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. 823 “For when,” says the apostle, “it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” 824
Footnotes
95:823Matt. xxvii. 51.
95:8242 Cor. iii. 16.
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.” 825 Now this Spirit of God, by whose gift we are justified, whence it comes to pass that we delight not to sin,—in which is liberty; even as, when we are without this Spirit, we delight to sin,—in which is slavery, from the works of which we must abstain;—this Holy Spirit, through whom love is shed abroad in our hearts, which is the fulfilment of the law, is designated in the gospel as “the finger of God.” 826 Is it not because those very tables of the law were written by the finger of God, that the Spirit of God by whom we are sanctified is also the finger of God, in order that, living by faith, we may do good works through love? Who is not touched by this congruity, and at the same time diversity? For as fifty days are reckoned from the celebration of the Passover (which was ordered by Moses to be offered by slaying the typical lamb, 827 to signify, indeed, the future death of the Lord) to the day when Moses received the law written on the tables of stone by the finger of God, 828 so, in like manner, from the death and resurrection of Him who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, 829 there were fifty complete days up to the time when the finger of God—that is, the Holy Spirit—gathered together in one 830 perfect company those who believed.
Footnotes
95:8252 Cor. iii. 17.
95:826Luke xi. 20.
95:827Ex. xii. 3.
95:828Ex. xxxi. 18.
95:829Isa. liii. 7.
95:830Acts ii. 2.
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; 831 here it was given inwardly, so that they might be justified. 832 For this, “Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment,”—such, of course, as was written on those tables,—“it is briefly comprehended,” says he, “in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” 833 Now this was not written on the tables of stone, but “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.” 834 God’s law, therefore, is love. “To it the carnal mind is not subject, neither indeed can be;” 835 but when the works of love are written on tables to alarm the carnal mind, there arises the law of works and “the letter which killeth” the transgressor; but when love itself is shed abroad in the hearts of believers, then we have the law of faith, and the spirit which gives life to him that loves.
Footnotes
95:831Exod. 19:12, 16.
95:832Acts ii. 1-47.
95:833Rom. 13:9, 10.
95:834Rom. v. 5.
95:835Rom. viii. 7.
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 I postponed for a more careful consideration afterwards: “Forasmuch,” says he, “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.” 836 See how he shows that the one is written without man, that it may alarm him from without; the other within man himself, that it may justify him from within. He speaks of the “fleshy tables of the heart,” not of the carnal mind, but of a living agent possessing sensation, in comparison with a stone, which is senseless. The assertion which he subsequently makes,—that “the children of Israel could not look stedfastly on the end of the face of Moses,” and that he accordingly spoke to them through a veil, 837 —signifies that the letter of the law justifies no man, but that rather a veil is placed on the reading of the Old Testament, until it shall be turned to Christ, and the veil be removed;—in other words, until it shall be turned to grace, and be understood that from Him accrues to us the justification, whereby we do what He commands. And He commands, in order that, because we lack in ourselves, we may flee to Him for refuge. Accordingly, after most guardedly saying, “Such trust have we through Christ to God-ward,” 838 the apostle immediately goes on to add the statement which underlies our subject, to prevent our confidence being attributed to any strength of our own. He says: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us fit to be ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 839
Footnotes
96:8362 Cor. iii. 3.
96:8372 Cor. iii. 13.
96:8382 Cor. iii. 4.
96:8392 Cor. 3:5, 6.
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,” 840 meaning the law which is written externally to man, he therefore designates it both as “the ministration of death,” 841 and “the ministration of condemnation;” 842 but the other, that is, the law of the New Testament, he calls “the ministration of the Spirit” 843 and “the ministration of righteousness,” 844 because through the Spirit we work righteousness, and are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression. The one, therefore, vanishes away, the other abides; for the terrifying schoolmaster will be dispensed with, when love has succeeded to fear. Now “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 845 But that this ministration is vouchsafed to us, not on account of our deserving, but from His mercy, the apostle thus declares: “Seeing then that we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, let us faint not; but let us renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God with deceit.” 846 By this “craftiness” and “deceitfulness” he would have us understand the hypocrisy with which the arrogant would fain be supposed to be righteous. Whence in the psalm, which the apostle cites in testimony of this grace of God, it is said, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, and in whose mouth is no guile.” 847 This is the confession of lowly saints, who do not boast to be what they are not. Then, in a passage which follows not long after, the apostle writes thus: “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” 848 This is the knowledge of His glory, whereby we know that He is the light which illumines our darkness. And I beg you to observe how he inculcates this very point: “We have,” says he, “this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” 849 When further on he commends in glowing terms this same grace, in the Lord Jesus Christ, until he comes to that vestment of the righteousness of faith, “clothed with which we cannot be found naked,” and whilst longing for which “we groan, being burdened” with mortality, “earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from Heaven,” “that mortality might be swallowed up of life;” 850 —observe what he says: “Now He that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit;” 851 and after a little he thus briefly draws the conclusion of the matter: “That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” 852 This is not the righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by Him.
Footnotes
96:840Gal. iii. 19.
96:8412 Cor. iii. 7.
96:8422 Cor. iii. 9.
96:8432 Cor. iii. 8.
96:8442 Cor. iii. 9.
96:8452 Cor. iii. 17.
96:8462 Cor. 4:1, 2.
96:847Ps. xxxii. 2.
96:8482 Cor. 4:5, 6.
96:8492 Cor. iv. 7.
96:850See 2 Cor. v. 1-4.
96:8512 Cor. v. 5.
96:8522 Cor. v. 21.
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 say that we become righteous through our own selves, without the grace of God working this in us,—because he sees, when such an allegation is made, how unable pious believers are to endure it,—resort to any subterfuge on this point, by affirming that the reason why we cannot become righteous without the operation of God’s grace is this, that He gave the law, He instituted its teaching, He commanded its precepts of good. For there is no doubt that, without His assisting grace, the law is “the letter which killeth;” but when the life-giving spirit is present, the law causes that to be loved as written within, which it once caused to be feared as written without.
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.” 853 What say we to this? One nowhere, or hardly anywhere, except in this passage of the prophet, finds in the Old Testament Scriptures any mention so made of the New Testament as to indicate it by its very name. It is no doubt often referred to and foretold as about to be given, but not so plainly as to have its very name mentioned. Consider then carefully, what difference God has testified as existing between the two testaments—the old covenant and the new.
Footnotes
97:853Jer. xxxi. 31-34.
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.” 854 Nevertheless, it is not by that law that the ungodly are made righteous, but by grace; and this change is effected by the life-giving Spirit, without whom the letter kills. “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” 855 Out of this promise, that is, out of the kindness of God, the law is fulfilled, which without the said promise only makes men transgressors, either by the actual commission of some sinful deed, if the flame of concupiscence have greater power than even the restraints of fear, or at least by their mere will, if the fear of punishment transcend the pleasure of lust. In what he says, “The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe,” it is the benefit of this “conclusion” itself which is asserted. For what purposes “hath it concluded,” except as it is expressed in the next sentence: “Before, indeed, faith came, we were kept under the law, concluded for the faith which was afterwards revealed?” 856 The law was therefore given, in order that grace might be sought; grace was given, in order that the law might be fulfilled. Now it was not through any fault of its own that the law was not fulfilled, but by the fault of the carnal mind; and this fault was to be demonstrated by the law, and healed by grace. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” 857 Accordingly, in the passage which we cited from the prophet, he says, “I will consummate a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,” 858 —and what means I will consummate but I will fulfil?—“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.” 859
Footnotes
97:854Matt. v. 17.
97:855Gal. 3:21, 22.
97:856Gal. iii. 23.
97:857Rom. 8:3, 4.
97:858Jer. xxxi. 31.
97:859Jer. xxxi. 32.
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 covet,” 860 is fulfilled by the New Testament? “Because,” says the prophet, “they continued not in my covenant, I have also rejected them, saith the Lord.” 861 It is then on account of the offence of the old man, which was by no means healed by the letter which commanded and threatened, that it is called the old covenant; whereas the other is called the new covenant, because of the newness of the spirit, which heals the new man of the fault of the old. Then consider what follows, and see in how clear a light the fact is placed, that men who bare faith are unwilling to trust in themselves: “Because,” says he, “this is the covenant which 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.” 862 See how similarly the apostle states it in the passage we have already quoted: “Not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart,” 863 because “not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.” 864 And I apprehend that the apostle in this passage had no other reason for mentioning “the New Testament” (“who hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit”), than because he had an eye to the words of the prophet, when he said “Not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart,” inasmuch as in the prophet it runs: “I will write it in their hearts.” 865
Footnotes
98:860Ex. xx. 17.
98:861Jer. xxxi. 32.
98:862Jer. xxxi. 33.
98:8632 Cor. iii. 3.
98:8642 Cor. iii. 3.
98:865Jer. xxxi. 33.
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, 866 and the end of the commandment? 867 Now the promises of the Old Testament are earthly; and yet (with the exception of the sacramental ordinances which were the shadow of things to come, such as circumcision, the Sabbath and other observances of days, and the ceremonies of certain meats, 868 and the complicated ritual of sacrifices and sacred things which suited “the oldness” of the carnal law and its slavish yoke) it contains such precepts of righteousness as we are even now taught to observe, which were especially expressly drawn out on the two tables without figure or shadow: for instance, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt do no murder,” “Thou shalt not covet,” 869 “and whatsoever other commandment is briefly comprehended in the saying, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.” 870 Nevertheless, whereas as in the said Testament earthly and temporal promises are, as I have said, recited, and these are goods of this corruptible flesh (although they prefigure those heavenly and everlasting blessings which belong to the New Testament), what is now promised is a good for the heart itself, a good for the mind, a good of the spirit, that is, an intellectual good; since it is said, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts will I write them,” 871 —by which He signified that men would not fear the law which alarmed them externally, but would love the very righteousness of the law which dwelt inwardly in their hearts.
Footnotes
98:866Rom. xiii. 10.
98:8671 Tim. i. 5.
98:868See Retractations, ii. 37, printed at the head of this treatise.
98:869Exod. 20:13, 14, 17.
98:870Rom. xiii. 9.
98:871Jer. xxxi. 33.
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.” 872 This corresponds to the Psalmist’s words to God: “It is good for me to hold me fast by God.” 873 “I will be,” says God, “their God, and they shall be my people.” What is better than this good, what happier than this happiness,—to live to God, to live from God, with whom is the fountain of life, and in whose light we shall see light? 874 Of this life the Lord Himself speaks in these words: “This is life eternal that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,” 875 —that is, “Thee and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,” the one true God. For no less than this did Himself promise to those who love Him: “He that loveth me, keepeth my commandments; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him” 876 —in the form, no doubt, of God, wherein He is equal to the Father; not in the form of a servant, for in this He will display Himself even to the wicked also. Then, however, shall that come to pass which is written, “Let the ungodly man be taken away, that he see not the glory of the Lord.” 877 Then also shall “the wicked go into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life eternal.” 878 Now this eternal life, as I have just mentioned, has been defined to be, that they may know the one true God. 879 Accordingly John again says: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.” 880 This likeness begins even now to be reformed in us, while the inward man is being renewed from day to day, according to the image of Him that created him. 881
Footnotes
98:872Jer. xxxi. 33.
98:873Ps. lxxiii. 28.
98:874Ps. xxxvi. 9.
98:875John xvii. 3.
98:876John xiv. 21.
98:877Isa. xxvi. 10.
98:878Matt. xxv. 46.
98:879John xvii. 3.
98:8801 John iii. 2.
98:881Col. iii. 10.
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 comparison with the perfect eminence which is then to be realized? The apostle applies some sort of illustration, derived from well-known things, to these indescribable things, comparing the period of childhood with the age of manhood. “When I was a child,” says he, “I used to speak as a child, to understand as a child, to think as a child; but when I became a man, I put aside childish things.” 882 He then immediately explains why he said this in these words: “For now we see by means of a mirror, darkly but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 883
Footnotes
99:8821 Cor. xiii. 11.
99:8831 Cor. xiii. 12.
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.” 884 Now, the present is certainly the time of the New Testament, the promise of which is given by the prophet in the words which we have quoted from his prophecy. Why then does each man still say even now to his neighbour and his brother, “Know the Lord?” Or is it not perhaps meant that this is everywhere said when the gospel is preached, and when this is its very proclamation? For on what ground does the apostle call himself “a teacher of the Gentiles,” 885 if it be not that what he himself implies in the following passage becomes realized: “How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” 886 Since, then, this preaching is now everywhere spreading, in what way is it the time of the New Testament of which the prophet spoke in the words, “And they shall not every man teach his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,” 887 unless it be that he has included in his prophetic forecast the eternal reward of the said New Testament, by promising us the most blessed contemplation of God Himself?
Footnotes
99:884Jer. xxxi. 34.
99:8851 Tim. ii. 7.
99:886Rom. x. 14.
99:887Jer. xxxi. 34.
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.” 888 This is the house of Israel, or rather the house of Judah, on account of Christ, who came of the tribe of Judah. This is the house of the children of promise,—not by reason of their own merits, but of the kindness of God. For God promises what He Himself performs: He does not Himself promise, and another perform; which would no longer be promising, but prophesying. Hence it is “not of works, but of Him that calleth,” 889 lest the result should be their own, not God’s; lest the reward should be ascribed not to His grace, but to their due; and so grace should be no longer grace which was so earnestly defended and maintained by him who, though the least of the apostles, laboured more abundantly than all the rest,—yet not himself, but the grace of God that was with him. 890 “They shall all know me,” 891 He says,—“All,” the house of Israel and house of Judah. “All,” however, “are not Israel which are of Israel,” 892 but they only to whom it is said in “the psalm concerning the morning aid” 893 (that is, concerning the new refreshing light, meaning that of the new testament), “All ye the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; and fear Him, all ye the seed of Israel.” 894 All the seed, without exception, even the entire seed of the promise and of the called, but only of those who are the called according to His purpose. 895 “For whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” 896 “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed: not to that only which is of the law,”—that is, which comes from the Old Testament into the New,—“but to that also which is of faith,” which was indeed prior to the law, even “the faith of Abraham,”—meaning those who imitate the faith of Abraham,—“who is the father of us all; as it is written, I have made thee the father of many nations.” 897 Now all these predestinated, called, justified, glorified ones, shall know God by the grace of the new testament, from the least to the greatest of them.
Footnotes
99:888Rom. ix. 7-12.
99:889Rom. ix. 11.
99:8901 Cor. 15:9, 10.
99:891Jer. xxxi. 34.
99:892Rom. ix. 6.
99:893See title of Ps. 21 (xxi. Sept.) in the Sept. and Latin.
99:894Ps. xxii. 23.
99:895Rom. viii. 28.
99:896Rom. viii. 30.
100:897Rom. 4:16, 17.
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,” 898 —even that imperfect knowledge of “the child” 899 in which this present life is passed, and which is but “in part,” “by means of a mirror darkly.” 900 Because of this, indeed, “prophecy” is necessary, for still to the past succeeds the future; and because of this, too, “tongues” are required,—that is, a multiplicity of expressions, since it is by different ones that different things are suggested to him who does not as yet contemplate with a perfectly purified mind the everlasting light of transparent truth. “When that, however, which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away,” 901 then, what appeared to the flesh in assumed flesh shall display Itself as It is in Itself to all who love It; then, there shall be eternal life for us to know the one very God; 902 then shall we be like Him, 903 because “we shall then know, even as we are known;” 904 then “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.” 905 Now this may be understood in several ways: Either, that in that life the saints shall differ one from another in glory, as star from star. It matters not how the expression runs,—whether (as in the passage before us) it be, “From the least unto the greatest of them,” or the other way, From the greatest unto the least. And, in like manner, it matters not even if we understand “the least” to mean those who simply believe, and “the greatest” those who have been further able to understand—so far as may be in this world—the light which is incorporeal and unchangeable. Or, “the least” may mean those who are later in time; whilst by “the greatest” He may have intended to indicate those who were prior in time. For they are all to receive the promised vision of God hereafter, since it was for us that they foresaw the future which would be better than their present, that they without us should not arrive at complete perfection. 906 And so the earlier are found to be the lesser, because they were less deferred in time; as in the case of the gospel “penny a day,” which is given for an illustration. 907 This penny they are the first to receive who came last into the vineyard. Or, “the least and the greatest” ought perhaps to be taken in some other sense, which at present does not occur to my mind.
Footnotes
100:8981 Cor. xiii. 8.
100:8991 Cor. 13.11.
100:9001 Cor. 13.12.
100:9011 Cor. xiii. 10.
100:902John xvii. 3.
100:9031 John iii. 2.
100:9041 Cor. xiii. 12.
100:905Jer. xxxi. 34.
100:906Heb. xi. 40.
100:907Matt. xx. 8.
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, 908 whence the apostle drew his conclusion,—“not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart;” 909 and that the eternal recompense of this righteousness was not the land out of which were driven the Amorites and Hittites, and other nations who dwelt there, 910 but God Himself, “to whom it is good to hold fast,” 911 in order that God’s good that they love, may be the God Himself whom they love, between whom and men nothing but sin produces separation; and this is remitted only by grace. Accordingly, after saying, “For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” He instantly added, “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” 912 By the law of works, then, the Lord says, “Thou shalt not covet:” 913 but by the law of faith He says, “Without me ye can do nothing;” 914 for He was treating of good works, even the fruit of the vine-branches. It is therefore apparent what difference there is between the old covenant and the new,—that in the former the law is written on tables, while in the latter on hearts; so that what in the one alarms from without, in the other delights from within; and in the former man becomes a transgressor through the letter that kills, in the other a lover through the life-giving spirit. We must therefore avoid saying, that the way in which God assists us to work righteousness, and “works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” 915 is by externally addressing to our faculties precepts of holiness; for He gives His increase internally, 916 by shedding love abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us.” 917
Footnotes
100:908Jer. 31:32, 33.
100:9092 Cor. iii. 3.
100:910Josh. xii.
100:911Ps. lxxiii. 28.
100:912Jer. xxxi. 34.
100:913Ex. xx. 17.
100:914John xv. 5.
101:915Phil. ii. 13.
101:9161 Cor. iii. 7.
101:917Rom. v. 5.
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,” 918 lest there should seem to be no certain difference in the new testament, in that the Lord promised that He would write His laws in the hearts of His people, inasmuch as the Gentiles have this done for them naturally. This question therefore has to be sifted, arising as it does as one of no inconsiderable importance. For some one may say, “If God distinguishes the new testament from the old by this circumstance, that in the old He wrote His law on tables, but in the new He wrote them on men’s hearts, by what are the faithful of the new testament discriminated from the Gentiles, which have the work of the law written on their hearts, whereby they do by nature the things of the law, 919 as if, forsooth, they were better than the ancient people, which received the law on tables, and before the new people, which has that conferred on it by the new testament which nature has already bestowed on them?”
Footnotes
101:918Rom. 2:14, 15.
101:919Rom. ii. 14.
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.” 920 Then he goes on to speak of the ungodly, who by reason of their pride profit not by the knowledge of God, since they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. 921 He then passes to those who think and do the very things which they condemn,—having in view, no doubt, the Jews, who made their boast of God’s law, but as yet not mentioning them expressly by name; and then he says, “Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile: but glory, honour, and peace, to every soul that doeth good; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with 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; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” 922 Who they are that are treated of in these words, he goes on to tell us: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,” 923 and so forth in the passage which I have quoted already. Evidently, therefore, no others are here signified under the name of Gentiles than those whom he had before designated by the name of “Greek” when he said, “To the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” 924 Since then the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and, also to the Greek;” 925 and since “indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, are upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek: but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that doeth good; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek;” since, moreover, the Greek is indicated by the term “Gentiles” who do by nature the things contained in the law, and which have the work of the law written in their hearts: it follows that such Gentiles as have the law written in their hearts belong to the gospel, since to them, on their believing, it is the power of God unto salvation. To what Gentiles, however, would he promise glory, and honour, and peace, in their doing good works, if living without the grace of the gospel? Since there is no respect of persons with God, 926 and since it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers thereof, that are justified, 927 it follows that any man of any nation, whether Jew or Greek, who shall believe, will equally have salvation under the gospel. “For there is no difference,” as he says afterwards; “for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace.” 928 How then could he say that any Gentile person, who was a doer of the law, was justified without the Saviour’s grace?
Footnotes
101:920Rom. 1:16, 17.
101:921Rom. i. 21.
101:922Rom. ii. 8-13.
101:923Rom. ii. 14.
101:924Rom. i. 16.
101:925Rom. i. 16.
101:926Rom. ii. 11.
101:927Rom. ii. 13.
102:928Rom. iii. 22-24.
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,” 929 as if their justification came through their works, and not through grace; since he declares that a man is justified freely by His grace without the works of the law, 930 intending by the term “freely” nothing else than that works do not precede justification. For in another passage he expressly says, “If by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.” 931 But the statement that “the doers of the law shall be justified” 932 must be so understood, as that we may know that they are not otherwise doers of the law, unless they be justified, so that justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law, but justification precedes them as doers of the law. For what else does the phrase “being justified” signify than being made righteous,—by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one instead? For if we were to express a certain fact by saying, “The men will be liberated,” the phrase would of course be understood as asserting that the liberation would accrue to those who were men already; but if we were to say, The men will be created, we should certainly not be understood as asserting that the creation would happen to those who were already in existence, but that they became men by the creation itself. If in like manner it were said, The doers of the law shall be honoured, we should only interpret the statement correctly if we supposed that the honour was to accrue to those who were already doers of the law: but when the allegation is, “The doers of the law shall be justified,” what else does it mean than that the just shall be justified? for of course the doers of the law are just persons. And thus it amounts to the same thing as if it were said, The doers of the law shall be created,—not those who were so already, but that they may become such; in order that the Jews who were hearers of the law might hereby understand that they wanted the grace of the Justifier, in order to be able to become its doers also. Or else the term “They shall be justified” is used in the sense of, They shall be deemed, or reckoned as just, as it is predicated of a certain man in the Gospel, “But he, willing to justify himself,” 933 —meaning that he wished to be thought and accounted just. In like manner, we attach one meaning to the statement, “God sanctifies His saints,” and another to the words, “Sanctified be Thy name;” 934 for in the former case we suppose the words to mean that He makes those to be saints who were not saints before, and in the latter, that the prayer would have that which is always holy in itself be also regarded as holy by men,—in a word, be feared with a hallowed awe.
Footnotes
102:929Rom. ii. 13.
102:930Rom. 3:24, 28.
102:931Rom. xi. 6.
102:932Rom. ii. 13.
102:933Luke x. 29.
102:934Matt. vi. 9.
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, 935 intended those to be understood who believed in Christ,—who do not come to the faith like the Jews, through a precedent law,—there is no good reason why we should endeavour to distinguish them from those to whom the Lord by the prophet promises the new covenant, telling them that He will write His laws in their hearts, 936 inasmuch as they too, by the grafting which he says had been made of the wild olive, belong to the self-same olive-tree, 937 —in other words, to the same people of God. There is therefore a good agreement of this passage of the apostle with the words of the prophet so that belonging to the new testament means having the law of God not written on tables, but on the heart,—that is, embracing the righteousness of the law with innermost affection, where faith works by love. 938 Because it is by faith that God justifies the Gentiles; and the Scripture foreseeing this, preached the gospel before to Abraham, saying, “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed,” 939 in order that by this grace of promise the wild olive might be grafted into the good olive, and believing Gentiles might be made children of Abraham, “in Abraham’s seed, which is Christ,” 940 by following the faith of him who, without receiving the law written on tables, and not yet possessing even circumcision, “believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” 941 Now what the apostle attributed to Gentiles of this character,—how that “they have the work of the law written in their hearts;” 942 must be some such thing as what he says to the Corinthians: “not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” 943 For thus do they become of the house of Israel, when their uncircumcision is accounted circumcision, by the fact that they do not exhibit the righteousness of the law by the excision of the flesh, but keep it by the charity of the heart. “If,” says he, “the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” 944 And therefore in the house of the true Israel, in which is no guile, 945 they are partakers of the new testament, since God puts His laws into their mind, and writes them in their hearts with his own finger, the Holy Ghost, by whom is shed abroad in them the love 946 which is the” fulfilling of the law.” 947
Footnotes
102:935Rom. 2:14, 15.
102:936Jer. xxxii. 32.
102:937Rom. xi. 24.
102:938Gal. v. 6.
102:939Gal. 3:8, Gen. 22:18.
102:940Gal. iii. 16.
102:941Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:2.
102:942Rom. ii. 15.
102:9432 Cor. iii. 3.
103:944Rom. ii. 26.
103:945See John i. 47.
103:946Rom. v. 5.
103:947Rom. xiii. 10.
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. 948 Sin, indeed, is contrary to nature, and it is grace that heals it,—on which account the prayer is offered to God, “Be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against Thee.” 949 Therefore it is by nature that men do the things which are contained in the law; 950 for they who do not, fail to do so by reason of their sinful defect. In consequence of this sinfulness, the law of God is erased out of their hearts; and therefore, when, the sin being healed, it is written there, the prescriptions of the law are done “by nature,”—not that by nature grace is denied, but rather by grace nature is repaired. For “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned;” 951 wherefore “there is no difference: they all come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace.” 952 By this grace there is written on the renewed inner man that righteousness which sin had blotted out; and this mercy comes upon the human race through our Lord Jesus Christ. “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” 953
Footnotes
103:948Gen. i. 27.
103:949Ps. xli. 4.
103:950Rom. ii. 14.
103:951Rom. v. 12.
103:952Rom. iii. 22-24.
103:9531 Tim. ii. 5.
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,” 954 and that men of this character “are a law to themselves,” and “show the work of the law written in their hearts,”—that is to say, what was impressed on their hearts when they were created in the image of God has not been wholly blotted out:—even in this view of the subject, that wide difference will not be disturbed, which separates the new covenant from the old, and which lies in the fact that by the new covenant the law of God is written in the hearts of believers, whereas in the old it was inscribed on tables of stone. For this writing in the heart is effected by renovation, although it had not been completely blotted out by the old nature. For just as that image of God is renewed in the mind of believers by the new testament, which impiety had not quite abolished (for there had remained undoubtedly that which the soul of man cannot be except it be rational), so also the law of God, which had not been wholly blotted out there by unrighteousness, is certainly written thereon, renewed by grace. Now in the Jews the law which was written on tables could not effect this new inscription, which is justification, but only transgression. For they too were men, and there was inherent in them that power of nature, which enables the rational soul both to perceive and do what is lawful; but the godliness which transfers to another life happy and immortal has “a spotless law, converting souls,” 955 so that by the light thereof they may be renewed, and that be accomplished in them which is written, “There has been manifested over us, O Lord, the light of Thy countenance.” 956 Turned away from which, they have deserved to grow old, whilst they are incapable of renovation except by the grace of Christ,—in other words, without the intercession of the Mediator; there being “one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all.” 957 Should those be strangers to His grace of whom we are treating, and who (after the manner of which we have spoken with sufficient fulness already) “do by nature the things contained in the law,” 958 of what use will be their “excusing thoughts” to them “in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men,” 959 unless it be perhaps to procure for them a milder punishment? For as, on the one hand, there are certain venial sins which do not hinder the righteous man from the attainment of eternal life, and which are unavoidable in this life, so, on the other hand, there are some good works which are of no avail to an ungodly man towards the attainment of everlasting life, although it would be very difficult to find the life of any very bad man whatever entirely without them. But inasmuch as in the kingdom of God the saints differ in glory as one star does from another, 960 so likewise, in the condemnation of everlasting punishment, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that other city; 961 whilst some men will be twofold more the children of hell than others. 962 Thus in the judgment of God not even this fact will be without its influence,—that one man will have sinned more, or less, than another, even when both are involved in the ungodliness that is worthy of damnation.
Footnotes
103:954Rom. ii. 14.
103:955Ps. xix. 7.
103:956Ps. iv. 6.
104:9571 Tim. 2:5, 6.
104:958Rom. ii. 14.
104:959Rom. 2:15, 16.
104:9601 Cor. xv. 41.
104:961Luke x. 12.
104:962Matt. xxiii. 15.
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,” 963 —immediately afterwards speaking of them “which, having not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,” 964 if in this description not they are to be understood who belong to the Mediator’s grace, but rather they who, while not worshipping the true God with true godliness, do yet exhibit some good works in the general course of their ungodly lives? Or did the apostle perhaps deem it probable, because he had previously said that “with God there is no respect of persons,” 965 and had afterwards said that “God is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,” 966 —that even such scanty little works of the law, as are suggested by nature, were not discovered in such as received not the law, except as the result of the remains of the image of God; which He does not disdain when they believe in Him, with whom there is no respect of persons? But whichever of these views is accepted, it is evident that the grace of God was promised to the new testament even by the prophet, and that this grace was definitively announced to take this shape,—God’s laws were to be written in men’s hearts; and they were to arrive at such a knowledge of God, that they were not each one to teach his neighbour and brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all were to know Him, from the least to the greatest of them. 967 This is the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which love is shed abroad in our hearts, 968 —not, indeed, any kind of love, but the love of God, “out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith,” 969 by means of which the just man, while living in this pilgrim state, is led on, after the stages of “the glass,” and “the enigma,” and “what is in part,” to the actual vision, that, face to face, he may know even as he is known. 970 For one thing has he required of the Lord, and that he still seeks after, that he may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of his life, in order to behold the pleasantness of the Lord. 971
Footnotes
104:963Rom. ii. 13.
104:964Rom. ii. 14.
104:965Rom. ii. 11.
104:966Rom. iii. 29.
104:967Jer. 31:33, 34.
104:968Rom. v. 5.
104:9691 Tim. i. 5.
104:9701 Cor. xiii. 12.
104:971Ps. xxvii. 4.
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; 972 nor let him think that he has received it merely because the external letter of the law has been either exhibited to him to read, or sounded in his ear for him to hear. For “if righteousness is by the law, then Christ has died in vain.” 973 Seeing, however, that if He has not died in vain, He has ascended up on high, and has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men, 974 it follows that whosoever has, has from this source. But whosoever denies that he has from Him, either has not, or is in great danger of being deprived of what he has. 975 “For it is one God which justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith;” 976 in which clauses there is no real difference in the sense, as if the phrase “by faith” meant one thing, and “through faith” another, but only a variety of expression. For in one passage, when speaking of the Gentiles,—that is, of the uncircumcision,—he says, “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen by faith;” 977 and again, in another, when speaking of the circumcision, to which he himself belonged, he says, “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ.” 978 Observe, he says that both the uncircumcision are justified by faith, and the circumcision through faith, if, indeed, the circumcision keep the righteousness of faith. For the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith, 979 —by obtaining it of God, not by assuming it of themselves. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. And why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works 980 —in other words, working it out as it were by themselves, not believing that it is God who works within them. “For it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure.” 981 And hereby “they stumbled at the stumbling-stone.” 982 For what he said, “not by faith, but as it were by works,” 983 he most clearly explained in the following words: “They, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” 984 Then are we still in doubt what are those works of the law by which a man is not justified, if he believes them to be his own works, as it were, without the help and gift of God, which is “by the faith of Jesus Christ?” And do we suppose that they are circumcision and the other like ordinances, because some such things in other passages are read concerning these sacramental rites too? In this place, however, it is certainly not circumcision which they wanted to establish as their own righteousness, because God established this by prescribing it Himself. Nor is it possible for us to understand this statement, of those works concerning which the Lord says to them, “Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition;” 985 because, as the apostle says, Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.” 986 He did not say, Which followed after their own traditions, framing them and relying on them. This then is the sole distinction, that the very precept, “Thou shalt not covet,” 987 and God’s other good and holy commandments, they attributed to themselves; whereas, that man may keep them, God must work in him through faith in Jesus Christ, who is “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” 988 That is to say, every one who is incorporated into Him and made a member of His body, is able, by His giving the increase within, to work righteousness. It is of such a man’s works that Christ Himself has said, “Without me ye can do nothing.” 989
Footnotes
104:9721 Cor. iv. 7.
104:973Gal. ii. 21.
104:974Ps. 68:18, Eph. 4:8.
104:975Luke 8:18, Luke 19:26.
104:976Rom. iii. 30.
104:977Gal. iii. 8.
104:978Gal. 2:15, 16. [The discussion turns on the difference in the Latin prepositions ex and per, representing the Greek ἐκ and δια.—W.]
105:979Rom. ix. 30.
105:980Rom. 9:31, 32.
105:981Phil. ii. 13.
105:982Rom. ix. 32.
105:983Rom. ix. 32.
105:984Rom. 10:3, 4.
105:985Mark vii. 9.
105:986Rom. ix. 31.
105:987Ex. xx. 17.
105:988Rom. x. 4.
105:989John xv. 5.
