A TREATISE ON THE MERITS AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

                 AND ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS,

     BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO; IN THREE BOOKS,

               ADDRESSED TO MARCELLINUS, A.D. 412.

                             BOOK I.

IN WHICH HE REFUTES THOSE WHO MAINTAIN, THAT ADAM MUST HAVE DIED EVEN IF
HE HAD NEVER SINNED; AND THAT NOTHING OF HIS SIN HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED TO
HIS POSTERITY BY NATURAL DESCENT. HE ALSO SHOWS, THAT DEATH HAS NOT
ACCRUED TO MAN BY ANY NECESSITY OF HIS NATURE, BUT AS THE PENALTY OF
SIN; HE THEN PROCEEDS TO PROVE THAT IN ADAM'S SIN HIS ENTIRE OFFSPRING
IS IMPLICATED, SHOWING THAT INFANTS ARE BAPTIZED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE
OF RECEIVING THE REMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN.

CHAP. 1 [I.]--INTRODUCTORY, IN THE SHAPE OF AN INSCRIPTION TO HIS FRIEND
MARCELLINUS.

    HOWEVER absorbing and intense the anxieties and annoyances in the
whirl and warmth of which we are engaged with sinful men[1] who forsake
the law of God,--even though we may well ascribe these very evils to the
fault of our own sins,--I am unwilling, and, to say the truth, unable,
any longer to remain a debtor, my dearest Marcellinus,[2] to that
zealous affection of yours, which only enhances my own grateful and
pleasant estimate of yourself. I am under the impulse [of a twofold
emotion]: on the one hand, there is that very love which makes us
unchangeably one in the one hope of a change for the better; on the
other hand, there is the fear of offending God in yourself, who has
given you so earnest a desire; in gratifying which I shall be only
serving Him who has given it to you. And so strongly has this impulse
led and attracted me to solve, to the best of my humble ability, the
questions which you have submitted to me in writing, that my mind  has
gradually admitted this inquiry to an importance transcending that of
all others; [and it will now give me no rest] until I accomplish
something which shall make it manifest that I have yielded, if not a
sufficient, yet at any rate an obedient, compliance with your own kind
wish and the desire of those to whom these questions are a source of
anxiety.

            CHAP. 2 [II.]--IF ADAM HAD NOT SINNED, HE

                     WOULD NEVER HAVE DIED.

    They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any
demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the
necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the
law, which says: "On the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die,"[3] not
to the death of the body, but to that death of the soul which takes
place in sin. It is the unbelievers who have died this death, to whom
the Lord pointed when He said," Let the dead bury their dead."[1] Now
what will be their answer, when we read that God, when reproving and
sentencing the first man after his sin, said to him, "Dust thou art, and
unto dust shalt thou return?"[2] For it was not in respect of his soul
that he was "dust," but clearly by reason of his body, and it was by the
death of the self-same body that he was destined to "return to dust."
Still, although it was by reason of his body that he was dust, and
although he bare about the natural body in which he was created, he
would if he had not sinned, have been changed into a spiritual body, and
would have passed into the incorruptible state, which is promised to the
faithful and the saints, without the peril of death.[3] And for this
issue we not only are conscious in ourselves of having an earnest
desire, but we learn it from the apostle's intimation, when he says:
"For in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation
which is from heaven; if so be that being clothed we shall not be found
naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not
for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality may be
swallowed up of life."[4] Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would
not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon
with immortality and incorruption, that "mortality might have been
swallowed up of life;" that is, that he might have passed from the
natural body into the spiritual body.

CHAP. 3 [III.] -- IT IS ONE THING TO BE MORTAL, ANOTHER THING TO BE
SUBJECT TO DEATH.

    Nor was there any reason to fear that if he had happened to live on
here longer in his natural body, he would have been oppressed with old
age, and have gradually, by increasing age, arrived at death. For if God
granted to the clothes and the shoes of the Israelites that "they waxed
not old" during so many years,[5] what wonder if for obedience it had
been by the power of the same [God] allowed to man, that although he had
a natural and mortal body, he should have in it a certain condition, in
which he might grow full of years without decrepitude, and, whenever God
pleased, pass from mortality to immortality without the medium of death?
For even as this very flesh of ours, which we now possess, is not
therefore invulnerable, because it is not necessary that it should be
wounded; so also was his not therefore immortal, because there was no
necessity for its dying. Such a condition, whilst still in their natural
and mortal body, I suppose, was granted even to those who were
translated hence without death.[6] For Enoch and Elijah were not reduced
to the decrepitude of old age by their long life. But yet I do not
believe that they were then changed into that spiritual kind of body,
such as is promised in the resurrection, and which the Lord was the
first to receive; only they probably do not need those aliments, which
by their use minister refreshment to the body; but ever since their
translation they so live, as to enjoy such a sufficiency as was provided
during the forty days in which Elijah lived on the cruse of water and
the cake, without substantial  food;[7] or else, if there be any need of
such sustenance, they are, it may be, sustained in Paradise in some such
way as Adam was, before he brought on himself expulsion therefrom by
sinning. And he, as I suppose, was supplied with sustenance against
decay from the fruit of the various trees, and from the tree of life
with security against old age.

CHAP. 4 [IV.]--EVEN BODILY DEATH IS FROM SIN.

    But in addition to the passage where God in punishment said," Dust
thou art, unto dust shalt thou return,"[2]--a passage which I cannot
understand how any one can apply except to the death of the body, --
there are other testimonies likewise, from which it most fully appears
that by reason of sin the human race has brought upon itself not
spiritual death merely, but the death of the  body also. The apostle
says to the Romans: "But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because
of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. If therefore
the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He
that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal
bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you."[8] I think that so clear and
open a sentence as this only requires to be read, and not expounded. The
body, says he, is dead, not because of earthly frailty, as being made of
the dust of the ground, but because of sin; what more do we want ? And
he is most careful in his words: he does not say "is mortal," but
"dead."

CHAP. 5 [V.] --THE WORDS, MORTALE (CAPABLE OF DYING), MORTUUM (DEAD),
AND MORITURUS (DESTINED TO  DIE).

    Now previous to the change into the incorruptible state which is
promised in the resurrection of the saints, the body could be mortal
(capable of dying) ,although not destined to die (moriturus); just as
our body in its present state can, so to speak, be capable of sickness,
although not destined to be sick. For whose is the flesh which is
incapable of sickness, even if from some accident it die before it ever
is sick? In like manner was man's body then mortal; and this mortality
was to have been superseded by an eternal incorruption, if man had
persevered in righteousness, that is to say, obedience: but even what
was  mortal (mortale) was not made dead (mortuum), except on account of
sin. For the change which is to come in at the resurrection is, in
truth, not only not to have death incidental to it, which has happened
through sin, but neither is it to have mortality, [or the very
possibility of death,] which the natural body had before it sinned. He
does not say: "He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall
quicken also your dead bodies" (although he had previously said," the
body is dead"[1]); but his words are: "He shall quicken also your mortal
bodies;"[2] so that they are not only no longer dead, but no longer
mortal [or capable of dying], since the natural is raised spiritual, and
this mortal body shall put on immortality, and mortality shall be
swallowed up in life.[3]

CHAP. 6 [VI]-- HOW IT IS THAT THE BODY DEAD BECAUSE OF SIN.

    One wonders that anything is required clearer than the proof we have
given. But we must perhaps be content to hear this clear illustration
gainsaid by the contention, that we must understand "the dead body"
here[1] in the sense of the passage where it is said, "Mortify your
members which are upon the earth."[4] But it is because of righteousness
and not because of sin that the body is in this sense mortified; for it
is to do the works  of righteousness that we mortify our bodies which
are upon the earth. Or if they suppose that the phrase, "because of
sin," is added, not that we should understand "because sin has been
committed," but "in order that sin may not be committed" -- as if it
were said, "The body indeed is dead, in order to prevent the commission
of sin:" what then does he mean in the  next clause by adding the words,
"because of  righteousness," to the statement, "The spirit is life?"[1]
For it would have been enough simply to have adjoined "the spirit is
life," to have secured that we should supply here too, "in order to
prevent the commission of sin; "so that we should thus understand the
two propositions to point to one thing -- that both "the body is dead,"
and "the spirit is life," for the one common purpose of "preventing the
commission of sin." So like,wise if he had merely  meant to say,
"because of righteousness," in the sense of "for the purpose of doing
righteousness," the two clauses might possibly be referred to this one
purpose -- to the effect, that both "the body is dead," and "the spirit
is life," "for the purpose of doing righteousness." But as the passage
actually stands, it declares that "the body is dead because of sin," and
"the spirit is life because of righteousness," attributing different
merits to different things--the demerit of sin to the death of the body,
and the merit of righteousness to the life of the spirit. Wherefore if,
as no one can doubt, "the spirit is life because of righteousness," that
is, as the desert, of righteousness; how ought we, or can we, understand
by the statement, "The body is dead because of sin," anything else than
that the body is dead as the desert of sin, unless indeed we try to
pervert or wrest the plainest sense of Scripture to our own arbitrary
will? But besides this, additional light is afforded by the words which
follow. For it is with limitation to the present time, when he says,
that on the one hand "the body is dead because of sin," since, whilst
the body is unrenovated by the resurrection, there remains in it the
desert of sin, that is, the necessity of dying; and on the other hand,
that "the spirit is life because of righteousness," since,
notwithstanding the fact of our being still burdened with" the body of
this death,"[5] we have already by the renewal which is begun in our
inner man, new aspirations[6] after the righteousness of faith. Yet,
lest man in his ignorance should fail to entertain hope of the
resurrection of the body, he says that the very body which he had just
declared to be "dead because of sin "in this world, will in the next
world be made alive" because of righteousness," -- and that not only in
such a way as to become alive from the dead, but immortal from its
mortality.

CHAP. 7 [VII.]--THE LIFE OF THE BODY THE OBJECT OF HOPE, THE LIFE OF THE
SPIRIT BEING A PRELUDE TO IT.

