1:6 2:12 2:13-14 3:3 3:3-7 3:4-7 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5
Philemon
Hebrews
1:1-3 2:2-3 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:17 4:14-15 4:15 4:15 5:1 7:9 7:24-27 7:26-27 9:24-28 11 11:1 11:4-6 11:6 11:6 11:13 11:39-40 11:40 12:2 12:6 13:4 13:4
James
1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5-6 1:5-6 1:13 1:13 1:13-15 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:16 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:25 2:1 2:5 2:8 2:10 2:12 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:19 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:10 3:13-17 3:14 3:14-17 3:15 3:17 3:17 3:17 4:6 4:6 4:7 4:11 4:17 17:5
1 Peter
1:3-5 1:5 1:7-9 1:13-16 2:9 3:6 3:9 3:15 3:17 3:18 3:21 3:21 4:8 5:6
2 Peter
1:4 1:4 2:12 2:19 2:19 2:19 3:14-16
1 John
1:7 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:10 2:1 2:10 2:15 2:15-17 2:16 2:16 2:16 2:16 2:16 2:19 2:19 2:19 3:1 3:1 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2-3 3:5 3:5-6 3:6 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:10-11 3:16 3:21-22 3:21-22 3:23 4:1 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7-8 4:10 4:10 4:16 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:19 4:19 4:19 4:21 5:2-3 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:9-12 5:16 5:18 5:20
2 John
Jude
Revelation
2:12 3:11 5:6 5:9 6 6:9 6:13-14 9 14:3-5 14:5 14:5 22:12
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon
1:5 1:11 1:20-21 2:24 2:24 2:25 4:1 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:13 4:14 6:21 6:21 7:1 7:6-7 7:16 8:19-20 8:21 8:21 8:21 8:21 8:21 8:21 9:15 9:15 9:15 10:10-11 12:10-11 12:11 13:9 16
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
7:22-23 7:29 12:39-45 12:43 12:43
1 Esdras
Sirach
3:21 3:21-22 7:21 10:9 10:12 10:13 10:13 13:5-6 13:24 13:24 15:8 15:11-17 15:14-17 15:15 15:15 15:16 15:16-17 18:30 18:30 18:30 18:30 18:30 18:30 19:16 19:16 21:1 21:1 22:27 23:4 23:5 23:6 25:24 38:10 38:10 39:25 40:1
iii v vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii xxiv xxv xxvi xxvii xxviii xxix xxx xxxi xxxii xxxiii xxxiv xxxv xxxvi xxxvii xxxviii xxxix xl xli xlii xliii xliv xlv xlvi xlvii xlviii xlix l li lii liii liv lv lvi lvii lviii lix lx lxi lxii lxiii lxiv lxv lxvi lxvii lxviii lxix lxx lxxi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 155 156 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 257 258 259 260 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 373 374 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 467 468 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 493 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 521 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552