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.” 990 As far as he is saved, so far is he righteous. For by this faith we believe that God will raise even us from the dead,—even now in the spirit, that we may in this present world live soberly, righteously, and godly in the renewal of His grace; and by and by in our flesh, which shall rise again to immortality, which indeed is the reward of the Spirit, who precedes it by a resurrection which is appropriate to Himself,—that is, by justification. “For we are buried with Christ by baptism unto 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.” 991 By faith, therefore, in Jesus Christ we obtain salvation,—both in so far as it is begun within us in reality, and in so far as its perfection is waited for in hope; “for whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 992 “How abundant,” says the Psalmist, “is the multitude of Thy goodness, O Lord, which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee, and hast perfected for them that hope in Thee!” 993 By the law we fear God; by faith we hope in God: but from those who fear punishment grace is hidden. And the soul which labours under this fear, since it has not conquered its evil concupiscence, and from which this fear, like a harsh master, has not departed,—let it flee by faith for refuge to the mercy of God, that He may give it what He commands, and may, by inspiring into it the sweetness of His grace through His Holy Spirit, cause the soul to delight more in what He teaches it, than it delights in what opposes His instruction. In this manner it is that the great abundance of His sweetness,—that is, the law of faith,—His love which is in our hearts, and shed abroad, is perfected in them that hope in Him, that good may be wrought by the soul, healed not by the fear of punishment, but by the love of righteousness.
Footnotes
105:990Rom. x. 6-9.
105:991Rom. vi. 4.
105:992Rom. 10:13, Joel 2:32.
105:993Ps. xxxi. 19.
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. 994 For neither is the law fulfilled except by free will; but by the law is the knowledge of sin, by faith the acquisition of grace against sin, by grace the healing of the soul from the disease of sin, by the health of the soul freedom of will, by free will the love of righteousness, by love of righteousness the accomplishment of the law. Accordingly, as the law is not made void, but is established through faith, since faith procures grace whereby the law is fulfilled; so free will is not made void through grace, but is established, since grace cures the will whereby righteousness is freely loved. Now all the stages which I have here connected together in their successive links, have severally their proper voices in the sacred Scriptures. The law says: “Thou shall not covet.” 995 Faith says: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” 996 Grace says: “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” 997 Health says: “O Lord my God, I cried unto Thee, and Thou hast healed me.” 998 Free will says: “I will freely sacrifice unto Thee.” 999 Love of righteousness says: “Transgressors told me pleasant tales, but not according to Thy law, O Lord.” 1000 How is it then that miserable men dare to be proud, either of their free will, before they are freed, or of their own strength, if they have been freed? They do not observe that in the very mention of free will they pronounce the name of liberty. But “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 1001 If, therefore, they are the slaves of sin, why do they boast of free will? For by what a man is overcome, to the same is he delivered as a slave. 1002 But if they have been freed, why do they vaunt themselves as if it were by their own doing, and boast, as if they had not received? Or are they free in such sort that they do not choose to have Him for their Lord who says to them: “Without me ye can do nothing;” 1003 and “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?” 1004
Footnotes
106:994Rom. iii. 31.
106:995Ex. xx. 17.
106:996Ps. xli. 4.
106:997John v. 14.
106:998Ps. xxx. 2.
106:999Ps. liv. 6.
106:1000Ps. cxix. 85.
106:10012 Cor. iii. 17.
106:10022 Pet. ii. 19.
106:1003John xv. 5.
106:1004John viii. 36.
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. 1005 Therefore, even as the man who wishes has volition, so also the man who can has ability. But in order that a thing may be done by ability, the volition must be present. For no man is usually said to do a thing with ability if he did it unwillingly. Although, at the same time, if we observe more precisely, even what a man is compelled to do unwillingly, he does, if he does it, by his volition; only he is said to be an unwilling agent, or to act against his will, because he would prefer some other thing. He is compelled, indeed, by some unfortunate influence, to do what he does under compulsion, wishing to escape it or to remove it out of his way. For if his volition be so strong that he prefers not doing this to not suffering that, then beyond doubt he resists the compelling influence, and does it not. And accordingly, if he does it, it is not with a full and free will, but yet it is not without will that he does it; and inasmuch as the volition is followed by its effect, we cannot say that he lacked the ability to do it. If, indeed, he willed to do it, yielding to compulsion, but could not, although we should allow that a coerced will was present, we should yet say that ability was absent. But when he did not do the thing because he was unwilling, then of course the ability was present, but the volition was absent, since he did it not, by his resistance to the compelling influence. Hence it is that even they who compel, or who persuade, are accustomed to say, Why don’t you do what you have in your ability, in order to avoid this evil? While they who are utterly unable to do what they are compelled to do, because they are supposed to be able usually answer by excusing themselves, and say, I would do it if it were in my ability. What then do we ask more, since we call that ability when to the volition is added the faculty of doing? Accordingly, every one is said to have that in his ability which he does if he likes, and does not if he dislikes.
Footnotes
106:1005[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. 1006 We use the word in one sense when we say, “He had no faith in me,” and in another sense when we say, “He did not keep faith with me.” The one phrase means, “He did not believe what I said;” the other, “He did not do what he promised.” According to the faith by which we believe, we are faithful to God; but according to that whereby a thing is brought to pass which is promised, God Himself even is faithful to us; for the apostle declares, “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.” 1007 Well, now, the former is the faith about which we inquire, Whether it be in our power? even the faith by which we believe God, or believe on God. For of this it is written, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” 1008 And again, “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” 1009 Consider now whether anybody believes, if he be unwilling; or whether he believes not, if he shall have willed it. Such a position, indeed, is absurd (for what is believing but consenting to the truth of what is said? and this consent is certainly voluntary): faith, therefore, is in our own power. But, as the apostle says: “There is no power but comes from God,” 1010 what reason then is there why it may not be said to us even of this: “What hast thou which thou hast not received?” 1011 —for it is God who gave us even to believe. Nowhere, however, in Holy Scripture do we find such an assertion as, There is no volition but comes from God. And rightly is it not so written, because it is not true: otherwise God would be the author even of sins (which Heaven forbid!), if there were no volition except what comes from Him; inasmuch as an evil volition alone is already a sin, even if the effect be wanting,—in other words, if it has not ability. But when the evil volition receives ability to accomplish its intention, this proceeds from the judgment of God, with whom there is no unrighteousness. 1012 He indeed punishes after this manner; nor is His chastisement unjust because it is secret. The ungodly man, however, is not aware that he is being punished, except when he unwillingly discovers by an open penalty how much evil he has willingly committed. This is just what the apostle says of certain men: “God hath given them up to the evil desires of their own hearts, . . .to do those things that are not convenient.” 1013 Accordingly, the Lord also said to Pilate: “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.” 1014 But still, when the ability is given, surely no necessity is imposed. Therefore, although David had received ability to kill Saul, he preferred sparing to striking him. 1015 Whence we understand that bad men receive ability for the condemnation of their depraved will, while good men receive ability for trying of their good will.
Footnotes
107:1006[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.]
107:10071 Cor. x. 13.
107:1008Rom. 4:3, Gen. 15:6.
107:1009Rom. iv. 5.
107:1010Rom. xiii. 1.
107:10111 Cor. iv. 7.
107:1012Rom. ix. 14.
107:1013Rom. 1:24, 28.
107:1014John xix. 11.
107:10151 Sam. 24:7, 1 Sam. 26:9.
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.” 1016 Nor must the clause in commendation of love, that it “believeth all things,” 1017 be so understood as if we should detract from the love of any one, if he refuses to believe at once what he hears. For the same love admonishes us that we ought not readily to believe anything evil about a brother; and when anything of the kind is said of him, does it not judge it to be more suitable to its character not to believe? Lastly, the same love, “which believeth all things,” does not believe every spirit. Accordingly, charity believes all things no doubt, but it believes in God. Observe, it is not said, Believes in all things. It cannot therefore be doubted that the faith which is commended by the apostle is the faith whereby we believe in God. 1018
Footnotes
107:10161 John iv. 1.
107:10171 Cor. xiii. 7.
107:1018Rom. iv. 3.
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 which is not lawful. These persons also believe in God; for if they had no faith in Him at all, neither would they of course have any dread of the penalty of His law. This, however, is not the faith which the apostle commends. He says: “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” 1019 The fear, then, of which we speak is slavish; and therefore, even though there be in it a belief in the Lord, yet righteousness is not loved by it, but condemnation is feared. God’s children, however, exclaim, “Abba, Father,”—one of which words they of the circumcision utter; the other, they of the uncircumcision,—the Jew first, and then the Greek; 1020 since there is “one God, which justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.” 1021 When indeed they utter this call, they seek something; and what do they seek, but that which they hunger and thirst after? And what else is this but that which is said of them, “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled?” 1022 Let, then, those who are under the law pass over hither, and become sons instead of slaves; and yet not so as to cease to be slaves, but so as, while they are sons, still to serve their Lord and Father freely. For even this have they received; for the Only-begotten “gave them power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name;” 1023 and He advised them to ask, to seek, and to knock, in order to receive, to find, and to have the gate opened to them, 1024 adding by way of rebuke, the words : “If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?” 1025 When, therefore, that strength of sin, the law, 1026 inflamed the sting of death, even sin, to take occasion and by the commandment work all manner of concupiscence in them, 1027 of whom were they to ask for the gift of continence but of Him who knows how to give good gifts to His children? Perhaps, however, a man, in his folly, is unaware that no one can be continent except God give him the gift. To know this, indeed, he requires Wisdom herself. 1028 Why, then, does he not listen to the Spirit of his Father, speaking through Christ’s apostle, or even Christ Himself, who says in His gospel, “Seek and ye shall find;” 1029 and who also says to us, speaking by His apostle: “If any one of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given to him. Let him, however, ask in faith, nothing wavering?” 1030 This is the faith by which the just man lives; 1031 this is the faith whereby he believes on Him who justifies the ungodly; 1032 this is the faith through which boasting is excluded, 1033 either by the retreat of that with which we become self-inflated, or by the rising of that with which we glory in the Lord. This, again, is the faith by which we procure that largess of the Spirit, of which it is said: “We indeed through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” 1034 But this admits of the further question, Whether he meant by “the hope of righteousness” that by which righteousness hopes, or that whereby righteousness is itself hoped for? For the just man, who lives by faith, hopes undoubtedly for eternal life; and the faith likewise, which hungers and thirsts for righteousness, makes progress therein by the renewal of the inward man day by day, 1035 and hopes to be satiated therewith in that eternal life, where shall be realized that which is said of God by the psalm: “Who satisfieth thy desire with good things.” 1036 This, moreover, is the faith whereby they are saved to whom it is said: “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” 1037 This, in short, is the faith which works not by fear, but by love; 1038 not by dreading punishment, but by loving righteousness. Whence, therefore, arises this love,—that is to say, this charity,—by which faith works, if not from the source whence faith itself obtained it? For it would not be within us, to what extent soever it is in us, if it were not diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us. 1039 Now “the love of God” is said to be shed abroad in our hearts, not because He loves us, but because He makes us lovers of Himself; just as “the righteousness of God” 1040 is used in the sense of our being made righteous by His gift; and “the salvation of the Lord,” 1041 in that we are saved by Him; and “the faith of Jesus Christ,” 1042 because He makes us believers in Him. This is that righteousness of God, which He not only teaches us by the precept of His law, but also bestows upon us by the gift of His Spirit.
Footnotes
108:1019Rom. viii. 15.
108:1020Rom. ii. 9.
108:1021Rom. iii. 30.
108:1022Matt. v. 6.
108:1023John i. 12.
108:1024See Matt. vii. 7.
108:1025Matt. vii. 11.
108:10261 Cor. xv. 56.
108:1027Rom. vii. 8.
108:1028Wisdom 8.21.
108:1029Matt. vii. 7.
108:1030Jas. 1:5, 6.
108:1031Rom. i. 17.
108:1032Rom. iv. 5.
108:1033Rom. iii. 27.
108:1034Gal. v. 5.
108:10352 Cor. iv. 16.
108:1036Ps. ciii. 5.
108:1037Eph. ii. 8-10.
108:1038Gal. v. 6.
108:1039Rom. v. 5.
108:1040Rom. iii. 21.
108:1041Ps. iii. 8.
108:1042Gal. ii. 16.
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 then incur the fear of supposing that we have discovered some answer to the apostle’s reproachful appeal: “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?” 1043 —even some such an answer as this: “See, we have the will to believe, which we did not receive. See in what we glory,—even in what we did not receive!” If, however, we were to say that this kind of will is nothing but the gift of God, we should then have to fear lest unbelieving and ungodly men might not unreasonably seem to have some fair excuse for their unbelief, in the fact that God has refused to give them this will. Now this that the apostle says, “It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His own good pleasure,” 1044 belongs already to that grace which faith secures, in order that good works may be within the reach of man,—even the good works which faith achieves through the love which is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost which is given to us. If we believe that we may attain this grace (and of course believe voluntarily), then the question arises whence we have this will?—if from nature, why it is not at everybody’s command, since the same God made all men? if from God’s gift, then again, why is not the gift open to all, since “He will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth?” 1045
Footnotes
109:10431 Cor. iv. 7.
109:1044Phil. ii. 13.
109:10451 Tim. ii. 4.
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 1046 power, as can either incline towards faith, or turn towards unbelief. Consequently a man cannot be said to have even that will with which he believes in God, without having received it; since this rises at the call of God out of the free will which he received naturally when he was created. God no doubt wishes all men to be saved 1047 and to come into the knowledge of the truth; but yet not so as to take away from them free will, for the good or the evil use of which they may be most righteously judged. This being the case, unbelievers indeed do contrary to the will of God when they do not believe His gospel; nevertheless they do not therefore overcome His will, but rob their own selves of the great, nay, the very greatest, good, and implicate themselves in penalties of punishment, destined to experience the power of Him in punishments whose mercy in His gifts they despised. Thus God’s will is for ever invincible; but it would be vanquished, unless it devised what to do with such as despised it, or if these despises could in any way escape from the retribution which He has appointed for such as they. Suppose a master, for example, who should say to his servants, I wish you to labour in my vineyard, and, after your work is done, to feast and take your rest but who, at the same time, should require any who refused to work to grind in the mill ever after. Whoever neglected such a command would evidently act contrary to the master’s will; but he would do more than that,—he would vanquish that will, if he also escaped the mill. This, however, cannot possibly happen under the government of God. Whence it is written, “God hath spoken once,”—that is, irrevocably,—although the passage may refer also to His one only Word. 1048 He then adds what it is which He had irrevocably uttered, saying: “Twice have I heard this, that power belongeth unto God. Also unto Thee, O Lord, doth mercy belong: because Thou wilt render to every man according to his work.” 1049 He therefore will be guilty unto condemnation under God’s power, who shall think too contemptuously of His mercy to believe in Him. But whosoever shall put his trust in Him, and yield himself up to Him, for the forgiveness of all his sins, for the cure of all his corruption, and for the kindling and illumination of his soul by His warmth and light, shall have good works by his grace; and by them 1050 he shall be even in his body redeemed from the corruption of death, crowned, satisfied with blessings,—not temporal, but eternal,—above what we can ask or understand.
Footnotes
109:1046[“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.]
109:10471 Tim. ii. 4.
109:1048John i. 1.
109:1049Ps. 62:11, 12.
109:1050Ex 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.” 1051 And lest by any chance these great blessings should be despaired of under the deformity of our old, that is, mortal condition, the Psalmist at once says, “Thy youth shall be renewed like the eagle’s;” 1052 as much as to say, All that you have heard belongs to the new man and to the new covenant. Now let us consider together briefly these things, and with delight contemplate the praise of mercy, that is, of the grace of God. “Bless the Lord, O my soul,” he says, “and forget not all His recompenses.” Observe, he does not say blessings, but recompenses; 1053 because He recompenses evil with good. “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities:” this is done in the sacrament of baptism. “Who healeth all thy diseases:” this is effected by the believer in the present life, while the flesh so lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, that we do not the things we would; 1054 whilst also another law in our members wars against the law of our mind; 1055 whilst to will is present indeed to us but not how to perform that which is good. 1056 These are the diseases of a man’s old nature which, however, if we only advance with persevering purpose, are healed by the growth of the new nature day by day, by the faith which operates through love. 1057 “Who redeemeth thy life from destruction;” this will take place at the resurrection of the dead in the last day. “Who crowneth thee with loving-kindness and tender mercy;” this shall be accomplished in the day of judgment; for when the righteous King shall sit upon His throne to render to every man according to his works, who shall then boast of having a pure heart? or who shall glory of being clean from sin? It was therefore necessary to mention God’s loving-kindness and tender mercy there, where one might expect debts to be demanded and deserts recompensed so strictly as to leave no room for mercy. He crowns, therefore, with loving-kindness and tender mercy; but even so according to works. For he shall be separated to the right hand, to whom, it is said, “I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat.” 1058 There will, however, be also “judgment without mercy;” but it will be for him “that hath not showed mercy.” 1059 But “blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” 1060 of God. Then, as soon as those on the left hand shall have gone into eternal fire, the righteous, too, shall go into everlasting life, 1061 because He says: “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” 1062 And with this knowledge, this vision, this contemplation, shall the desire of their soul be satisfied; for it shall be enough for it to have this and nothing else,—there being nothing more for it to desire, to aspire to, or to require. It was with a craving after this full joy that his heart glowed who said to the Lord Christ, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us;” and to whom the answer was returned, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” 1063 Because He is Himself the eternal life, in order that men may know the one true God, Thee and whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. If, however, he that has seen the Son has also seen the Father, then assuredly he who sees the Father and the Son sees also the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son. So we do not take away free will, whilst our soul blesses the Lord and forgets not all His recompenses; 1064 nor does it, in ignorance of God’s righteousness, wish to set up one of its own; 1065 but it believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, 1066 and until it arrives at sight, it lives by faith,—even the faith which works by love. 1067 And this love is shed abroad in our hearts, not by the sufficiency of our own will, nor by the letter of the law, but by the Holy Ghost who has been given to us. 1068
Footnotes
109:1051Ps. ciii. 2-5.
109:1052Ps. ciii. 5.
109:1053Non tributiones, sed retributiones.
110:1054Gal. v. 17.
110:1055Rom. vii. 23.
110:1056Rom. vii. 18.
110:1057Gal. v. 6.
110:1058Matt. xxv. 35.
110:1059Jas. ii. 13.
110:1060Matt. v. 7.
110:1061Matt. xxv. 46.
110:1062John xvii. 3.
110:1063John 14:8, 9.
110:1064Ps. ciii. 2.
110:1065Rom. x. 3.
110:1066Rom. iv. 5.
110:1067Gal. v. 6.
110:1068Rom. v. 5.
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?” 1069 the very will by which we believe is reckoned as a gift of God, because it arises out of the free will which we received at our creation. Let the objector, however, attentively observe that this will is to be ascribed to the divine gift, not merely because it arises from our free will, which was created naturally with us; but also because God acts upon us by the incentives of our perceptions, to will and to believe, either externally by evangelical exhortations, where even the commands of the law also do something, if they so far admonish a man of his infirmity that he betakes himself to the grace that justifies by believing; or internally, where no man has in his own control what shall enter into his thoughts, although it appertains to his own will to consent or to dissent. Since God, therefore, in such ways acts upon the reasonable soul in order that it may believe in Him (and certainly there is no ability whatever in free will to believe, unless there be persuasion or summons towards some one in whom to believe), it surely follows that it is God who both works in man the willing to believe, and in all things prevents us with His mercy. To yield our consent, indeed, to God’s summons, or to withhold it, is (as I have said) the function of our own will. And this not only does not invalidate what is said, “For what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” 1070 but it really confirms it. For the soul cannot receive and possess these gifts, which are here referred to, except by yielding its consent. And thus whatever it possesses, and whatever it receives, is from God; and yet the act of receiving and having belongs, of course, to the receiver and possessor. Now, should any man be for constraining us to examine into this profound mystery, why this person is so persuaded as to yield, and that person is not, there are only two things occurring to me, which I should like to advance as my answer: “O the depth of the riches!” 1071 and “Is there unrighteousness with God?” 1072 If the man is displeased with such an answer, he must seek more learned disputants; but let him beware lest he find presumptuous ones.
Footnotes
110:10691 Cor. iv. 7.
110:10701 Cor. iv. 7.
111:1071Rom. xi. 33.
111:1072Rom. ix. 14.
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.” 1073
Footnotes
111:1073Rom. 12:1, 3.
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.” 1074 You seemed to think it absurd, that a thing which was possible should be unexampled. Hence arose the subject treated of in this book; and thus did it devolve on me to show that a thing was possible although no example of it could be found. We accordingly adduced certain cases out of the gospel and of the law, at the beginning of this work,—such as the passing of a camel through the eye of a needle; 1075 and the twelve thousand legions of angels, who could fight for Christ, if He pleased; 1076 and those nations which God said He could have exterminated at once from the face of His people, 1077 —none of which possibilities were ever reduced to fact. To these instances may be added those which are referred to in the Book of Wisdom, 1078 suggesting how many are the strange torments and troubles which God was able to employ against ungodly men, by using the creature which was obedient to His beck, which, however, He did not employ. One might also allude to that mountain, which faith could remove into the sea, 1079 although, nevertheless, it was never done, so far as we have ever read 1080 or heard. Now you see how thoughtless and foolish would be the man who should say that any one of these things is impossible with God, and how opposed to the sense of Scripture would be his assertion. Many other cases of this kind may occur to anybody who reads or thinks, the possibility of which with God we cannot deny, although an example of them be lacking.
Footnotes
111:1074See his work preceding this, De Peccat. Meritis, ii. 7.
111:1075Matt. xix. 24.
111:1076Matt. xxvi. 53.
111:1077Deut. 31:3, Judg. 2:3.
111:1078Wisdom 16.
111:1079Matt. xxi. 21.
111:1080Augustin, 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 Mark xi., Book iii.
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;” 1081 and that we should in all things lift up our hearts and give thanks to the Lord our God, from whom, “as the Father of lights, every good and every perfect gift cometh down.” 1082 Now if a gift is not God’s gift, because it is wrought by us, or because we act by His gift, then it is not a work of God that “a mountain should be removed into the sea,” inasmuch as, according to the Lord’s statement, it is by the faith of men that this is possible. Moreover, He attributes the deed to their actual operation: “If ye have faith in yourselves as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, “Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and it shall be done, and nothing shall be impossible to you.” 1083 Observe how He said “to you,” not “to Me” or “to the Father;” and yet it is certain that no man does such a thing without God’s gift and operation. See how an instance of perfect righteousness is unexampled among men, and yet is not impossible. For it might be achieved if there were only applied so much of will as suffices for so great a thing. There would, however, be so much will, if there were hidden from us none of those conditions which pertain to righteousness; and at the same time these so delighted our mind, that whatever hindrance of pleasure or pain might else occur, this delight in holiness would prevail over every rival affection. And that this is not realized, is not owing to any intrinsic impossibility, but to God’s judicial act. For who can be ignorant, that what he should know is not in man’s power; nor does it follow that what he has discovered to be a desirable object is actually desired, unless he also feel a delight in that object, commensurate with its claims on his affection? For this belongs to health of soul.
Footnotes
111:10812 Cor. x. 17.
111:1082Jas. i. 17.
112:1083Compare Matt. 17:20, Mark 11:23, Luke 17:6.
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; 1084 nor was He silent as to what these were, but declared them in the plainest words: “Thou shall love,” said He, “the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” 1085 What is more surely true than that, if these be fulfilled, all righteousness is fulfilled? But the man who sets his mind on this truth must also carefully attend to another,—in how many things we all of us offend, 1086 while we suppose that what we do is pleasant, or, at all events, not unpleasing, to God whom we love; and afterwards, having (through His inspired word, or else by being warned in some clear and certain way) learned what is not pleasing to Him, we pray to Him that He would forgive us on our repentance. The life of man is full of examples of this. But whence comes it that we fall short of knowing what is pleasing to Him, if it be not that He is to that extent unknown to us? “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face.” 1087 Who, however, can make so bold, on arriving far enough, to say: “Then shall I know even as also I am known,” 1088 as to think that they who shall see God will have no greater love towards Him than they have who now believe in Him? or that the one ought to be compared to the other, as if they were very near to each other? Now, if love increases just in proportion as our knowledge of its object becomes more intimate, of course we ought to believe that there is as much wanting now to the fulfilment of righteousness as there is defective in our love of it. A thing may indeed be known or believed, and yet not loved; but it is an impossibility that a thing can be loved which is neither known nor believed. But if the saints, in the exercise of their faith, could arrive at that great love, than which (as the Lord Himself testified) no greater can possibly be exhibited in the present life,—even to lay down their lives for the faith, or for their brethren, 1089 —then after their pilgrimage here, in which their walk is by “faith,” when they shall have reached the “sight” of that final happiness 1090 which we hope for, though as yet we see it not, and wait for in patience, 1091 then undoubtedly love itself shall be not only greater than that which we here experience, but far higher than all which we ask or think; 1092 and yet it cannot be possibly more than “with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind.” For there remains in us nothing which can be added to the whole; since, if anything did remain, there would not be the whole. Therefore the first commandment about righteousness, which bids us love the Lord with all our heart, and soul, and mind 1093 (the next to which is, that we love our neighbour as ourselves), we shall completely fulfil in that life when we shall see face to face. 1094 But even now this commandment is enjoined upon us, that we may be reminded what we ought by faith to require, and what we should in our hope look forward to, and, “forgetting the things which are behind, reach forth to the things which are before.” 1095 And thus, as it appears to me, that man has made a far advance, even in the present life, in the righteousness which is to be perfected hereafter, who has discovered by this very advance how very far removed he is from the completion of righteousness.
Footnotes
112:1084Matt. xxii. 40.
112:1085Matt. 22:37, 39.
112:1086Jas. iii. 2.
112:10871 Cor. xiii. 12.
112:10881 Cor. xiii. 12.
112:1089John xv. 13.
112:10902 Cor. v. 7.
112:1091Rom. viii. 23.
112:1092Eph. iii. 20.
112:1093Matt. xxii. 37.
112:10941 Cor. xiii. 12.
112:1095Phil. iii. 13.
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 1096 although absent from the Lord, and, therefore, walking by faith and not yet by sight, 1097 —it may be without absurdity said, no doubt, in respect of it, that it is free from sin; for it ought not to be attributed to it as a fault, that it is not as yet sufficient for so great a love to God as is due to the final, complete, and perfect condition thereof. It is one thing to fail at present in attaining to the fulness of love, and another thing to be swayed by no lust. A man ought therefore to abstain from every unlawful desire, although he loves God now far less than it is possible to love Him when He becomes an object of sight; just as in matters connected with the bodily senses, the eye can receive no pleasure from any kind of darkness, although it may be unable to look with a firm sight amidst refulgent light. Only let us see to it that we so constitute the soul of man in this corruptible body, that, although it has not yet swallowed up and consumed the motions of earthly lust in that super-eminent perfection of the love of God, it nevertheless, in that inferior righteousness to which we have referred, gives no consent to the aforesaid lust for the purpose of effecting any unlawful thing. In respect, therefore, of that immortal life, the commandment is even now applicable: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might;” 1098 but in reference to the present life the following: “Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” 1099 To the one, again, belongs, “Thou shalt not covet;” 1100 to the other, “Thou shalt not go after thy lusts.” 1101 To the one it appertains to seek for nothing more than to continue in its perfect state; to the other it belongs actively to do the duty committed to it, and to hope as its reward for the perfection of the future life,—so that in the one the just man may live forevermore in the sight of that happiness which in this life was his object of desire; in the other, he may live by that faith whereon rests his desire for the ultimate blessedness as its certain end. (These things being so, it will be sin in the man who lives by faith ever to consent to an unlawful delight,—by committing not only frightful deeds and crimes, but even trifling faults; sinful, if he lend an ear to a word that ought not to be listened to, or a tongue to a phrase which should not be uttered; sinful, if he entertains a thought in his heart in such a way as to wish that an evil pleasure were a lawful one, although known to be unlawful by the commandment,—for this amounts to a consent to sin, which would certainly be carried out in act, unless fear of punishment deterred.) 1102 Have such just men, while living by faith, no need to say: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors?” 1103 And do they prove this to be wrong which is written, “In Thy sight shall no man living be justified?” 1104 and this: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?” 1105 and, “There is no man that sinneth not;” 1106 and again, “There is not on the earth a righteous man, who doeth good and sinneth not” 1107 (for both these statements are expressed in a general future sense,—“sinneth not,” “will not sin,”—not in the past time, “has not sinned”)?—and all other places of this purport contained in the Holy Scripture? Since, however, these passages cannot possibly be false, it plainly follows, to my mind, that whatever be the quality or extent of the righteousness which we may definitely ascribe to the present life, there is not a man living in it who is absolutely free from all sin; and that it is necessary for every one to give, that it may be given to him; 1108 and to forgive, that it may be forgiven him; 1109 and whatever righteousness he has, not to presume that he has it of himself, but from the grace of God, who justifies him, and still to go on hungering and thirsting for righteousness 1110 from Him who is the living bread, 1111 and with whom is the fountain of life; 1112 who works in His saints, whilst labouring amidst temptation in this life, their justification in such manner that He may still have somewhat to impart to them liberally when they ask, and something mercifully to forgive them when they confess.
Footnotes
112:1096Rom. i. 17.
113:10972 Cor. v. 7.
113:1098Deut. vi. 5.
113:1099Rom. vi. 12.
113:1100Ex. xx. 17.
113:1101Ecclesiasticus 18.30.
113:1102The 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.
113:1103Matt. vi. 12.
113:1104Ps. cxliii. 2.
113:11051 John i. 8.
113:11061 Kings viii. 46.
113:1107Ecclesiasticus 7.21.
113:1108Luke 6:30, 38.
113:1109Luke xi. 4.
113:1110Matt. v. 6.
113:1111John vi. 51.
113:1112Ps. xxxvi. 9.
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, 1113 but that also in accordance with which we shall by and by have to live for ever in the very vision of God. For if he should now wish even that this corruptible in any particular man should put on incorruption, 1114 and to command him so to live among mortal men (not destined himself to die) that his old nature should be wholly and entirely withdrawn, and there should be no law in his members warring against the law of his mind, 1115 —moreover, that he should discover God to be everywhere present, as the saints shall hereafter know and behold Him,—who will madly venture to affirm that this is impossible? Men, however, ask why He does not do this; but they who raise the question consider not duly the fact that they are human. I am quite certain that, as nothing is impossible with God 1116 so also there is no iniquity with Him. 1117 Equally sure am I that He resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble. 1118 I know also that to him who had a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him, lest he should be exalted above measure, it was said, when he besought God for its removal once, twice, nay thrice: “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” 1119 There is, therefore, in the hidden depths of God’s judgments, a certain reason why every mouth even of the righteous should be shut in its own praise, and only opened for the praise of God. But what this certain reason is, who can search, who investigate, who know? So “unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” 1120
Footnotes
113:1113Rom. x. 6.
114:11141 Cor. xv. 53.
114:1115Rom. vii. 23.
114:1116Luke i. 37.
114:1117Rom. ix. 14.
114:1118Jas. iv. 6.
114:11192 Cor. xii. 7-9.
114:1120Rom. xi. 33-36.
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 1121 as if they really were the words of this Sixtus. For this I thought them at the time; but I afterwards discovered, that Sextus the heathen philosopher, and not Xystus the Christian bishop, was their author. This treatise of mine begins with the words: ‘The book which you sent me.’”
Footnotes
116:1121In chap. 77.
Note on the Following Work.
————————————
In a letter (169th 1122 ) to Evodius, written in the course of the year A.D. 415, Augustin assigned to this work, On Nature and Grace, the last place of several treatises written in that year. “I have also written,” says he, “an extensive book in opposition to the heresy of Pelagius, at the request of some brethren, whom he had persuaded to accept a very pernicious opinion against the grace of Christ.” The work had been begun, but was not completed, when Orosius sailed from Africa to Palestine, in the spring of this year of 415; for, shortly after his arrival there, at a council in Jerusalem, where Pelagius was present, he expressly affirmed, “that the blessed Augustin had prepared a very complete answer to Pelagius’ book, two of whose followers had presented the work to him, and requested him to reply to it.” Jerome, also, at this time mentioned a certain production of Augustin’s, which he had not yet seen, wherein it was said that he had expressly opposed Pelagius. His words, which occur in his third dialogue against the heresy of Pelagius, are these: “It is said that he is preparing other treatises likewise, especially against your name.” Augustin, however, did not actually employ in this work of his the name of Pelagius, whose book he was refuting, in order that (as he says in his letter [186th] to Paulinus) he might not by personal irritation drive him into a more incurable degree of opposition; for he hoped to be of some service to his opponent, if by still maintaining friendly terms with him he might be able to spare his feelings, although he could not in duty show leniency to his writings. Thus, at least, he expresses his mind, in his book On the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. xxiii. No. 47. In this latter passage he subjoins a letter which he had received from Timasius and Jacobus, containing the expression of great gratitude to Augustin on receiving his volume On Nature and Grace, in which they expressed “their agreeable surprise” at the answers he had furnished to them “on every point” of the Pelagian controversy.
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), 1123 quotes this treatise of Augustin’s as addressed to Timasius, and calumniously pronounces it to be written “against free will.”
Footnotes
117:1122See vol. i. p. 543.
117:1123[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!” 1124 This same sentiment your author also has strongly insisted upon, with all the powers of his talent. I fear, however, that he will chiefly help those “who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge,” who, “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.” 1125 Now, what the righteousness of God is, which is spoken of here, he immediately afterwards explains by adding: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” 1126 This righteousness of God, therefore, lies not in the commandment of the law, which excites fear, but in the aid afforded by the grace of Christ, to which alone the fear of the law, as of a schoolmaster, 1127 usefully conducts. Now, the man who understands this understands why he is a Christian. For “If righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” 1128 If, however He did not die in vain, in Him only is the ungodly man justified, and to him, on believing in Him who justifies the ungodly, faith is reckoned for righteousness. 1129 For all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His blood. 1130 But all those who do not think themselves to belong to the “all who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” have of course no need to become Christians, because “they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick;” 1131 whence it is, that He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. 1132
Footnotes
121:1124See Sallust’s Prologue to his Jugurtha.