    Although I am much afraid that so clear a matter may rather be
obscured by exposition, I must yet request your attention to the
luminous statement of the apostle. "But if Christ," says he, "be in you,
the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because
of righteousness."[1] Now this is said, that men may not suppose that
they derive no benefit, or but scant benefit, from the grace of Christ,
seeing that they must needs die in the body. For they are bound to
remember that, although their body still bears that desert of sin, which
is irrevocably bound to the condition of death, yet their spirit has
already begun to live because of the righteousness of faith, although it
had actually become extinct by the death, as it were, of unbelief. No
small gift, therefore, he says, must you suppose to have been conferred
upon you, by the circumstance that Christ is in you; inasmuch as in the
body, which is dead because of sin, your spirit is even now alive
because of righteousness; so that therefore you should not despair of
the life even of your body. "For if the, Spirit of Him that raised up
Christ from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the
dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth
in you."[1] How is it that fumes of controversy still darken so clear a
light? The apostle distinctly tells you, that although the body is dead
because of sin within you, yet even your mortal bodies shall be made
alive because of righteousness, because of which even now your spirit is
life,--the whole of which process is to be perfected by the grace of
Christ, that is, by His Spirit dwelling in you: and men still
contradict! He goes on to tell us how it comes to pass that life
converts death into itself by mortifying it. "Therefore, brethren," says
he, "we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh; for if
ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the spirit do
mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live."[2] What else does this
mean but this: If ye live according to death, ye shall wholly die l but
if by living according to life ye mortify death, ye shall wholly live?

CHAP. 8 [VIII.]--BODILY DEATH FROM ADAM'S SIN.

    When to the like purport he says: "By man came death, by man also
the resurrection of the dead,"[3] in what other sense can the passage be
understood than of the death of the body; for having in view the mention
of this, he proceeded to speak of the resurrection of the body, and
affirmed it in a most earnest and solemn discourse In these words,
addressed to the Corinthians: "By man came death, and by man came also
the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive,"[4] -- what other meaning is indeed conveyed
than in the verse in which he says to the Romans, "By one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin?"[5] Now they will have it,
that the death here meant is the death, not of the body, but of the
soul, on the pretence that another thing is spoken of to the
Corinthians, where they are quite unable to understand the death of the
soul, because the subject there treated is the resurrection of the body,
which is the antithesis of the death of the body. The reason, moreover,
why only death is here mentioned as caused by man, and not sin also, is
because the point of the discourse is not about righteousness, which is
the antithesis of sin, but about the resurrection of the body, which is
contrasted with the death of the body.

CHAP. 9 [IX.]--SIN PASSES ON TO ALL MEN BY NATURAL DESCENT, AND NOT
MERELY BY IMITATION.

    You tell me in your letter, that they endeavour to twist into some
new sense the passage of the apostle, in which he says: "By one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin;"[5] yet you have not informed
me what they suppose to be the meaning of these words. But so far as I
have discovered from others, they think that the death which is here
mentioned is not the death of the body, which they will not allow Adam
to have deserved by his sin, but that of the soul, which takes place in
actual sin; and that this actual sin has not been transmitted from the
first man to other persons by natural descent, but by imitation. Hence,
likewise, they refuse to believe that in infants original sin is
remitted through baptism, for they contend that no such original sin
exists at all in people by their birth. But if the apostle had wished to
assert that sin entered into the world, not by natural descent, but by
imitation, he would have mentioned as the first offender, not Adam
indeed, but the devil, of whom it is written,[6] that "he sinneth from
the beginning;" of whom also we read in the Book of Wisdom:
"Nevertheless through the devil's envy death entered into the world."[7]
Now, forasmuch as this death came upon men from the devil, not because
they were propagated by him, but because they imitated his example, it
is immediately added: "And they that do hold of his side do imitate
him."[8] Accordingly, the apostle, when mentioning sin and death
together, which had passed by natural descent from one upon all men, set
him down as the introducer thereof from whom the propagation of the
human race took its beginning.

                CHAP. 10.--THE ANALOGY OF GRACE.

    No doubt all they imitate Adam who by disobedience transgress the
commandment of God; but he is one thing as an example to those who sin
because they choose; and another thing as the progenitor of all who are
born with sin. All His saints, also, imitate Christ in the pursuit of
righteousness; whence the same apostle, whom we have already quoted,
says: "Be ye imitators of me, as I am also of Christ."[9] But besides
this imitation, His grace works within us our illumination and
justification, by that operation concerning which the same preacher of
His [name] says: "Neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that
watereth, but God that giveth the increase." (1) For by this grace He
engrafts into His body even baptized infants, who certainly have not yet
become able to imitate any one. As therefore He, in whom all are made
alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness to those
who imitate Him, gives also to those who believe on Him the hidden grace
of His Spirit, which He secretly infuses even into infants; so likewise
he, in whom all die, besides being an example for imitation to those who
wilfully transgress the commandment of the Lord, depraved also in his
own person all who come of his stock by the hidden corruption of his own
carnal concupiscence. It is entirely on this account, and for no other
reason, that the apostle says: "By one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin, and so passed upon all men; in which all have sinned."
(2) Now if I were to say this, they would raise an objection, and loudly
insist that I was incorrect both in expression and sense; for they would
perceive no sense in these words when spoken by an ordinary man, except
that sense which they refuse to see in the apostle. Since, however,
these are the words of him to whose authority and doctrine they submit,
they charge us with slowness of understanding, while they endeavour to
wrest to some unintel ligible sense words which were written in a clear
and obvious purport. "By one man," says he, "sin entered into the world,
and death by sin." This indicates propagation, not imitation; for if
imitation were meant, he would have said, "By the devil." But as no one
doubts, he refers to that first man who is called Adam: "And so," says
he, "it passed upon all men."

            CHAP. II [X.]--DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACTUAL

                      AND ORIGINAL SIN. (3)

    Again, in the clause which follows, "In which all have sinned," how
cautiously, rightly, and unambiguously is the statement expressed! For
if yon understand that sin to be meant which by one man entered into the
world, "In which [sin] all have sinned," it is surely clear enough, that
the sins which are peculiar to every man, which they themselves commit
and which belong simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one sin,
in and by which all have sinned, means another thing; since all were
that one man. If, however, it be not the sin, but that one man that is
understood, "In which [one man] all have sinned," what again can be
plainer than even this clear statement? We read, indeed, of those being
justified in Christ who believe in Him, by reason of the secret
communion and inspiration of that spiritual grace which makes every one
who cleaves to the Lord "one spirit" with Him, (4) although His saints
also imitate His example; can I find, however, any similar statement
made of those who have imitated His saints? Can any man be said to be
justified in Paul or in Peter, or in any one whatever of those excellent
men whose authority stands high among the people of God? We are no doubt
said to be blessed in Abraham, according to the passage in which it was
said to him, "In thee shall all nations be blessed" (5)--for Christ's
sake, who is his seed according to the flesh; which is still more
clearly expressed in the parallel passage: "In thy seed shall all
nations be blessed" I do not believe that any one can find it anywhere
stated in the Holy Scriptures, that a man has ever sinned or still sins
"in the devil," although all wicked and impious men "imitate" him. The
apostle, however, has declared concerning the first man, that "in him
all have sinned;" (2) and yet there is still a contest about the
propagation of sin, and men oppose to it I know not what nebulous theory
of "imitation." (6)

CHAP. 12.--THE LAW COULD NOT TAKE AWAY SIN.

    Observe also what follows. Having said, "In which all have stoned,"
he at once added, "For until the law, sin was in the world." (7) This
means that sin could not be taken away even by the law, which entered
that sin might the more abound, (8) whether it be the law of nature,
under which every man when arrived at years of discretion only proceeds
to add his own sins to original sin, or that very law which Moses gave
to the people. "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 in
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (9) But sin is not
imputed where there is no law." (7) Now what means the phrase "is not
imputed," but "is ignored," or "is not reckoned as sin?" Although the
Lord God does not Himself regard it as if it had never been, since it is
written: "As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
law." (10)

CHAP.	13 [XI.]--MEANING OF THE APOSTLE'S PHRASE "THE REIGN OF DEATH."

    "Nevertheless," says he, "death reigned from Adam even unto Moses,
(11)--that is to say, from the first man even to the very law which was
promulged by the divine authority, because even it was unable to abolish
the reign of death. Now death must be understood "to reign," whenever
the guilt of sin, so dominates in men that it prevents their attainment
of that eternal life which is the only true life, and drags them down
even to the second death which is penally eternal. This reign of death
is only destroyed in any man by the Saviour's grace, which wrought even
in the saints of the olden time, all of whom, though previous to the
coming of Christ in the flesh, yet lived in relation to His assisting
grace, not to the letter of the law, which only knew how to command, but
not to help them. In the Old Testament, indeed, that was hidden
(conformably to the perfectly just dispensation of the times) which is
now revealed in the New Testament. Therefore "death reigned from Adam
unto Moses," in all who were not assisted by the grace of Christ, that
in them the kingdom of death might be destroyed, "even in those who had
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," (2) that is,
who had not yet sinned of their own individual will, as Adam did, but
had drawn from him original sin, "who is the figure of him that was to
come," (2) because in him was constituted the form of condemnation to
his future progeny, who should spring from him by natural descent; so
that from one all men were born to a condemnation, from which there is
no deliverance but in the Saviour's grace. I am quite aware, indeed,
that several Latin copies of the Scriptures read the passage thus:
"Death reigned from Adam to Moses over them who have sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression;" (3) but even this version is
referred by those who so read it to the very same purport, for they
understood those who have sinned in him to have sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression; so that they are created in his
likeness, not only as men born of a man, but as sinners born of a
sinner, dying ones of a dying one, and condemned ones to a condemned
one. However, the Greek copies from which the Latin version was made,
have all, without exception or nearly so, the reading which I first
adduced.

CHAP.	14.--SUPERABUNDANCE OF GRACE.

    "But," says he, "not as the offence so also is the free gift. For
if, through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of
God, and the gift by grace, which is by One Man, Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto many." (4) Not many more, that is, many more men, for
there are not more persons justified than condemned; but it runs, much
more hath abounded; inasmuch as, while Adam produced sinners from his
one sin, Christ has by His grace procured free forgiveness even for the
sins which men have of their own accord added by actual transgression to
the original sin in which they were born.This he states more clearly
still in the sequel.

CHAP. 15 [XII.]--THE ONE SIN COMMON TO ALL MEN.

    But observe more attentively what he says, that "through the offence
of one, many are dead." For why should it be on account of the sin of
one, and not rather on account of their own sins, if this passage is to
be understood of imitation, and not of propagation? (5) But mark what
follows: "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the
judgment was by one to condemnation, but the grace is of many offences
unto justification." (6) Now let them tell us, where there is room in
these words for imitation. "By one," says he, "to condemnation." By one
what except one sin? This, indeed, he clearly implies in the words which
he adds: "But the grace is of many offences unto justification." Why,
indeed, is the judgment from one offence to condemnation, while the
grace is from many offences to justification? If original sin is a
nullity, would it not follow, that not only grace withdraws men from
many offences to justification, but judgment leads them to condemnation
from many offences likewise? For assuredly grace does not condone many
offences, without judgment in like manner having many offences to
condemn. Else, if men are involved in condemnation because of one
offence, on the ground that all the offences which are condemned were
committed in imitation of that one offence; there is the same reason why
men should also be regarded as withdrawn from one offence unto
justification, inasmuch as all the offences which are remitted to the
justified were committed in imitation of that one offence. But this most
certainly was not the apostle's meaning, when he said: "The judgment,
indeed, was from one offence unto condemnation, but the grace was from
many offences unto justification." We on our side, indeed, can
understand the apostle, and see that judgment is predicated of one
offence unto condemnation entirely on the ground that, even if there
were in men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their
condemnation. For however much heavier will be their condemnation who
have added their own sins to the original offence (and it will be the
more severe in individual cases, in proportion to the sins of
individuals); still, even that sin alone which was originally derived
unto men not only excludes from the kingdom of God, which infants are
unable to enter (as they themselves allow), unless they have received
the grace of Christ before they die, but also alienates from salvation
and everlasting life, which cannot be anything else than the kingdom of
God, to which fellowship with Christ alone introduces us.

CHAP. 16 [XIII.]--HOW DEATH IS BY ONE AND LIFE BY ONE.

    And from this we gather that we have derived from Adam, in whom we
all have sinned, not all our actual sins, but only original sin; whereas
from Christ, in whom we are all justified, we obtain the remission not
merely of that original sin, but of the rest of our sins also, which we
have added. Hence it runs: "Not as by the one that sinned, so also is
the free gift." For the judgment, certainly, from one sin, if it is not
remitted--and that the original sin--is capable of drawing us into
condemnation; whilst grace conducts us to justification from the
remission of many sins,--that is to say, not simply from the original
sin, but from all others also whatsoever.

CHAP. 17.--WHOM SINNERS IMITATE.

    "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they
which receive abundance of grace and of righteousness shall reign in
life by one, even Jesus Christ." (1) Why did death reign on account of
the sin of one, unless it was that men were bound by the chain of death
in that one man in whom all men sinned, even though they added no sins
of their own? Otherwise it was not on account of the sin of one that
death reigned through one; rather it was on account of the manifold
offences of many, [operating] through each individual sinner. For if the
reason why men have died for the transgression of another be, that they
have imitated him by following him as their predecessor in
transgression, it must even result, and that" much more," that that one
died on account of the transgression of another, whom the devil so
preceded in transgression as himself to persuade him to commit the
transgression. Adam, however, used no influence to persuade his
followers; and the many who are said to have imitated him have, in fact,
either not heard of his existence at all or of his having committed any
such sin as is ascribed to him, or altogether disbelieve it. How much
more correctly, therefore, as I have already remarked, (2) would the
apostle have set forth the devil as the author, from which "one" he
would say that sin and death had passed upon all, if he had in this
passage meant to speak, not of propagation, but of imitation? For there
is much stronger reason for saying that Adam is an imitator of the
devil, since he had in him an actual instigator to sin; if one may be an
imitator even of him who has never used any such persuasion, or of whom
he is absolutely ignorant. But what is implied in the clause, "They
which receive abundance of grace and righteousness," but that the grace
of remission is given not only to that sin in which all have sinned, but
to those offences likewise which men have actually committed besides;
and that on these [men] so great a righteousness is freely bestowed,
that, although Adam gave way to him who persuaded him to sin, they do
not yield even to the coercion of the same tempter? Again, what mean the
words, "Much more shall they reign in life," when the fact is, that the
reign of death drags many more down to eternal punishment, unless we
understand those to be really mentioned in both clauses, who pass from
Adam to Christ, in other words, from death to life; because in the life
eternal they shall reign without end, and thus exceed the reign of death
which has prevailed within them only temporarily and with a termination?

CHAP.18.--ONLY CHRIST JUSTIFIES.

 "Therefore as by the offence of one upon all men to condemnation, even
so by the justification of One upon all men unto justification of life."
(3) This "offence of one," if we are bent on "imitation," can only be
the devil's offence. Since, however, it is manifestly spoken in
reference to Adam and not the devil, it follows that we have no other
alternative than to understand the principle of natural propagation, and
not that of imitation, to be here implied. [xIv.] Now when he says in
reference to Christ, "By the justification of one," he has more
expressly stated our doctrine than if he were to say, "By the
righteousness of one;" inasmuch as he mentions that justification
whereby Christ justifies the ungodly, and which he did not propose as an
object of imitation, for He alone is capable of effecting this. Now it
was quite competent for the apostle to say, and to say rightly: "Be ye
imitators of me, as I also am of Christ;" (4) but he could never say: Be
ye justified by me, as I also am by Christ;--since there may be, and
indeed actually are and have been, many who were righteous and worthy of
imitation; but no one is righteous and a justifier but Christ alone.
Whence it is said: "To the man that believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (1) Now if any man had
it in his power confidently to declare," I justify you," it would
necessarily follow that he could also say, "Believe in me." But it has
never been in the power of any of the saints of God to say this except
the Saint of saints, (2) who said: "Ye believe in God, believe also in
me;" (3) so that, inasmuch as it is He that justifies the ungodly, to
the man who believes in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is
imputed for righteousness.

CHAP. 19 [xv.]--SIN IS FROM NATURAL DESCENT, AS RIGHTEOUSNESS IS FROM
REGENERATION; HOW "ALL" ARE SINNERS THROUGH ADAM, AND "ALL" ARE JUST
THROUGH CHRIST.

    Now if it is imitation only that makes men sinners through Adam, why
does not imitation likewise alone make men righteous through Christ?
"For," he says, "as by the offence of one upon all men to condemnation;
even so by the justification of one upon all men unto justification of
life." (4) [On the theory of imitation], then, the "one" and the "one,"
here, must not be regarded as Adam and Christ, but Adam and Abel. For
although many sinners have preceded us in the time of this present life,
and have been imitated in their sin by those who have sinned at a later
date, yet they will have it, that only Adam is mentioned as he in whom
all have sinned by imitation, since he was the first of men who sinned.
And on the same principle, Abel ought certainly to have been mentioned,
as he "in which one" all likewise are justified by imitation, inasmuch
as he was himself the first man who lived justly. If, however, it be
thought necessary to take into the account some critical period having
relation to the beginning of the New Testament, and Christ be taken as
the leader of the righteous and the object of their imitation, then
Judas, who betrayed Him, ought to be set down as the leader of the class
of sinners. Moreover, if Christ alone is He in whom all men are
justified, on the ground that it is not simply the imitation of His
example which makes men just, but His grace which regenerates men by the
Spirit, then also Adam is the only one in whom all have sinned, on the
ground that it is not the mere following of his evil example that makes
men sinners, but the penalty which generates through the flesh. Hence
the terms "all men" and "all men." For not they who are generated
through Adam are actually the very same as those who are regenerated
through Christ; but yet the language of the apostle is strictly correct,
because as none partakes of carnal generation except through Adam, so no
one shares in the spiritual except through Christ. For if any could be
generated in the flesh, yet not by Adam; and if in like manner any could
be generated in the Spirit, and not by Christ; clearly "all" could not
be spoken of either in the one class or in the other. But these "all"
(5) the apostle afterwards describes as "many;" (6) for obviously, under
certain circumstances, the "all" may be but a few. The carnal
generation, however, embraces "many," and the spiritual generation also
includes "many;" although the "many" of the spiritual are less numerous
than the "many" of the carnal. But as the one embraces all men whatever,
so the other includes all righteous men; because as in the former case
none can be a man without the carnal generation, so in the other class
no one can be a righteous man without the spiritual generation; in both
instances, therefore, there are" many:" "For as by the disobedience of
one man many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous." (7)

CHAP. 20.--ORIGINAL SIN ALONE IS CONTRACTED BY NATURAL BIRTH.

    "Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound." (8) This
addition to original sin men now made of their own wilfulness, not
through Adam; but even this is done away and remedied by Christ, because
"where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath
reigned unto death " (9)--even that sin which men have not derived from
Adam, but have added of their own will--"even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life." (9) Them is, however, other
righteousness apart from Christ, as there are other sins apart from
Adam. Therefore, after saying, "As sin hath reigned unto death," be did
not add in the same clause "by one," or "by Adam," because he had
already spoken of that sin which was abounding when the law entered, and
which, of course, was not original sin, but the sin of man's own wilful
commission. But after he has said: "Even so might grace also reign
through righteousness unto eternal life," he at once adds, "through
Jesus Christ our Lord;" (9) because, whilst by the generation of the
flesh only that sin is contracted which is original; yet by the
regeneration of the Spirit there is effected the remission not of
original sin only, but also of the sins of man's own voluntary and
actual commission.

CHAP. 21 [XVI.]--UNBAPTIZED INFANTS DAMNED, BUT MOST LIGHTLY; (10) THE
PENALTY OF ADAM'S SIN, THE GRACE OF HIS BODY LOST.