121:1125Rom. 10:2, 3.
121:1126Rom. x. 4.
122:1127Gal. iii. 24.
122:1128Gal. ii. 21.
122:1129Rom. iv. 5.
122:1130Rom. 3:23, 24.
122:1131Matt. ix. 12.
122:1132Matt. ix. 13.
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. 1133 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? 1134 For “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? “Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” 1135 Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth—because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way,—what must human nature do, or what has it done—for it had either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learnt that it was accomplished—but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: “Then Christ died in vain.” 1136 For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, “If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain.” If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath—in a word, from punishment—except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.
Footnotes
122:11331 Tim. iii. 16.
122:1134Rom. x. 14.
122:1135Rom. 10:17, 18.
122:1136Gal. ii. 21.
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, 1137 we were, for all that, children of wrath, even as others, 1138 “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 we were saved.” 1139
Footnotes
122:11372 Cor. v. 17.
122:1138Eph. ii. 3.
122:1139Eph. 2:4, 5.
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.” 1140 Whence they, who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. “For all have sinned”—whether in Adam or in themselves—“and come short of the glory of God.” 1141
Footnotes
122:1140Rom. iii. 24.
122:1141Rom. iii. 23.
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.” 1142 But of whose mercy, if not His who sent Christ Jesus into the world to save sinners, whom He foreknew, and foreordained, and called, and justified, and glorified? 1143 Now, who could be so madly insane as to fail to give ineffable thanks to the Mercy which liberates whom it would? The man who correctly appreciated the whole subject could not possibly blame the justice of God in wholly condemning all men whatsoever.
Footnotes
123:1142Rom. ix. 23.
123:1143Rom. 8:29, 30.
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, 1144 by which the cross of Christ is made of none effect. This, however, “is not the wisdom which descendeth from above.” 1145 The words which follow in the apostle’s statement I am unwilling to quote; for we would rather not be thought to do an injustice to our friends, whose very strong and active minds we should be sorry to see running in a perverse, instead of an upright, course.
Footnotes
123:11441 Cor. i. 17.
123:1145Jas. iii. 15.
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 1146 must we therefore contend that He was unable to do so? He certainly was able, but He would not. For if He had been willing, He could have effected this too. For the Son quickeneth whomsoever He will. 1147 Observe, however, what he means by this distinction, true and manifest enough in itself, and what he endeavours to make out of it. “We are treating,” says he, “of possibility only; and to pass from this to something else, except in the case of some certain fact, we deem to be a very serious and extraordinary process.” This idea he turns over again and again, in many ways and at great length, so that no one would suppose that he was inquiring about any other point than the possibility of not committing sin. Among the many passages in which he treats of this subject, occurs the following: “I once more repeat my position: I say that it is possible for a man to be without sin. What do you say? That it is impossible for a man to be without sin? But I do not say,” he adds, “that there is a man without sin; nor do you say, that there is not a man without sin. Our contention is about what is possible, and not possible; not about what is, and is not.” He then enumerates certain passages of Scripture, 1148 which are usually alleged in opposition to them, and insists that they have nothing to do with the question, which is really in dispute, as to the possibility or impossibility of a man’s being without sin. This is what he says: “No man indeed is clean from pollution; and, There is no man that sinneth not; and, There is not a just man upon the earth; and, There is none that doeth good. There are these and similar passages in Scripture,” says he, “but they testify to the point of not being, not of not being able; for by testimonies of this sort it is shown what kind of persons certain men were at such and such a time, not that they were unable to be something else. Whence they are justly found to be blameworthy. If, however, they had been of such a character, simply because they were unable to be anything else, they are free from blame.”
Footnotes
123:1146Peter 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.
123:1147John v. 21.
123:1148Job 14:2, 1 Kings 8:46, Eccl. 7:21, Ps. 14:1.
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.” 1149 Rightly, therefore, by virtue of that condemnation which runs throughout the mass, is he not admitted into the kingdom of heaven, although he was not only not a Christian, but was unable to become one.
Footnotes
124:1149Rom. v. 12.
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, 1150 to contend that any man without it, can be justified by the law of nature and the power of his will. We may here also say, then is Christ dead in vain 1151 forasmuch as all might accomplish so much as this, even if He had never died; and if they should be unrighteous, they would be so because they wished to be, not because they were unable to be righteous. But even though a man could not be justified at all without the grace of Christ, he would absolve him, if he dared, in accordance with his words, to the effect that, “if a man were of such a character, because he could not possibly have been of any other, he would be free from all blame.”
Footnotes
124:11501 Cor. i. 1.
124:1151Gal. ii. 21.
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 1152 that the intention of the law in its censure is this, that, by reason of the transgressions which men commit, they may flee for refuge to the grace of the Lord, who has pity upon them—“the schoolmaster” 1153 “shutting them up unto the same faith which should afterwards be revealed;” 1154 that by it their transgressions may be forgiven, and then not again be committed, by God’s assisting grace. The road indeed belongs to all who are progressing in it; although it is they who make a good advance that are called “perfect travellers.” That, however, is the height of perfection which admits of no addition, when the goal to which men tend has begun to be possessed.
Footnotes
125:1152We have read discimus, not dicimus.
125:1153Gal. iii. 24.
125:1154Gal. iii. 23.
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,” 1155 —lest, whilst relying on his own diligence as on strength of his own, he should fail to attain to the true righteousness either by this way, or by that other method in which, no doubt, perfect righteousness is to be desired and hoped for.
Footnotes
125:1155Ps. cxix. 133.
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.” 1156 Similarly, we read in the passage where the subject is concerning priests: “He was in all points tempted like as we are, only without sin,” 1157 —meaning, of course, in that flesh which bore the likeness of sinful flesh, although it was not sinful flesh; a likeness, indeed, which it would not have borne if it had not been in every other respect the same as sinful flesh. How, however, we are to understand this: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; neither can he sin, for his seed remaineth in him;” 1158 while the Apostle John himself, as if he had not been born of God, or else were addressing men who had not been born of God, lays down this position: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” 1159 —I have already explained, with such care as I was able, in those books which I wrote to Marcellinus on this very subject. 1160 It seems, moreover, to me to be an interpretation worthy of acceptance to regard the clause of the above quoted passage: “Neither can he sin,” as if it meant: He ought not to commit sin. For who could be so foolish as to say that sin ought to be committed, when, in fact, sin is sin, for no other reason than that it ought not to be committed?
Footnotes
125:11562 Cor. v. 21.
125:1157Heb. iv. 15.
125:11581 John iii. 9.
125:11591 John i. 8.
125:1160See 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,” 1161 does not appear to me to be capable of the interpretation which he would put upon it, when he expounds it, “as if it were written by way of reproach; as much as to say: Can no man then, tame the tongue? As if in a reproachful tone, which would say: You are able to tame wild beasts; cannot you tame the tongue? As if it were an easier thing to tame the tongue than to subjugate wild beasts.” I do not think that this is the meaning of the passage. For, if he had meant such an opinion as this to be entertained of the facility of taming the tongue, there would have followed in the sequel of the passage a comparison of that member with the beasts. As it is, however, it simply goes on to say: “The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison,” 1162 —such, of course, as is more noxious than that of beasts and creeping things. For while the one destroys the flesh, the other kills the soul. For, “The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul.” 1163 It is not, therefore, as if this is an easier achievement than the taming of beasts that St. James pronounced the statement before us, or would have others utter it; but he rather aims at showing what a great evil in man his tongue is—so great, indeed, that it cannot be tamed by any man, although even beasts are tameable by human beings. And he said this, not with a view to our permitting, through our neglect, the continuance of so great an evil to ourselves, but in order that we might be induced to request the help of divine grace for the taming of the tongue. For he does not say: “None can tame the tongue;” but “No man;” in order that, when it is tamed, we may acknowledge it to be effected by the mercy of God, the help of God, the grace of God. The soul, therefore, should endeavour to tame the tongue, and while endeavouring should pray for assistance; the tongue, too, should beg for the taming of the tongue,—He being the tamer who said to His disciples: “It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” 1164 Thus, we are warned by the precept to do this,—namely, to make the attempt, and, failing in our own strength, to pray for the help of God.
Footnotes
126:1161Jas. iii. 8.
126:1162Jas. iii. 8.
126:1163Wisdom 1.11.
126:1164Matt. x. 20.
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” 1165 —he at once, after finishing some remarks which arose out of his subject, goes on to add this advice, showing by what help those things would not happen, which (as he said) ought not: “Who is a wise man and endowed with knowledge among you? Let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where there is envying and strife, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” 1166 This is the wisdom which tames the tongue; it descends from above, and springs from no human heart. Will any one, then, dare to divorce it from the grace of God, and with most arrogant vanity place it in the power of man? Why should I pray to God that it be accorded me, if it may be had of man? Ought we not to object to this prayer lest injury be done to free will which is self-sufficient in the possibility of nature for discharging all the duties of righteousness? We ought, then, to object also to the Apostle James himself, who admonishes us in these words: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him; but let him ask in faith, nothing doubting.” 1167 This is the faith to which the commandments drive us, in order that the law may prescribe our duty and faith accomplish it. 1168 For through the tongue, which no man can tame, but only the wisdom which comes down from above, “in many things we all of us offend.” 1169 For this truth also the same apostle pronounced in no other sense than that in which he afterwards declares: “The tongue no man can tame.” 1170
Footnotes
126:1165Jas. iii. 10.
126:1166Jas. iii. 13-17.
126:1167Jas. 1:5, 6.
126:1168Ut lex imperet et fides impetret.
126:1169Jas. iii. 2.
126:1170Jas. iii. 8.
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 can be; so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God;” 1171 for he here mentions the wisdom of the flesh, not the wisdom which cometh from above: moreover, it is manifest, that in this passage, by the phrase, “being in the flesh,” are signified, not those who have not yet quitted the body, but those who live according to the flesh. The question, however, we are discussing does not lie in this point. But what I want to hear from him, if I can, is about those who live according to the Spirit, and who on this account are not, in a certain sense, in the flesh, even while they still live here,—whether they, by God’s grace, live according to the Spirit, or are sufficient for themselves, natural capability having been bestowed on them when they were created, and their own proper will besides. Whereas the fulfilling of the law is nothing else than love; 1172 and God’s love is shed abroad in our hearts, not by our own selves, but by the Holy Ghost which is given to us. 1173
Footnotes
127:1171Rom. 8:7, 8.
127:1172Rom. xiii. 10.
127:1173Rom. v. 5.
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.” 1174 It is, indeed, one thing to have taken no pains to know what sins of negligence were apparently expiated even through divers sacrifices of the law; it is another thing to wish to understand, to be unable, and then to act contrary to the law, through not understanding what it would have done. We are accordingly enjoined to ask of God wisdom, “who giveth to all men liberally;” 1175 that is, of course, to all men who ask in such a manner, and to such an extent, as so great a matter requires in earnestness of petition.
Footnotes
127:1174Ps. cxix. 73.
127:1175Jas. i. 5.
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” 1176 which renders the cross of Christ of none effect. That cross, however, shall certainly never be made of none effect; rather shall such wisdom be subverted. Now, after we shall have demonstrated this, it may be that God’s mercy may visit him, so that he may be sorry that he ever said these things: “We have,” he says, “first of all to discuss the position which is maintained, that our nature has been weakened and changed by sin. I think,” continues he, “that before all other things we have to inquire what sin is,—some substance, or wholly a name without substance, whereby is expressed not a thing, not an existence, not some sort of a body, but the doing of a wrongful deed.” He then adds: “I suppose that this is the case; and if so,” he asks, “how could that which lacks all substance have possibly weakened or changed human nature?” Observe, I beg of you, how in his ignorance he struggles to overthrow the most salutary words of the remedial Scriptures: “I said, O Lord, be merciful unto me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” 1177 Now, how can a thing be healed, if it is not wounded nor hurt, nor weakened and corrupted? But, as there is here something to be healed, whence did it receive its injury? You hear [the Psalmist] confessing the fact; what need is there of discussion? He says: “Heal my soul.” Ask him how that which he wants to be healed became injured, and then listen to his following words: “Because I have sinned against Thee.” Let him, however, put a question, and ask what he deemed a suitable inquiry, and say: “O you who exclaim, Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee! pray tell me what sin is? Some substance, or wholly a name without substance, whereby is expressed, not a thing, not an existence, not some sort of a body, but merely the doing of a wrongful deed?” Then the other returns for answer: “It is even as you say; sin is not some substance; but under its name there is merely expressed the doing of a wrongful deed.” But he rejoins: “Then why cry out, Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee? How could that have possibly corrupted your soul which lacks all substance?” Then would the other, worn out with the anguish of his wound, in order to avoid being diverted from prayer by the discussion, briefly answer and say: “Go from me, I beseech you; rather discuss the point, if you can, with Him who said: ‘They that are whole need no physician, but they that are sick; I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners,’” 1178 —in which words, of course, He designated the righteous as the whole, and sinners as the sick.
Footnotes
127:11761 Cor. i. 17.
127:1177Ps. xli. 4.
128:1178Matt. 9:12, 13.
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.” 1179 For how is He to save where there is no malady? For the sins, from which this gospel says Christ’s people have to be saved, are not substances, and according to this writer are incapable of corrupting. O brother, how good a thing it is to remember that you are a Christian! To believe, might perhaps be enough; but still, since you persist in discussion, there is no harm, nay there is even benefit, if a firm faith precede it; let us not suppose, then, that human nature cannot be corrupted by sin, but rather, believing, from the inspired Scriptures, that it is corrupted by sin, let our inquiry be how this could possibly have come about. Since, then, we have already learnt that sin is not a substance, do we not consider, not to mention any other example, that not to eat is also not a substance? Because such abstinence is withdrawal from a substance, inasmuch as food is a substance. To abstain, then, from food is not a substance; and yet the substance of our body, if it does altogether abstain from food, so languishes, is so impaired by broken health, is so exhausted of strength, so weakened and broken with very weariness, that even if it be in any way able to continue alive, it is hardly capable of being restored to the use of that food, by abstaining from which it became so corrupted and injured. In the same way sin is not a substance; but God is a substance, yea the height of substance and only true sustenance of the reasonable creature. The consequence of departing from Him by disobedience, and of inability, through infirmity, to receive what one ought really to rejoice in, you hear from the Psalmist, when he says: “My heart is smitten and withered like grass, since I have forgotten to eat my bread.” 1180
Footnotes
128:1179Matt. i. 21.
128:1180Ps. cii. 4.
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, 1181 in accordance with this His merciful character, says: “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” 1182 Accordingly, His apostle also says: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” 1183 This man, however, contrary to the “faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,” declares that “this sickness ought not to have been contracted by sins, lest the punishment of sin should amount to this, that more sins should be committed.” Now even for infants the help of the Great Physician is sought. This writer asks: “Why seek Him? They are whole for whom you seek the Physician. Not even was the first man condemned to die for any such reason, for he did not sin afterwards.” As if he had ever heard anything of his subsequent perfection in righteousness, except so far as the Church commends to our faith that even Adam was delivered by the mercy of the Lord Christ. “As to his posterity also,” says he, “not only are they not more infirm than he, but they actually fulfilled more commandments than he ever did, since he neglected to fulfil one,”—this posterity which he sees so born (as Adam certainly was not made), not only incapable of commandment, which they do not at all understand, but hardly capable of sucking the breast, when they are hungry! Yet even these would He have to be saved in the bosom of Mother Church by His grace who saves His people from their sins; but these men gainsay such grace, and, as if they had a deeper insight into the creature than ever He possesses who made the creature, they pronounce [these infants] sound with an assertion which is anything but sound itself.
Footnotes
128:1181Matt. i. 21.
128:1182Matt. ix. 12.
128:11831 Tim. i. 15.
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?” 1184 This darkening was, of course, already their punishment and penalty; and yet by this very penalty—that is, by their blindness of heart, which supervenes on the withdrawal of the light of wisdom—they fell into more grievous sins still. “For giving themselves out as wise, they became fools.” This is a grievous penalty, if one only understands it; and from such a penalty only see to what lengths they ran: “And they changed,” he says, “the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” 1185 All this they did owing to that penalty of their sin, whereby “their foolish heart was darkened.” And yet, owing to these deeds of theirs, which, although coming in the way of punishment, were none the less sins (he goes on to say): “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts.” 1186 See how severely God condemned them, giving them over to uncleanness in the very desires of their heart. Observe also the sins they commit owing to such condemnation: “To dishonour,” says he, “their own bodies among themselves.” 1187 Here is the punishment of iniquity, which is itself iniquity; a fact which sets forth in a clearer light the words which follow: “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” “For this cause,” says he, “God gave them up unto vile affections.” 1188 See how often God inflicts punishment; and out of the self-same punishment sins, more numerous and more severe, arise. “For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.” 1189 Then, to show that these things were so sins themselves, that they were also the penalties of sins, he further says: “And receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” 1190 Observe how often it happens that the very punishment which God inflicts begets other sins as its natural offspring. Attend still further: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,” says he, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, odious to God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” 1191 Here, now, let our opponent say: “Sin ought not so to have been punished, that the sinner, through his punishment, should commit even more sins.”
Footnotes
129:1184Rom. i. 21.
129:1185Rom. i. 23.
129:1186Rom. i. 24.
129:1187Rom. i. 24.
129:1188Rom. 1:25, 26.
129:1189Rom. 1:26, 27.
129:1190Rom. i. 27.
129:1191Rom. i. 28-31.
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.” 1192 The truth designates them as dead; whence the passage: “Let the dead bury their dead.” The truth, then, designates as dead those whom this man declares to have been unable to be damaged or corrupted by sin, on the ground, forsooth, that he has discovered sin to be no substance! Nobody tells him that “man was so formed as to be able to pass from righteousness to sin, and yet not able to return from sin to righteousness.” But that free will, whereby man corrupted his own self, was sufficient for his passing into sin; but to return to righteousness, he has need of a Physician, since he is out of health; he has need of a Vivifier, because he is dead. Now about such grace as this he says not a word, as if he were able to cure himself by his own will, since this alone was able to ruin him. We do not tell him that the death of the body is of efficacy for sinning, because it is only its punishment; for no one sins by undergoing the death of his body; but the death of the soul is conducive to sin, forsaken as it is by its life, that is, its God; and it must needs produce dead works, until it revives by the grace of Christ. God forbid that we should assert that hunger and thirst and other bodily sufferings necessarily produce sin. When exercised by such vexations, the life of the righteous only shines out with greater lustre, and procures a greater glory by overcoming them through patience; but then it is assisted by the grace, it is assisted by the Spirit, it is assisted by the mercy of God; not exalting itself in an arrogant will, but earning fortitude by a humble confession. For it had learnt to say unto God: “Thou art my hope; Thou art my trust.” 1193 Now, how it happens that concerning this grace, and help and mercy, without which we cannot live, this man has nothing to say, I am at a loss to know; but he goes further, and in the most open manner gainsays the grace of Christ whereby we are justified, by insisting on the sufficiency of nature to work righteousness, provided only the will be present. The reason, however, why, after sin has been released to the guilty one by grace, for the exercise of faith, there should still remain the death of the body, although it proceeds from sin, I have already explained, according to my ability, in those books which I wrote to Marcellinus of blessed memory. 1194
Footnotes
129:1192Eph. v. 14.
130:1193Ps. lxxi. 5.
130:1194The 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, 1195 into the kingdom of Christ the Lord. 1196 And yet, when the Lord drew near His passion, He said, “Behold, the prince of this world cometh and shall find nothing in me,” 1197 —and therefore no sin, of course, on account of which he might exercise dominion over Him, so as to destroy Him. “But,” added He, “that the world may know that I do the will of my Father, arise, let us go hence;” 1198 as much as to say, I am going to die, not through the necessity of sin, but in voluntariness of obedience.
Footnotes
130:1195Heb. ii. 14.
130:1196Col. i. 13.
130:1197John xiv. 30.
130:1198John xiv. 31.
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?” 1199 Certainly not; and yet this very trouble was to him in a certain manner a remedy against his pride. For he had said in his prosperity, “I shall never be moved;” 1200 and so was ascribing to himself what he was receiving from the Lord. “For what had he that he did not receive?” 1201 It had, therefore, become necessary to show him whence he had received, that he might receive in humility what he had lost in pride. Accordingly, he says, “In Thy good pleasure, O Lord, Thou didst add strength to my beauty.” 1202 In this abundance of mine I once used to say, “I shall not be moved;” whereas it all came from Thee, not from myself. Then at last Thou didst turn away Thy face from me, and I became troubled.
Footnotes
130:1199Ps. xxx. 7.
130:1200Ps. xxx. 8.
130:12011 Cor. iv. 7.
130:1202Ps. xxx. 7.
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 was the right of his Lord. And, inasmuch as we are now born with the self-same law of sin, which in our members resists the law of our mind, we ought never to murmur against God, nor to dispute in opposition to the clearest fact, but to seek and pray for His mercy instead of our punishment.
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. 1203
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.
Footnotes
131:1203See the treatise De Peccatorum Meritis, ii. 22.
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;” 1204 nor did He remove from him, though he so often entreated Him to do so, that mysterious “thorn in the flesh,” which He told him had been given to him “lest he should be unduly exalted through the abundance of the revelation.” 1205 For all other sins only prevail in evil deeds; pride only has to be guarded against in things that are rightly done. Whence it happens that those persons are admonished not to attribute to their own power the gifts of God, nor to plume themselves thereon, lest by so doing they should perish with a heavier perdition than if they had done no good at all, to whom it is said: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” 1206 Why, then, must it be with fear and trembling, and not rather with security, since God is working; except it be because there so quickly steals over our human soul, by reason of our will (without which we can do nothing well), the inclination to esteem simply as our own accomplishment whatever good we do; and so each one of us says in his prosperity: “I shall never be moved?” 1207 Therefore, He who in His good pleasure had added strength to our beauty, turns away His face, and the man who had made his boast becomes troubled, because it is by actual sorrows that the swelling pride must be remedied.
Footnotes
131:12042 Cor. xii. 9.
131:12052 Cor. 12:7, 8.
132:1206Phil. 2:12, 13.
132:1207Ps. xxx. 6.
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, 1208 and learn not to be proud.” Now even that incident in the apostle’s life, of this kind, is so wonderful, that were it not for the fact that he himself is the voucher for it whose truth it is impious to contradict, would it not be incredible? For what believer is there who is ignorant that the first incentive to sin came from Satan, and that he is the first author of all sins? And yet, for all that, some are “delivered over unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.” 1209 How comes it to pass, then, that Satan’s work is prevented by the work of Satan? These and such like questions let a man regard in such a light that they seem not to him to be too acute; they have somewhat of the sound of acuteness, and yet when discussed are found to be obtuse. What must we say also to our author’s use of similes whereby he rather suggests to us the answer which we should give to him? “What” (asks he) “shall I say more than this, that we may believe that fires are quenched by fires, if we may believe that sins are cured by sins?” What if one cannot put out fires by fires: but yet pains can, for all that, as I have shown, be cured by pains? Poisons can also, if one only inquire and learn the fact, be expelled by poisons. Now, if he observes that the heats of fevers are sometimes subdued by certain medicinal warmths, he will perhaps also allow that fires may be extinguished by fires.
Footnotes
132:12081 Cor. vi. 19.
132:12091 Tim. i. 20.
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.” 1210 Let him seek diligently, and he will find in the law that the sin of pride is quite distinguished from all other sins. For many sins are committed through pride; but yet not all things which are wrongly done are done proudly,—at any rate, not by the ignorant, not by the infirm, and not, generally speaking, by the weeping and sorrowful. And indeed pride, although it be in itself a great sin, is of such sort in itself alone apart from others, that, as I have already remarked, it for the most part follows after and steals with more rapid foot, not so much upon sins as upon things which are actually well done. However, that which he has understood in another sense, is after all most truly said: “Pride is the commencement of all sin;” because it was this which overthrew the devil, from whom arose the origin of sin; and afterwards, when his malice and envy pursued man, who was yet standing in his uprightness, it subverted him in the same way in which he himself fell. For the serpent, in fact, only sought for the door of pride whereby to enter when he said, “Ye shall be as gods.” 1211 Truly then is it said, “Pride is the commencement of all sin;” 1212 and, “The beginning of pride is when a man departeth from God.” 1213
Footnotes
132:1210Ecclesiasticus 10.13.
132:1211Gen. iii. 5.
132:1212Ecclesiasticus 10.13.
132:1213Ecclesiasticus 10.12.
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 growing strong in depravity commits many sins, either through infirmity or blindness. Prayer must therefore be made for him, that he may be healed, and that he may thenceforward attain to a life of uninterrupted soundness of health; nor must pride be indulged in, as if any man were healed by the self-same power whereby he became corrupted.
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;” 1214 provided that be done which was written in the preceding verse: “Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass,” 1215 —not, as some suppose, that they themselves bring it to pass. Now, when he said, “And He shall bring it to pass,” he evidently had none other in mind but those who say, We ourselves bring it to pass; that is to say, we ourselves justify our own selves. In this matter, no doubt, we do ourselves, too, work; but we are fellow-workers with Him who does the work, because His mercy anticipates us. He anticipates us, however, that we may be healed; but then He will also follow us, that being healed we may grow healthy and strong. He anticipates us that we may be called; He will follow us that we may be glorified. He anticipates us that we may lead godly lives; He will follow us that we may always live with Him, because without Him we can do nothing. 1216 Now the Scriptures refer to both these operations of grace. There is both this: “The God of my mercy shall anticipate me,” 1217 and again this: “Thy mercy shall follow me all the days of my life.” 1218 Let us therefore unveil to Him our life by confession, not praise it with a vindication. For if it is not His way, but our own, beyond doubt it is not the right one. Let us therefore reveal this by making our confession to Him; for however much we may endeavour to conceal it, it is not hid from Him. It is a good thing to confess unto the Lord.
Footnotes
133:1214Ps. xxxvii. 6.
133:1215Ps. xxxvii. 5.
133:1216John xv. 5.
133:1217Ps. lix. 10.
133:1218Ps. xxiii. 6.
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,” 1219 and will make that which is His own to be our way; because it is by Himself that the favour is bestowed on such as believe in Him and hope in Him that we will do it. For there is a way of righteousness of which they are ignorant “who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge,” 1220 and who, wishing to frame a righteousness of their own, “have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.” 1221 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth;” 1222 and He has said, “I am the way.” 1223 Yet God’s voice has alarmed those who have already begun to walk in this way, lest they should be lifted up, as if it were by their own energies that they were walking therein. For the same persons to whom the apostle, on account of this danger, says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” 1224 are likewise for the self-same reason admonished in the psalm: “Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice in Him with trembling. Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye perish from the righteous way, when His wrath shall be suddenly kindled upon you.” 1225 He does not say, “Lest at any time the Lord be angry and refuse to show you the righteous way,” or, “refuse to lead you into the way of righteousness;” but even after you are walking therein, he was able so to terrify as to say, “Lest ye perish from the righteous way.” Now, whence could this arise if not from pride, which (as I have so often said, and must repeat again and again) has to be guarded against even in things which are rightly done, that is, in the very way of righteousness, lest a man, by regarding as his own that which is really God’s, lose what is God’s and be reduced merely to what is his own? Let us then carry out the concluding injunction of this same psalm, “Blessed are all they that trust in Him,” 1226 so that He may Himself indeed effect and Himself show His own way in us, to whom it is said, “Show us Thy mercy, O Lord;” 1227 and Himself bestow on us the pathway of safety that we may walk therein, to whom the prayer is offered, “And grant us Thy salvation;” 1228 and Himself lead us in the self-same way, to whom again it is said, “Guide me, O Lord, in Thy way, and in Thy truth will I walk;” 1229 Himself, too, conduct us to those promises whither His way leads, to whom it is said, “Even there shall Thy hand lead me and Thy right hand shall hold me;” 1230 Himself pasture therein those who sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of whom it is said, “He shall make them sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.” 1231 Now we do not, when we make mention of these things, take away freedom of will, but we preach the grace of God. For to whom are those gracious gifts of use, but to the man who uses, but humbly uses, his own will, and makes no boast of the power and energy thereof, as if it alone were sufficient for perfecting him in righteousness?
Footnotes
133:1219See Ps. xliv. 18.
133:1220Rom. x. 2.
133:1221Rom. x. 3.
133:1222Rom. x. 4.
133:1223John xiv. 6.
133:1224Phil. ii. 12.
133:1225Ps. 2:11, 12.
134:1226Ps. ii. 12.
134:1227Ps. lxxxv. 7.
134:1228Ps. lxxxv. 7.
134:1229Ps. lxxxvi. 11.
134:1230Ps. cxxxix. 10.
134:1231Luke xii. 37.
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,” 1232 must without hesitation be held to have spoken the truth, and not be thought to have spoken falsehood for the sake of humility. Therefore he added the words, “And the truth is not in us;” whereas it might perhaps have been enough if he merely said, “We deceive ourselves,” if he had not observed that some were capable of supposing that the clause “we deceive ourselves” is here employed on the ground that the man who praises himself is even extolled for a really good action. So that, by the addition of “the truth is not in us,” he clearly shows (even as our author most correctly observes) that it is not at all true if we say that we have no sin, lest humility, if placed on the side of falsehood, should lose the reward of truth.
Footnotes
134:12321 John i. 8.
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 maintains that it lies entirely in our own control that this should not happen to us.
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;” 1233 and that the Lord Christ, after explaining the prayer in His teaching, most truly added: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you your trespasses.” 1234 Here, indeed, we have the daily incense, so to speak, of the Spirit, which is offered to God on the altar of the heart, which we are bidden “to lift up,”—implying that, even if we cannot live here without sin, we may yet die without sin, when in merciful forgiveness the sin is blotted out which is committed in ignorance or infirmity.
Footnotes
135:1233Matt. vi. 12.
135:1234Matt. vi. 14.
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. 1235 Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? Would it be in the language of our author, or in the words of the Apostle John? I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?” 1236 But perhaps this their answer would have been more humble than true! Well, but our author has already determined, and rightly determined, “not to place the praise of humility on the side of falsehood.” If, therefore, they spoke the truth in giving such an answer, they would have sin, and since they humbly acknowledged it, the truth would be in them; but if they lied in their answer, they would still have sin, because the truth would not be in them.
Footnotes
135:12351 John iii. 5.
135:12361 John i. 8.
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. What he has said, I beg of you to observe: “This,” says he, “might be rightly asked of those whom Scripture mentions neither as good nor as bad; but of those whose holiness it commemorates, it would also without doubt have commemorated the sins likewise, if it had perceived that they had sinned in anything.” Let him say, then, that their great faith did not attain to righteousness in the case of those who comprised “the multitudes that went before and that followed” the colt on which the Lord rode, when “they shouted and said, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,” 1237 even amidst the malignant men who with murmurs asked why they were doing all this! Let him then boldly tell us, if he can, that there was not a man in all that vast crowd who had any sin at all. Now, if it is most absurd to make such a statement as this, why has not the Scripture mentioned any sins in the persons to whom reference has been made, especially when it has carefully recorded the eminent goodness of their faith?
Footnotes
136:1237Matt. xxi. 9.
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,” 1238 without, however, dropping a syllable to intimate either their number or the time when they were born. In like manner it was unnecessary to state whether Abel, notwithstanding that he is rightly styled “righteous,” ever indulged in immoderate laughter, or was ever jocose in moments of relaxation, or ever looked at an object with a covetous eye, or ever plucked fruit to extravagance, or ever suffered indigestion from too much eating, or ever in the midst of his prayers permitted his thoughts to wander and call him away from the purpose of his devotion; as well as how frequently these and many other similar failings stealthily crept over his mind. And are not these failings sins, about which the apostle’s precept gives us a general admonition that we should avoid and restrain them, when he says: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof?” 1239 To escape from such an obedience, we have to struggle in a constant and daily conflict against unlawful and unseemly inclinations. Only let the eye be directed, or rather abandoned, to an object which it ought to avoid, and let the mischief strengthen and get the mastery, and adultery is consummated in the body, which is committed in the heart only so much more quickly as thought is more rapid than action and there is no impediment to retard and delay it. They who in a great degree have curbed this sin, that is, this appetite of a corrupt affection, so as not to obey its desires, nor to “yield their members to it as instruments of unrighteousness,” 1240 have fairly deserved to be called righteous persons, and this by the help of the grace of God. Since, however, sin often stole over them in very small matters, and when they were off their guard, they were both righteous, and at the same time not sinless. To conclude, if there was in righteous Abel that love of God whereby alone he is truly righteous who is righteous, to enable him, and to lay him under a moral obligation, to advance in holiness, still in whatever degree he fell short therein was of sin. And who indeed can help thus falling short, until he come to that mighty power thereof, in which man’s entire infirmity shall be swallowed up?
Footnotes
136:1238Gen. v. 4.
136:1239Rom. vi. 12.
137:1240Rom. vi. 13.