          It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as
quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest
condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both
himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in
condemnation; whereas the apostle says: "Judgment from one offence to
condemnation," (1) and again a little after: "By the offence of one upon
all persons to condemnation." (2) When, indeed, Adam sinned by not
obeying God, then his body--although it was a natural and mortal
body--lost the grace whereby it used in every part of it to be obedient
to the soul. Then there arose in men affections common to the brutes
which are productive of shame, and which made man ashamed of his own
nakedness. (3) Then also, by a certain disease which was conceived in
men from a suddenly injected and pestilential corruption, it was brought
about that they lost that stability of life in which they were created,
and, by reason of the mutations which they experienced in the stages of
life, issued at last in death. However many were the years they lived in
their subsequent life, yet they began to die on the day when they
received the law of death, because they kept verging towards old age.
For that possesses not even a moment's stability, but glides away
without intermission, which by constant change perceptibly advances to
an end which does not produce perfection, but utter exhaustion. Thus,
then, was fulfilled what God had spoken: "In the day that ye eat
thereof, ye  shall surely die." (4) As a consequence, then, of this
disobedience of the flesh and this law of sin and death, whoever is born
of the flesh has need of spiritual regeneration--not only that he may
reach the kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from the
damnation of sin. Hence men are on the one hand born in the flesh liable
to sin and death from the first Adam, and on the other hand are born
again in baptism associated with the righteousness and eternal life of
the second Adam; even as it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus:
"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."
(5) Now whether it be said of the woman or of Adam, both statements
pertain to the first man; since (as we know) the woman is of the man,
and the two are one flesh. Whence also it is written: "And they twain
shall be one flesh; wherefore," the Lord says, "they are no more twain,
but one flesh." (6)

          CHAP. 22 [XVII.]--TO INFANTS PERSONAL SIN IS

                      NOT TO BE ATTRIBUTED.

They, therefore, who say that the reason why infants are baptized, is,
that they may have the remission of the sin which they have themselves
committed in their life, not what they have derived from Adam, may be
refuted without much difficulty. For whenever these persons shall have
reflected within themselves a little, uninfluenced by any polemical
spirit, on the absurdity of their statement, how unworthy it is, in
fact, of serious discussion, they will at once change their opinion. But
if they will not do this, we shall not so completely despair of men's
common sense, as to have any fears that they will induce others to adopt
their views. They are themselves driven to adopt their opinion, if I am
not mistaken, by their prejudice for some other theory; and it is
because they feel themselves obliged to allow that sins are remitted to
the baptized, and are unwilling to allow that the sin was derived from
Adam which they admit to be remitted to infants, that they have been
obliged to charge infancy itself with actual sin; as if by bringing this
charge against infancy a man could become the more secure himself, when
accused and unable to answer his assailant! However, let us, as I
suggested, pass by such opponents as these; indeed, we require neither
words nor quotations of Scripture to prove the sinlessness of infants,
so far as their conduct in life is concerned; this life they spend, such
is the recency of their birth, within their very selves, since it
escapes the cognizance of human perception, which has no data or support
whereon to sustain any controversy on the subject.

CHAP. 23 [XVIII.]--HE REFUTES THOSE WHO ALLEGE THAT INFANTS ARE BAPTIZED
NOT FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, BUT FOR THE OBTAINING OF THE KINGDOM OF
HEAVEN. (7)

    But those persons raise a question, and appear to adduce an argument
deserving of consideration and discussion, who say that new-born infants
receive baptism not for the remission of sin, but that, since their
procreation is not spiritual, they may be created in Christ, and become
partakers of the kingdom of heaven, and by the same means children and
heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. And yet, when you ask them,
whether those that are not baptized, and are not made joint-heirs with
Christ and par-takers of the kingdom of heaven, have at any rate the
blessing of eternal life in the resurrection of the dead, they are
extremely perplexed, and find no way out of their difficulty. For what
Christian is there who would allow it to be said, that any one could
attain to eternal salvation without being born again in Christ,--[a
result] which He meant to be effected through baptism, at the very time
when such a sacrament was purposely instituted for regenerating in the
hope of eternal salvation? Whence the apostle says: "Not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us
by the layer (1) of regeneration.'' (2) This salvation, however, he
says, consists in hope, while we live here below, where he says, "For 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." (3) Who then could be so bold as
to affirm, that without the regeneration of which the apostle speaks,
infants could attain to eternal salvation, as if Christ died not for
them? For "Christ died for the ungodly." (4) As for them, however, who
(as is manifest) never did an ungodly act in all their own life, if also
they are not bound by any bond of sin in their original nature, how did
He die for them, who died for the ungodly? If they were hurt by no
malady of original sin, how is it they are carried to the Physician
Christ, for the express purpose of receiving the sacrament of eternal
salvation, by the pious anxiety of those who run to Him? Why rather is
it not said to them in the Church: Take hence these innocents: "they
that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick;"--Christ
"came not to call the righteous, but sinners?" (5) There never has been
heard, there never is heard, there never will be heard in the Church,
such a fiction concerning Christ.

CHAP. 24 [xix]--INFANTS SAVED AS SINNERS.

    And let no one suppose that infants ought to be brought to baptism,
on the ground that, as they are not sinners, so they are not righteous;
how then do some remind us that the Lord commends this tender age as
meritorious; saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven?" (6) For if this
["of such"] is not said because of likeness in humility (since humility
makes [us] children), but because of the laudable life of children, then
of course infants must be righteous persons; otherwise, it could not be
correctly said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," for heaven can only
belong to the  righteous. But perhaps, after all, it is not a right 
opinion of the meaning of the Lord's words, to make Him Commend the life
of infants when He  says, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven;" inasmuch
as that may be, their true sense, which makes Christ adduce the tender
age of infancy as a likeness of humility. Even so, however, perhaps we
must revert to the tenet which I mentioned just now, that infants ought
to be baptized, because, although they are not sinners, they are yet not
righteous. But when He had said: "I came not to call the righteous," as
if responding to this, Whom, then, didst Thou come to call? immediately
He goes on to say:"-- but sinners to repentance." Therefore it follows,
that, however righteous they may be, if also they are not sinners, He
came not to call them, who said of Himself: "I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners." They therefore seem, not vainly only, but even
wickedly to rush to the baptism of Him who does not invite them,--an
opinion which God forbid that we should entertain, He calls them, then,
as a Physician who is not needed for those that are whole, but for those
that are sick; and who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance. Now, inasmuch as infants are not held bound by any sins of
their own actual life, it is the guilt of original sin which is healed
in them by the grace of Him who saves them by the layer of regeneration.

CHAP. 25.--INFANTS ARE DESCRIBED AS BELIEVERS AND AS PENITENTS. SINS
ALONE SEPARATE BETWEEN GOD AND MEN.

    Some one will say: How then are mere infants called to repentance?
How can such as they repent of anything? The answer to this is: If they
must not be called penitents because they have not the sense of
repenting, neither must they be called believers, because they likewise
have not the sense of believing. But if they are rightly called
believers, (7) because they in a certain sense profess faith by the
words of their parents, why are they not also held to be before that
penitents when they are shown to renounce the devil and this world by
the profession again of the same parents? The whole of this is done in
hope, in the strength of the sacrament and of the divine grace which the
Lord has bestowed upon the Church. But yet who knows not that the
baptized infant fails to be benefited from what he received as a little
child, if on coming to years of reason he fails to believe and to
abstain from unlawful desires? If, however, the infant departs from the
present life after he has received baptism, the guilt in which he was
involved by original sin being done away, he shall be made perfect in
that light of truth, which, remaining unchangeable for evermore,
illumines the justified in the presence of their Creator. For sins alone
separate between men and God; and these are done away by Christ's grace,
through whom, as Mediator, we are reconciled, when He justifies the
ungodly.

CHAP. 26 [XX.]--NO ONE, EXCEPT HE BE BAPTIZED, RIGHTLY COMES TO THE
TABLE OF THE LORD.

    Now they take alarm from the statement of the Lord, when He says,
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;" (1)
because in His own explanation of the passage He affirms "Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God." (2) And so they try to ascribe to unbaptized infants, by the merit
of their innocence, the gift of salvation and eternal life, but at the
same time, owing to their being unbaptized, to exclude them from the
kingdom of heaven. But how novel and astonishing is such an assumption,
as if there could possibly be salvation and eternal life without
heirship with Christ, without the kingdom of heaven! Of course they have
their refuge,  whither to escape and hide themselves, because the Lord
does not say, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
have life, but--"he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." If indeed He
had said the other, there could have risen not a moment's doubt. Well,
then, let us  remove the doubt; let us now listen to the Lord,  and not
to men's notions and conjectures; let us,  I say, hear what the Lord
says--not indeed concerning the sacrament of the layer, but concerning
the sacrament of His own holy table, to which none but a baptized person
has a right to approach: "Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye
shall have no life in you." (3) What do we want more? What answer to
this can be adduced, unless it be by that obstinacy 

CHAP. 27.--INFANTS MUST FEED ON CHRIST.

    Will, however, any man be so bold as to say that this statement has
no relation to infants, and that they can have life in them without
partaking of His body and blood--on the ground that He does not say,
Except one eat, but "Except ye eat;" as if He were addressing those who
were able to hear and to understand, which of course infants cannot do?
But he who says this is inattentive; because, unless all are embraced in
the statement, that without the body and the blood of the Son of man men
cannot have life, it is to no purpose that even the elder age is
solicitous of it. For if you attend to the  mere words, and not to the
meaning, of the Lord  as He speaks, this passage may very well seem  to
have been spoken merely, to the people whom  He happened at the moment
to be addressing; because He does not say, Except one eat; but Except ye
eat. What also becomes of the statement which He makes in the same
context on this very point: "The bread that I will give is my flesh, for
the life of the world?'' (4) For, it is according to this statement,
that we find that sacrament pertains also to us, who were not m
existence at the time the Lord spoke these words; for we cannot possibly
say that we do not belong to "the world," for the life of which Christ
gave His flesh. Who indeed can doubt that in the term world all persons
are indicated who enter the world by being born? For, as He says in
another passage, "The children of this world beget and are begotten."
(5) From all this it follows, that even for the life of infants was His
flesh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that even they
will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man.

CHAP. 28.--BAPTIZED INFANTS, OF THE FAITHFUL; UNBAPTIZED, OF THE LOST.

    Hence also that other statement: "The Father loveth the Son, and
hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life; while he that believeth not the Son shall not see
life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (6) Now in which of these
classes must we place infants--amongst those who believe on the Son, or
amongst those who believe not the Son? In neither, say some, because, as
they are not yet able to believe, so must they not be deemed
unbelievers. This, however, the rule of the Church does not indicate,
for it joins baptized infants to the number of the faithful. Now if they
who are baptized are, by virtue of the excellence and administration of
so great a sacrament, nevertheless reckoned in the number of the
faithful, although by their own heart and mouth they do not literally
perform what appertains to the action of faith and confession; surely
they who have lacked the sacrament must be classed amongst those who do
not believe on the Son, and therefore, if they shall depart this life
without this grace, they will have to encounter what is written
concerning such--they shall not have life, but the wrath of God abideth
on them. Whence could this result to those who clearly have no sins of
their own, if they are not held to be obnoxious to original sin?

CHAP. 29 [XXI.]--IT IS AN INSCRUTABLE MYSTERY WHY SOME ARE SAVED, AND
OTHERS NOT.

    Now there is much significance in that He does not say, "The wrath
of God shall come upon him," but "abideth on him." For from this wrath
(in which we are all involved under sin, and of which the apostle says,
"For we too were once by nature the children of wrath, even as others "
(1)) nothing delivers us but the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our
Lord. The reason why this grace comes upon one man and not on another
may be hidden, but it cannot be unjust. For "is there unrighteousness
with God? God forbid." (2) But we must first bend our necks to the
authority of the Holy Scriptures, in order that we may each arrive at
knowledge and understanding through faith. For it is not said in vain,
"Thy judgments are a great deep." (3) The profundity of this deep" the
apostle, as if with a feeling of dread,

notices in that exclamation: "O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and the knowledge of God!" He had indeed previously pointed out
the meaning of this marvellous depth, when he said: "For God hath
concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all." (4)
Then struck, as it were, with a horrible fear of this deep: "O the depth
of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how
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 in Him, are all things: to whom be glory
for ever. Amen." (5) How utterly insignificant, then, is our faculty for
discussing the justice of God's judgments, and for the consideration of
His gratuitous grace, which, as men have no prevenient merits for
deserving it, cannot be partial or unrighteous, and which does not
disturb us when it is bestowed upon unworthy men, as much as when it is
denied to those who are equally unworthy!

CHAP. 30.--WHY ONE IS BAPTIZED AND ANOTHER NOT, NOT OTHERWISE
INSCRUTABLE.

    Now those very persons, who think it unjust that infants which
depart this life without the grace of Christ should be deprived not only
of the kingdom of God, into which they themselves admit that none but
such as are regenerated through baptism can enter, but also of eternal
life and salvation,--when they ask how it can be just that one man
should be freed from original sin and another not, although the
condition of both of them is the same, might answer their own question,
in accordance with their own opinion of how it can be so frequently just
and right that one should have baptism administered to him whereby to
enter into the kingdom of God, and another not be so favoured, although
the case of both is alike. For if the question disturbs him, why, of the
two persons, who are both equally sinners by nature, the one is loosed
from that bond, on whom baptism is conferred, and the other is not
released, on whom such grace is not bestowed; why is he not similarly
disturbed by the fact that of two persons, innocent by nature, one
receives baptism, whereby he is able to enter into the kingdom of God,
and the other does not receive it, so that he is incapable of
approaching the kingdom of God? Now in both cases one recurs to the
apostle's outburst of wonder " O the depth of the riches!" Again, let me
be informed, why out of the body of baptized infants themselves, one is
taken away, so that his understanding undergoes no change from a wicked
life, (6) and the other survives, destined to become an impious man?
Suppose both were carried off, would not both enter the kingdom of
heaven? And yet there is no unrighteousness with God. (2) How is it that
no one is moved, no one is driven to the expression of wonder amidst
such depths, by the circumstance that some children are vexed by the
unclean spirit, while others experience no such pollution, and others
again, as Jeremiah, are sanctified even in their mother's womb; (7)
whereas all men, if there is original sin, are equally guilty; or else
equally innocent if there is original sin? Whence this great diversity,
except in the fact that God's judgments are unsearchable, and His ways
past finding out?

CHAP. 31 [XXII.]--HE REFUTES THOSE WHO SUPPOSE THAT SOULS, ON ACCOUNT OF
SINS COMMITTED IN ANOTHER STATE, ARE THRUST INTO BODIES SUITED TO THEIR
MERITS, IN WHICH THEY ARE MORE OR LESS TORMENTED.

    Perhaps, however, the now exploded and rejected opinion must be
resumed, that souls which once sinned in their heavenly abode, descend
by stages and degrees to bodies suited to their deserts, and, as a
penalty for their previous life, are more or less tormented by corporeal
chastisements. To this opinion Holy Scripture indeed presents a most
manifest contradiction; for when recommending divine grace, it says:
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of
works, but of Him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the
younger." (8) And yet they who entertain such an opinion are actually
unable to escape the perplexities of this question, but, embarrassed and
straitened by them, are compelled to exclaim like others, "O the depth!"
For whence does it come to pass that a person shall from his earliest
boyhood show greater moderation, mental excellence, and temperance, and
shall to a great extent conquer lust, shall hate avarice, detest luxury,
and rise to a greater eminence and aptitude in the other virtues, and
yet live in such a place as to be unable to hear the grace of Christ
preached?--for "how shall they call on Him in whom they have not
believed? or how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
and how shall they hear without a preacher?" 'While another man,
although of a slow mind, addicted to lust, and covered with disgrace and
crime, shall be so directed as to hear, and believe, and be baptized,
and be taken away,--or, if permitted to remain longer here, lead the
rest of his life in a manner that shall bring him praise? Now where did
these two persons acquire such diverse deserts,--I do not say, that the
one should believe and the other not believe, for that is a matter for a
man's own will; but that the one should hear in order to believe, and
that the other should not hear, for this is not within man's power?
Where, I say, did they acquire diverse deserts? If they had indeed
passed any part of their life in heaven, so as to be thrust down, or to
sink down, to this world, and to tenant such bodily receptacles as are
congruous to their own former life, then of course that man ought to be
supposed to have led the better life previous to his present mortal
body, who did not much deserve to be burdened with it, so as both to
have a good disposition, and to be importuned by milder desires which he
could easily overcome; and yet he did not deserve to have that grace
preached to him whereby alone he could be delivered from the ruin of the
second death. Whereas the other, who was hampered with a grosser body,
as a penalty--so they suppose--for worse deserts, and was accordingly
possessed of obtuser affections, whilst he was in the violent ardour of
his lust succumbing to the snares of the flesh, and by his wicked life
aggravating his former sins, which had brought him to such a pass, by a
still more abandoned course of earthly pleasures,--either heard upon the
cross, "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise," (2) or else joined
himself to some apostle,  by whose preaching he became a changed man, 
and was saved by the washing of regeneration,--so that where sin once
abounded, grace did much more abound. I am at a loss to know what answer
they can give to this who wish to maintain God's righteousness by human
conjectures, and, knowing nothing of the depths of grace, have woven
webs of improbable fable.

CHAP. 32.--THE CASE OF CERTAIN IDIOTS AND SIMPLETONS.

    Now a good deal may be said of men's strange vocations,--either such
as we have read about, or have experienced ourselves,--which go to
overthrow the opinion of those persons who think that, previous to the
possession of their bodies, men's souls passed through certain lives
peculiar to themselves, in which they must come to this, and experience
in the present life either good or evil, according to the difference of
their individual deserts. My anxiety, however, to bring this work to an
end does not permit me to dwell longer on these topics. But on one
point, which among many I have found to be a very strange one, I will
not be silent. If we follow those persons who suppose that souls are
oppressed with earthly bodies in a greater or a less degree of
grossness, according to the deserts of the life which had been passed in
celestial bodies previous to the assumption of the present one, who
would not affirm that those had sinned previous to this life with an
especial amount of enormity, who deserve so to lose all mental light,
that they are born with faculties akin to brute animals,--who are (I
will not say most slow in intellect, for this is very commonly said of
others also, but) so silly as to make a show of their fatuity for the
amusement of clever people, even with idiotic gestures? and whom the
vulgar call, by a name, derived from the Greek, Moriones? (4) And yet
there was once a certain person of this class, who was so Christian,
that although he was patient to the degree of strange folly with any
amount of injury to himself, he was yet so impatient of any insult to
the name of Christ, or, in his own person, to the religion with which he
was imbued, that he could never refrain, whenever his gay and clever
audience proceeded to blaspheme the sacred name, as they sometimes would
in order to provoke his patience, from pelting them with stones; and on
these occasions he would show no favour even to persons of rank. Well,
now, such persons are predestinated and brought into being, as I
suppose, in order that those who are able should understand that God's
grace and the Spirit, "which bloweth where it listeth," (5) does not
pass over any kind of capacity in the sons of mercy, nor in like manner
does it pass over any kind of capacity in the children of Gehenna, so
that "he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (6) They, however,
who affirm that souls severally receive different earthly bodies, more
or less gross according to the merits of their former life, and that
their abilities as men vary according to the self-same merits, so that
some minds are sharper and others more obtuse, and that the grace of God
is also dispensed for the liberation of men from their sins according to
the deserts of their former existence:--what will they have to say about
this man? How will they be able to attribute to him a previous life of
so disgraceful a character that he deserved to be born an idiot, and at
the same time of so highly meritorious a character as to entitle him to
a preference in the award of the grace of Christ over many men of the
acutest intellect?

CHAP. 33.--CHRIST IS THE SAVIOUR AND REDEEMER EVEN OF INFANTS.

    Let us therefore give in and yield our assent to the authority of
Holy Scripture, which knows not how either to be deceived or to deceive;
and as we do not believe that men as yet unborn have done any good or
evil for raising a difference in their moral deserts, so let us by no
means doubt that all men are under sin, which came into the world by one
man and has passed through unto all men; and from which nothing frees us
but the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [XXIII.] His
remedial advent is needed by those that are sick, not by the whole: for
He came not to call the righteous, but sinners; and into His kingdom
shall enter no one that is not born again of water and the Spirit; nor
shall any one attain salvation and eternal life except in His
kingdom,--since the man who believes not in the Son, and eats not His
flesh, shall not have life, but the wrath of God remains upon him. Now
from this sin, from this sickness, from this wrath of God (of which by
nature they are children who have original sin, even if they have none
of their own on account of their youth), none delivers them, except the
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world; (1) except the
Physician, who came not for the sake of the sound, but of the sick;
except the Saviour, concerning whom it was said to the human race: "Unto
you there is born this day a Saviour;" (2) except the Redeemer, by whose
blood our debt is blotted out. For who would dare to say that Christ is
not the Saviour and Redeemer of infants? But from what does  He save
them, if there is no malady of original sin within them? From what does
He redeem them, if through their origin from the first man they are not
sold under sin? Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to
infants out of our own opinion, without Christ's baptism; for none is
promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human
authority and opinion.