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.” 1241 Nor is it wicked to add something which we have not read; for it is in our power to add something which we have bona fideexperienced as witnesses, even if it so happens that we have not read about it. Perhaps he will say in reply: “When I said this, I was treating of the Holy Scriptures.” Oh how I wish that he were never willing to add, I will not say anything but what he reads in the Scriptures, but in opposition to what he reads in them; that he would only faithfully and obediently hear that which is written there: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned;” 1242 and that he would not weaken the grace of the great Physician,—all by his unwillingness to confess that human nature is corrupted! Oh how I wish that he would, as a Christian, read the sentence, “There is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved;” 1243 and that he would not so uphold the possibility of human nature, as to believe that man can be saved by free will without that Name!
Footnotes
137:12411 Thess. v. 21.
137:1242Rom. v. 12.
137:1243Acts iv. 12.
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.” 1244 He, however, who said, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” 1245 since that cross cannot be made of none effect, in very deed overthrows that wisdom by the foolishness of preaching whereby believers are healed. For if natural capacity, by help of free will, is in itself sufficient both for discovering how one ought to live, and also for leading a holy life, then “Christ died in vain,” 1246 and therefore also “the offence of the cross is ceased.” 1247 Why also may I not myself exclaim?—nay, I will exclaim, and chide them with a Christian’s sorrow,—“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by nature; ye are fallen from grace;” 1248 for, “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish your own righteousness, you have not submitted yourselves to the righteousness of God.” 1249 For even as “Christ is the end of the law,” so likewise is He the Saviour of man’s corrupted nature, “for righteousness to every one that believeth.” 1250
Footnotes
137:12441 Cor. i. 17.
137:12451 Cor. i. 19.
137:1246Gal. ii. 21.
137:1247Gal. v. 11.
137:1248Gal. v. 4.
137:1249Rom. x. 3.
137:1250Rom. x. 4.
Chapter 48 [XLI.]—How the Term “All” Is to Be Understood.
His opponents adduced the passage, “All have sinned,” 1251 and he met their statement founded on this with the remark that “the apostle was manifestly speaking of the then existing generation, that is, the Jews and the Gentiles;” but surely the passage which I have quoted, “By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned,” 1252 embraces in its terms the generations both of old and of modern times, both ourselves and our posterity. He adduces also this passage, whence he would prove that we ought not to understand all without exception, when “all” is used:—“As by the offence of one,” he says, “upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One, upon all men unto justification of life.” 1253 “There can be no doubt,” he says, “that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism.” Well, but he does not prove what he wants by this quotation. For as the clause, “By the offence of one, upon all men to condemnation,” is so worded that not one is omitted in its sense, so in the corresponding clause, “By the righteousness of One, upon all men unto justification of life,” no one is omitted in its sense,—not, indeed, because all men have faith and are washed in His baptism, but because no man is justified unless he believes in Christ and is cleansed by His baptism. The term “all” is therefore used in a way which shows that no one whatever can be supposed able to be saved by any other means than through Christ Himself. For if in a city there be appointed but one instructor, we are most correct in saying: That man teaches all in that place; not meaning, indeed, that all who live in the city take lessons of him, but that no one is instructed unless taught by him. In like manner no one is justified unless Christ has justified him. 1254
Footnotes
137:1251Rom. iii. 23.
137:1252Rom. v. 12.
137:1253Rom. v. 18.
138:1254Compare 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.” 1255 In a better way, therefore, is God’s cause promoted (and it is to its promotion that our author professes to apply his warm defence of nature) when He is acknowledged as our Saviour no less than as our Creator, than when His succour to us as Saviour is impaired and dwarfed to nothing by the defence of the creature, as if it were sound and its resources entire.
Footnotes
138:1255Rom. v. 5.
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” 1256 left half dead on the road, and who, being disabled and pierced through with heavy wounds, is not so able to mount up to the heights of righteousness as he was able to descend therefrom; who, moreover, if he is now in “the inn,” 1257 is in process of cure. God therefore does not command impossibilities; but in His command He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do. Now, we should see whence comes the possibility, and whence the impossibility. This man says: “That proceeds not from a man’s will which he can do by nature.” I say: A man is not righteous by his will if he can be by nature. He will, however, be able to accomplish by remedial aid what he is rendered incapable of doing by his flaw.
Footnotes
138:1256Luke x. 30. Rather, “robbers;” latrones, λησταί.
138:1257Luke x. 34.
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.” 1258 For the same faith which healed the saints of old now heals us,—that is to say, faith “in the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1259 —faith in His blood, faith in His cross, faith in His death and resurrection. As we therefore have the same spirit of faith, we also believe, and on that account also speak.
Footnotes
138:12581 Cor. ii. 2.
139:12591 Tim. ii. 5.
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 1260 that I am always able to speak; and though I wished not to be able to speak, I am unable, nevertheless, to be unable to speak, unless perhaps I were to deprive myself of that member whereby the function of speaking is to be performed.” Many means, indeed, might be mentioned whereby, if he wish it, a man may deprive himself of the possibility of speaking, without removing the organ of speech. If, for instance, anything were to happen to a man to destroy his voice, he would be unable to speak, although the members remained; for a man’s voice is of course no member. There may, in short, be an injury done to the member internally, short of the actual loss of it. I am, however, unwilling to press the argument for a word; and it may be replied to me in the contest, Why, even to injure is to lose. But yet we can so contrive matters, by closing and shutting the mouth with bandages, as to be quite incapable of opening it, and to put the opening of it out of our power, although it was quite in our own power to shut it while the strength and healthy exercise of the limbs remained.
Footnotes
139:1260Necesse 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, smelling, and seeing,—that to hear, and to smell, and to see is of our own power, while the ability to hear, and to smell, and to see is not of our own power, but lies in a natural necessity.” Either I do not understand what he means, or he does not himself. For how is the possibility of seeing not in our own power, if the necessity of not seeing is in our own power because blindness is in our own power, by which we can deprive ourselves, if we will, of this very ability to see? How, moreover, is it in our own power to see whenever we will, when, without any loss whatever to our natural structure of body in the organ of sight, we are unable, even though we wish, to see,—either by the removal of all external lights during the night, or by our being shut up in some dark place? Likewise, if our ability or our inability to hear is not in our own power, but lies in the necessity of nature, whereas our actual hearing or not hearing is of our own will, how comes it that he is inattentive to the fact that there are so many things which we hear against our will, which penetrate our sense even when our ears are stopped, as the creaking of a saw near to us, or the grunt of a pig? Although the said stopping of our ears shows plainly enough that it does not lie within our own power not to hear so long as our ears are open; perhaps, too, such a stopping of our ears as shall deprive us of the entire sense in question proves that even the ability not to hear lies within our own power. As to his remarks, again, concerning our sense of smell, does he not display no little carelessness when he says “that it is not in our own power to be able or to be unable to smell, but that it is in our own power”—that is to say, in our free will—“to smell or not to smell?” For let us suppose some one to place us, with our hands firmly tied, but yet without any injury to our olfactory members, among some bad and noxious smells; in such a case we altogether lose the power, however strong may be our wish, not to smell, because every time we are obliged to draw breath we also inhale the smell which we do not wish.
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” 1261 ), his language even in that case would not be correct to the effect that to avoid sinning would be of us alone, although to sin would be of us, for even then there must be the help of God, which must shed itself on those who are willing to receive it, just as the light is given to strong and healthy eyes to assist them in their function of sight. Inasmuch, however, as it is about this present life of ours that he raises the question, wherein our corruptible body weighs down the soul, and our earthly tabernacle depresses our sense with all its many thoughts, I am astonished that he can with any heart suppose that, even without the help of our Saviour’s healing balm, it is in our own power to avoid sin, and the ability not to sin is of nature, which gives only stronger evidence of its own corruption by the very fact of its failing to see its taint.
Footnotes
140:1261Rom. 8:24, 25.
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 he declares to be inherent in our nature. Of a man, indeed, who has his legs strong and sound, it may be said admissibly enough, “whether he will or not he has the capacity of walking;” but if his legs be broken, however much he may wish, he has not the capacity. The nature of which our author speaks is corrupted. “Why is dust and ashes proud?” 1262 It is corrupted. It implores the Physician’s help. “Save me, O Lord,” 1263 is its cry; “Heal my soul,” 1264 it exclaims. Why does he check such cries so as to hinder future health, by insisting, as it were, on its present capacity?
Footnotes
141:1262Ecclesiasticus 10.9.
141:1263Ps. xii. 1.
141:1264Ps. xli. 4.
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?” 1265 Whence also this: “For what good I would, that I do not; but what evil I hate, that do I?” 1266 Where is that capacity which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature? See, it is human beings who do not what they will; and it is about not sinning, certainly, that he was treating,—not about not flying, because it was men not birds, that formed his subject. Behold, it is man who does not the good which he would, but does the evil which he would not: “to will is present with him, but how to perform that which is good is not present.” 1267 Where is the capacity which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature? For whomsoever the apostle represents by himself, if he does not speak these things of his own self, he certainly represents a man by himself. By our author, however, it is maintained that our human nature actually possesses an inseparable capacity of not at all sinning. Such a statement, however, even when made by a man who knows not the effect of his words (but this ignorance is hardly attributable to the man who suggests these statements for unwary though God-fearing men), causes the grace of Christ to be “made of none effect,” 1268 since it is pretended that human nature is sufficient for its own holiness and justification.
Footnotes
141:1265Gal. v. 17.
141:1266Rom. vii. 15.
141:1267Rom. vii. 18.
141:12681 Cor. i. 17. Another reading has crux Christi instead of “Christi gratia,” thus closely adopting the apostle’s words.
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.” 1269 This, then, being the case, how comes it to pass that “to will is present, but how to perform that which is good” is not present? Now, if the author of the work we are discussing spoke of that nature of man, which was in the beginning created faultless and perfect, in whatever sense his dictum be taken, “that it has an inseparable capacity,”—that is, so to say, one which cannot be lost,—then that nature ought not to have been mentioned at all which could be corrupted, and which could require a physician to cure the eyes of the blind, and restore that capacity of seeing which had been lost through blindness. For I suppose a blind man would like to see, but is unable; but, whenever a man wishes to do a thing and cannot, there is present to him the will, but he has lost the capacity.
Footnotes
141:1269Rom. vii. 18.
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 1270 to us;” and then answers it in this wise: “How can it be that in the case of any baptized person the flesh is contrary to him, when according to the same apostle he is understood not to be in the flesh? For he says, ‘But ye are not in the flesh.’” 1271 Very well; we shall soon see 1272 whether it be really true that this says that in the baptized the flesh cannot be contrary to them; at present, however, as it was impossible for him quite to forget that he was a Christian (although his reminiscence on the point is but slight), he has quitted his defence of nature. Where then is that inseparable capacity of his? Are those who are not yet baptized not a part of human nature? Well, now, here by all means, here at this point, he might find his opportunity of awaking out of his sleep; and he still has it if he is careful. “How can it be,” he asks, “that in the case of a baptized person the flesh is contrary to him?” Therefore to the unbaptized the flesh can be contrary! Let him tell us how; for even in these there is that nature which has been so stoutly defended by him. However, in these he does certainly allow that nature is corrupted, inasmuch as it was only among the baptized that the wounded traveller left his inn sound and well, or rather remains sound in the inn whither the compassionate Samaritan carried him that he might become cured. 1273 Well, now, if he allows that the flesh is contrary even in these, let him tell us what has happened to occasion this, since the flesh and the spirit alike are the work of one and the same Creator, and are therefore undoubtedly both of them good, because He is good,—unless indeed it be that damage which has been inflicted by man’s own will. And that this may be repaired in our nature, there is need of that very Saviour from whose creative hand nature itself proceeded. Now, if we acknowledge that this Saviour, and that healing remedy of His by which the Word was made flesh in order to dwell among us, are required by small and great,—by the crying infant and the hoary-headed man alike,—then, in fact, the whole controversy of the point between us is settled.
Footnotes
141:1270Gal. v. 17.
141:1271Rom. viii. 9.
141:1272In the next chapter.
142:1273Luke x. 34.
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?” 1274 He wrote this, I apprehend, to the Galatians, to whom he also says, “He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?” 1275 It appears, therefore, that it is to Christians that he speaks, to whom, too, God had given His Spirit: therefore, too, to the baptized. Observe, therefore, that even in baptized persons the flesh is found to be contrary; so that they have not that capacity which, our author says, is inseparably implanted in nature. Where then is the ground for his assertion, “How can it be that in the case of a baptized person the flesh is contrary to him?” in whatever sense he understands the flesh? Because in very deed it is not its nature that is good, but it is the carnal defects of the flesh which are expressly named in the passage before us. 1276 Yet observe, even in the baptized, how contrary is the flesh. And in what way contrary? So that, “They do not the things which they would.” Take notice that the will is present in a man; but where is that “capacity of nature?” Let us confess that grace is necessary to us; let us cry out, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” And let our answer be, “The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” 1277
Footnotes
142:1274Gal. v. 17.
142:1275Gal. iii. 5.
142:1276See the context of Gal. 5.17-21.
142:1277Rom. 7:24, 25.
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.” 1278 But if they already have capacity, why do they pray? Or, what is the evil which they pray to be delivered from, but, above all else, “the body of this death?” And from this nothing but God’s grace alone delivers them, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Not of course from the substance of the body, which is good; but from its carnal offences, from which a man is not liberated except by the grace of the Saviour,—not even when he quits the body by the death of the body. If it was this that the apostle meant to declare, why had he previously said, “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?” 1279 Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man’s nature! Let him be permitted to pray that he may be healed! Why need he presume so much on the capacity of his nature? It is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed. It is a true confession of its weakness, not a false defence of its capacity, that it stands in need of. It requires the grace of God, not that it may be made, but that it may be re-made. And this is the only grace which by our author is proclaimed to be unnecessary; because of this he is silent! If, indeed, he had said nothing at all about God’s grace, and had not proposed to himself that question for solution, for the purpose of removing from himself the odium of this matter, 1280 it might have been thought that his view of the subject was consistent with the truth, only that he had refrained from mentioning it, on the ground that not on all occasions need we say all we think. He proposed the question of grace, and answered it in the way that he had in his heart; the question has been defined,—not in the way we wished, but according to the doubt we entertained as to what was his meaning.
Footnotes
142:1278Matt. vi. 13.
142:1279Rom. vii. 23.
143:1280See 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,” 1281 is a defect, not nature. The Physician’s grace must be sought, and their controversy must end.
Footnotes
143:1281Gal. v. 17.
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 Christ our Lord.” 1282 “But why,” he asks, “should I so exclaim, who am already baptized in Christ? It is for them to cry out thus who have not yet received so great a benefit, whose words the apostle in a figure transferred to himself,—if indeed even they say so much.” Well, this defence of nature does not permit even these to utter this exclamation! For in the baptized, there is no nature; and in the unbaptized, nature is not! Or if even in the one class it is allowed to be corrupted, so that it is not without reason that men exclaim, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?” to the other, too, help is brought in what follows: “The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord;” then let it at last be granted that human nature stands in need of Christ for its Physician.
Footnotes
144:1282Rom. 7:24, 25.
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?” 1283 For even he finds no fault with the substance of the flesh when he expresses his desire to be liberated from the body of this death, since the nature of the body, as well as of the soul, must be attributed to the good God as the author thereof. But what he speaks of undoubtedly concerns the offences of the body. Now from the body the death of the body separates us; whereas the offences contracted from the body remain, and their just punishment awaits them, as the rich man found in hell. 1284 From these it was that he was unable to liberate himself, who said: “Who shall liberate me from the body of this death?” 1285 But whensoever it was that he lost this liberty, at least there remains that “inseparable capacity” of nature,—he has the ability from natural resources,—he has the volition from free will. Why does he seek the sacrament of baptism? Is it because of past sins, in order that they may be forgiven, since they cannot be undone? Well, suppose you acquit and release a man on these terms, he must still utter the old cry; for he not only wants to be mercifully let off from punishment for past offences, but to be strengthened and fortified against sinning for the time to come. For he “delights in the law of God, after the inward man; but then he sees another law in his members, warring against the law of his mind.” 1286 Observe, he sees that there is, not recollects that there was. It is a present pressure, not a past memory. And he sees the other law not only “warring,” but even “bringing him into captivity to the law of sin, which is”(not which was) “in his members.” 1287 Hence comes that cry of his: “O wretched man that I am! who shall liberate me from the body of this death?” 1288 Let him pray, let him entreat for the help of the mighty Physician. Why gainsay that prayer? Why cry down that entreaty? Why shall the unhappy suitor be hindered from begging for the mercy of Christ,—and that too by Christians? For, it was even they who were accompanying Christ that tried to prevent the blind man, by clamouring him down, from begging for light; but even amidst the din and throng of the gainsayers He hears the suppliant; 1289 whence the response: “The grace of God, through Jesus Christ out Lord.” 1290
Footnotes
144:1283Rom. vii. 24.
144:1284Luke xvi. 23.
144:1285Rom. vii. 24.
144:1286Rom. 7:22, 23.
144:1287Rom. vii. 23.
144:1288Rom. vii. 24.
144:1289Mark x. 46-52.
144:1290Rom. vii. 25.
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,’ 1291 must needs have reference not to the substance, but to the works of the flesh.” We too allege that this is spoken not of the substance of the flesh, but of its works, which proceed from carnal concupiscence,—in a word, from sin, concerning which we have this precept: “Not to let it reign in our mortal body, that we should obey it in the lusts thereof.” 1292
Footnotes
144:1291Gal. v. 17.
144:1292Rom. vi. 12.
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.” 1293 And lest he should make them slothful for the actual conflict, and should seem by this statement to have given them laxity in sinning, he goes on to tell them: “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are no longer under the law.” 1294 For that man is under the law, who, from fear of the punishment which the law threatens, and not from any love for righteousness, obliges himself to abstain from the work of sin, without being as yet free and removed from the desire of sinning. For it is in his very will that he is guilty, whereby he would prefer, if it were possible, that what he dreads should not exist, in order that he might freely do what he secretly desires. Therefore he says, “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law,”—even the law which inspires fear, but gives not love. For this “love is shed abroad in our hearts,” not by the letter of the law, but “by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” 1295 This is the law of liberty, not of bondage; being the law of love, not of fear; and concerning it the Apostle James says: “Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty.” 1296 Whence he, too, no longer indeed felt terrified by God’s law as a slave, but delighted in it in the inward man, although still seeing another law in his members warring against the law of his mind. Accordingly he here says: “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” So far, indeed, as any man is led by the Spirit, he is not under the law; because, so far as he rejoices in the law of God, he lives not in fear of the law, since “fear has torment,” 1297 not joy and delight.
Footnotes
144:1293Gal. v. 17.
144:1294Gal. v. 18.
145:1295Rom. v. 5.
145:1296Jas. i. 25.
145:12971 John iv. 18.
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. 1298 For we do not deny that human nature can be without sin; nor ought we by any means to refuse to it the ability to become perfect, since we admit its capacity for progress,—by God’s grace, however, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By His assistance we aver that it becomes holy and happy, by whom it was created in order to be so. There is accordingly an easy refutation of the objection which our author says is alleged by some against him: “The devil opposes us.” This objection we also meet in entirely identical language with that which he uses in reply: “We must resist him, and he will flee. ‘Resist the devil,’ says the blessed apostle, ‘and he will flee from you.’ 1299 From which it may be observed, what his harming amounts to against those whom he flees; or what power he is to be understood as possessing, when he prevails only against those who do not resist him.” Such language is my own also; for it is impossible to employ truer words. There is, however, this difference between us and them, that we, whenever the devil has to be resisted, not only do not deny, but actually teach, that God’s help must be sought; whereas they attribute so much power to will as to take away prayer from religious duty. Now it is certainly with a view to resisting the devil and his fleeing from us that we say when we pray, “Lead us not into temptation;” 1300 to the same end also are we warned by our Captain, exhorting us as soldiers in the words: “Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” 1301
Footnotes
145:1298Ps. xvi. 11.
145:1299Jas. iv. 17.
145:1300Matt. vi. 13.
145:1301Mark xiv. 38.
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; 1302 but whoever doubts the possibility of this sinless state after this present life; is foolish. For my own part, indeed, I am unwilling to dispute the point even as respects this life. For although that passage seems to me to be incapable of bearing any doubtful sense, wherein it is written, “In thy sight shall no man living be justified” 1303 (and so of similar passages), yet I could wish it were possible to show either that such quotations were capable of bearing a better signification, or that a perfect and plenary righteousness, to which it were impossible for any accession to be made, had been realized at some former time in some one whilst passing through this life in the flesh, or was now being realized, or would be hereafter. They, however, are in a great majority, who, while not doubting that to the last day of their life it will be needful to them to resort to the prayer which they can so truthfully utter, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,” 1304 still trust that in Christ and His promises they possess a true, certain, and unfailing hope. There is, however, no method whereby any persons arrive at absolute perfection, or whereby any man makes the slightest progress to true and godly righteousness, but the assisting grace of our crucified Saviour Christ, and the gift of His Spirit; and whosoever shall deny this cannot rightly, I almost think, be reckoned in the number of any kind of Christians at all.
Footnotes
145:1302See next treatise—its preface, or Admonitio.
146:1303Ps. cxliii. 2.
146:1304Matt. vi. 12.
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 1305 forwarded to me did not contain it? Especially as in writings of such authors I feel myself free to use my own judgment (owing unhesitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures), whilst in fact there is not a passage which he has quoted from the works of this anonymous author 1306 that disturbs me. “It behooved,” says he, “for the Master and Teacher of virtue to become most like to man, that by conquering sin He might show that man is able to conquer sin.” Now, however this passage may be expressed, its author must see to it as to what explanation it is capable of bearing. We, indeed, on our part, could not possibly doubt that in Christ there was no sin to conquer,—born as He was in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh itself. Another passage is adduced from the same author to this effect: “And again, that by subduing the desires of the flesh He might teach us that it is not of necessity that one sins, but of set purpose and will.” 1307 For my own part, I understand these desires of the flesh (if it is not of its unlawful lusts that the writer here speaks) to be such as hunger, thirst, refreshment after fatigue, and the like. For it is through these, however faultless they be in themselves, that some men fall into sin,—a result which was far from our blessed Saviour, even though, as we see from the evidence of the gospel, these affections were natural to Him owing to His likeness to sinful flesh.
Footnotes
146:1305Timasius and Jacobus, to whom the treatise is addressed. See ch. 1.
146:1306Lactantius is the writer from whom Pelagius takes his first quotations here. See his Instit. Divin. iv. 24.
146:1307Lactantius, 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, 1308 that we shall see that which is immortal in God.” 1309 Now I am really not aware what is here said contrary to our own statement, or in what respect this passage is of any use to our opponent, unless it be that it testifies to the possibility of a man’s being “pure in heart.” But who denies such possibility? Only it must be by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, and not merely by our freedom of will. He goes on to quote also this passage: “This Job had so effectually read these Scriptures, that he kept himself from every wicked work, because he worshipped God purely with a mind unmixed with offences: now such worship of God is the proper work of righteousness.” 1310 It is what Job had done which the writer here spoke of, not what he had brought to perfection in this world,—much less what he had done or perfected without the grace of that Saviour whom he had actually foretold. 1311 For that man, indeed, abstains from every wicked work, who does not allow the sin which he has within him to have dominion over him; and who, whenever an unworthy thought stole over him, suffered it not to come to a head in actual deed. It is, however, one thing not to have sin, and another to refuse obedience to its desires. It is one thing to fulfil the command, “Thou shalt not covet;” 1312 and another thing, by an endeavour at any rate after abstinence, to do that which is also written, “Thou shalt not go after thy lusts.” 1313 And yet one is quite aware that he can do nothing of all this without the Saviour’s grace. It is to work righteousness, therefore, to fight in an internal struggle with the internal evil of concupiscence in the true worship of God; whilst to perfect it means to have no adversary at all. Now he who has to fight is still in danger, and is sometimes shaken, even if he is not overthrown; whereas he who has no enemy at all rejoices in perfect peace. He, moreover, is in the highest truth said to be without sin in whom no sin has an indwelling,—not he who, abstaining from evil deeds, uses such language as “Now it is no longer I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me.” 1314
Footnotes
146:1308See Matt. v. 8.
146:1309Hilary in loco.
146:1310Hilary’s Fragments.
146:1311Job xix. 25.
147:1312Ex. xx. 17.
147:1313Ecclesiasticus 18.30.
147:1314Rom. vii. 20.
Chapter 73.—He Meets Pelagius with Another Passage from Hilary.
Now even Job himself is not silent respecting his own sins; and your friend, 1315 of course, is justly of opinion that humility must not by any means “be put on the side of falsehood.” Whatever confession, therefore, Job makes, inasmuch as he is a true worshipper of God, he undoubtedly makes it in truth. 1316 Hilary, likewise, while expounding that passage of the psalm in which it is written, “Thou hast despised all those who turn aside from Thy commandments,” 1317 says: “If God were to despise sinners, He would despise indeed all men, because no man is without sin; but it is those who turn away from Him, whom they call apostates, that He despises.” You observe his statement: it is not to the effect that no man was without sin, as if he spoke of the past; but no man is without sin; and on this point, as I have already remarked, I have no contention with him. But if one refuses to submit to the Apostle John,—who does not himself declare, “If we were to say we have had no sin,” but “If we say we have no sin,” 1318 —how is he likely to show deference to Bishop Hilary? It is in defence of the grace of Christ that I lift up my voice, without which grace no man is justified,—just as if natural free will were sufficient. Nay, He Himself lifts up His own voice in defence of the same. Let us submit to Him when He says: “Without me ye can do nothing.” 1319
Footnotes
147:1315Pelagius, the friend of Timasius and Jacobus.
147:1316Job 40:4, Job 42:6.
147:1317Ps. 119:21, 118.
147:13181 John i. 8.
147:1319John xv. 5.
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.” 1320 Well, but does he for all that deny that it was by God’s grace that they did this through our Lord Jesus Christ? It was undoubtedly by such faith in Him that holy men lived of old, even before His death. It is He who sends the Holy Ghost that is given to us, through whom that love is shed abroad in our hearts whereby alone whosoever are righteous are righteous. This same Holy Ghost the bishop expressly mentioned when he reminds us that He is to be obtained by prayer (so that the will is not sufficient unless it be aided by Him); thus in his hymn he says:
“Votisque præstat sedulis,
Sanctum mereri Spiritum,” 1321 —
“To those who sedulously seek He gives to gain the Holy Spirit.”
Footnotes
147:1320Luke i. 6. See Ambrose in loco (Exp. 61, s. 17).
147:1321Ambrose’s Hymns, 3.
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.” 1322 See now what your author must learn, if he takes pleasure in the words of Ambrose, how that man’s will is prepared by God, and that it is of no importance, or, at any rate, does not much matter, by what means or at what time the preparation is accomplished, provided no doubt is raised as to whether the thing itself be capable of accomplishment without the grace of Christ. Then, again, how important it was that he should observe one line from the words of Ambrose which he quoted! For after that holy man had said, “Inasmuch as the Church has been gathered out of the world, that is, out of sinful men, how can it be unpolluted when composed of such polluted material, except that, in the first place, it be washed of sins by the grace of Christ, and then, in the next place, abstain from sins through its nature of avoiding sin?”—he added the following sentence, which your author has refused to quote for a self-evident reason; for [Ambrose] says: “It was not from the first unpolluted, for that was impossible for human nature: but it is through God’s grace and nature that because it no longer sins, it comes to pass that it seems unpolluted.” 1323 Now who does not understand the reason why your author declined adding these words? It is, of course, so contrived in the discipline of the present life, that the holy Church shall arrive at last at that condition of most immaculate purity which all holy men desire; and that it may in the world to come, and in a state unmixed with anything of evil men, and undisturbed by any law of sin resisting the law of the mind, lead the purest life in a divine eternity. Still he should well observe what Bishop Ambrose says,—and his statement exactly tallies with the Scriptures: “It was not from the first unpolluted, for that condition was impossible for human nature.” By his phrase, “from the first,” he means indeed from the time of our being born of Adam. Adam no doubt was himself created immaculate; in the case, however, of those who are by nature children of wrath, deriving from him what in him was corrupted, he distinctly averred that it was an impossibility in human nature that they should be immaculate from the first.
Footnotes
147:1322Ambrose on Luke i. 3.
148:1323Ambrose on Luke i. 6.
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.” 1324 Who, too, denies this? However, the present question concerns our human nature in its corrupted state; it is a further question also concerning that grace of God whereby our nature is healed by the great Physician, Christ, whose remedy it would not need if it were only whole. And yet your author defends it as capable of not sinning, as if it were sound, or as if its freedom of will were self-sufficient.
Footnotes
148:1324Compare Chrysostom’s Homily on Eph. ii. 3.
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?” 1325 But the man who appeals to free will ought to listen and believe, and ask Him in whom he believes to give him His assistance not to sin. For when he speaks of “becoming like unto God,” it is indeed through God’s love that men are to be like unto God,—even the love which is “shed abroad in our hearts,” not by any ability of nature or the free will within us, but “by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” 1326 Then, in respect of what the same martyr further says, “A pure mind is a holy temple for God, and a heart clean and without sin is His best altar,” who knows not that the clean heart must be brought to this perfection, whilst “the inward man is renewed day by day,” 1327 but yet not without the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord? Again, when he says, “A man of chastity and without sin has received power from God to be a son of God,” he of course meant it as an admonition that on a man’s becoming so chaste and sinless (without raising any question as to where and when this perfection was to be obtained by him,—although in fact it is quite an interesting question among godly men, who are notwithstanding agreed as to the possibility of such perfection on the one hand, and on the other hand its impossibility except through “the one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus”); 1328 —nevertheless, as I began to say, Xystus designed his words to be an admonition that, on any man’s attaining such a high character, and thereby being rightly reckoned to be among the sons of God, the attainment must not be thought to have been the work of his own power. This indeed he, through grace, received from God, since he did not have it in a nature which had become corrupted and depraved,—even as we read in the Gospel, “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God;” 1329 which they were not by nature, nor could at all become, unless by receiving Him they also received power through His grace. This is the power which is claimed for itself by the fortitude of that love which is only communicated to us by the Holy Ghost bestowed upon us.
Footnotes
148:1325This 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.
148:1326Rom. v. 5.
148:13272 Cor. iv. 16.
148:13281 Tim. ii. 5.
148:1329John i. 12.
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.’ 1330 These are they whom no consciousness of sin reproves,” he says, and adds: “The pure man is seen by his purity of heart; the temple of God cannot be defiled.” 1331 This perfection is, to be sure, wrought in us by endeavour, by labour, by prayer, by effectual importunity therein that we may be brought to the perfection in which we may be able to look upon God with a pure heart, by His grace through our Lord Jesus Christ. As to his quotation, that the forementioned presbyter said, “God created us with free will; we are drawn by necessity neither to virtue nor to vice; otherwise, where there is necessity there is no crown;” 1332 —who would not allow this? Who would not cordially accept it? Who would deny that human nature was so created? The reason, however, why in doing a right action there is no bondage of necessity, is that liberty comes of love.
Footnotes
148:1330Matt. v. 8.
149:1331Jerome on Matt. v. 8 (Comm. Book i. c. 5).
149:1332Jerome, 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.” 1333 By whom given if not by Him who “ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men?” 1334 Forasmuch, however, as there is, owing to the defects that have entered our nature, not to the constitution of our nature, a certain necessary tendency to sin, a man should listen, and in order that the said necessity may cease to exist, learn to say to God, “Bring Thou me out of my necessities;” 1335 because in the very offering up of such a prayer there is a struggle against the tempter, who fights against us concerning this very necessity; and thus, by the assistance of grace through our Lord Jesus Christ, both the evil necessity will be removed and full liberty be bestowed.
Footnotes
149:1333Rom. v. 5.
149:1334Eph. iv. 8.
149:1335Ps. xxv. 17.
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.’” 1336 I acknowledge it, these are my words; but he, too, should condescend to acknowledge all that was said previously, seeing that the discussion is about the grace of God, which helps us as a medicine through the Mediator; not about the impossibility of righteousness. Whatever, then, may be the cause, it can be resisted. Most certainly it can. Now it is because of this that we pray for help, saying, “Lead us not into temptation,” 1337 and we should not ask for help if we supposed that the resistance were quite impossible. It is possible to guard against sin, but by the help of Him who cannot be deceived. 1338 For this very circumstance has much to do with guarding against sin that we can unfeignedly say, “Forgive us our debt, as we forgive our debtors.” 1339 Now there are two ways whereby, even in bodily maladies, the evil is guarded against,—to prevent its occurrence, and, if it happen, to secure a speedy cure. To prevent its occurrence, we may find precaution in the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation;” to secure the prompt remedy, we have the resource in the prayer, “Forgive us our debts.” Whether then the danger only threaten or be inherent, it may be guarded against.
Footnotes
149:1336Augustin, De Libero Arbitrio, iii. 18 (50).
149:1337Matt. vi. 13.
149:1338Augustin gives a similar reply to the objection in his Retractations, i. 9.
149:1339Matt. vi. 12.