CHAP. 34 [XXIV.]--BAPTISM IS CALLED SALVATION, AND THE EUCHARIST, LIFE,
BY THE CHRISTIANS OF CARTHAGE.

    The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the
sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than "salvation,"
and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than "life."
Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I
suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ
maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and
partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to
attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting
life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which
we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism
by the term salvation, differ from what is written: "He saved us by the
washing of regeneration?" (3) or from Peter's statement: "The like
figure where-unto even baptism doth also now save us?" (4) And what else
do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper life, than that
which is written: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;"
(5) and "The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the
world ;" (5) and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
His blood, ye shall have no life in you?'' (6) If, therefore, as so many
and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can
be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood,
it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover,
if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life,
there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means
of removing, but the guilt of sin,--respecting which guilty nature it is
written, that "no one is clean, not even if his life be only that of a
day." (7) Whence also that exclamation of the Psalmist: "Behold, I was
shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me!" (8) This is
either said in the person of our common humanity, or if of himself only
David speaks, it does not imply that he was born of fornication, but in
lawful wedlock. We therefore ought not to doubt that even for infants
yet to be baptized was that precious blood shed, which previous to its
actual effusion was so given, and applied in the sacrament, that it was
said, "This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission
of sins." (9) Now they who will not allow that they are under sin, deny
that there is any liberation. For what is there that men are liberated
from, if they are held to be bound by no bondage of sin?  

          CHAP. 35.--UNLESS INFANTS ARE BAPTIZED, THEY

                       REMAIN IN DARKNESS.

    "I am come," says Christ, "a light into the world, that whosoever
believeth on me should not abide in darkness." (1) Now what does this
passage show us, but that every person is in darkness who does not
believe on Him, and that it is by believing on Him that he escapes from
this permanent state of darkness? What do we understand by the darkness
but sin? And whatever else it may embrace in its meaning, at any rate he
who believes not in Christ will "abide in darkness,"--which, of course,
is a penal state, not, as the darkness of the night, necessary for the
refreshment of living beings. [XXV.] So that infants, unless they pass
into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely
instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.

           CHAP. 36.--INFANTS NOT ENLIGHTENED AS SOON

                        AS THEY ARE BORN.

    Some, however, understand that as soon as children are born they are
enlightened; and they derive this opinion from the passage: "That was
the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world."
(2) Well, if this be the case, it is quite astonishing how it can be
that those who are thus enlightened by the only-begotten Son, who was in
the beginning the Word with God, and [Himself] God, are not admitted
into the kingdom of God, nor are heirs of God and joint-heirs with
Christ. For that such an inheritance is not bestowed upon them except
through baptism, even they who hold the opinion in question do
acknowledge. Then, again, if they are (though already illuminated) thus
unfit for entrance into the kingdom of God, they at all events ought
gladly to receive the baptism, by which they are fitted for it; but,
strange to say, we see how reluctant infants are to submit to baptism,
resisting even with strong crying. And this ignorance of theirs we think
lightly of at their time of life, so that we fully administer the
sacraments, which we know to be serviceable to them, even although they
struggle against them. And why, too, does the apostle say, "Be not
children in understanding," (3) if their minds have been already
enlightened with that true Light, which is the Word of God?

CHAP. 37.--HOW GOD ENLIGHTENS EVERY PERSON.

    That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, "That was the
true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world,'' (2)
has this meaning, that no man is illuminated except with that Light of
the truth, which is God; so that no person must think that he is
enlightened by him whom he listens to as a learner, although that
instructor happen to be--I will not say, any great man--but even an
angel himself. For the word of truth is applied to man externally by the
ministry of a bodily voice, but yet "neither is he that planteth any
thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (4)
Man indeed hears the speaker, be he man or angel, but in order that he
may perceive and know that what is said is true, his mind is internally
besprinkled with that light which remains for ever, and which shines
even in darkness. But just as the sun is not seen by the blind, though
they are clothed as it were with its rays, so is the light of truth not
understood by the darkness of folly.

CHAP. 38.--WHAT "LIGHTETH" MEANS.

    But why, after saying, "which lighteth every man," should he add,
"that cometh into the world,'' (2)--the clause which has suggested the
opinion that He enlightens the minds of newlyborn babes while the birth
of their bodies from their mother's womb is still a recent thing? The
words, no doubt, are so placed in the Greek, that they may be understood
to express that the light itself "cometh into the world." (5) If,
nevertheless, the clause must be taken as expressing the man who cometh
into this world, I suppose that it is either a simple phrase, like many
others one finds in the Scriptures, which may be removed without
impairing the general sense; or else, if it is to be regarded as a
distinctive addition, it was perhaps inserted in order to distinguish
spiritual illumination from that bodily one which enlightens the eyes of
the flesh either by means of the luminaries of the sky, or by the lights
of ordinary fire. So that he mentioned the inner man as coming into the
world, because the outward man is of a corporeal nature, just as this
world itself; as if he said, "Which lighteth every man that cometh into
the body," in accordance with that which is written: "I obtained a good
spirit, and I came in a body undefiled." (6) Or again, the passage,
"Which lighteth every one that cometh into the world,"--if it was added
for the sake of expressing some distinction,--might perhaps mean: Which
lighteth every inner man, because the inner man, when he becomes truly
wise, is enlightened only by Him who is the true Light. Or, once more,
if the intention was to designate reason herself, which causes the human
soul to be called rational (and this reason, although as yet quiet and
as it were asleep, for all that lies hidden in infants, innate and, so
to speak, implanted), by the term illumination, as if it were the
creation of an inner eye, then it cannot be denied that it is made when
the soul is created; and there is no absurdity in supposing this to take
place when the human being comes into the world. But yet, although his
eye is now created, he himself must needs remain in darkness, if he does
not believe in Him who said: "I am come a Light into the world, that
whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." (1) And that
this takes place in the case of infants, through the sacrament of
baptism, is not doubted by mother Church, which uses for them the heart
and mouth of a mother, that they may be imbued with the sacred
mysteries, seeing that they cannot as yet with their own heart "believe
unto righteousness," nor with their own mouth make "confession unto
salvation." (2) There is not indeed a man among the faithful, who would
hesitate to call such infants believers merely from the circumstance
that such a designation is derived from the act of believing; for
although incapable of such an act themselves, yet others are sponsors
for them in the sacraments.

CHAP. 39 [XXVI.]--THE CONCLUSION DRAWN, THAT ALL ARE INVOLVED IN
ORIGINAL SIN.

    It would be tedious, were we fully to discuss, at similar length,
every testimony bearing on the question. I suppose it will be the more
convenient course simply to collect the passages together which may turn
up, or such as shall seem sufficient for manifesting the truth, that the
Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and, in the form of a servant,
became obedient even to the death of the cross, (3) for no-other reason
than, by this dispensation of His most merciful grace, to give life to
all those to whom, as engrafted members of His body, He becomes Head for
laying hold upon the kingdom of heaven: to save, free, redeem, and
enlighten them,--who had aforetime been involved in the death,
infirmities, servitude, captivity, and darkness of sin, under the
dominion of the devil, the author of sin: and thus to become the
Mediator between God and man, by whom (after the enmity of our ungodly
condition had been terminated by His gracious help) we might be
reconciled to God unto eternal life, having been rescued from the
eternal death which threatened such as us. When this shall have been
made clear by more than sufficient evidence, it will follow that those
persons cannot be concerned with that dispensation of Christ which is
executed by His humiliation, who have no need of life, and salvation,
and deliverance, and redemption, and illumination. And inasmuch as to
this belongs baptism, in which we are buried with Christ, in order to be
incorporated into Him as His members (that is, as those who believe in
Him): it of course follows that baptism is unnecessary for them, who
have no need of the benefit of that forgiveness and reconciliation which
is acquired through a Mediator. Now, seeing that they admit the
necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene
that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably
handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further
concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in
order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful,
and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church,
they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and
delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from
death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And,
inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by
their actual transgression, original sin only is left.

CHAP. 40 [XXVII.]--A COLLECTION OF SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. FROM THE
GOSPELS.

    This reasoning will carry more weight, after I have collected the
mass of Scripture testimonies which I have undertaken to adduce. We have
already quoted: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (4) To
the same purport [the Lord] says, on entering the home of Zaccheus:
"To-day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son
of Abraham; for the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which
was lost." (5) The same truth is declared in the parable of the lost
sheep and the ninety and nine which were left until the missing one was
sought and found; (6) as it is also in the parable of the lost one among
the ten silver coins? Whence, as He said, "it behoved that repentance
and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem." (8) Mark likewise, at the end of his Gospel,
tells us how that the Lord said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (9) Now, who can
be unaware that, in the case of infants, being baptized is to believe,
and not being baptized is not to believe? From the Gospel of John we
have already adduced some passages. However, I must also  request your
attention to the following: John  Baptist says of Christ, "Behold the
Lamb of God, Behold Him which taketh away the sin of the world;"[1] and
He too says of Himself, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and
they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish.''[2] Now, inasmuch as infants are only able to become His sheep
by baptism, it must needs come to pass that they perish if they are not
baptized, because they will not have that eternal life which He gives to
His sheep. So in another passage He says: "I am the way, the truth, and
the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."[3]

CHAP. 41.--FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.

    See with what earnestness the apostles declare this doctrine, when
they received it. Peter, in his first Epistle, says: "Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to His abundant mercy,
who hath regenerated us unto the hope of eternal life, by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, to an inheritance immortal, and undefiled,
flourishing, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of
God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last
time."[4] And a little afterwards he adds: "May ye be found unto the
praise and honour of Jesus Christ: of whom ye were ignorant; but in whom
I ye believe, though now ye see Him not; and in whom also ye shall
rejoice, when ye shall see Him, with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls."[5]
Again, in another place he says: "But ye are a chosen general on, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show
forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His
marvellous light.''[6] Once more he says: "Christ hath once suffered for
our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God:''[7]
and, after mentioning the fact of eight persons having been saved in
Noah's ark, he adds: "And by the like figure baptism saveth you.''[8]
Now infants are strangers to this salvation and light, and will remain
in perdition and darkness, unless they are joined to the people of God
by adoption, holding to Christ who suffered the just for the unjust, to
bring them unto God.