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’?” 1340 Then, after quoting some other passages of the Holy Scriptures to the same effect, I say: “But all these are the sayings of persons who are coming out of that condemnation of death; for if this is not man’s punishment, but his nature, then those are no sins.” Then, again, a little afterwards I add: “It remains, therefore, that this just punishment come of man’s condemnation. Nor ought it to be wondered at, that either by ignorance man has not free determination of will to choose what he will rightly do, or that by the resistance of carnal habit (which by force of mortal transmission has, in a certain sense, become engrafted into his nature), though seeing what ought rightly to be done and wishing to do it, he yet is unable to accomplish it. For this is the most just penalty of sin, that a man should lose what he has been unwilling to make good use of, when he might with ease have done so if he would; which, however, amounts to this, that the man who knowingly does not do what is right loses the ability to do it when he wishes. For, in truth, to every soul that sins there accrue these two penal consequences—ignorance and difficulty. Out of the ignorance springs the error which disgraces; out of the difficulty arises the pain which afflicts. But to approve of falsehoods as if they were true, so as to err involuntarily, and to be unable, owing to the resistance and pain of carnal bondage, to refrain from deeds of lust, is not the nature of man as he was created, but the punishment of man as under condemnation. When, however, we speak of a free will to do what is right, we of course mean that liberty in which man was created.” Some men at once deduce from this what seems to them a just objection from the transfer and transmission of sins of ignorance and difficulty from the first man to his posterity. My answer to such objectors is this: “I tell them, by way of a brief reply, to be silent and to cease from murmuring against God. Perhaps their complaint might have been a proper one, if no one from among men had stood forth a vanquisher of error and of lust; but when there is everywhere present One who calls off from himself, through the creature by so many means, the man who serves the Lord, teaches him when believing, consoles him when hoping, encourages him when loving, helps him when endeavouring, hears him when praying,—it is not reckoned to you as a fault that you are involuntarily ignorant, but that you neglect to search out what you are ignorant of; nor is it imputed to you in censure that you do not bind up the limbs that are wounded, but that you despise him who wishes to heal them.” 1341 In such terms did I exhort them, as well as I could, to live righteously; nor did I make the grace of God of none effect, without which the now obscured and tarnished nature of man can neither be enlightened nor purified. Our whole discussion with them on this subject turns upon this, that we frustrate not the grace of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord by a perverted assertion of nature. In a passage occurring shortly after the last quoted one, I said in reference to nature: “Of nature itself we speak in one sense, when we properly describe it as that human nature in which man was created faultless after his kind; and in another sense as that nature in which we are born ignorant and carnally minded, owing to the penalty of condemnation, after the manner of the apostle, ‘We ourselves likewise were by nature children of wrath, even as others.’” 1342
Footnotes
149:1340Rom. vii. 19.
150:1341De Libero Arbitrio, iii. 19.
150:1342Eph. ii. 3.
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,” 1343 we must first of all exhort them to that faith whereby they may become Christians, and be subjects of His name and authority, without whom they cannot be saved. If, however, they are already Christians but neglect to lead holy lives, they must be chastised with alarms and be aroused by the praises of reward,—in such a manner, indeed, that we must not forget to urge them to godly prayers as well as to virtuous actions, and furthermore to instruct them in such wholesome doctrine that they be induced thereby to return thanks for being able to accomplish any step in that holy life which they have entered upon, without difficulty, 1344 and whenever they do experience such “difficulty,” that they then wrestle with God in most faithful and persistent prayer and ready works of mercy to obtain from Him facility. But provided they thus progress, I am not over-anxious as to the where and the when of their perfection in fulness of righteousness; only I solemnly assert, that wheresoever and whensoever they become perfect, it cannot be but by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. When, indeed, they have attained to the clear knowledge that they have no sin, let them not say they have sin, lest the truth be not in them; 1345 even as the truth is not in those persons who, though they have sin, yet say that they have it not.
Footnotes
150:1343This passage, and others in this and the following chapters, are marked as quotations, apparently cited from Pelagius by Augustin.
150:1344For the “difficulty,” which is one of the penal consequences of sin, see last chapter, about its middle.
150:13451 John i. 8.
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. 1346 Indeed, by the very fact (of which we have the firmest conviction) “that the just and good God could not possibly have enjoined impossibilities,” we are admonished both what to do in easy paths and what to ask for when they are difficult. Now all things are easy for love to effect, to which (and which alone) “Christ’s burden is light,” 1347 —or rather, it is itself alone the burden which is light. Accordingly it is said, “And His commandments are not grievous;” 1348 so that whoever finds them grievous must regard the inspired statement about their “not being grievous” as having been capable of only this meaning, that there may be a state of heart to which they are not burdensome, and he must pray for that disposition which he at present wants, so as to be able to fulfil all that is commanded him. And this is the purport of what is said to Israel in Deuteronomy, if understood in a godly, sacred, and spiritual sense, since the apostle, after quoting the passage, “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart” 1349 (and, as the verse also has it, in thine hands, 1350 for in man’s heart are his spiritual hands), adds in explanation, “This is the word of faith which we preach.” 1351 No man, therefore, who “returns to the Lord his God,” as he is there commanded, “with all his heart and with all his soul,” 1352 will find God’s commandment “grievous.” How, indeed, can it be grievous, when it is the precept of love? Either, therefore, a man has not love, and then it is grievous; or he has love, and then it is not grievous. But he possesses love if he does what is there enjoined on Israel, by returning to the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul. “A new commandment,” says He, “do I give unto you, that ye love one another;” 1353 and “He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law;” 1354 and again, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” 1355 In accordance with these sayings is that passage, “Had they trodden good paths, they would have found, indeed, the ways of righteousness easy.” 1356 How then is it written, “Because of the words of Thy lips, I have kept the paths of difficulty,” 1357 except it be that both statements are true: These paths are paths of difficulty to fear; but to love they are easy?
Footnotes
150:1346See 1 Tim. i. 8.
151:1347Matt. xi. 30.
151:13481 John v. 3.
151:1349Deut. 30:14, Rom. 10:8.
151:1350According 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.
151:1351Rom. x. 8.
151:1352Deut. xxx. 2.
151:1353John xiii. 34.
151:1354Rom. xiii. 8.
151:1355Rom. xiii. 10.
151:1356Prov. ii. 20.
151:1357Ps. xvii. 4.
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,” 1358 “which in this life is then the greatest, when life itself is contemned in comparison with it.” 1359 I wonder, however, whether it has not a soil in which to grow after it has quitted this mortal life! But in what place and at what time soever it shall reach that state of absolute perfection, which shall admit of no increase, it is certainly not “shed abroad in our hearts” by any energies either of the nature or the volition that are within us, but “by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us,” 1360 “and which both helps our infirmity and co-operates with our strength. For it is itself indeed the grace of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, appertaineth eternity, and all goodness, for ever and ever. Amen.
Footnotes
151:13581 Tim. i. 5.
151:1359See note at beginning of ch. 82 for the meaning of this mark of quotation.
151:1360Rom. v. 5.
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 soon afterwards wrote back to Eutropius and Paulus a refutation of them, his answer to Orosius having been previously given.
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,’ 1361 in opposition to the apostle, runs on through thickets, not of syllogisms, as his admirers are apt to boast, but of solecisms, and philosophizes and disputes to the following effect: ‘If I do nothing without God’s help, and if everything which I shall achieve is owing to His operations solely, then it follows that it is not I who work, but only God’s work is to be crowned in me. In vain, therefore, has He conferred on me the power of will, if I am unable to exercise it fully without His incessant help. That volition, indeed, is destroyed which requires the assistance of another. But it is free will which God has given to me; and free it can only remain, if I do whatever I wish. The state of the case then is this: I either use once for all the power which has been bestowed on me, so that free will is preserved; or else, if I require the assistance of another, liberty of decision in me is destroyed.’”
Footnotes
156:1361Rom. ix. 22.
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, 1362 said to have been drawn up by Cœlestius, was put into the hands of Augustin. In this document, Cœlestius, or some person who shared in his errors, had recklessly asserted that a man had it in his power to live here without sin. Augustin first refutes the several propositions in brief answers, showing that the perfect and plenary state of righteousness, in which a man exists absolutely without sin, is unattainable without grace by the mere resources of our corrupt nature, and never occurs in this present state of existence. He next proceeds to consider the authorities which the paper contained as gathered out of the Scriptures; some of them teaching man to be “unspotted” and “perfect;” others mentioning the commandments of God as “not grievous;” while others again are quoted as opposed to the authoritative passages which the Catholics were accustomed to advance against the Pelagians.
Footnotes
159:1362These 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. 1363
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 1364 make boastful pretension of holding views like his, and, to use the apostle’s word, “being themselves deceived, lead others also astray.” 1365 That these views are, however, his, or those of some associates 1366 of his, we, too, can well believe. For the above-mentioned brief definitions, or rather propositions, are by no means at variance with his opinion, such as I have seen it expressed in another work, of which he is the undoubted author. There was therefore good reason, I think, for the report which those brethren, who brought these tidings to us, heard in Sicily, that Cœlestius taught or wrote such opinions. I should like, if it were possible, so to meet the obligation imposed on me by your brotherly kindness, that I, too, in my own answer should be equally brief. But unless I set forth also the propositions which I answer, who will be able to form a judgment of the value of my answer? Still I will try to the best of my ability, assisted, too, by God’s mercy, by your own prayers, so to conduct the discussion as to keep it from running to an unnecessary length.
Footnotes
159:1363[Probably Spanish refugees; they had recently presented to Augustin a memorial against certain heresies. Oros. ad Aug. i.—W.]
159:1364In 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.
159:13652 Tim. iii. 13.
159:1366Sociorum 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,” 1367 so that a man does not do the things which he would.
Footnotes
160:1367Gal. v. 17.
(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.” 1368
Footnotes
160:1368Ps. xxv. 17.
(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; 1369 and if it is separable, it can be avoided; and because it can be avoided, man can be without that which can be avoided.” The answer to this is, that sin is not natural; but nature (especially in that corrupt state from which we have become by nature “children of wrath” 1370 ) has too little determination of will to avoid sin, unless assisted and healed by God’s grace through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Footnotes
160:1369[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.]
160:1370Eph. ii. 3.
(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 1371 in the thing, by which the deformed act comes into existence? So in the inward man the soul is the thing, theft is an act, and avarice is the defect, that is, the property by which the soul is evil, even when it does nothing in gratification of its avarice, even when it hears the prohibition, “Thou shalt not covet,” 1372 and censures itself, and yet remains avaricious. By faith, however, it receives renovation; in other words, it is healed day by day, 1373 —yet only by God’s grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Footnotes
160:1371[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.]
160:1372Ex. xx. 17.
160:13732 Cor. iv. 16.
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 opportunity of being cured of his lameness, we of course have a right to say: “That man ought not to be lame; and if he ought, he is able.” And yet whenever he wishes he is not immediately able; but only after he has been cured by the application of the remedy, and the medicine has assisted his will. The same thing takes place in the inward man in relation to sin which is its lameness, by the grace of Him who “came not to call the righteous, but sinners;” 1374 since “the whole need not the physician, but only they that be sick.” 1375
Footnotes
161:1374Matt. ix. 13.
161:1375Matt. ix. 12.
(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, 1376 until their righteousness becomes perfect, like fully restored health.
Footnotes
161:13762 Cor. iv. 16.
(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.” 1377 Full righteousness, therefore, will only then be reached, when fulness of health is attained; and this fulness of health shall be when there is fulness of love, for “love is the fulfilling of the law;” 1378 and then shall come fulness of love, when “we shall see Him even as He is.” 1379 Nor will any addition to love be possible more, when faith shall have reached the fruition of sight.
Footnotes
161:1377Rom. 8:24, 25.
161:1378Rom. xiii. 10.
161:13791 John iii. 2.
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.” 1380 With these necessities upon us, we are either unable to understand what we want, or else (while having the wish) we are not strong enough to accomplish what we have come to understand. Now it is just liberty itself that is promised to believers by the Liberator. “If the Son,” says He, “shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” 1381 For, vanquished by the sin into which it fell by its volition, nature has lost liberty. Hence another scripture says, “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” 1382 Since therefore “the whole need not the physician, but only they that be sick;” 1383 so likewise it is not the free that need the Deliverer, but only the enslaved. Hence the cry of joy to Him for deliverance, “Thou hast saved my soul from the straits of necessity.” 1384 For true liberty is also real health; and this would never have been lost, if the will had remained good. But because the will has sinned, the hard necessity of having sin has pursued the sinner; until his infirmity be wholly healed, and such freedom be regained, that there must needs be, on the one hand, a permanent will to live happily, and, on the other hand, a voluntary and happy necessity of living virtuously, and never sinning.
Footnotes
161:1380Ps. xxv. 17.
161:1381John viii. 38.
161:13822 Pet. ii. 19.
161:1383Matt. ix. 12.
161:1384Ps. xxxi. 7.
(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, 1385 by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, with a view to the outward man’s resurrection at the last day to an eternity not of punishment, but of life.
Footnotes
162:13852 Cor. iv. 16.
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 1386 His word, expressly declared that the law and the prophets hung on two commandments, 1387 that we might understand that whatever else has been enjoined on us by God ends in these two commandments, and must be referred to them: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” 1388 and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” 1389 “On these two commandments,” says He, “hang all the law and the prophets.” 1390 Whatever, therefore, we are by God’s law forbidden, and whatever we are bidden to do, we are forbidden and bidden with the direct object of fulfilling these two commandments. And perhaps the general prohibition is, “Thou shalt not covet;” 1391 and the general precept, “Thou shalt love.” 1392 Accordingly the Apostle Paul, in a certain place, briefly embraced the two, expressing the prohibition in these words, “Be not conformed to this world,” 1393 and the command in these, “But be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” 1394 The former falls under the negative precept, not to covet; the latter under the positive one, to love. The one has reference to continence, the other to righteousness. The one enjoins avoidance of evil; the other, pursuit of good. By eschewing covetousness we put off the old man, and by showing love we put on the new. But no man can be continent unless God endow him with the gift; 1395 nor is God’s love shed abroad in our hearts by our own selves, but by the Holy Ghost that is given to us. 1396 This, however, takes place day after day in those who advance by willing, believing, and praying, and who, “forgetting those things which are behind, reach forth unto those things which are before.” 1397 For the reason why the law inculcates all these precepts is, that when a man has failed in fulfilling them, he may not be swollen with pride, and so exalt himself, but may in very weariness betake himself to grace. Thus the law fulfils its office as “schoolmaster,” so terrifying the man as “to lead him to Christ,” to give Him his love. 1398
Footnotes
162:1386An application of Rom. ix. 28.
162:1387Matt. xxii. 40.
162:1388Matt. xxii. 37.
162:1389Matt. xxii. 39.
162:1390Matt. xxii. 40.
162:1391Ex. xx. 27.
162:1392Deut. vi. 5.
162:1393Rom. xii. 2.
162:1394Rom. xii. 2.
162:1395Wisdom 8.21.
162:1396Rom. v. 5.
162:1397Phil. iii. 13.
162:1398Gal. iii. 24.
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.” 1399 He does not say, “These are contrary the one to the other, so that ye will not do the things that ye can,” but, “so that ye do not the things that ye would.” 1400 How happens it, then, that the lust of the flesh which of course is culpable and corrupt, and is nothing else than the desire for sin, as to which the same apostle instructs us not to let it “reign in our mortal body;” 1401 by which expression he shows us plainly enough that that must have an existence in our mortal body which must not be permitted to hold a dominion in it;—how happens it, I say, that such lust of the flesh has not been changed by that will, which the apostle clearly implied the existence of in his words, “So that ye do not the things that ye would,” if so be that the will can so easily be changed by will? Not that we, indeed, by this argument throw the blame upon the nature either of the soul or of the body, which God created, and which is wholly good; but we say that it, having been corrupted by its own will, cannot be made whole without the grace of God.
Footnotes
162:1399Gal. v. 17.
162:1400῝Ινα μη ἁ ἂν θελητε, ταῦτα ποιῆτε.
163:1401Rom. vi. 12.
(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.” 1402 This deliverance, indeed, is not fully wrought, so long as the soul is oppressed by the body, which is hastening to corruption. 1403 This process, however, is being effected by grace through faith, so that it may be said by and by, “O death, where is thy struggle? Where is thy sting, O death? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law;” 1404 because the law by prohibiting sin only increases the desire for it, unless the Holy Ghost spreads abroad that love, which shall then be full and perfect, when we shall see face to face.
Footnotes
163:1402Matt. vi. 13.
163:1403Wisdom 9.15.
163:14041 Cor. 15:35, 36.
(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.” 1405 Now He does not impute it to those who say to Him in faith, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” 1406 And justly does He withhold this imputation, because that is just which He says: “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” 1407 That, however, is sin in which there is either not the love which ought to be, or where the love is less than it ought to be, 1408 —whether it can be avoided by the human will or not; because when it can be avoided, the man’s present will does it, but if it cannot be avoided his past will did it; and yet it can be avoided,—not, however, when the proud will is lauded, but when the humble one is assisted.
Footnotes
163:1405Ps. xxxii. 2.
164:1406Matt. vi. 12.
164:1407Matt. vii. 2.
164:1408See 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,” 1409 since in holy baptism all past debts have been already forgiven. But whoever tries to persuade us that such a prayer is not proper for faithful members of Christ, does in fact acknowledge nothing else than that he is not himself a Christian. If, again, it is through himself that a man is able to live without sin, then did Christ die in vain. But “Christ is not dead in vain.” No man, therefore, can be without sin, even if he wish it, unless he be assisted by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. And that this perfection may be attained, there is even now a training carried on in growing [Christians,] and there will be by all means a completion made, after the conflict with death is spent, and love, which is now cherished by the operation of faith and hope, shall be perfected in the fruition of sight and possession.
Footnotes
164:1409Matt. vi. 12.
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.” 1410 Now from this body of death not every one is liberated who ends the present life, but only he who in this life has received grace, and given proof of not receiving it in vain by spending his days in good works. For it is plainly one thing to depart from the body, which all men are obliged to do in the last day of their present life, and another to be delivered from the body of this death,—which God’s grace alone, through our Lord Jesus Christ, imparts to His faithful saints. It is after this life, indeed, that the reward of perfection is bestowed, but only upon those by whom in their present life has been acquired the merit of such a recompense. For no one, after going hence, shall arrive at fulness of righteousness, unless, whilst here, he shall have run his course by hungering and thirsting after it. “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled.” 1411
Footnotes
164:1410Gal. v. 17.
164:1411Matt. v. 6.
(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;” 1412 whence it is said, “The just shall live by faith.” 1413 Our righteousness in this pilgrimage is this—that we press forward to that perfect and full righteousness in which there shall be perfect and full love in the sight of His glory; and that now we hold to the rectitude and perfection of our course, by “keeping under our body and bringing it into subjection,” 1414 by doing our alms cheerfully and heartily, while bestowing kindnesses and forgiving the trespasses which have been committed against us, and by “continuing instant in prayer;” 1415 —and doing all this with sound doctrine, whereon are built a right faith, a firm hope, and a pure charity. This is now our righteousness, in which we pass through our course hungering and thirsting after the perfect and full righteousness, in order that we may hereafter be satisfied therewith. Therefore our Lord in the Gospel (after saying, “Take heed that ye do not your righteousness 1416 before men, to be seen of them,” 1417 ) in order that we should not measure our course of life by the limit of human glory, declared in his exposition of righteousness itself that there is none except there be these three,—fasting, alms, prayers. Now in the fasting He indicates the entire subjugation of the body; in the alms, all kindness of will and deed, either by giving or forgiving; and in prayers He implies all the rules of a holy desire. So that, although by the subjugation of the body a check is given to that concupiscence, which ought not only to be bridled but to be put altogether out of existence (and which will not be found at all in that state of perfect righteousness, where sin shall be absolutely excluded),—yet it often exerts its immoderate desire even in the use of things which are allowable and right. In that real beneficence in which the just man consults his neighbour’s welfare, things are sometimes done which are prejudicial, although it was thought that they would be advantageous. Sometimes, too, through infirmity, when the amount of the kindness and trouble which is expended either falls short of the necessities of the objects, or is of little use under the circumstances, then there steals over us a disappointment which tarnishes that “cheerfulness” which secures to the “giver” the approbation of God. 1418 This trail of sadness, however, is the greater or the less, as each man has made more or less progress in his kindly purposes. If, then, these considerations, and such as these, be duly weighed, we are only right when we say in our prayers, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” 1419 But what we say in our prayers we must carry into act, even to loving our very enemies; or if any one who is still a babe in Christ fails as yet to reach this point, he must at any rate, whenever one who has trespassed against him repents and craves his pardon, exercise forgiveness from the bottom of his heart, if he would have his heavenly Father listen to his prayer.
Footnotes
164:14122 Cor. v. 6.
164:1413Hab. ii. 4.
164:14141 Cor. ix. 27.
164:1415Rom. xii. 12.
164:1416For 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.
164:1417Matt. vi. 1.
164:14182 Cor. ix. 7.
164:1419Matt. vi. 12.
(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.” 1420 In other words, let us, as many as are running perfectly, be thus resolved, that, being not yet perfected, we pursue our course to perfection along the way by which we have thus far run perfectly, in order that “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part may be done away;” 1421 that is, may cease to be but in part any longer, but become whole and complete. For to faith and hope shall succeed at once the very substance itself, no longer to be believed in and hoped for, but to be seen and grasped. Love, however, which is the greatest among the three, is not to be superseded, but increased and fulfilled,—contemplating in full vision what it used to see by faith, and acquiring in actual fruition what it once only embraced in hope. Then in all this plenitude of charity will be fulfilled the commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” 1422 For while there remains any remnant of the lust of the flesh, to be kept in check by the rein of continence, God is by no means loved with all one’s soul. For the flesh does not lust without the soul; although it is the flesh which is said to lust, because the soul lusts carnally. In that perfect state the just man shall live absolutely without any sin, since there will be in his members no law warring against the law of his mind, 1423 but wholly will he love God, with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind 1424 which is the first and chief commandment. For why should not such perfection be enjoined on man, although in this life nobody may attain to it? For we do not rightly run if we do not know whither we are to run. But how could it be known, unless it were pointed out in precepts? 1425 Let us therefore “so run that we may obtain.” 1426 For all who run rightly will obtain,—not as in the contest of the theatre, where all indeed run, but only one wins the prize. 1427 Let us run, believing, hoping, longing; let us run, subjugating the body, cheerfully and heartily doing alms,—in giving kindnesses and forgiving injuries, praying that our strength may be helped as we run; and let us so listen to the commandments which urge us to perfection, as not to neglect running towards the fulness of love.
Footnotes
165:1420Phil. iii. 12-15.
165:14211 Cor. xiii. 10.
165:1422Mente. The Septuagint, however, like the Hebrew, has δυναμεως. A.V. “thy might.” Comp Deut. 6:5, Matt. 22:37.
165:1423Rom. vii. 23.
165:1424Matt. xxii. 37.
165:1425See above in Augustin’s De Spiritu et Littera, 64.
165:14261 Cor. ix. 23.
165:14271 Cor. ix. 24.
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.’ 1428 Again, in the same book, ‘There shall be not an imperfect man 1429 among the sons of Israel.’ 1430 In like manner the Saviour says in the Gospel, Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ 1431 So the apostle, in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, says: ‘Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect.’ 1432 Again, to the Colossians he writes: ‘Warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ.’ 1433 And so to the Philippians: ‘Do all things without murmurings and disputings, that ye may be blameless, and harmless, as the immaculate sons of God.’ 1434 In like manner to the Ephesians he writes: ‘Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.’ 1435 Then again to the Colossians he says in another passage: ‘And you, that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death; present yourselves holy and unblameable and unreprovable in His sight.’ 1436 In the same strain, he says to the Ephesians: ‘That He might present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish.’ 1437 So in his first Epistle to the Corinthians he says ‘Be ye sober, and righteous, and sin not.’ 1438 So again in the Epistle of St. Peter it is written: ‘Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end, for the grace that is offered to you: . . . as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as He who hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, 1439 Be ye holy; for I am holy.’ 1440 Whence blessed David likewise says: ‘O Lord, who shall sojourn in Thy tabernacle, or who shall rest on Thy holy mountain? He that walketh without blame, and worketh righteousness.’ 1441 And in another passage: ‘I shall be blameless with Him.’ 1442 And yet again: ‘Blessed are the blameless in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.’ 1443 To the same effect it is written in Solomon: ‘The Lord loveth holy hearts, and all they that are blameless are acceptable unto Him.’” 1444 Now some of these passages exhort men who are running their course that they run perfectly; others refer to the end thereof, that men may reach forward to it as they run. He, however, is not unreasonably said to walk blamelessly, not who has already reached the end of his journey, but who is pressing on towards the end in a blameless manner, free from damnable sins, and at the same time not neglecting to cleanse by almsgiving such sins as are venial. For the way in which we walk, that is, the road by which we reach perfection, is cleansed by clean prayer. That, however, is a clean prayer in which we say in truth, “Forgive us, as we ourselves forgive.” 1445 So that, as there is nothing censured when blame is not imputed, we may hold on our course to perfection without censure, in a word, blamelessly; and in this perfect state, when we arrive at it at last, we shall find that there is absolutely nothing which requires cleansing by forgiveness.
Footnotes
165:1428Deut. xviii. 13.
165:1429Augustin’s word is inconsummatus. The Septuagint term τελισκόμενος (which properly signifies complete, perfect) comes to mean one initiated into the mysteries of idolatrous worship.
165:1430Deut. xxiii. 17.
165:1431Matt. v. 48.
165:14322 Cor. xiii. 11.
165:1433Col. i. 28.
165:1434Phil. 2:14, 15.
165:1435Eph. 1:3, 4.
165:1436Col. 1:21, 22.
166:1437Eph. 5:26, 27.
166:14381 Cor. xv. 34.
166:1439Lev. xix. 2.
166:14401 Pet. i. 13-16.
166:1441Ps. 15:1, 2.
166:1442Ps. xviii. 23.
166:1443Ps. cxix. 1.
166:1444Prov. xi. 20.
166:1445Matt. vi. 12.
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,” 1446 and “love is the fulfilling of the law” 1447 ), whatever is accomplished by the operation of love, and not of fear, is not grievous? They, however, are oppressed by the commandments of God, who try to fulfil them by fearing. “But perfect love casteth out fear;” 1448 and, in respect of the burden of the commandment, it not only takes off the pressure of its heavy weight, but it actually lifts it up as if on wings. In order, however, that this love may be possessed, even as far as it can possibly be possessed in the body of this death, the determination of will avails but little, unless it be helped by God’s grace through our Lord Jesus Christ. For as it must again and again be stated, it is “shed abroad in our hearts,” not by our own selves, but “by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” 1449 And for no other reason does Holy Scripture insist on the truth that God’s commandments are not grievous, than this, that the soul which finds them grievous may understand that it has not yet received those resources which make the Lord’s commandments to be such as they are commended to us as being, even gentle and pleasant; and that it may pray with groaning of the will to obtain the gift of facility. For the man who says, “Let my heart be blameless;” 1450 and, “Order Thou my steps according to Thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me;” 1451 and, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven;” 1452 and, “Lead us not into temptation;” 1453 and other prayers of a like purport, which it would be too long to particularize, does in effect offer up a prayer for ability to keep God’s commandments. Neither, indeed, on the one hand, would any injunctions be laid upon us to keep them, if our own will had nothing to do in the matter; nor, on the other hand, would there be any room for prayer, if our will were alone sufficient. God’s commandments, therefore, are commended to us as being not grievous, in order that he to whom they are grievous may understand that he has not as yet received the gift which removes their grievousness; and that he may not think that he is really performing them, when he so keeps them that they are grievous to him. For it is a cheerful giver whom God loves. 1454 Nevertheless, when a man finds God’s commandments grievous, let him not be broken down by despair; let him rather oblige himself to seek, to ask, and to knock.
Footnotes
166:14461 Tim. i. 8.
166:1447Rom. xiii. 10.
166:14481 John iv. 18.
166:1449Rom. v. 5.
166:1450Ps. cxix. 80.
166:1451Ps. cxix. 133.
166:1452Matt. vi. 10.
166:1453Matt. vi. 13.
166:14542 Cor. ix. 7.
(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: ‘The Lord thy God will again turn and rejoice over thee for good, as He rejoiced over thy fathers, if ye shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments, and His ordinances, and His judgments, written in the book of this law; if thou turn to the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this command, which I give thee this day, is not grievous, neither is it far from thee: it is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who will ascend into heaven, and obtain it for us, that we may hear and do it? neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who will cross over the sea, and obtain it for us, that we may hear and do it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart, and in thine hands to do it.’ 1455 In the Gospel likewise the Lord says: ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’ 1456 So also in the Epistle of Saint John it is written: ‘This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.’” 1457 On hearing these testimonies out of the law, and the gospel, and the epistles, let us be built up unto that grace which those persons do not understand, who, “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” 1458 For, if they understand not the passage of Deuteronomy in the sense that the Apostle Paul quoted it,—that “with the heart men believe unto righteousness, and with their mouth make confession unto salvation;” 1459 since “they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick,” 1460 —they certainly ought (by that very passage of the Apostle John which he quoted last to this effect: “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous” 1461 ) to be admonished that God’s commandment is not grievous to the love of God, which is shed abroad in our hearts only by the Holy Ghost, not by the determination of man’s will by attributing to which more than they ought, they are ignorant of God’s righteousness. This love, however, shall then be made perfect, when all fear of punishment shall be cut off.
Footnotes
167:1455Deut. xxx. 9-14.
167:1456Matt. xi. 28-30.
167:14571 John v. 3.
167:1458Rom. x. 3.
167:1459Rom. x. 10.
167:1460Matt. ix. 12.
167:14611 John v. 3.
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.’” 1462 Then he proceeds to give a sort of answer to this passage by help of other quotations; as when Job himself said: “For although I am a righteous and blameless man, I have become a subject for mockery,” 1463 —not understanding that a man may be called righteous, who has gone so far towards perfection in righteousness as to be very near it; and this we do not deny to have been in the power of many even in this life, when they walk in it by faith.
Footnotes
167:1462Job 14:4, 5.
167:1463Job xii. 4.
(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.” 1464 Now this is the judgment of which it is said in another scripture: “And He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.” But he does not say, I am already there; but, “I am very near.” If, indeed, the judgment of his which he meant was not that which he would himself exercise, but that whereby he was to be judged at the last day, then in such judgment all will be found righteous who with sincerity pray: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” 1465 For it is through this forgiveness that they will be found righteous; on this account that whatever sins they have here incurred, they have blotted out by their deeds of charity. Whence the Lord says: “Give alms; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.” 1466 For in the end, it shall be said to the righteous, when about to enter into the promised kingdom: “I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat,” 1467 and so forth. However, it is one thing to be without sin, which in this life can only be predicated of the Only-begotten, and another thing to be without accusation, which might be said of many just persons even in the present life; for there is a certain measure of a good life, according to which even in this human intercourse there could no just accusation be possibly laid against him. For who can justly accuse the man who wishes evil to no one, and who faithfully does good to all he can, and never cherishes a wish to avenge himself on any man who does him wrong, so that he can truly say, “As we forgive our debtors?” And yet by the very fact that he truly says, “Forgive, as we also forgive,” he plainly admits that he is not without sin.
Footnotes
167:1464Job xiii. 18.
167:1465Matt. vi. 12.
167:1466Luke xi. 41.
167:1467Matt. xxv. 35.
(25.) Hence the force of the statement: “There was no injustice in my hands, but my prayer was pure.” 1468 For the purity of his prayer arose from this circumstance, that it was not improper for him to ask forgiveness in prayer, when he really bestowed forgiveness himself.
Footnotes
168:1468Job xvi. 18.
(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,” 1469 observe that his words are not, He hath inflicted none with a cause; but, “many without a cause.” For it was not because of his manifold sins that these many bruises were inflicted on him, but in order to make trial of his patience. For on account of his sins, indeed, without which, as he acknowledges in another passage, he was certainly not, he yet judges that he ought to have suffered less. 1470
Footnotes
168:1469Job ix. 17.
168:1470Job 6:2, 3.
(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;” 1471 he has kept God’s ways who does not so turn aside as to forsake them, but makes progress by running his course therein; although, weak as he is, he sometimes stumbles or falls, onward, however, he still goes, sinning less and less until he reaches the perfect state in which he will sin no more. For in no other way could he make progress, except by keeping His ways. The man, indeed, who declines from these and becomes an apostate at last, is certainly not he who, although he has sin, yet never ceases to persevere in fighting against it until he arrives at the home where there shall remain no more conflict with death. Well now, it is in our present struggle therewith that we are clothed with the righteousness in which we here live by faith,—clothed with it as it were with a breastplate. 1472 Judgment also we take on ourselves; and even when it is against us, we turn it round to our own behalf; for we become our own accusers and condemn our sins: whence that scripture which says, “The righteous man accuses himself at the beginning of his speech.” 1473 Hence also he says: “I put on righteousness, and clothed myself with judgment like a mantle.” 1474 Our vesture at present no doubt is wont to be armour for war rather than garments of peace, while concupiscence has still to be subdued; it will be different by and by, when our last enemy death shall be destroyed, 1475 and our righteousness shall be full and complete, without an enemy to molest us more.
Footnotes
168:1471Job 23:11, 12.
168:1472Eph. vi. 14.
168:1473Prov. xviii. 17.
168:1474Job. xxix. 14.
168:14751 Cor. xv. 26.
(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,” 1476 we remark, that it is in this present life of ours, in which we live by faith, that our heart does not reproach us, if the same faith whereby we believe unto righteousness does not neglect to rebuke our sin. On this principle the apostle says: “The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do.” 1477 Now it is a good thing to avoid concupiscence, and this good the just man would, who lives by faith; 1478 and still he does what he hates, because he has concupiscence, although “he goes not after his lusts;” 1479 if he has done this, he has himself at that time really done it, so as to yield to, and acquiesce in, and obey the desire of sin. His heart then reproaches him, because it reproaches himself, and not his sin which dwelleth in him. But whensoever he suffers not sin to reign in his mortal body to obey it in the lusts thereof, 1480 and yields not his members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, 1481 sin no doubt is present in his members, but it does not reign, because its desires are not obeyed. Therefore, while he does that which he would not,—in other words, while he wishes not to lust, but still lusts,—he consents to the law that it is good: 1482 for what the law would, that he also wishes; because it is his desire not to indulge concupiscence, and the law expressly says, “Thou shalt not covet.” 1483 Now in that he wishes what the law also would have done, he no doubt consents to the law: but still he lusts, because he is not without sin; it is, however, no longer himself that does the thing, but the sin which dwells within him. Hence it is that “his heart does not reproach him in all his life;” that is, in his faith, because the just man lives by faith, so that his faith is his very life. He knows, to be sure, that in himself dwells nothing good,—even in his flesh, which is the dwelling-place of sin. By not consenting, however, to it, he lives by faith, wherewith he also calls upon God to help him in his contest against sin. Moreover, there is present to him to will that no sin at all should be in him, but then how to perfect this good is not present. It is not the mere “doing” of a good thing that is not present to him, but the “perfecting” of it. For in this, that he yields no consent, he does good; he does good again, in this, that he hates his own lust; he does good also, in this, that he does not cease to give alms; and in this, that he forgives the man who sins against him, he does good; and in this, that he asks forgiveness for his own trespasses,—sincerely avowing in his petition that he also forgives those who trespass against himself, and praying that he may not be led into temptation, but be delivered from evil,—he does good. But how to perfect the good is not present to him; it will be, however, in that final state, when the concupiscence which dwells in his members shall exist no more. His heart, therefore, does not reproach him, when it reproaches the sin which dwells in his members; nor can it reproach unbelief in him. Thus “in all his life,”—that is, in his faith,—he is neither reproached by his own heart, nor convinced of not being without sin. And Job himself acknowledges this concerning himself, when he says, “Not one of my sins hath escaped Thee; Thou hast sealed up my transgressions in a bag, and marked if I have done iniquity unawares.” 1484 With regard, then, to the passages which he has adduced from the book of holy Job, we have shown to the best of our ability in what sense they ought to be taken. He, however, has failed to explain the meaning of the words which he has himself quoted from the same Job: “Who then is pure from uncleanness? Not one; even if he be an infant of only one day upon the earth.” 1485
Footnotes
168:1476Job xxvii. 6.
168:1477Rom. vii. 15.
168:1478Hab. ii. 4.
168:1479Ecclesiasticus 18.30.
168:1480Rom. vi. 12.
168:1481Rom. vi. 13.
168:1482Rom. vii. 16.
168:1483Ex. xx. 17.
169:1484Job 14:16, 17.
169:1485Job 14:4, 5.
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.’” 1486 But here again he offers no solution of words which are quoted against himself even by himself; all he does is to mention other apparently opposite passages before persons who are unacquainted with the sacred Scriptures, and thus to cast the word of God into conflict. This is what he says: “We tell them in answer, how in the book of Numbers it is said, ‘Man is true.’ 1487 While of holy Job this eulogy is read: ‘There was a certain man in the land of Ausis, whose name was Job; that man was true, blameless, righteous, and godly, abstaining from every evil thing.’” 1488 I am surprised that he has brought forward this passage, which says that Job “abstained from every evil thing,” wishing it to mean “abstained from every sin;” because he has argued already 1489 that sin is not a thing, but an act. Let him recollect that, even if it is an act, it may still be called a thing. That man, however, abstains from every evil thing, who either never consents to the sin, which is always with him, or, if sometimes hard pressed by it, is never oppressed by it; just as the wrestling champion, who, although he is sometimes caught in a fierce grapple, does not for all that lose the prowess which constitutes him the better man. We read, indeed, of a man without blame, of one without accusation; but we never read of one without sin, except the Son of man, who is also the only-begotten Son of God.
Footnotes
169:1486Ps. cxv. 2.
169:1487If this refer to Num. 24:3, 15 (as the editions mark it), the quotation is most inexact. The Septuagint words ὸ ἀνθρωπος ὸ ἀληθινως ορῶν is not a proposition equal to “homo verax,” as an antithesis to the proposition “omnis homo mendax.”
169:1488Job i. 1.
169:1489See 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.’ 1490 Again we read in Solomon, touching wisdom: ‘Men that are liars cannot remember her, but men of truth shall be found in her.’ 1491 Again in the Apocalypse: ‘And in their mouth was found no guile, for they are without fault.’” 1492 To all these statements we reply with a reminder to our opponents, of how a man may be called true, through the grace and truth of God, who is in himself without doubt a liar. Whence it is said: “Every man is a liar.” 1493 As for the passage also which he has quoted in reference to Wisdom, when it is said, “Men of truth shall be found in her,” we must observe that it is undoubtedly not “in her,” but in themselves that men shall be found liars. Just as in another passage: “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord,” 1494 —when he said, “Ye were darkness,” he did not add, “in the Lord;” but after saying, “Ye are now light,” he expressly added the phrase, “in the Lord,” for they could not possibly be “light” in themselves; in order that “he who glorieth may glory in the Lord.” 1495 The “faultless” ones, indeed, in the Apocalypse, are so called because “no guile was found in their mouth.” 1496 They did not say they had no sin: if they had said this, they would deceive themselves, and the truth would not be in them; 1497 and if the truth were not in them, guile and untruth would be found in their mouth. If, however, to avoid envy, they said they were not without sin, although they were sinless, then this very insincerity would be a lie, and the character given of them would be untrue: “In their mouth was found no guile.” Hence indeed “they are without fault;” for as they have forgiven those who have done them wrong, so are they purified by God’s forgiveness of themselves. Observe now how we have to the best of our power explained in what sense the quotations he has in his own behalf advanced ought to be understood. But how the passage, “Every man is a liar,” is to be interpreted, he on his part has altogether omitted to explain; nor is an explanation within his power, without a correction of the error which makes him believe that man can be true without the help of God’s grace, and merely by virtue of his own free will.
Footnotes
169:1490Job xvii. 8.
169:1491Ecclesiasticus 15.8.
169:1492Rev. xiv. 5.
169:1493Ps. cxv. 2.
169:1494Eph. v. 8.
169:14951 Cor. i. 31.
169:1496Rev. xiv. 5.
169:14971 John i. 8.
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;” 1498 and then resorting to seemingly contrary passages to show that there are persons who do good. This he succeeded, no doubt, in doing. It is, however, one thing for a man not to do good, and another thing not to be without sin, although he at the same time may do many good things. The passages, therefore, which he adduces are not really contrary to the statement that no person is without sin in this life. He does not, for his own part, explain in what sense it is declared that “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” These are his words: “Holy David indeed says, ‘Hope thou in the Lord and be doing good.’” 1499 But this is a precept, and not an accomplished fact; and such a precept as is never kept by those of whom it is said, “There is none that doeth good, no, not one.” He adds: “Holy Tobit also said, ‘Fear not, my son, that we have to endure poverty; we shall have many blessings if we fear God, and depart from all sin, and do that which is good.’” 1500 Most true indeed it is, that man shall have many blessings when he shall have departed from all sin. Then no evil shall betide him; nor shall he have need of the prayer, “Deliver us from evil.” 1501 Although even now every man who progresses, advancing ever with an upright purpose, departs from all sin, and becomes further removed from it as he approaches nearer to the fulness and perfection of the righteous state; because even concupiscence itself, which is sin dwelling in our flesh, never ceases to diminish in those who are making progress, although it still remains in their mortal members. It is one thing, therefore, to depart from all sin,—a process which is even now in operation,—and another thing to have departed from all sin, which shall happen in the state of future perfection. But still, even he who has departed already from evil, and is continuing to do so, must be allowed to be a doer of good. How then is it said, in the passage which he has quoted and left unsolved, “There is none that doeth good, no, not one,” unless that the Psalmist there censures some one nation, amongst whom there was not a man that did good, wishing to remain “children of men,” and not sons of God, by whose grace man becomes good, in order to do good? For we must suppose the Psalmist here to mean that “good” which he describes in the context, saying, “God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.” 1502 Such good then as this, seeking after God, there was not a man found who pursued it, no, not one; but this was in that class of men which is predestinated to destruction. 1503 It was upon such that God looked down in His foreknowledge, and passed sentence.
Footnotes
170:1498Ps. xiv. 3.
170:1499Ps. xxxvii. 3.
170:1500Tobit 4.21.
170:1501Matt. vi. 13.
170:1502Ps. xiv. 2.
170:1503On 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?’” 1504 This statement, however, he makes no attempt whatever to explain; all he does is to oppose to it sundry other passages which seem to contradict it, which he adduces to show that man, too, is good. Here are his remarks: “We must answer this text with another, in which the same Lord says, ‘A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things.’ 1505 And again: ‘He maketh His sun to rise on the good and on the evil.’ 1506 Then in another passage it is written, ‘For the good things are created from the beginning;’ 1507 and yet again, ‘They that are good shall dwell in the land.’” 1508 Now to all this we must say in answer, that the passages in question must be understood in the same sense as the former one, “There is none good, save one, that is, God.” Either because all created things, although God made them very good, are yet, when compared with their Creator, not good, being in fact incapable of any comparison with Him. For in a transcendent, and yet very proper sense, He said of Himself, “I Am that I Am.” 1509 The statement therefore before us, “None is good save one, that is, God,” is used in some such way as that which is said of John, “He was not that light;” 1510 although the Lord calls him “a lamp,” 1511 just as He says to His disciples: “Ye are the light of the world: . . .neither do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel.” 1512 Still, in comparison with that light which is “the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” 1513 he was not light. Or else, because the very sons of God even, when compared with themselves as they shall hereafter become in their eternal perfection, are good in such a way that they still remain also evil. Although I should not have dared to say this of them (for who would be so bold as to call them evil who have God for their Father?) unless the Lord had Himself said: “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?” 1514 Of course, by applying to them the words, “your Father,” He proved that they were already sons of God; and yet at the same time He did not hesitate to say that they were “evil.” Your author, however, does not explain to us how they are good, whilst yet “there is none good save one, that is, God.” Accordingly the man who asked “what good thing he was to do,” 1515 was admonished to seek Him 1516 by whose grace he might be good; to whom also to be good is nothing else than to be Himself, because He is unchangeably good, and cannot be evil at all.
Footnotes
170:1504Luke xviii. 19.
170:1505Matt. xii. 35.
170:1506Matt. v. 45.
170:1507Ecclesiasticus 39.25.
170:1508Prov. ii. 21.
171:1509Ex. iii. 14.
171:1510John i. 8.
171:1511John v. 35: [“lucernam,” not “lux:” as also in the Dies Iræ it is said of John, “non lux iste, sed lucernam,” in allusion to these passages.—W.]
171:1512Matt. 5:14, 15.
171:1513John i. 9.
171:1514Matt. vii. 11.
171:1515Matt. xix. 16.
171:1516Luke 10:27, 28.
(33.) The Fifth Passage. 1517
“This,” says he, “is another text of theirs: ‘Who will boast that he has a pure heart?’” 1518 And then he answered this with several passages, wishing to show that there can be in man a pure heart. But he omits to inform us how the passage which he reported as quoted against himself must be taken, so as to prevent Holy Scripture seeming to be opposed to itself in this text, and in the passages by which he makes his answer. We for our part indeed tell him, in answer, that the clause, “Who will boast that he has a pure heart?” is a suitable sequel to the preceding sentence, “whenever a righteous king sits upon the throne.” 1519 For how great soever ever a man’s righteousness may be, he ought to reflect and think, lest there should be found something blameworthy, which has escaped indeed his own notice, when that righteous King shall sit upon His throne, whose cognizance no sins can possibly escape, not even those of which it is said, “Who understandeth his transgressions?” 1520 “When, therefore, the righteous King shall sit upon His throne, . . . who will boast that he has a pure heart? or who will boldly say that he is pure from sin?” 1521 Except perhaps those who wish to boast of their own righteousness, and not glory in the mercy of the Judge Himself.
Footnotes
171:1517See also his work Contra Julianum. ii. 8.
171:1518Prov. xx. 9.
171:1519Prov. xx. 8.
171:1520Ps. xix. 12.
171:1521Prov. 20:8, 9.
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.’ 1522 David also says, ‘Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in His holy place? He that is innocent in his hands, and pure in his heart;’ 1523 and again in another passage, ‘Do good, O Lord, unto those that be good and upright in heart.’ 1524 So also in Solomon: ‘Riches are good unto him that hath no sin on his conscience;’ 1525 and again in the same book, ‘Leave off from sin, and order thine hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from wickedness.’ 1526 So in the Epistle of John, ‘If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God; and whatsoever we ask, we shall receive of Him.’” 1527 For all this is accomplished by the will, by the exercise of faith, hope, and love; by keeping under the body; by doing alms; by forgiving injuries; by earnest prayer; by supplicating for strength to advance in our course; by sincerely saying, “Forgive us, as we also forgive others,” and “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” 1528 By this process, it is certainly brought about that our heart is cleansed, and all our sin taken away; and what the righteous King, when sitting on His throne, shall find concealed in the heart and uncleansed as yet, shall be remitted by His mercy, so that the whole shall be rendered sound and cleansed for seeing God. For “he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy: yet mercy triumpheth against judgment.” 1529 If it were not so, what hope could any of us have? “When, indeed, the righteous King shall sit upon His throne, who shall boast that he hath a pure heart, or who shall boldly say that he is pure from sin?” Then, however, through His mercy shall the righteous, being by that time fully and perfectly cleansed, shine forth like the glorious sun in the kingdom of their Father. 1530
Footnotes
171:1522Matt. v. 8.
171:1523Ps. 24:3, 4.
171:1524Ps. cxxv. 4.
171:1525Ecclesiasticus 13.24.
171:1526Ecclesiasticus 38.10.
171:15271 John 3:21, 22.
171:1528Matt. 6:12, 13.
171:1529Jas. ii. 13.
172:1530Matt. xiii. 43.
(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,” 1531 because then also will it in a real sense be glorious. For inasmuch as he added the epithet “glorious,” when he said, “That He might present the Church to Himself, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,” he signified sufficiently when the Church will be without spot, or wrinkle, or anything of this kind,—then of course when it shall be glorious. Because it is not so much when the Church is involved in so many evils, or amidst such offences, and in so great a mixture of very evil men, and amidst the heavy reproaches of the ungodly, that we ought to say that it is glorious, because kings serve it,—a fact which only produces a more perilous and a sorer temptation;—but then shall it rather be glorious, when that event shall come to pass of which the apostle also speaks in the words, “When Christ, who is your life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” 1532 For since the Lord Himself, in that form of a servant by which He united Himself as Mediator to the Church, was not glorified except by the glory of His resurrection (whence it is said, “The Spirit was not yet given, because Christ was not yet glorified” 1533 ), how shall His Church be described as glorious, before its resurrection? He cleanses it, therefore, now “by the laver of the water in the word,” 1534 washing away its past sins, and driving off from it the dominion of wicked angels; but then by bringing all its healthy powers to perfection, He makes it meet for that glorious state, where it shall shine without a spot or wrinkle. For “whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” 1535 It was under this mystery, as I suppose, that that was spoken, “Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be consummated,” or perfected. 1536 For He said this in the person of His body, which is His Church, putting days for distinct and appointed periods, which He also signified in “the third day” in His resurrection.
Footnotes
172:1531Eph. v. 27.
172:1532Col. iii. 4.
172:1533John vii. 39.
172:1534Eph. v. 26.
172:1535Rom. viii. 30.
172:1536Luke xiii. 32.
(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” 1537 so as to arrive in a right course, that is, with right faith and purpose, at the perfection where he may dwell clean and pure in heart. Thus, in the psalm, the conditions ought to be severally bestowed on each separate character, where it is said, “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in His holy place? He that is innocent in his hands, and clean in his heart.” 1538 He shall ascend, innocent in his hands, and stand, clean in his heart,—the one state in present operation, the other in its consummation. And of them should rather be understood that which is written: “Riches are good unto him that hath no sin on his conscience.” 1539 Then indeed shall accrue the good, or true riches, when all poverty shall have passed away; in other words, when all infirmity shall have been removed. A man may now indeed “leave off from sin,” when in his onward course he departs from it, and is renewed day by day; and he may “order his hands,” and direct them to works of mercy, and “cleanse his heart from all wickedness,” 1540 —he may be so merciful that what remains may be forgiven him by free pardon. This indeed is the sound and suitable meaning, without any vain and empty boasting, of that which St. John said: “If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we shall receive of Him.” 1541 The warning which he clearly has addressed to us in this passage, is to beware lest our heart should reproach us in our very prayers and petitions; that is to say, lest, when we happen to resort to this prayer, and say, “Forgive us, even as we ourselves forgive, we should have to feel compunction for not doing what we say, or should even lose boldness to utter what we fail to do, and thereby forfeit the confidence of faithful and earnest prayer.
Footnotes
172:1537Phil. iii. 13.
172:1538Ps. 24:3, 4.
172:1539Ecclesiasticus 13.24.
172:1540Ecclesiasticus 38.10.
172:15411 John 3:21, 22.
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.” 1542 And he makes a pretence of answering it by other passages,—how, “the Lord says concerning holy Job, ‘Hast thou considered my servant Job? For there is none like him upon earth, a man who is blameless, true, a worshipper of God, and abstaining from every evil thing.’” 1543 On this passage we have already made some remarks. 1544 But he has not even attempted to show us how, on the one hand, Job was absolutely sinless upon earth,—if the words are to bear such a sense; and, on the other hand, how that can be true which he has admitted to be in the Scripture, “There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” 1545
Footnotes
172:1542Eccles. vii. 20.
172:1543Job i. 8.
172:1544See above, ch. xii. (29).
173:1545Eccles. vii. 20.
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.’” 1546 And his affected answer to this passage amounts to nothing else than the showing how texts of Holy Scripture seem to clash with one another, whereas it is our duty rather to demonstrate their agreement. These are his words: “We must confront them with this answer, from the testimony of the evangelist concerning holy Zacharias and Elisabeth, when he says, ‘And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.’” 1547 Now both these righteous persons had, of course, read amongst these very commandments the method of cleansing their own sins. For, according to what is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews of “every high priest taken from among men,” 1548 Zacharias used no doubt to offer sacrifices even for his own sins. The meaning, however, of the phrase “blameless,” which is applied to him, we have already, as I suppose, sufficiently explained. 1549 “And,” he adds, “the blessed apostle says, ‘That we should be holy, and without blame before Him.’” 1550 This, according to him, is said that we should be so, if those persons are to be understood by “blameless” who are altogether without sin. If, however, they are “blameless” who are without blame or censure, then it is impossible for us to deny that there have been, and still are, such persons even in this present life; for it does not follow that a man is without sin because he has not a blot of accusation. Accordingly the apostle, when selecting ministers for ordination, does not say, “If any be sinless,” for he would be unable to find any such; but he says, “If any be without accusation,” 1551 for such, of course, he would be able to find. But our opponent does not tell us how, in accordance with his views, we ought to understand the scripture, “For in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” 1552 The meaning of these words is plain enough, receiving as it does additional light from the preceding clause: “Enter not,” says the Psalmist, “into judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” It is judgment which he fears, therefore he desires that mercy which triumphs over judgment. 1553 For the meaning of the prayer, “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant,” is this: “Judge me not according to Thyself,” who art without sin; “for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” This without doubt is understood as spoken of the present life, whilst the predicate “shall not be justified” has reference to that perfect state of righteousness which belongs not to this life.
Footnotes
173:1546Ps. cxliii. 2.
173:1547Luke i. 6.
173:1548Heb. v. 1.
173:1549See above, ch. xi. (23).
173:1550Eph. i. 4.
173:1551Tit. i. 6.
173:1552Ps. cxliii. 2.
173:1553Jas. ii. 13.
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.” 1554 And this very clear testimony he has endeavoured to meet with apparently contradictory texts, saying thus: “The same St. John in this very epistle says, ‘This, however, brethren, I say, that ye sin not. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin.’ 1555 Also elsewhere: ‘Whosoever is born of God sinneth not; because his being born of God preserveth him, and the evil one toucheth him not.’ 1556 And again in another passage, when speaking of the Saviour, he says: ‘Since He was manifested to take away sins, whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.’ 1557 And yet again: ‘Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope towards Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure.’” 1558 And yet, notwithstanding the truth of all these passages, that also is true which he has adduced, without, however, offering any explanation of it: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1559 Now it follows from the whole of this, that in so far as we are born of God we abide in Him who appeared to take away sins, that is, in Christ, and sin not,—which is simply that “the inward man is renewed day by day;” 1560 but in so far as we are born of that man “through whom sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men,” 1561 we are not without sin, because we are not as yet free from his infirmity, until, by that renewal which takes place from day to day (for it is in accordance with this that we were born of God), that infirmity shall be wholly repaired, wherein we were born from the first than, and in which we are not without sin. While the remains of this infirmity abide in our inward man, however much they may be daily lessened in those who are advancing, “we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, if we say that we have no sin.” Now, however true it is that “whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, nor known Him,” 1562 since with that vision and knowledge, which shall be realized in actual sight, no one can in this life see and know Him; yet with that vision and knowledge which come of faith, there may be many who commit sin,—even apostates themselves,—who still have believed in Him some time or other; so that of none of these could it be said, according to the vision and knowledge which as yet come of faith, that he has neither seen Him nor known Him. But I suppose it ought to be understood that it is the renewal which awaits perfection that sees and knows Him; whereas the infirmity which is destined to waste and ruin neither sees nor knows Him. And it is owing to the remains of this infirmity, of whatever amount, which remain firm in our inward man, that “we deceive ourselves, and have not the truth in us, when we say that we have no sin.” Although, then, by the grace of renovation “we are the sons of God,” yet by reason of the remains of infirmity within us “it doth not appear what we shall be; only we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” Then there shall be no more sin, because no infirmity shall any longer remain within us or without us. “And every man that hath this hope towards Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure,”—purifieth himself, not indeed by himself alone, but by believing in Him, and calling on Him who sanctifieth His saints; which sanctification, when perfected at last (for it is at present only advancing and growing day by day), shall take away from us for ever all the remains of our infirmity.
Footnotes
173:15541 John i. 8.
173:15551 John iii. 9.
173:15561 John v. 18.
173:15571 John 3:5, 6.
173:15581 John 3:2, 3.
173:15591 John i. 8.
173:15602 Cor. iv. 16.
173:1561Rom. v. 12.
174:15621 John iii. 6.
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.’” 1563 And he observes that the answer to be given to them is derived from the same apostle’s words in another passage: “Let him do what he will.” 1564 And he adds another passage from the Epistle to Philemon, where, speaking of Onesimus, [St. Paul says]: “‘Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel. But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.’ 1565 Likewise, in Deuteronomy: ‘Life and death hath He set before thee, and good and evil: . . .choose thou life, that thou mayest live.’ 1566 So in the book of Solomon: ‘God from the beginning made man, and left him in the hand of His counsel; and He added for him commandments and precepts: if thou wilt—to perform acceptable faithfulness for the time to come, they shall save thee. He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thine hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man are good and evil, and life and death; poverty and honour are from the Lord God.’ 1567 So again in Isaiah we read: ‘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.’” 1568 Now with all their efforts of disguise they here betray their purpose; for they plainly attempt to controvert the grace and mercy of God, which we desire to obtain whenever we offer the prayer, “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven;” 1569 or again this, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” 1570 For indeed why do we present such petitions in earnest supplication, if the result is of him that willeth, and him that runneth, but not of God that showeth mercy? Not that the result is without our will, but that our will does not accomplish the result, unless it receive the divine assistance. Now the wholesomeness of faith is this, that it makes us “seek, that we may find; ask, that we may receive; and knock, that it may be opened to us.” 1571 Whereas the man who gainsays it, does really shut the door of God’s mercy against himself. I am unwilling to say more touching so important a matter, because I do better in committing it to the groans of the faithful, than to words of my own.
Footnotes
174:1563Rom. ix. 16.
174:15641 Cor. vii. 36.
174:1565Phlm. 1:13, 14.
174:1566Deut. 30:15, 19.
174:1567Ecclesiasticus 15.14-17.
174:1568Isa. 1:19, 20.
174:1569Matt. vi. 10.
174:1570Matt. vi. 13.
174:1571Luke xi. 9.
(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,” 1572 —in the matter, as I suppose, which he goes on to treat, when he says, “He sinneth not, let him marry!” 1573 As if indeed it should be regarded as a great matter to be willing to marry, when the subject is a laboured discussion concerning the assistance of God’s grace, or that it is of any great advantage to will it, unless God’s providence, which governs all things, joins together the man and the woman. Or, in the case of the apostle’s writing to Philemon, that “his kindness should not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary,”—as if any good act could indeed be voluntary otherwise than by God’s “working in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure.” 1574 Or, when the Scripture says in Deuteronomy, “Life and death hath He set before man and good and evil,” and admonishes him “to choose life;” as if, forsooth, this very admonition did not come from God’s mercy, or as if there were any advantage in choosing life, unless God inspired love to make such a choice, and gave the possession of it when chosen, concerning which it is said: “For anger is in His indignation, and in His pleasure is life.” 1575
Or again, because it is said, “The commandments, if thou wilt, shall save thee,” 1576 —as if a man ought not to thank God, because he has a will to keep the commandments, since, if he wholly lacked the light of truth, it would not be possible for him to possess such a will. “Fire and water being set before him, a man stretches forth his hand towards which he pleases;” 1577 and yet higher is He who calls man to his higher vocation than any thought on man’s own part, inasmuch as the beginning of correction of the heart lies in faith, even as it is written, “Thou shalt come, and pass on from the beginning of faith.” 1578 Every one makes his choice of good, “according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith;” 1579 and as the Prince of faith says, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” 1580 And that He spake this in reference to the faith which believes in Him, He subsequently explains with sufficient clearness, when He says: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life; yet there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him. And He said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” 1581
Footnotes
174:15721 Cor. vii. 36.
174:15731 Cor. vii. 36.
175:1574Phil. ii. 13.
175:1575Ps. xxx. 5.
175:1576Ecclesiasticus 15.15.
175:1577Ecclesiasticus 15.16.
175:1578Song of Sol. 4.8.
175:1579Rom. xii. 3.
175:1580John vi. 44.
175:1581John vi. 62-65.
(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.” 1582 As if the entire law were not full of conditions of this sort; or as if its commandments had been given to proud men for any other reason than that “the law was added because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” 1583 “It entered, therefore, that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” 1584 In other words, That man might receive commandments, trusting as he did in his own resources, and that, failing in these and becoming a transgressor, he might ask for a deliverer and a saviour; and that the fear of the law might humble him, and bring him, as a schoolmaster, to faith and grace. Thus “their weaknesses being multiplied, they hastened after;” 1585 and in order to heal them, Christ in due season came. In His grace even righteous men of old believed, and by the same grace were they holpen; so that with joy did they receive a foreknowledge of Him, and some of them even foretold His coming,—whether they were found among the people of Israel themselves, as Moses, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Samuel, and David, and other such; or outside that people, as Job; or previous to that people, as Abraham, and Noah, and all others who are either mentioned or not in Holy Scripture. “For there is but one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,” 1586 without whose grace nobody is delivered from condemnation, whether he has derived that condemnation from him in whom all men sinned, or has afterwards aggravated it by his own iniquities.
Footnotes
175:1582Isa. 1:19, 20.
175:1583Gal. iii. 19.
175:1584Rom. v. 20.
175:1585Ps. xvi. 4.
175:15861 Tim. ii. 5.
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;” 1587 where of course help is not sought for procuring bodily advantages and avoiding bodily evils, but for practising and fulfilling righteousness. Hence it is that we say: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” 1588 Now no man is assisted unless he also himself does something; assisted, however, he is, if he prays, if he believes, if he is “called according to God’s purpose;” 1589 for “whom He did foreknow, 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.” 1590 We run, therefore, whenever we make advance; and our wholeness runs with us in our advance (just as a sore is said to run 1591 when the wound is in process of a sound and careful treatment), in order that we may be in every respect perfect, without any infirmity of sin whatever,—a result which God not only wishes, but even causes and helps us to accomplish. And this God’s grace does, in co-operation with ourselves, through Jesus Christ our Lord, as well by commandments, sacraments, and examples, as by His Holy Spirit also; through whom there is hiddenly shed abroad in our hearts 1592 that love, “which maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered,” 1593 until wholeness and salvation be perfected in us, and God be manifested to us as He will be seen in His eternal truth.
Footnotes
175:1587Ps. xxvii. 9.
175:1588Matt. vi. 13.
175:1589Rom. viii. 28.
176:1590Rom. 8:29, 30.
176:1591Ps. lxxvii. 2.
176:1592Rom. v. 5.
176:1593Rom. viii. 26.
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 1594 ) have ever lived, or are yet living in this present state, who have not needed, and do not need, forgiveness of sins, he opposes Holy Scripture, wherein it is said by the apostle: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in which all have sinned.” 1595 And he must needs go on to assert, with an impious contention, that there may possibly be men who are freed and saved from sin without the liberation and salvation of the one Mediator Christ. Whereas He it is who has said: “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick;” 1596 “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” 1597 He, moreover, who says that any man, after he has received remission of sins, has ever lived in this body, or still is living, so righteously as to have no sin at all, he contradicts the Apostle John, who declares that “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1598 Observe, the expression is not we had, but “we have.” If, however, anybody contend that the apostle’s statement concerns the sin which dwells in our mortal flesh according to the defect which was caused by the will of the first man when he sinned, and concerning which the Apostle Paul enjoins us “not” to “obey it in the lusts thereof, 1599 —so that he does not sin who altogether withholds his consent from this same indwelling sin, and so brings it to no evil work,—either in deed, or word, or thought,—although the lusting after it may be excited (which in another sense has received the name of sin, inasmuch as consenting to it would amount to sinning), but excited against our will,—he certainly is drawing subtle distinctions, and should consider what relation all this bears to the Lord’s Prayer, wherein we say, “Forgive us our debts.” 1600 Now, if I judge aright, it would be unnecessary to put up such a prayer as this, if we never in the least degree consented to the lusts of the before-mentioned sin, either in a slip of the tongue, or in a wanton thought; all that it would be needful to say would be, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” 1601 Nor could the Apostle James say: “In many things we all offend.” 1602 For in truth only that man offends whom an evil concupiscence persuades, either by deception or by force, to do or say or think something which he ought to avoid, by directing his appetites or his aversions contrary to the rule of righteousness. Finally, if it be asserted that there either have been, or are in this present life, any persons, with the sole exception of our Great Head, “the Saviour of His body,” 1603 who are righteous, without any sin,—and this, either by not consenting to the lusts thereof, or because that must not be accounted as any sin which is such that God does not impute it to them by reason of their godly lives (although the blessedness of being without sin is a different thing from the blessedness of not having one’s sin imputed to him), 1604 —I do not deem it necessary to contest the point over much. I am quite aware that some hold this opinion, 1605 whose views on the subject I have not the courage to censure, although, at the same time, I cannot defend them. But if any man says that we ought not to use the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation” (and he says as much who maintains that God’s help is unnecessary to a person for the avoidance of sin, and that human will, after accepting only the law, is sufficient for the purpose), then I do not hesitate at once to affirm that such a man ought to be removed from the public ear, and to be anathematized by every mouth.
Footnotes
176:15941 Tim. ii. 5.
176:1595Rom. v. 12.
176:1596Matt. ix. 12.
176:1597Matt. ix. 13.
176:15981 John i. 8.
176:1599Rom. vi. 12.
176:1600Matt. vi. 12.
176:1601Matt. vi. 13.
176:1602Jas. iii. 2.
176:1603Eph. 1:22, 23, Eph. 5:23.
176:1604Ps. xxxii. 2.
176:1605See 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 1606 before a tribunal of bishops, and was heard on his trial by fourteen prelates, in the abscnce of his accusers, who were unable to be present on the day of the synod. On his condemning the very dogmas which were read from the indictment against him, as assailing the grace of Christ, they pronounced him to be a catholic. But when the Acts of this synod found their way into our hands, I wrote a treatise on them, to prevent the idea gaining ground that, because he had been in a manner acquitted, his opinions also were approved by the bishops; or that the accused could by any chance have escaped condemnation at their hands, unless he had condemned the opinions charged against him. This treatise of mine begins with these words: ‘After there came into my hands.’”
Footnotes
178:1606Their 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, 1607 a city in Palestine, before fourteen bishops, at which was kept an accurate record of the proceedings. The bishops are severally mentioned by Augustin in his work against Julianus, Book i. chs. v. and vii. (19, 32), in the following order: “Eulogius, John, Ammonianus, Porphyry, Eutonius, another Porphyry, Fidus, Zoninus, Zoboennus, Nymphidius, Chromatius, Jovinus, Eleutherius, and Clematius.” There can be no doubt that Eulogius, bishop of Cæsarea, was also primate of the province of Palestine, because he is constantly mentioned by Augustin as occupying the first place before the other thirteen bishops, and even before John himself, bishop of Jerusalem.