CHAP. 42.--FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

    Moreover, from John's Epistle I meet with the following words, which
seem indispensable to the solution of this question: "But it," says he,
"we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one
with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from
all sin."[9] To the like import he says, in another place: "If we
receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is
the witness of God, which is greater because He hath testified of His
Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he
that believeth not God hath made Him a liar; because he believed not in
the testimony that God testified of His Son. And this is the testimony,
that God hath given to us eternal life; and this life is in His Son. He
that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath
not life."[10] It seems, then, that it is not only the kingdom of
heaven, but life also, which infants are not to have, if they have not
the Son, whom they can only have by His baptism. So again he says: "For
this cause the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the
works of the devil."[11] Therefore infants will have no interest in the
manifestation of the Son of God, if He do not in them destroy the works
of the devil.

CHAP. 43. --FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

    Let me now request your attention to the testimony of the Apostle
Paul on this subject. And quotations from him may of course be made more
abundantly, because he wrote more epistles, and because it fell to him
to recommend the grace of God with especial earnestness, in opposition
to those who gloried in their works, and who, ignorant of God's
righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, submitted not to the
righteousness of God.[12] In his Epistle to the Romans he writes: "The
righteousness of God is upon all them that believe; for there is no
difference; since all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in
His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission [13] of sins
that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at
this time His righteousness; that He might be just, and the justifier of
him which believeth in Jesus."[14] Then in another passage he says: "To
him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also
describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the
Lord imputeth no sin.''[1] And then after no long interval he observes:
"Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that
raised up Jesus Christ our Lord from the dealt;  who was delivered for
our offences, and was  raised again for our justification.''[2] Then a
little  after he writes: "For when we were yet without strength, in due
time Christ died for the ungodly."[3] in another passage he says: "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 I do not; but what I
hate, that I do. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the
law that it is good. Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no
good thing; for to will is present with me; but how to perform that
which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not; but the
evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law,
that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in
the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members
warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to
the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am ! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through
Jesus Christ our Lord."[4] Let them, who can, say that men are not born
in the body of this death, that so they may be able to affirm  that they
have no need of God's grace through  Jesus Christ in order to be
delivered from the body of this death. Therefore he adds, a few verses
afterwards: "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."[5] Let them say, who dare, that
Christ must have been born in the likeness of sinful flesh, if we were
not born in sinful flesh.

               CHAP. 44.--FROM THE EPISTLES TO THE

                          CORINTHIANS.

    Likewise to the Corinthians he says: "For I delivered to you first
of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures."[6] Again, in his Second Epistle to these
Corinthians: "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus
judge, that if One died for all, then all died: and for all did Christ
die, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but
unto Him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore, henceforth know
we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the
flesh, yet from henceforth know we Him so no more. Therefore if any man
be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold,
all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath
reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the
minis try of reconciliation. To what effect? That God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them, and putting on us the ministry of reconciliation. Now then are we
ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you
in Christ's stead, to be reconciled to God. For He hath made Him to be
sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might become the righteousness of
God in Him.[7] We then, as workers together with Him, beseech you also
that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (For He saith, I have
heard thee in an acceptable time, and in the day of salvation have I
succoured thee: behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the
day of salvation.)''[8] Now, if infants are not embraced within this
reconciliation and salvation, who wants them for the baptism of Christ?
But if they are embraced, then are they reckoned as among the dead for
whom He died; nor can they be possibly reconciled and saved by Him,
unless He remit and impute not unto them their sins.

CHAP. 45.--FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

    Likewise to the Galatians the apostle writes: "Grace be to you, and
peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave
Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil
world."[9] While in another passage he says to them: "The law was added
because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the
promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a
mediator. Now a mediator belongs not to one party; but God is one. Is
the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: 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."[10]

CHAP. 46.--FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

    To the Ephesians he addresses words of the same import: "And you
when ye were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked
according to the course of this world according to the prince of the
power of the air the spirit of him that now worketh in the children of
disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation in times past
in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of
the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But
God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us,
even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ;
by whose grace ye are saved."' Again, a little afterwards, he says: "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."[2] And again, after a
short interval: "At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world: but now, in Christ Jesus,
ye who were sometimes far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For
He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle
wall of partition between us; having abolished in His flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in
Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having in Himself
slain the enmity; and He came and preached peace to you which were afar
off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by,
one Spirit unto the Father."[3] Then in another passage he thus writes:
"As the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off, concerning the former
conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful
lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the
new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness."[4] And again: "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye
are sealed unto the day of redemption."[5]

CHAP. 47.--FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

    To the Colossians he addresses these words: "Giving thanks unto the
Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of
the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have
redemption in the remission of our sins."[6] And again he says: "And ye
are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power: in
whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,
in putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through
the faith of the operation of God, who hath  raised Him from the dead.
And you, when ye were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all
trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
His cross; and putting the flesh off Him,[7] He made a show of
principalities and powers, confidently triumphing over  them in
Himself."[8]

            CHAP. 48.--FROM THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY.

    And then to Timothy he says: "This is a faithful saying,[9] and
worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy,
that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a
pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life
everlasting."[10] He also says: "For there is one God and one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a ransom for
all."[11] In his second Epistle to the same Timothy, he says: "Be not
thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His
prisoner: but be thou a fellow-labourer for the gospel, according to the
power of God; who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not
according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; but is now
manifested by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath abolished
death, and bath brought life and immortality to light through the
gospel."[12]

              CHAP. 49.--FROM THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.

    Then again he writes to Titus as follows: "Looking for that blessed
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ; who gave himself for us, that He might redeem us from all
iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
works."[1] And to the like effect in another passage: "But after that
the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He
saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to
the hope of eternal life."[3]

CHAP. 50.--FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

    Although the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews is doubted by
some,[3] nevertheless, as I find it sometimes thought by persons, who
oppose our opinion touching the baptism of infants, to contain evidence
in favour of their own views, we shall notice the pointed testimony it
bears in our behalf; and I quote it the more confidently, because of the
authority of the Eastern Churches, which expressly place it amongst the
canonical Scriptures. In its very exordium one thus reads: "God, who at
sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers
by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom
He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;
who, being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His
person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had
by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high."[4] And by and by the writer says: "For if the word spoken by
angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a
just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great
salvation?"[5] And again in another passage: "Forasmuch then," says he,
"as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself
likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him
that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who
through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."[6]
Again, shortly after, he says: "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him
to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and
faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation
for the sins of the people."[7] And in another place he writes: "Let us
hold fast our profession. For we have not a high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin."[8] Again he says: "He hath an
unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore He is able also to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make
intercession for them. For such a High Priest became us, who is holy,
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the
heavens; who needeth not daily (as those high priests) to offer up
sacrifice, first for His own sins, and then for the people's: for this
He did once, when He offered up Himself."[9] And once more: "For Christ
is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the
figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as
the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of
others; (for then must He often have suffered since the foundation of
the world;) but now once, in the end of the world, hath He appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto
men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered
to bear the sins of many: and unto them that look for Him shall He

pear the second time, without sin, unto salvation."[10]

                 CHAP. 51.--FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

    The Revelation of John likewise tells us that in a new song these
praises are offered to Christ: "Thou art worthy to take the book, and to
open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God
by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation."[11]

CHAP. 52.--FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

    To the like effect, in the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Peter
designated the Lord Jesus as "the Author of life," upbraiding the Jews
for having put Him to death in these words: "But ye dishonoured and
denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted
unto you, and ye killed the Author of life."[12] While in another
passage he says: "This is the stone which was set at nought by you
builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there
salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given
among men whereby we must be saved."[13] And again, elsewhere: "The God
of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, by hanging on a tree. Him
hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for
to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."[1] Once more:
"To Him give all the prophets witness, that, through His name, whosoever
believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins."[2] Whilst in the same
Acts of the Apostles Paul says: "Be it known therefore unto you, men and
brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of
sins: and by Him every one that believeth is justified from all things,
from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."[3]

           CHAP. 53.--THE UTILITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE

                         OLD TESTAMENT.

    Under so great a weight of testimony, who would not be oppressed
that should dare lift up his voice against the truth of God? And many
other testimonies might be found, were it not for my anxiety to bring
this tract to an end,--an anxiety which I must not slight. I have deemed
it superfluous to quote from the books of the Old Testament, likewise,
many attestations to our doctrine in inspired words, since what is
concealed in them under the veil of earthly promises is clearly revealed
in the preaching of the New Testament. Our Lord Himself briefly
demonstrated and defined the use of the Old Testament writings, when He
said that it was necessary that what had been written concerning Himself
in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, should be fulfilled, and
that this was that Christ must suffer, and rise from the dead the third
day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.[4] In agreement with
this is that statement of Peter which I have already quoted, how that
all the prophets bear witness to Christ, that at His hands every one
that believes in Him receives remission of his sins.[2]

CHAP. 54.--BY THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, MEN WERE CONVINCED OF
SINS AND LED TO THE SAVIOUR.