We find from the epistle of Lucian, 1608 De revelatione corporis Stephani martyris, that this synod was held at the approach of Christmas. In this epistle he tells us of three visions which God had shown him in the year 415,—the first on December 3d, and the other two on the 10th and 17th of the same month; that he then reported the matter to John, bishop of Jerusalem, who sent him in quest of the martyr’s sepulchre. He further informs us that he discovered the sepulchre, and at once returned to John, “who (says he) was attending a synod at Lydda, which is Diospolis.” This must have happened about the 21st of the month, since Lucian goes on to say that John came, in the company of two more bishops, Eutonius of Sebaste and Eleutherius of Jericho, and that in their presence the relics of the martyr were removed on the 26th day of the same month of December.
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. Collatorem, 43); but yet we ought to retain the inscription De Gestis Pelagii which is prefixed both to the ancient editions and to the particular Retractation in which Augustin reviewed this work. The treatise had this title given to it, no doubt, either because it had been already commonly accepted as a description of these proceedings of Pelagius and his vindication, which led to his boast that he had been acquitted; or else from the fact that an examination had become necessary of those proceedings, which the accused party had himself published in an abridged and garbled form. Hence Possidonius named the treatise by the title, Contra Gesta Pelagii [A Protest, or Vindication, against the Proceedings of Pelagius].
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.].
Footnotes
179:1607That is, Lydda.
179:1608To be found in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. vii., Appendix.
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 without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law.” After this had been read out, the synod inquired: “Did you, Pelagius, express yourself thus?” Then in answer he said: “I certainly used the words, but not in the sense in which they understand them. I did not say that a man is unable to sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law; but that he is by the knowledge of the law assisted towards not sinning, even as it is written, ‘He hath given them a law for help’” 1609 Upon hearing this, the synod declared: “The words which have been spoken by Pelagius are not different from the Church.” Assuredly they are not different, as he expressed them in his answer; the statement, however, which was produced from his book has a different meaning. But this the bishops, who were Greek-speaking men, and who heard the words through an interpreter, were not concerned with discussing. All they had to consider at the moment was, what the man who was under examination said was his meaning,—not in what words his opinion was alleged to have been expressed in his book.
Footnotes
184:1609Isa. viii. 20.
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 one is without sin, but the man who has acquired the knowledge of the law,”—a knowledge which must needs be conveyed to believers before they attain to the actual remission of sins,—even in such case there would crowd around him a countless multitude, not indeed of angry disputants, but of crying baptized infants, who would exclaim,—not, to be sure, in words, but in the very truthfulness of innocence,—“What is it, O what is it that you have written: ‘He only can be without sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law?’ See here are we, a large flock of lambs, without sin, and yet we have no knowledge of the law.” Now surely they with their silent tongue would compel him to silence, or, perhaps, even to confess that he was corrected of his great perverseness; or else (if you will), that he had already for some time entertained the opinion which he acknowledged before his ecclesiastical examiners, but that he had failed before to express his opinion in words of sufficient care,—that his faith, therefore, should be approved, but this book revised and amended. For, as the Scripture says: “There is that slippeth in his speech, but not in his heart.” 1610 Now if he would only admit this, or were already saying it, who would not most readily forgive those words which he had committed to writing with too great heedlessness and neglect, especially on his declining to defend the opinion which the said words contain, and affirming that to be his proper view which the truth approves? This we must suppose would have been in the minds of the pious judges themselves, if they could only have duly understood the contents of his Latin book, thoroughly interpreted to them, as they understood his reply to the synod, which was spoken in Greek, and therefore quite intelligible to them, and adjudged it as not alien from the Church. Let us go on to consider the other cases.
Footnotes
185:1610Ecclesiasticus 19.16.
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.” 1611 They would not, of course, stay, if they are ruled only by their own will without God, even as sheep which have no shepherd: which, God forbid for us. For, unquestionably to be led is something more compulsory than to be ruled. He who is ruled at the same time does something himself,—indeed, when ruled by God, it is with the express view that he should also act rightly; whereas the man who is led can hardly be understood to do any thing himself at all. And yet the Saviour’s helpful grace is so much better than our own wills and desires, that the apostle does not hesitate to say: “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” 1612 And our free will can do nothing better for us than to submit itself to be led by Him who can do nothing amiss; and after doing this, not to doubt that it was helped to do it by Him of whom it is said in the psalm, “He is my God, His mercy shall go before me.” 1613
Footnotes
185:1611Ps. xxviii. 9.
185:1612Rom. viii. 14.
185:1613Ps. lix. 10.
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,” 1614 —with other similar words to the conclusion of the paragraph, where we read: “For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out therefrom: wherefore I prayed and understanding was given to me; I called, and the Spirit of Wisdom came into me.” 1615 Now is it not clearer than light itself, how that this man, on duly considering the wretchedness of human frailty, did not dare to commit himself to his own direction, but prayed, and understanding was given to him, concerning which the apostle says: “But we have the understanding of the Lord;” 1616 and called, and the Spirit of Wisdom entered into him? Now it is by this Spirit, and not by the strength of their own will, that they who are God’s children are governed and led.
Footnotes
185:1614Wisdom 7.1.
185:1615Wis. 7:6, 7.
185:16161 Cor. ii. 16.
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,” 1617 which he quoted in the same book of Chapters, as if to prove that “all men are ruled by their own will,” who can be ignorant that this is a fault not of nature as God created it, but of human will which departed from God? The fact indeed is, that even if he had not loved cursing, and had willed blessing, he would in this very case, too, deny that his will had received any assistance from God; in his ingratitude and impiety, moreover, he would submit himself to be ruled by himself, until he found out by his penalties that, sunk as he was into ruin, without God to govern him he was utterly unable to direct his own self. In like manner, from the passage which he quoted in the same book under the same head, “He hath set fire and water before thee; stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt; before man are good and evil, life and death, and whichever he liketh shall be given to him,” 1618 it is manifest that, if he applies his hand to fire, and if evil and death please him, his human will effects all this; but if, on the contrary, he loves goodness and life, not alone does his will accomplish the happy choice, but it is assisted by divine grace. The eye indeed is sufficient for itself, for not seeing, that is, for darkness; but for seeing, it is in its own light not sufficient for itself unless the assistance of a clear external light is rendered to it. God forbid, however, that they who are “the called according to His purpose, whom He also foreknew, and predestinated to be conformed to the likeness of His Son,” 1619 should be given up to their own desire to perish. This is suffered only by “the vessels of wrath,” 1620 who are perfected for perdition; in whose very destruction, indeed, God “makes known the riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy.” 1621 Now it is on this account that, after saying, “He is my God, His mercy shall go before me,” 1622 he immediately adds, “My God will show me vengeance upon my enemies.” 1623 That therefore happens to them which is mentioned in Scripture, “God gave them up to the lusts of their own heart.” 1624 This, however, does not happen to the predestinated, who are ruled by the Spirit of God, for not in vain is their cry: “Deliver me not, O Lord, to the sinner, according to my desire.” 1625 With regard, indeed, to the evil lusts which assail them, their prayer has ever assumed some such shape as this: “Take away from me the concupiscence of the belly; and let not the desire of lust take hold of me.” 1626 Upon those whom He governs as His subjects does God bestow this gift; but not upon those who think themselves capable of governing themselves, and who, in the stiff-necked confidence of their own will, disdain to have Him as their ruler.
Footnotes
186:1617Ps. cix. 18.
186:1618Sir. 15:16, 17.
186:1619Rom. viii. 29.
186:1620Rom. ix. 22.
186:1621Rom. ix. 23.
186:1622Ps. lix. 10.
186:1623Ps. lix. 10.
186:1624Rom. i. 24.
186:1625Ps. cxl. 8.
186:1626Sir. 13:5, 6.
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,” 1627 concerning whom the apostle writes: “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet so as by fire.” 1628 When, however, Pelagius responded that “he had made his assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ‘These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal,’” 1629 it was impossible for Christian judges to be dissatisfied with a sentence which is written in the Gospel, and was spoken by the Lord; especially as they knew not what there was in the words taken from Pelagius’ book which could so disturb the brethren, who were accustomed to hear his discussions and those of his followers. Since also they were absent 1630 who presented the indictment against Pelagius to the holy bishop Eulogius, there was no one to urge him that he ought to distinguish, by some exception, between those sinners who are to be saved by fire, and those who are to be punished with everlasting perdition. If, indeed, the judges had come to understand by these means the reason why the objection had been made to his statement, had he then refused to allow the distinction, he would have been justly open to blame.
Footnotes
186:16271 Cor. iii. 12.
187:16281 Cor. iii. 15.
187:1629Matt. xxv. 46.
187:1630The 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,” 1631 inasmuch as no objectionable opinion in reference to them was manifestly charged against Pelagius, the synod determined nothing. Wherefore he who says that the ungodly and sinner, whom the truth consigns to eternal punishment, can ever be liberated therefrom, is not unfitly designated by Pelagius as an “Origenist.” But, on the other hand, he who supposes that no sinner whatever deserves mercy in the judgment of God, may be designated by whatever name Pelagius is disposed to give to him, only it must at the same time be quite understood that this error is not received as truth by the Church. “For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.” 1632
Footnotes
187:16311 Cor. 3:12, 15.
187:1632Jas. ii. 13.
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.” 1633 In another passage He reminds us that He will command “all which would not that He should reign over them to be brought to Him, and be slain in His presence.” 1634 In another place, again, He tells us that He will come with His angels in His majesty; and before Him shall be gathered all nations, and He shall separate them one from another; some He will set on His right hand, and after enumerating their good works, will award to them eternal life; and others on His left hand, whose barrenness in all good works He will expose, will He condemn to everlasting fire. 1635 In two other passages He deals with that wicked and slothful servant, who neglected to trade with His money, 1636 and with the man who was found at the feast without the wedding garment,—and He orders them to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into outer darkness. 1637 And in yet another scripture, after admitting the five virgins who were wise, He shuts the door against the other five foolish ones. 1638 Now these descriptions,—and there are others which at the instant do not occur to me,—are all intended to represent to us the future judgment, which of course will be held not over one, or over five, but over multitudes. For if it were a solitary case only of the man who was cast into outer darkness for not having on the wedding garment, He would not have gone on at once to give it a plural turn, by saying: “For many are called, but few are chosen;” 1639 whereas it is plain that, after the one was cast out and condemned, many still remained behind in the house. However, it would occupy us too long to discuss all these questions to the full. This brief remark, however, I may make, without prejudice (as they say in pecuniary affairs) to some better discussion, that by the many descriptions which are scattered throughout the Holy Scriptures there is signified to us but one mode of final judgment, which is inscrutable to us,—with only the variety of deservings preserved in the rewards and punishments. Touching the particular point, indeed, which we have before us at present, it is sufficient to remark that, if Pelagius had actually said that all sinners whatever without exception would be punished in an eternity of punishment by everlasting fire, then whosoever had approved of this judgment would, to begin with, have brought the sentence down on his own head. “For who will boast that he is pure from sins?” 1640 Forasmuch, however, as he did not say all, nor certain, but made an indefinite statement only,—and afterwards, in explanation, declared that his meaning was according to the words of the Gospel,—his opinion was affirmed by the judgment of the bishops to be true; but it does not even now appear what Pelagius really thinks on the subject, and in consequence there is no indecency in inquiring further into the decision of the episcopal judges.
Footnotes
187:1633Luke xiii. 25-27.
187:1634Luke xix. 27.
187:1635Matt. xxv. 33.
187:1636Luke xix. 20-24.
187:1637Matt. xxii. 11-13.
187:1638Matt. xxv. 1-10.
187:1639Matt. xxii. 14.
188:1640Prov. xx. 9.
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!” 1641 But after all, the phrase about “not entering into the thoughts” of righteous and holy men is not quite a commendable one, for this reason, that what enters the mind is commonly called a thought, even when assent to it does not follow. The thought, however, which contracts blame, and is justly forbidden, is never unaccompanied with assent. Possibly those men had an incorrect copy of Pelagius’ writings, who thought it proper to object to him that he had used the words: “Evil does not enter into our thoughts;” that is, that whatever is evil never enters into the thoughts of righteous and holy men. Which is, of course, a very absurd statement. For whenever we censure evil things, we cannot enunciate them in words, unless they have been thought. But, as we said before, that is termed a culpable thought of evil which carries with it assent.
Footnotes
188:16411 Cor. xiii. 5.
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.’” 1642 After they had heard this answer, the synod said: “Neither is this opposed to the Church’s faith.”
Footnotes
188:1642Dan. vii. 18.
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.” 1643 Now, inasmuch as the Old Testament belongs to bondage, whence it is written, “Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac,” 1644 but the kingdom of heaven to liberty; what has the kingdom of heaven to do with the Old Testament? Since, however, as I have already remarked, we are accustomed, in our ordinary use of words, to designate all those Scriptures of the law and the prophets which were given previous to the Lord’s incarnation, and are embraced together by canonical authority, under the name and title of the Old Testament, what man who is ever so moderately informed in ecclesiastical lore can be ignorant that the kingdom of heaven could be quite as well promised in those early Scriptures as even the New Testament itself, to which the kingdom of heaven belongs? At all events, in those ancient Scriptures it is most distinctly written: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will consummate a new testament with the house of Israel and with the house of Jacob; not according to the testament that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” 1645 This was done on Mount Sinai. But then there had not yet risen the prophet Daniel to say: “The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.” 1646 For by these words he foretold the merit not of the Old, but of the New Testament. In the same manner did the same prophets foretell that Christ Himself would come, in whose blood the New Testament was consecrated. Of this Testament also the apostles became the ministers, as the most blessed Paul declares: “He hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not in its letter, but in spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 1647 In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised. Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and gifts of a similar kind are the promises of the Old Testament. And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament; but yet the man who lives under God’s law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament, for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms of the Old Testament, as are the objects of his desire according to the condition of the old man. But whatever blessings are there figuratively set forth as appertaining to the New Testament require the new man to give them effect. And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical distinction of the bond-woman and the free,—attributing the children of the flesh to the Old, and to the New the children of the promise: “They,” says he, “which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” 1648 The children of the flesh, then, belong to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; whereas the children of the promise belong to the Jerusalem above, the free, the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. 1649 Whence we can easily see who they are that appertain to the earthly, and who to the heavenly kingdom. But then the happy persons, who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth, were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament; although they continued with perfect fitness to administer the Old Testament to the ancient people of God, because it was divinely appropriated to that people in God’s distribution of the times and seasons.
Footnotes
188:1643Gal. iv. 21-26.
188:1644Gal. iv. 30.
189:1645Jer. 31:31, 32.
189:1646Dan. vii. 18.
189:16472 Cor. iii. 6.
189:1648Rom. ix. 8.
189:1649Gal. 4:25, 26.
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 the title of the “Old Testament.” The kingdom of the Most High is of course none other than the kingdom of God; otherwise, anybody might boldly contend that the kingdom of God is one thing, and the kingdom of heaven another.
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. 1650 And, since it occurs in the writings of the learned and is very commonly received as fact, ought it to be considered a foolish thing to mention it, even though it be not true? much less ought our credit, which gains for us the name of being trustworthy, to be affected, on the one hand injuriously if the story be believed by us, or beneficially if disbelieved. 1651 If, to go a step further in illustration, any one were from this opinion to contend that there existed in birds reasonable souls, from the notion that human souls at intervals passed into them, then indeed we should have to reject from our mind and ears alike an idea like this as the rankest heresy; and even if the story about the eagles were true (as there are many curious facts about bees before our eyes, that are true), we should still have to consider, and demonstrate, the great difference that exists between the condition of creatures like these, which are quite irrational, however surprising in their powers of sensation, and the nature which is common (not to men and beasts, but) to men and angels. There are, to be sure, a great many foolish things said by foolish and ignorant persons, which yet fail to prove them heretics. One might instance the silly talk so commonly heard about the pursuits of other people, from persons who have never learned these pursuits,—equally hasty and untenable whether in the shape of excessive and indiscriminate praise of those they love, or of blame in the case of those they happen to dislike. The same remark might be made concerning the usual curent of human conversation: whenever it does touch on a subject which requires dogmatic acuracy of statement, but is thrown out at random or suggested by the passing moment, it is too often pervaded by foolish levity, whether uttered by the mouth or expressed in writing. Many persons, indeed, when gently reminded of their reckless gossip, have afterwards much regretted their conduct; they scarcely recollected what they had never uttered with a fixed purpose, but had poured forth in a sheer volley of casual and unconsidered words. It is, unhappily, almost impossible to be quite clear of such faults. Who is he “that slippeth not in his tongue,” 1652 and “offendeth not in word?” 1653 It, however, makes all the difference in the world, to what extent, and from what motive, and whether in fact at all, a man when warned of his fault corrects it, or obstinately clings to it so as to make a dogma and settled opinion of that which he had not at first uttered on purpose, but only in levity. Although, then, it turns out eventually that every heretic is a fool, it does not follow that every fool must immediately be named a heretic. The judges were quite right in saying that Pelagius had anathematized the vague folly under consideration by its fitting designation for even if it were heresy, there could be no doubt of its being foolish prattle. Whatever, therefore, it was, they designated the offence under a general name. But whether the quoted words had been used with any definitely dogmatic purpose, or only in a vague and indeterminate sense, and with an unmeaningness which should be capable of an easy correction, they did not deem it necessary to discuss on the present occasion, since the man who was on his trial before them denied that the words were his at all, in whatever sense they had been employed.
Footnotes
190:1650It is told by Pliny, Hist. Nat. x. 3 (3), and Lucan, Pharsalia, ix. 902, etc.
190:1651Creditum, however, is read in both clauses; we should expect non creditum in one, as one reading has it. [?—W.]
191:1652See Ecclesiasticus 19.16.
191:1653See Jas. iii. 2.
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, 1654 there were present certain holy brethren, who said that they had in their possession some hortatory or consolatory works which Pelagius had addressed to a widow lady whose name did not appear, and they advised us to examine whether the words which he had abjured for his own occurred anywhere in these books. They were not themselves aware whether they did or not. The said books were accordingly read through, and the words in question were actually discovered in them. Moreover, they who had produced the copy of the book, affirmed that for now almost four years they had had these books as Pelagius’, nor had they once heard a doubt expressed about his authorship. Considering, then, from the integrity of these servants of God, which was very well known to us, how impossible it was for them to use deceit in the matter, the conclusion seemed inevitable, that Pelagius must be supposed by us to have rather been the deceiver at his trial before the bishops; unless we should think it possible that something may have been published, even for so many years, in his name, although not actually composed by him; for our informants did not tell us that they had received the books from Pelagius himself, nor had they ever heard him admit his own authorship. Now, in my own case, certain of our brethren have told me that sundry writings have found their way into Spain under my name. Such persons, indeed, as had read my genuine writings could not recognise those others as mine; although by other persons my authorship of them was quite believed.
Footnotes
191:1654See 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 be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards.” Now it is quite uncertain what he means in these words by the grace of God; and the judges, catholic as they were, could not possibly understand by the phrase anything else than the grace which is so very strongly recommended to us in the apostle’s teaching. Now this is the grace whereby we hope that we can be delivered from the body of this death through our Lord Jesus Christ, 1655 [VII.] and for the obtaining of which we pray that we may not be led into temptation. 1656 This grace is not nature, but that which renders assistance to frail and corrupted nature. This grace is not the knowledge of the law, but is that of which the apostle says: “I will not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” 1657 Therefore it is not “the letter that killeth, but the life-giving spirit.” 1658 For the knowledge of the law, without the grace of the Spirit, produces all kinds of concupiscence in man; for, as the apostle says, “I had not known sin but by the law: I had not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.” 1659 By saying this, however, he blames not the law; he rather praises it, for he says afterwards: “The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” 1660 And he goes on to ask: “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me by that which is good.” 1661 And, again, he praises the law by saying: “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I know not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.” 1662 Observe, then, he knows the law, praises it, and consents to it; for what it commands, that he also wishes; and what it forbids, and condemns, that he also hates: but for all that, what he hates, that he actually does. There is in his mind, therefore, a knowledge of the holy law of God, but still his evil concupiscence is not cured. He has a good will within him, but still what he does is evil. Hence it comes to pass that, amidst the mutual struggles of the two laws within him,—“the law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and making him captive to the law of sin,” 1663 —he confesses his misery; and exclaims in such words as these: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1664
Footnotes
192:1655Rom. 7:24, 25.
192:1656Matt. vi. 13.
192:1657Gal. ii. 21.
192:16582 Cor. iii. 6.
192:1659Rom. 7:7, 8.
192:1660Rom. vii. 12.
192:1661Rom. vii. 13.
192:1662Rom. vii. 14-16.
192:1663Rom. vii. 23.
192:1664Rom. 7:24, 25.
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. 1665
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.” 1666 Nature, however, in a healthy condition and without a flaw, he did not possess, for he said: “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth nothing good.” 1667 Already had he the knowledge of God’s holy law, for he said: “I had not known sin but through the law;” 1668 yet for all that, he did not possess strength and power to practise and fulfil righteousness, for he complained: “What I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” 1669 And again, “How to accomplish that which is good I find not.” 1670 Therefore it is not from the liberty of the human will, nor from the precepts of the law, that there comes deliverance from the body of this death; for both of these he had already,—the one in his nature, the other in his learning; but all he wanted was the help of the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Footnotes
192:1665Rom. vii. 25.
192:1666Rom. vii. 18.
192:1667Rom. vii. 18.
192:1668Rom. vii. 7.
192:1669Rom. vii. 15.
192:1670Rom. vii. 18.
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. 1671 They, notwithstanding their great affection for him, plainly acknowledged that the passage was his; when, on this question being proposed, because he had already given offence to very many persons from advancing views against the grace of God, he most expressly admitted that “what he meant by God’s grace was that, when our nature was created, it received the capacity of not sinning, because it was created with free will.” On account, therefore, of this treatise, I cannot help feeling still anxious, whilst many of the brethren who are well acquainted with his discussions, share in my anxiety, lest under the ambiguity which notoriously characterizes his words there lies some latent reserve, and lest he should afterwards tell his followers that it was without prejudice to his own doctrine that he made any admissions,—discoursing thus: “I no doubt asserted that a man was able by his own exertion and the grace of God to live without sin; but you know very well what I mean by grace; and you may recollect reading that grace is that in which we are created by God with a free will.” Accordingly, while the bishops understood him to mean the grace by which we have by adoption been made new creatures, not that by which we were created (for most plainly does Holy Scripture instruct us in the former sense of grace as the true one), ignorant of his being a heretic, they acquitted him as a catholic. 1672 I must say that my suspicion is excited also by this, that in the work which I answered, he most openly said that “righteous Abel never sinned at all.” 1673 Now, however, he thus expresses himself: “But we did not say that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from infancy to old age, has committed sin; but that, if any man were converted from his sins, he could by his own labour and God’s grace be without sin.” 1674 When speaking of righteous Abel, he did not say that after being converted from his sins he became sinless in a new life, but that he never committed sin at all. If, then, that book be his, it must of course be corrected and amended from his answer. For I should be sorry to say that he was insincere in his more recent statement; lest perhaps he should say that he had forgotten what he had previously written in the book we have quoted. Let us therefore direct our view to what afterwards occurred. Now, from the sequel of these ecclesiastical proceedings, we can by God’s help show that, although Pelagius, as some suppose, cleared himself in his examination, and was at all events acquitted by his judges (who were, however, but human beings after all), that this great heresy, 1675 which we should be most unwilling to see making further progress or becoming aggravated in guilt, was undoubtedly itself condemned.
Footnotes
192:1671Timasius and Jacobus, at whose instance Augustin wrote, and to whom he addressed his book De Naturâ et Gratiâ.
193:1672The reader may consult the treatise De Naturâ et Gratiâ, chs. 53 and 54, on this opinion of Pelagius.
193:1673See De Naturâ et Gratiâ, xxxvii. (44).
193:1674See above, ch. 16 (vi).
193:1675Hanc 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. 1676 I was not present on that occasion, as you will recollect; but afterwards, on my arrival at Carthage, I read over the Acts of the synod, some of which I perfectly well remember, but I do not know whether all the tenets now mentioned occur among them. But what matters it if some of them were possibly not mentioned, and so not included in the condemnation of the synod when it is quite clear that they deserve condemnation? Sundry other points of error were next alleged against him, connected with the mention of my own name. 1677 They had been transmitted to me from Sicily, some of our Catholic brethren there being perplexed by questions of this kind; and I drew up a reply to them in a little work addressed to Hilary, 1678 who had consulted me respecting them in a letter. My answer, in my opinion, was a sufficient one. These are the errors referred to: “That a man is able to be without sin if he wishes. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men, even if they are baptized, unless they renounce all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them; neither can they possess the kingdom of God.”
Footnotes
193:1676Compare Augustin’s work De Peccato Originali, ch. xi. (12).
193:1677See same treatise as before, and same chapter.
193:1678See 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 do not feel that I am responsible. But for the satisfaction of the holy synod, I anathematize those who either now hold, or have ever held, these opinions.” After hearing this answer of his, the synod said: “With regard to these charges aforesaid, Pelagius has in our presence given us sufficient and proper satisfaction, by anathematizing the opinions which were not his.” We see, therefore, and maintain that the most pernicious evils of this heresy have been condemned, not only by Pelagius, but also by the holy bishops who presided over that inquiry:—that “Adam was made mortal;” (and, that the meaning of this statement might be more clearly understood, it was added, “and he would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned;”) that his sin injured only himself and not the human race; that the law, no less than the gospel, leads us to the kingdom of heaven; that new born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before the fall; that the entire human race does not, on the one hand, die through Adam’s death and transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ; that infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life; that rich men even if baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them, neither can they possess the kingdom of God;”—all these opinions, at any rate, were clearly condemned in that ecclesiastical court,—Pelagius pronouncing the anathema, and the bishops the interlocutory sentence.
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, 1679 holding in my hands an epistle of the most glorious martyr Cyprian, and reading therefrom and applying his words on the very matter, in order to remove this dangerous error out of the hearts of sundry persons, who had been persuaded to take up with the opinions which, as we see, were condemned in these proceedings. These opinions it has been attempted by their promoters to force upon the minds of some of the brethren, by threatening, as if from the Eastern Churches, that unless they adopted the said opinions, they would be formally condemned by those Churches. Observe, however, that no less than fourteen bishops of the Eastern Church, 1680 assembled in synod in the land where the Lord manifested His presence in the days of His flesh, refused to acquit Pelagius unless he condemned these opinions as opposed to the Catholic faith. Since, therefore, he was then acquitted because he anathematized such views, it follows beyond a doubt that the said opinions were condemned. This, indeed, will appear more clearly still, and on still stronger evidence, in the sequel.
Footnotes
194:1679“In the Basilica Majorum.” According to another reading, “the church of Majorinus.”
194:1680Augustin 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 us.” 1681 In the present day, also, many men live holy and righteous lives; but yet it is no untruth they utter when in their prayer they say: “Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors.” 1682 This avowal was accordingly acceptable to the judges, in the sense in which Pelagius solemnly declared his belief; but certainly not in the sense which Cœlestius, according to the original charge against him, was said to hold. We must now treat in detail of the topics which still remain, to the best of our ability.
Footnotes
195:16811 John i. 8.
195:1682Matt. vi. 12.
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?” 1683 or how could the Church offer up that prayer which the Lord taught her to use, “Forgive us our debts,” 1684 if in this world the Church is without a spot or blemish? In short, they must themselves submit to be strictly catechised respecting themselves: do they really allow that they have any sins of their own? If their answer is in the negative, then they must be plainly told that they are deceiving themselves, and the truth is not in them. If, however, they shall acknowledge that they do commit sin, what is this but a confession of their own wrinkle and spot? They therefore are not members of the Church; because the Church is without spot and wrinkle, while they have both spot and wrinkle.
Footnotes
195:16831 John i. 8.
195:1684Matt. vi. 12.
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 Pelagius replied: “This they have set down as my statement. What we said, however, was in keeping with the apostle’s assertion concerning virginity, of which Paul writes: ‘I have no commandment of the Lord.’” 1685 Upon this the synod said: “This also the Church receives.” I have read for myself the meaning which Cœlestius gives to this in his book,—for he does not deny that the book is his. Now he made this statement obviously with the view of persuading us that we possess through the nature of free will so great an ability for avoiding sin, that we are able to do more than is commanded us; for a perpetual virginity is maintained by very many persons, and this is not commanded; whereas, in order to avoid sin, it is sufficient to fulfil what is commanded. When the judges, however, accepted Pelagius’ answer, they did not take it to convey the idea that those persons keep all the commandments of the law and the gospel who over and above maintain the state of virginity, which is not commanded,—but only this, that virginity, which is not commanded, is something more than conjugal chastity, which is commanded; so that to observe the one is of course more than to keep the other; whereas, at the same time, neither can be maintained without the grace of God, inasmuch as the apostle, in speaking of this very subject, says: “But I would that all men were even as I myself. Every man, however, hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” 1686 And even the Lord Himself, upon the disciples remarking, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (or, as it may be better expressed in Latin, “it is not expedient to take a wife”), 1687 said to them: “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” 1688 This, therefore, is the doctrine which the bishops of the synod declared to be received by the Church, that the state of virginity, persevered in to the last, which is not commanded, is more than the chastity of married life, which is commanded. In what view Pelagius or Cœlestius regarded this subject, the judges were not aware.
Footnotes
196:16851 Cor. vii. 25.
196:16861 Cor. vii. 7.
196:1687This “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.
196:1688Matt. 19:10, 11.
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 1689 that, when Pelagius said that “a man was able by the help of God’s grace to live without sin,” he perhaps meant by the term “grace” the capability possessed by nature as created by God with a free will, as it is understood in that book which I received as his and to which I replied; 1690 and that by these means he was deceiving the judges, who were ignorant of the circumstances. Now, however, since he anathematizes those persons who hold 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,” it is quite evident that he really means the grace which is preached in the Church of Christ, and is conferred by the ministration of the Holy Ghost for the purpose of helping us in our single actions, whence it is that we pray for needful and suitable grace that we enter not into any temptation. Nor, again, have I any longer a fear that, when he said, “No man can be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law,” and added this explanation of his words, that “he posited in the knowledge of the law, help towards the avoidance of sin,” 1691 he at all meant the said knowledge to be considered as tantamount to the grace of God; for, observe, he anathematizes such as hold this opinion. See, too, how he refuses to hold our natural free will, or the law and doctrine, as equivalent to that grace of God which helps us through our single actions. What else then is left to him but to understand that grace which the apostle tells us is given by “the supply of the Spirit?” 1692 and concerning which the Lord said: “Take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” 1693 Nor, again, need I be under any apprehension that, when he asserted, “All men are ruled by their own will,” and afterwards explained that he had made that statement “in the interest of the freedom of our will, of which God is the helper whenever it makes choice of good,” 1694 that he perhaps here also held God’s helping grace as synonymous with our natural free will and the teaching of the law. For inasmuch as he rightly anathematized the persons who hold that God’s grace or assistance is not given for single actions, but lies in the gift of free will, or in the law and doctrine, it follows, of course, that God’s grace or assistance is given us for single actions,—free will, or the law and the doctrine, being left out of consideration; and thus through all the single actions of our life, when we act rightly, we are ruled and directed by God; nor is our prayer a useless one, wherein we say: “Order my steps according to Thy word, and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.” 1695
Footnotes
196:1689See above, (20).
196:1690He refers to Pelagius’ work which Augustin received from Jacobus and Timasius, aud against which he wrote his treatise De Naturâ et Gratiâ.
197:1691See above, (2).
197:1692Phil. i. 19.
197:1693Matt. 10:19, 20.
197:1694See above, (5).
197:1695Ps. cxix. 133.
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.” 1696 What then? shall we say that the Apostle Paul did not possess all these gifts himself? Who would be bold enough to assert this? The very fact that he was an apostle showed, of course, that he possessed the grace of the apostolate. He possessed also that of prophecy; for was not that a prophecy of his in which he says: “In the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils?” 1697 He was, moreover, “the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” 1698 He performed miracles also and cures; for he shook off from his hand, unhurt, the biting viper; 1699 and the cripple stood upright on his feet at the apostle’s word, and his strength was at once restored. 1700 It is not clear what he means by helps, for the term is of very wide application; but who can say that he was wanting even in this grace, when through his labours such helps were manifestly afforded towards the salvation of mankind? Then as to his possessing the grace of “government,” what could be more excellent than his administration, when the Lord at that time governed so many churches by his personal agency, and governs them still in our day through his epistles? And in respect of the “diversities of tongues,” what tongues could have been wanting to him, when he says himself: “I thank my God that I speak with tongues more than you all?” 1701 It being thus inevitable to suppose that not one of these was wanting to the Apostle Paul, the judges approved of Pelagius’ answer, wherein he said “that all graces were conferred upon him.” But there are other graces in addition to these which are not mentioned here. For it is not to be supposed, however greatly the Apostle Paul excelled others as a member of Christ’s body, that the very Head itself of the entire body did not receive more and ampler graces still, whether in His flesh or His soul as man; for such a created nature did the Word of God assume as His own into the unity of His Person, that He might be our Head, and we His body. And in very deed, if all gifts could be in each member, it would be evident that the similitude, which is used to illustrate this subject, of the several members of our body is inapplicable; for some things are common to the members in general, such as life and health, whilst other things are peculiar to the separate members, since the ear has no perception of colours, nor the eye of voices. Hence it is written: “If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? if the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?” 1702 Now this of course is not said as if it were impossible for God to impart to the ear the sense of seeing, or to the eye the function of hearing. However, what He does in Christ’s body, which is the Church, and what the apostle meant by diversity of graces 1703 as if through the different members, there might be gifts proper even to every one separately, is clearly known. Why, too, and on what ground they who raised the objection were so unwilling to have taken away all difference in graces, why, moreover, the bishops of the synod were able to approve of the answer given by Pelagius in deference to the Apostle Paul, in whom we admit the combination of all those graces which he mentioned in the one particular passage, is by this time clear also.
Footnotes
197:16961 Cor. xii. 28.
197:16971 Tim. iv. 1.
197:16981 Tim. ii. 7.
197:1699Acts xxviii. 5.
197:1700Acts 14:8, 9.
197:17011 Cor. xiv. 18.
198:17021 Cor. xii. 17.
198:1703Another 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.” 1704 In accordance with this, he says again: “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” 1705 Whosoever, therefore, is worthy, to him it is due; and if it is thus due to him, it ceases to be grace; for grace is given, but a debt is paid. Grace, therefore, is given to those who are unworthy, that a debt may be paid to them when they become worthy. He, however, who has bestowed on the unworthy the gifts which they possessed not before, does Himself take care that they shall have whatever things He means to recompense to them when they become worthy.
Footnotes
198:1704Rom. xi. 6.
198:1705Rom. iv. 4.
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.” 1706 Preach up, however, as much as you like, the works of unbelieving men, we still know how true and invincible is the statement of this same apostle: “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” 1707 The very reason, indeed, why he so often declares that righteousness is imputed to us, not out of our works, but our faith, whereas faith rather works through love, is that no man should think that he arrives at faith itself through the merit of his works; for it is faith which is the beginning whence good works first proceed; since (as has already been stated) whatsoever comes not from faith is sin. Accordingly, it is said to the Church, in the Song of Songs: “Thou shalt come and pass by from the beginning of faith.” 1708 Although, therefore, faith procures the grace of producing good works, we certainly do not deserve by any faith that we should have faith itself; but, in its bestowal upon us, in order that we may follow the Lord by its help, “His mercy has prevented us.” 1709 Was it we ourselves that gave it to us? Did we ourselves make ourselves faithful? I must by all means say here, emphatically: “It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves.” 1710 And indeed nothing else than this is pressed upon us in the apostle’s teaching, when he says: “For I declare, through the grace that is given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” 1711 Whence, too, arises the well-known challenge: “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” 1712 inasmuch as we have received even that which is the spring from which everything we have of good in our actions takes its beginning.
Footnotes
198:1706Gal. v. 6.
198:1707Rom. xiv. 23.
199:1708Song of Sol. 4.8.
199:1709Ps. lix. 10.
199:1710Ps. c. 3.
199:1711Rom. xii. 3.
199:17121 Cor. iv. 7.
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;’ 1713 if these are not recompenses paid to the worthy, but gifts, bestowed on the unworthy?” He who says this, does not consider that the crown could not have been given to the man who is worthy of it, unless grace had been first bestowed on him whilst unworthy of it. He says indeed: “I have fought a good fight;” 1714 but then he also says: “Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1715 He says too: “I have finished my course;” but he says again: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” 1716 He says, moreover: “I have kept the faith;” but then it is he too who says again: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep my deposit against that day”—that is, “my commendation;” for some copies have not the word depositum, but commendatum, which yields a plainer sense. 1717 Now, what do we commend to God’s keeping, except the things which we pray Him to preserve for us, and amongst these our very faith? For what else did the Lord procure for the Apostle Peter by His prayer for him, 1718 of which He said, “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not,” 1719 than that God would preserve his faith, that it should not fail by giving way to temptation? Therefore, blessed Paul, thou great preacher of grace, I will say it without fear of any man (for who will be less angry with me for so saying than thyself, who hast told us what to say, and taught us what to teach?)—I will, I repeat, say it, and fear no man for the assertion: Their own crown is recompensed to their merits; but thy merits are the gifts of God!
Footnotes
199:17132 Tim. iv. 7.
199:17142 Tim. iv. 7.
199:17151 Cor. xv. 57.
199:1716Rom. ix. 16.
199:17172 Tim. i. 12. St. Paul’s phrase, τῆν παραθήκην μου, has been taken in two senses, as (1) what God had entrusted to him; and (2) what the apostle had entrusted to God’s keeping. St. Augustin, it will be seen, here takes the latter sense.
199:1718There 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.
199:1719Luke xxii. 32.
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; 1720 he not only declares that he possessed no good deserts in himself why he should be made an apostle, but he even mentions his own demerits, in order to manifest and preach the grace of God. “I am not meet,” says he, “to be called an apostle;” 1721 and what else does this mean than “I am not worthy”—as indeed several Latin copies read the phrase. Now this, to be sure, is the very gist of our question; for undoubtedly in this grace of apostleship all those graces are contained. For it was neither convenient nor right that an apostle should not possess the gift of prophecy, nor be a teacher, nor be illustrious for miracles and the gifts of healings, nor furnish needful helps, nor provide governments over the churches, nor excel in diversities of tongues. All these functions the one name of apostleship embraces. Let us, therefore, consult the man himself, nay listen wholly to him. Let us say to him: “Holy Apostle Paul, the monk Pelagius declares that thou wast worthy to receive all the graces of thine apostleship. What dost thou say thyself?” He answers: “I am not worthy to be called an apostle.” Shall I then, under pretence of honouring Paul, in a matter concerning Paul, dare to believe Pelagius in preference to Paul? I will not do so; for if I did, I should only prove to be more onerous to myself than honouring to him. 1722 Let us hear also why he is not worthy to be called an apostle: “Because,” says he, “I persecuted the Church of God.” 1723 Now, were we to follow up the idea here expressed, who would not judge that he rather deserved from Christ condemnation, instead of an apostolic call? Who could so love the preacher as not to loathe the persecutor? Well, therefore, and truly does he say of himself: “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” As thou wroughtest then such evil, how camest thou to earn such good? Let all men hear his answer: “But by the grace of God, I am what I am.” Is there, then, no other way in which grace is commended, than because it is conferred on an unworthy recipient? “And His grace,” he adds, “which was bestowed on me was not in vain.” 1724 He says this as a lesson to others also, to show the freedom of the will, when he says: “We then, as workers together with Him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.” 1725 Whence however does he derive his proof, that “His grace bestowed on himself was not in vain,” except from the fact which he goes on to mention: “But I laboured more abundantly than they all?” 1726 So it seems he did not labour in order to receive grace, but he received grace in order that he might labour. And thus, when unworthy, he gratuitously received grace, whereby he might become worthy to receive the due reward. Not that he ventured to claim even his labour for himself; for, after saying: “I laboured more abundantly than they all,” he at once subjoined: “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” 1727 O mighty teacher, confessor, and preacher of grace! What meaneth this: “I laboured more, yet not I?” Where the will exalted itself ever so little, there piety was instantly on the watch, and humility trembled, because weakness recognised itself.
Footnotes
199:17201 Cor. i. 31.
199:17211 Cor. xv. 9.
200:1722This is a poor imitation of Augustin’s playful words: “Me potius onerabo quam illum honorabo.”
200:17231 Cor. xv. 9.
200:17241 Cor. xv. 10.
200:17252 Cor. vi. 1.
200:17261 Cor. xv. 10.
200:17271 Cor. xv. 10.
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. 1728 He told them that “on the occasion in question, whilst some were whispering, and remarking on Pelagius’ statement, that ‘without God’s grace man was able to attain perfection’ (that is, as he had previously expressed it, ‘man was able to be without sin’), he censured the statement, and reminded them besides, that even the Apostle Paul, after so many labours—not indeed in his own strength, but by the grace of God—said: ‘I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me;’ 1729 and again: ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;’ 1730 and again: ‘Except the Lord build the house, they labour but in vain who build it.’ 1731 And,” he added, “we quoted several other like passages out of the Holy Scriptures. When, however, they did not receive the quotations which we made out of the Holy Scriptures, but continued their murmuring noise, Pelagius said: ‘This is what I also believe; let him be anathema, who declares that a man is able, without God’s help, to arrive at the perfection of all virtues.’”
Footnotes
200:1728In a conference held at Jerusalem at the end of July in the year 415, as described by Orosius in his Apology.
200:17291 Cor. xv. 10.
200:1730Rom. ix. 16.
200:1731Ps. cxxvii. 1.
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.’” 1732
Footnotes
200:1732Rom. ix. 16.
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, 1733 —in which he asserts, that the passage: “Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” was “not said in Paul’s own person; but that he therein employed the language of questioning and refutation, as if such a statement ought not to be made.” No safe conclusion, therefore, can be drawn, although the bishop John plainly acknowledged the passage in question as conveying the mind of the apostle, and mentioned it for the very purpose of hindering Pelagius from thinking that any man can avoid sin without God’s grace, and declared that Pelagius said in answer: “This is what I also believe,” and did not, upon hearing all this, repudiate his admission by replying: “This is not my belief.” He ought, indeed, either to deny altogether, or unhesitatingly to correct and amend this perverse exposition, in which he would have it, that the apostle must not be regarded as entertaining the sentiment, 1734 but rather as refuting it. Now, whatever Bishop John said of our brethren who were absent—whether our brother bishops Heros and Lazarus, or the presbyter Orosius, or any others whose names are not there registered, 1735 —I am sure that he did not mean it to operate to their prejudice. For, had they been present, they might possibly (I am far from saying it absolutely) have convicted him of untruth; at any rate they might perhaps have reminded him of something he had forgotten, or something in which he might have been deceived by the Latin interpreter—not, to be sure, for the purpose of misleading him by untruth, but at least, owing to some difficulty occasioned by a foreign language, only imperfectly understood; especially as the question was not treated in the Proceedings, 1736 which were drawn up for the useful purpose of preventing deceit on the part of evil men, and of preserving a record to assist the memory of good men. If, however, any man shall be disposed by this mention of our brethren to introduce any question or doubt on the subject, and summon them before the Episcopal judgment, they will not be wanting to themselves, as occasion shall serve. Why need we here pursue the point, when not even the judges themselves, after the narrative of our brother bishop, were inclined to pronounce any definite sentence in consequence of it?
Footnotes
200:1733See the treatise De Peccatorum Meritis, iii. 1.
201:1734Rom. ix. 16.
201:1735Avitus, 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.
201:1736Augustin 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,” 1737 he did not perceive that it was improper for him to say, respecting the question of the abundance of the graces which the said apostle received, that he had shown himself “worthy to receive them,” when the apostle himself not only confessed, but added a reason to prove, that he was unworthy of them—and by this very fact set forth grace as grace indeed? If he could not for some reason or other consider or recollect the narrative of his holiness the bishop John, which he had heard some time before, he might surely have respected his own very recent answer at the synod, and remembered how he anathematized, but a short while before, the opinions which had been alleged against him out of Cœlestius. Now among these it was objected to him that Cœlestius had said: “That the grace of God is bestowed according to our merits.” If, then, Pelagius truthfully anathematized this, why does he say that all those graces were conferred on the apostle because he deserved them? Is the phrase “worthy to receive” of different meaning from the expression “to receive according to merit”? Can he by any disputatious subtlety show that a man is worthy who has no merit? But neither Cœlestius, nor any other, all of whose opinions he anathematized, has any intention to allow him to throw clouds over the phrase, and to conceal himself behind them. He presses home the matter, and plainly says: “And this grace has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it.” If, then, a statement, wherein it is declared that “God’s grace is given in proportion to our deserts, to such as are worthy,” 1738 was rightly and truly condemned by Pelagius, how could his heart permit him to think, or his mouth to utter, such a sentence as this: “We say that God gives to the person who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces?” 1739 Who that carefully considers all this can help feeling some anxiety about his answer or defence?
Footnotes
201:17371 Cor. 15:9, 10.
201:1738See above, 30 (xiv.).
201:1739See 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 1740 with free will, made me suspicious and anxious about the actual meaning of Pelagius—whether he had procured the introduction of the term into the argument without any accurate intention as to its sense, or else as a carefully drawn dogmatic expression. The last remaining statements had such an effect on the judges, that they deemed them worthy of condemnation, without waiting for Pelagius’ answer.
Footnotes
202:1740We 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.” 1741 In the seventh chapter he makes this statement: “Forgetfulness and ignorance have no connection with sin, as they do not happen through the will, but through necessity;” although David says: “Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my sins of ignorance;” 1742 although too, in the law, sacrifices are offered for ignorance, as if for sin. 1743 In his tenth chapter he says: “Our will is free, if it needs the help of God; inasmuch as every one in the possession of his proper will has either something to do or to abstain from doing.” In the twelfth he says: “Our victory comes not from God’s help, but from our own free will.” And this is a conclusion which he was said to draw in the following terms: “The victory is ours, seeing that we took up arms of our own will; just as, on the other hand, being conquered is our own, since it was of our own will that we neglected to arm ourselves.” And, after quoting the phrase of the Apostle Peter, “partakers of the divine nature,” 1744 he is said to have made out of it this argument: “Now if our spirit or soul is unable to be without sin, then even God is subject to sin, since this part of Him, that is to say, the soul, is exposed to sin.” In his thirteenth chapter he says: “That pardon is not given to penitents according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to their own merits and effort, since through repentance they have been worthy of mercy.”
Footnotes
202:1741Phil. iii. 12.
202:1742Ps. xxv. 7.
202:1743See Lev. iv.
202:17442 Pet. i. 4.
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 examine him with diligence and care; but, in spite of this inability, they completely destroyed the heresy itself, as even the defenders of his perverseness must allow, if they only follow the judgment through its particulars. As for those persons, however, who well know what Pelagius has been in the habit of teaching, or who have had to oppose his contentious efforts, or those who, to their joy, have escaped from his erroneous doctrine, how can they possibly help suspecting him, when they read the affected confession, wherein he acknowledges past errors, but so expresses himself as if he had never entertained any other opinion than those which he stated in his replies to the satisfaction of the judges?
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 dear friends (who have never relinquished their love of him) and his former disciples? These are the persons to whom I addressed the work in which I replied to the statements of his book. I think I ought not to pass over in silence the style and tone which they observed towards me in their correspondence, and I have here added a letter of theirs as a sample.
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.’ 1745 We have found, indeed, that your holiness has so thoroughly sifted the contents of his little book as to astonish us with the answers with which even the slightest points of his error have been confronted, whether it be on matters which every Christian ought to rebut, loathe, and avoid, or on those in which he is not with sufficient certainty found to have erred,—although even in these he has, with incredible subtlety, suggested his belief that God’s grace should be kept out of sight. 1746 There is, however, one consideration which affects us under so great a benefit,—that this most illustrious gift of the grace of God has, however slowly, so fully shone out upon us. If, indeed, it has happened that some are removed from the influence of this clearest light of truth, whose blindness required its illumination, yet even to them, we doubt not, the same grace will find its steady way, however late, by the merciful favour of that God ‘who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’ 1747 As for ourselves, indeed, thanks to that loving spirit which is in you, we have, in consequence of your instruction, some time since thrown off our subjection to his errors; but we still have even now cause for continued gratitude in the fact that, as we have been informed, the false opinions which we formerly believed are now becoming apparent to others—a way of escape opening out to them in the extremely precious discourse of your holiness.” Then, in another hand: “May the mercy of our God keep your blessedness in safety, and mindful of us, for His eternal glory.” 1748
Footnotes
204:1745Ps. cvii. 20.
204:1746Supprimendam.
204:17471 Tim. ii. 4.
204:1748See Augustin’s Epist. 168.
Chapter 49 [XXV.]—Pelagius’ Behaviour Contrasted with that of the Writers of the Letter.
If now that man, 1749 too, were to confess that he had once been implicated in this error as a person possessed, but that he now anathematized all that hold these opinions, whoever should withhold his congratulation from him, now that he was in possession of the way of truth, would surely surrender all the bowels of love. As the case, however, now stands, he has not only not acknowledged his liberation from his pestilential error; but, as if that were a small thing, he has gone on to anathematize men who have reached that freedom, who love him so well that they would fain desire his own emancipation. Amongst these are those very men who have expressed their good-will towards him in the letter, which they forwarded to me. For he it was whom they had chiefly in view when they said how much they were affected at the fact of my having at last written that work. “If, indeed, it has happened,” they say, “that some are removed from the influence of this clearest light of truth, whose blindness required its illumination, yet even to them,” they go on to remark, “we doubt not, the self-same grace will find its way, by the merciful favour of God.” Any name, or names, even they, too, thought it desirable as yet to suppress, in order that, if friendship still lived on, the error of the friends might the more surely die.
Footnotes
204:1749Pelagius.
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 mentioned, and even to be read and quoted in his favour,—as if all those persons who heard his strong and, to some extent, earnest exhortations to goodness of life could not have easily discovered how perverse were the opinions which he was entertaining?
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” 1750 —a title which, in our epistolary style, we usually apply even to some persons who are not Christians,—and this without untruth, inasmuch as we do, in a certain sense, owe to all such persons a service, which is yet freedom, to help them in obtaining the salvation which is in Christ. I added the epithet “most beloved;” and as I now call him by this term, so shall I continue to do so, even if he be angry with me; because, if I ceased to retain my love towards him, because of his feeling the anger, I should only injure myself rather than him. I, moreover, styled him “most longed for,” because I greatly longed to have a conversation with him in person; for I had already heard that he was endeavouring publicly to oppose grace, whereby we are justified, whenever any mention was made of it. The brief contents of the letter itself indeed show all this; for, after thanking him for the pleasure he gave me by the information of his own health and that of his friends (whose bodily health we are bound of course to wish for, however much we may desire their amendment in other respects), I at once expressed the hope that the Lord would recompense him with such blessings as do not appertain to physical welfare, but which he used to think, and probably still thinks, consist solely in the freedom of the will and his own power,—at the same time, and for this reason, wishing him “eternal life.” Then again, remembering the many good and kind wishes he had expressed for me in his letter, which I was answering, I went on to beg of him, too, that he would pray for me, that the Lord would indeed make me such a man as he believed me to be already; that so I might gently remind him, against the opinion he was himself entertaining, that the very righteousness which he had thought worthy to be praised in me was “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” 1751 This is the substance of that short letter of mine, and such was my purpose when I dictated it. This is a copy of it:
Footnotes
205:1750This term corresponds somewhat to our Sir; but Augustin here refers to its more expressive meaning of Master, or Lord.
205:1751Rom. ix. 16.
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 1752 conveys, I yet cannot be insensible of the benevolent view you entertain towards my poor deserts; at the same time requesting you to pray for me, that the Lord would make me such a man as you suppose me to be already.” Then, in another hand, it follows: “Be mindful of us; may you be safe, and find favour with the Lord, my most beloved lord, and most longed-for brother.”
Footnotes
205:1752Tuæ 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, he may read their letters recounting his praises, he may produce whatever synodal acts he pleases to attest his own acquittal,—there still stands against him the fact, proved by the testimony of competent witnesses, that he has inserted in his books statements which are opposed to that grace of God whereby we are called and justified; and unless he shall, after true confession, anathematize these statements, and then go on to contradict them both in his writings and discussions, he will certainly seem to all those who have a fuller knowledge of him to have laboured in vain in his attempt to set himself right.
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, 1753 he says, “When they were importunate and exclaimed, ‘He is a heretic, because he says, It is true that a man is able, if he only will, to live without sin;’ and then, when we questioned him on this point, he answered, ‘I did not say that man’s nature has received the power of being impeccable,—but I said, whosoever is willing, in the pursuit of his own salvation, to labour and struggle to abstain from sinning and to walk in the commandments of God, receives the ability to do so from God.’ Then, whilst some were whispering, and remarking on the statement of Pelagius, that ‘without God’s grace man was able to attain perfection,’ I censured the statement, and reminded them, besides, that even the Apostle Paul, after so many labours,—not, indeed, in his own strength, but by the grace of God,—said, ‘I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.’” 1754 And so on, as I have already mentioned.
Footnotes
206:1753In 37 [XIV.]
206:17541 Cor. xv. 10.
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, 1755 said, that “it was by his own labour and the grace of God that a man is able to be without sin?” Now, is a thing easy when labour is required to effect it? For I suppose that every man would agree with us in the opinion, that wherever there is labour there cannot be facility. And yet a carnal epistle of windiness and inflation flies forth, and, outrunning in speed the tardy record of the proceedings, gets first into men’s hands; so as to assert that fourteen bishops in the East have determined, not only “that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep God’s commandments,” but “easily to keep.” Nor is God’s assistance once named: it is merely said, “If he wishes;” so that, of course, as nothing is affirmed of the divine grace, for which the earnest fight was made, it remains that the only thing one reads of in this epistle is the unhappy and self-deceiving—because represented as victorious—human pride. As if the Bishop John, indeed, had not expressly declared that he censured this statement, and that, by the help of three inspired texts of Scripture, 1756 he had, as if by thunderbolts, struck to the ground the gigantic mountains of such presumption which they had piled up against the still over-towering heights of heavenly grace; or as if again those other bishops who were John’s assessors could have borne with Pelagius, either in mind or even in ear, when he pronounced these words: “We said that a man is able to be without sin and to keep the commandments of God, if he wishes,” unless he had gone on at once to say: “For the ability to do this God has given to him” (for they were unaware that he was speaking of nature, and not of that grace which they had learnt from the teaching of the apostle); and had afterwards added this qualification: “We never said, however, that any man could be found, who at no time whatever from his infancy to his old age had committed sin, but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and the grace of God be without sin.” Now, by the very fact that in their sentence they used these words, “he has answered correctly, ‘that a man can, when he has the assistance and grace of God, be without sin;’” what else did they fear than that, if he denied this, he would be doing a manifest wrong not to man’s ability, but to God’s grace? It has indeed not been defined when a man may become without sin; it has only been judicially settled, that this result can only be reached by the assisting grace of God; it has not, I say, been defined whether a man, whilst he is in this flesh which lusts against the Spirit, ever has been, or now is, or ever can be, by his present use of reason and free will, either in the full society of man or in monastic solitude, in such a state as to be beyond the necessity of offering up the prayer, not in behalf of others, but for himself personally: “Forgive us our debts;” 1757 or whether this gift shall be consummated at the time when “we shall be like Him, when we shall see Him as He is,” 1758 —when it shall be said, not by those that are fighting: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,” 1759 but by those that are triumphing: “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” 1760 Now, this is perhaps hardly a question which ought to be discussed between catholics and heretics, but only among catholics with a view to a peaceful settlement. 1761
Footnotes
206:1755Ch. 16. At the synod of Diospolis. The proceedings before John, bishop of Jerusalem, were not duly registered. See above, 39.
207:1756See above, 37.
207:1757Matt. vi. 12.
207:17581 John iii. 2.
207:1759Rom. vii. 23.
207:17601 Cor. xv. 55.
207:1761This 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 them.” In his paper, however, he refused to anathematize these same opinions, which are to this effect: “That Adam was created mortal, and that he 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 new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before he fell. That, on the one hand, the entire human race does not die owing to Adam’s death and transgression; nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men, even if they are baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them; neither shall they possess the kingdom of heaven.” Now, in his paper, the answer which he gives to all this is: “All these statements have not been made by me, even on their own testimony, nor do I hold myself responsible for them.” In the Proceedings, however, he expressed himself as follows on these points: “They have not been made by me, as even their testimony shows, and for them I do not feel that I am at all responsible. But yet, for the satisfaction of the holy synod, I anathematize those who either now hold, or have ever held, them.” Now, why did he not express himself thus in his paper also? It would not, I suppose, have cost much ink, or writing, or delay; nor have occupied much of the paper itself, if he had done this. Who, however, can help believing that there is a purpose in all this, to pass off this paper in all directions as an abridgment of the Episcopal Proceedings. In consequence of which, men might think that his right still to maintain any of these opinions which he pleased had not been taken away,—on the ground that they had been simply laid to his charge but had not received his approbation, nor yet had been anathematized and condemned by him.
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 growing strong with contentious audacity, have been condemned by fourteen bishops presiding in an ecclesiastical synod! Now, if he was afraid that this fact would become known, as is the case, he has more reason for self-correction than for resentment at the vigilance with which we are watching the controversy to the best of our ability, however late. If, however, it is untrue that he had any such fears, and we are only indulging in a suspicion which is natural to man, let him forgive us; but, at the same time, let him continue to oppose and resist the opinions which were rejected by him with anathemas in the proceedings before the bishops, when he was on his defence; for if he now shows any leniency to them, he would seem not only to have believed these opinions formerly, but to be cherishing them still.
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,” 1762 —after the older heresies, there has been just now introduced, not by bishops or presbyters or any rank of the clergy, but by certain would-be monks, a heresy which disputes, under colour of defending free will, against the grace of God which we have through our Lord Jesus Christ; and endeavours to overthrow the foundation of the Christian faith of which it is written, “By one man, death, and by one man the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;” 1763 and denies God’s help in our actions, by affirming that, “in order to avoid sin and to fulfil righteousness, human nature can be sufficient, seeing that it has been created with free will; and that God’s grace lies in the fact that we have been so created as to be able to do this by the will, and in the further fact that God has given to us the assistance of His law and commandments, and also in that He forgives their past sins when men turn to Him;” that “in these things alone is God’s grace to be regarded as consisting, not in the help He gives to us for each of our actions,”—“seeing that a man can be without sin, and keep God’s commandments easily if he wishes.”
Footnotes
209:17621 Cor. xi. 19.
209:17631 Cor. 15:21, 22.
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. 1764 Then, a few years afterwards, Pelagius, who was said to have been this man’s instructor, having been accused of holding his heresy, found also his way before an episcopal tribunal. 1765 The indictment was prepared against him by the Gallican bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who were, however, not present at the proceedings, and were excused from attendance owing to the illness of one of them. After all the charges were duly recited, and Pelagius had met them by his answers, the fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine pronounced him, in accordance with his answers, free from the perversity of this heresy; while yet without hesitation condemning the heresy itself. They approved indeed of his answer to the objections, that “a man is assisted by a knowledge of the law, towards not sinning; even as it is written, ‘He hath given them a law for a help;’” 1766 but yet they disapproved of this knowledge of the law being that grace of God concerning which the Scripture says: “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1767 Nor did Pelagius say absolutely: “All men are ruled by their own will,” as if God did not rule them; for he said, when questioned on this point: “This I stated in the interest of the freedom of our will; God is its helper, whenever it makes choice of good. Man, however, when sinning, is himself in fault, as being under the direction of his free will.” 1768 They approved, moreover, of his statement, that “in the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and sinners, but they will be punished in everlasting fires;” because in his defence he said, “that he had made such an assertion in accordance with the gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ‘These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.’” 1769 But he did not say, all sinners are reserved for eternal punishment, for then he would evidently have run counter to the apostle, who distinctly states that some of them will be saved, “yet so as by fire.” 1770 When also Pelagius said that “the kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament,” they approved of the statement, on the ground that he supported himself by the testimony of the prophet Daniel, who thus wrote: “The saints shall take the kingdom of the Most High.” 1771 They understood him, in this statement of his, to mean by the term “Old Testament,” not simply the Testament which was made on Mount Sinai, but the entire body of the canonical Scriptures which had been given previous to the coming of the Lord. His allegation, however, that “a man is able to be without sin, if he wishes,” was not approved by the bishops in the sense which he had evidently meant it to bear in his book 1772 —as if this was solely in a man’s power by free will (for it was contended that he must have meant no less than this by his saying: “if he wishes”),—but only in the sense which he actually gave to the passage on the present occasion in his answer; in the very sense, indeed, in which the episcopal judges mentioned the subject in their own interlocution with especial brevity and clearness, that a man is able to be without sin with the help and grace of God. But still it was left undetermined when the saints were to attain to this state of perfection,—whether in the body of this death, or when death shall be swallowed up in victory.
Footnotes
210:1764This 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.
210:1765This happened in the year 415, in the month of December, at Diospolis.
210:1766Isa. viii. 20. See above, 2.
210:1767Rom. 7:24, 25.
210:1768See above, 5.
210:1769Matt. xxv. 46. See above, 9.
210:17701 Cor. iii. 15.
210:1771Dan. vii. 18. See above, 13.
210:1772See 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.” 1773 Cœlestius, however, was stated to have said that “they lived sinless lives.” Again, it was objected that Cœlestius declared “the Church to be without spot and wrinkle.” 1774 Pelagius, however, said in his reply, “that he had made such an assertion, but as meaning that the Church is by the laver cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and that in this purity the Lord would have her continue.” Respecting that statement of Cœlestius: “That we do more than is commanded us in the law and the gospel,” Pelagius urged in his own vindication, 1775 that “he spoke concerning virginity,” of which Paul says: “I have no commandment of the Lord.” 1776 Another objection alleged that Cœlestius had maintained that “every individual has the ability to possess all powers and graces,” thus annulling that “diversity of gifts” which, the apostle sets forth. 1777 Pelagius, however, answered, that “he did not annul the diversity of gifts, but declared that God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He gave the Apostle Paul.”
Footnotes
210:1773See above, 26.
210:1774See above, 27.
211:1775See above, 29.
211:17761 Cor. vii. 25.
211:1777See 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;”) 1778 or else their attention was not arrested by the sense which Pelagius gave to the word, as he himself viewed it. Such are the points on which the bishops pronounced the agreement of Pelagius with the doctrines of godly truth.
Footnotes
211:17781 Cor. xv. 9.
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. 1779 The following are the wild thickets of this heresy, which we are sorry to see shooting out buds, nay growing into trees, day by day:—“That 1780 Adam was made mortal, and would have died whether he had sinned or not; that Adam’s sin injured only himself, and not the human race; that the law no less than the gospel leads to the kingdom; that new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before the transgression; that the whole human race does not, on the one hand, die in consequence of Adam’s death and transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ; that infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life; that rich men, even if baptized, unless they renounce and surrender everything, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them, neither can they possess the kingdom of God; that 1781 God’s grace and assistance are not given for single actions, but reside in free will, and in the law and teaching; that the grace of God is bestowed according to our merits, so that grace really lies in the will of man, as he makes himself worthy or unworthy of it; that men cannot be called children of God, unless they have become entirely free from sin; that forgetfulness and ignorance do not come under sin, as they do not happen through the will, but of necessity; that there is no free will, if it needs the help of God, inasmuch as every one has his proper will either to do something, or to abstain from doing it; that our victory comes not from God’s help, but from free will; that from what Peter says, that ‘we are partakers of the divine nature,’ 1782 it must follow that the soul has the power of being without sin, just in the way that God Himself has.” For this have I read in the eleventh chapter of the book, which bears no title of its author, but is commonly reported to be the work of Cœlestius,—expressed in these words: “Now how can anybody,” asks the author, “become a partaker of the thing from the condition and power of which he is distinctly declared to be a stranger?” Accordingly, the brethren who prepared these objections understood him to have said that man’s soul and God are of the same nature, and to have asserted that the soul is part of God; for thus they understood that he meant that the soul partakes of the same condition and power as God. Moreover in the last of the objections laid to his charge there occurs this position: “That pardon is not given to penitents according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to their own merits and effort, since through repentance they have been worthy of mercy.” Now all these dogmas, and the arguments which were advanced in support of them, were repudiated and anathematized by Pelagius, and his conduct herein was approved of by the judges, who accordingly pronounced that he had, by his rejection and anathema, condemned the opinions in question as contrary to the faith. Let us therefore rejoice—whatever may be the circumstances of the case, whether Cœlestius laid down these theses or not, or whether Pelagius believed them or not—that the injurious principles of this new heresy were condemned before that ecclesiastical tribunal; and let us thank God for such a result, and proclaim His praises.
Footnotes
211:1779See above, 16.
211:1780See above, 24.
211:1781See above, 30.
211:17822 Pet. i. 4.
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 1783 to have most cruelly beaten and maltreated the servants and handmaidens of the Lord who lived under the care of the holy presbyter Jerome, slain his deacon, and burnt his monastic houses; whilst he himself, by God’s mercy, narrowly escaped the violent attacks of these impious assailants in the shelter of a well-defended fortress. However, I think it better becomes me to say nothing of these matters, but to wait and see what measures our brethren the bishops may deem it their duty to adopt concerning such scandalous enormities; for nobody can suppose that it is possible for them to pass them over without notice. Impious doctrines put forth by persons of this character it is no doubt the duty of all catholics, however remote their residence, to oppose and refute, and so to hinder all injury from such opinions wheresoever they may happen to find their way; but impious actions it belongs to the discipline of the episcopal authority on the spot to control, and they must be left for punishment to the bishops of the very place or immediate neighbourhood, to be dealt with as pastoral diligence and godly severity may suggest. We, therefore, who live at so great a distance, are bound to hope that such a stop may there be put to proceedings of this kind, that there may be no necessity elsewhere of further invoking judicial remedies. But what rather befits our personal activity is so to set forth the truth, that the minds of all those who have been severely wounded by the report, so widely spread everywhere, may be healed by the mercy of God following our efforts. With this desire, I must now at last terminate this work, which, should it succeed, as I hope, in commending itself to your mind, will, I trust, with the Lord’s blessing, become serviceable to its readers—recommended to them rather by your name than by my own, and through your care and diligence receiving a wider circulation.
Footnotes
212:1783He 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.