    And yet it is perhaps better to advance a few testimonies out of the
Old Testament also, which ought to have a supplementary, or rather a
cumulative value. The Lord Himself, speaking by the Psalmist, says: "As
for my saints which are upon earth, He hath caused all my purposes to be
admired in them."[5] Not their merits, but "my purposes." For what is
theirs except that which is afterwards mentioned,--"their weaknesses are
multiplied,"[6]--above the weakness that they had? Moreover, the law
also entered, that the offence might abound. But why does the Psalmist
immediately add: "They hastened after?"[6] When their sorrows and
infirmities multiplied (that is, when their offence abounded), they then
sought the Physician more eagerly, in order that, where sin abounded,
grace might much more abound. He then says: "I will not gather their
assemblies together [with their offerings] of blood;" for by their many
sacrifices of blood, when they gathered their assemblies into the
tabernacle at first, and then into the temple, they were rather
convicted as sinners than cleansed. I shall no longer, He says, gather
their assemblies of blood-offerings together; because there is one
blood-shedding given for many, whereby they may be truly cleansed. Then
it follows: "Neither will I make mention of their names with my lips,"
as if they were the names of renewed ones. For these were their names at
first: children of the flesh, children of the world, children of  wrath,
children of the devil, unclean, sinners, impious; but afterwards,
children of God,--a new name to the new man, a new song to the singer of
what is new, by means of the New Testament. Men must not be ungracious
with God's grace, mean with great things; [but be ever rising] from the
less to the greater. The cry of the whole Church is, "I have gone astray
like a lost sheep."[7] From all the members of Christ the voice is
heard: "All we, as sheep, have gone astray; and He hath Himself been
delivered up for our sins."[8] The whole of this passage of prophecy is
that famous one in Isaiah which was expounded by Philip to the eunuch of
Queen Candace, and he believed in Jesus.[9] See how often he commends
this very subject, and, as it were, inculcates it again and again on
proud and contentious men: "He was a man under misfortune, and one who
well knows to bear infirmities; wherefore also He turned away His face,
He was dishonoured, and was not much esteemed. He it is that bears our
weaknesses, and for us is involved in pains: and we accounted Him to be
in pains, and in misfortune, and in punishment. But it was He who was
wounded for our sins, was weakened for our iniquities; the chastisement
of our peace was upon Him; and by His bruise we are healed. All we, as
sheep, have gone astray; and the Lord delivered Him up for our sins. And
although He was evilly entreated, yet He opened not His mouth: as a
sheep was He led to the slaughter, and as a lamb is dumb before the
shearer, so He opened not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was
taken away: His generation who shall declare? For His life shall be
taken away from the earth, and for the iniquities of my people was He
led to death. Therefore I will give the wicked for His burial, and the
rich for His death; because He did no iniquity, nor deceit with His
mouth. The Lord is pleased to purge Him from misfortune. If you could
yourselves have given your soul on account of your sins, ye should see a
seed of a long life. And the Lord is pleased to rescue His soul from
pains, to show Him light, and to form it through His understanding; to
justify the Just One, who serves many well; and He shall Himself bear
their sins. Therefore He shall inherit many, and He shall divide the
spoils of the mighty; and He was numbered amongst the transgressors; and
Himself bare the sins of many, and He was delivered for their
iniquities."[1] Consider also that passage of this same prophet which
Christ actually declared to be fulfilled in Himself, when He recited it
in the synagogue, in discharging the function of the reader:[2] "The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me: to preach
glad tidings to the poor hath He sent me, that so I may refresh all who
are broken-hearted,--to preach deliverance to the captives, and to the
blind sight."[3] Let us then all acknowledge Him; nor should there be
one exception among persons like ourselves, who wish to cleave to His
body, to enter through Him into the sheepfold, and to attain to that
life and eternal salvation which He has promised to His own.--Let us, I
repeat, all of us acknowledge Him who did no sin, who bare our sins in
His own body on the tree, that we might live with righteousness separate
from sins; by whose scars we are healed, when we were weak[4]--like
wandering sheep.

CHAP. 55 [XXVIII.]--HE CONCLUDES THAT ALL MEN NEED THE DEATH OF CHRIST,
THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE
CONDEMNATION OF THE DEVIL. HOW ALL MEN THROUGH ADAM ARE UNTO
CONDEMNATION; AND THROUGH CHRIST UNTO JUSTIFICATION. NO ONE IS
RECONCILED WITH GOD, EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST.

    In such circumstances, no man of those who have come to Christ by
baptism has ever been regarded, according to sound faith and the true
doctrine, as excepted from the grace of forgiveness of sins; nor has
eternal life been ever thought possible to any man apart from His
kingdom. For this [eternal life] is ready to be revealed at the last
time,[5] that is, at the resurrection of the dead who are reserved not
for that eternal death which is called "the second death," but for the
eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promises to His saints and
faithful servants. Now none who shall partake of this life shall be made
alive except in Christ, even as all die in Adam) For as none whatever,
of all those who belong to the generation according to the will of the
flesh, die except in Adam, in whom all sinned; so, out of these, none at
all who are regenerated by the will of the Spirit are endowed with life
except in Christ, in whom all are justified. Because as through one all
to condemnation, so through One all to justification.[7] Nor is there
any middle place for any man, and so a man can only be with the devil
who is not with Christ. Accordingly, also the Lord Himself (wishing to
remove from the hearts of wrong-believers s that vague and indefinite
middle condition, which some would provide for unbaptized infants,--as
if, by reason of their innocence, they were embraced in eternal life,
but were not, because of their unbaptized state, with Christ in His
kingdom) uttered that definitive sentence of His, which shuts their
mouths: "He that is not with me is against me."[9] Take then the case of
any infant you please: If he is already in Christ, why is he baptized?
If, however, as the Truth has it, he is baptized just that he may be
with Christ, it certainly follows that he who is not baptized is not
with Christ; and because he is not "with" Christ, he is "against"
Christ; for He has pronounced His own sentence, which  is so explicit
that we ought not, and indeed cannot, impair it or change it. And how
can he be "against" Christ, if not owing to sin? for it cannot possibly
be from his soul or his body, both of these being the creation of God.
Now if it be owing to sin, what sin can be found at such an age, except
the ancient and original sin? Of course that sinful flesh in which all
are born to condemnation is one thing, and that Flesh which was made
"after the likeness of sinful flesh," whereby also all are freed from
condemnation, is another thing. It is, however, by no means meant to be
implied that all who are born in sinful flesh are themselves actually
cleansed by that Flesh which is "like" sinful flesh; "for all men have
not faith;"[10] but that all who are born from the carnal union are born
entirely of sinful flesh, whilst all who are born from the spiritual
union are cleansed only by the Flesh which is in the likeness of sinful
flesh. In other words, the former class are in Adam unto condemnation,
the latter are in Christ unto justification. This is as if we should
say, for example, that in such a city there is a certain midwife who
delivers all; and in the same place there is an expert teacher who
instructs all. By all, in the one case, only those who are born can
possibly be understood; by all, in the other, only those who are taught:
and it does not follow that all who are born also receive the
instruction. But it is obvious to every one, that in the one case it is
correctly said, "she delivers all," since without her aid no one is
born; and in the other, it is rightly said, "he teaches all," since
without his tutoring, no one learns.

CHAP. 56.--NO ONE IS RECONCILED TO GOD EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST.

    Taking into account all the inspired statements which I have
quoted,--whether I regard the value of each passage one by one, or
combine their united testimony in an accumulated witness or even include
similar passages which I have not adduced,--there can be nothing
discovered, but that which the catholic Church holds, in her dutiful
vigilance against all profane novelties: that every man is separated
from God, except those who are reconciled to God through Christ the
Mediator; and that no one can be separated from God, except by sins,
which alone cause separation; that there is, therefore, no
reconciliation except by the remission of sins, through the one grace of
the most merciful Saviour,--through the one sacrifice of the most
veritable Priest; and that none who are born of the woman, that trusted
the serpent and so was corrupted through desire,[1] are delivered from
the body of this death, except by the Son of the virgin who believed the
angel and so conceived without desire.[2]

CHAP. 57 [XXIX.]--THE GOOD OF MARRIAGE; FOUR DIFFERENT CASES OF THE GOOD
AND THE EVIL USE OF MATRIMONY.

    The good, then, of marriage lies not in the passion of desire, but
in a certain legitimate and honourable measure in using that passion,
appropriate to the propagation of children, not the gratification of
lust.[3] That, therefore, which is disobediently excited in the members
of the body of this death, and endeavours to draw into itself our whole
fallen soul, (neither arising nor subsiding at the bidding of the mind),
is that evil of sin in which every man is born. When, however, it is
curbed from unlawful desires, and is permitted only for the orderly
propagation and renewal of the human race, this is the good of wedlock,
by which man is born in the union that is appointed. Nobody, however, is
born again in Christ's body, unless he be previously born in the body of
sin. But inasmuch as it is evil to make a bad use of a good thing, so is
it good to use well a bad thing. These two ideas therefore of good and
evil, and those other two of a good use and an evil use, when they are
duly combined together, produce four different conditions:--[1] A man
makes a good use of a good thing, when he dedicates his continence to
God; [2.] He makes a bad use of a good thing, when he dedicates his
continence to an idol;

[3.] He makes a bad use of an evil thing, when he loosely gratifies his
concupiscence by adultery; [4.] He makes a good use of an evil thing,
when he restrains his concupiscence by matrimony. Now, as it is better
to make good use of a good thing than to make good rise of an evil
thing,--since both are good,--so "he that giveth his virgin in marriage
doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."[4]
This question, indeed, I have treated at greater length, and more
sufficiently, as God enabled me according to my humble abilities, in two
 works of mine,--one of them, On the Good of Marriage, and the other, On
Holy Virginity. They, therefore, who extol the flesh and blood of a
sinful creature, to the prejudice of the Redeemer's flesh and blood,
must not defend the evil of concupiscence through the good of marriage;
nor should they, from whose infant age the Lord has inculcated in us a
lesson of humility,[5] be lifted up into pride by the error of others.
He only was born without sin whom a virgin conceived without the embrace
of a husband,--not by the concupiscence of the flesh, but by the chaste
submission of her mind.[6] She alone was able to give birth to One who
should heal our wound, who brought forth the germ of a pure offspring
without the wound of sin.

CHAP. 58 [XXX.]--IN WHAT RESPECT THE PELAGIANS REGARDED BAPTISM AS
NECESSARY FOR INFANTS.

    Let us now examine more carefully, so far as the Lord enables us,
that very chapter of the Gospel where He says, "Except a man be born
again,--of water and the Spirit,-- he shall not enter into the kingdom
of God,"[7] If it were not for the authority which this sentence has
with them, they would not be of opinion that infants ought to be
baptized at all. This is their comment on the passage: "Because He does
not say, 'Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall
not have salvation or eternal life,' but He merely said,' he shall not 
enter into the kingdom of God,' therefore infants    are to be baptized,
in order that they may be with Christ in the kingdom of God, where they
will not be unless they are baptized. Should infants die, however, even
without baptism, they will have salvation and eternal life, seeing that
they are bound with no fetter of sin." Now in such a statement as this,
the first thing that strikes one is, that they never explain where the
justice is of separating from the kingdom of God that "image of God"
which has no sin. Next, we ought to see whether the Lord Jesus, the one
only good Teacher, has not in this very passage of the Gospel intimated,
and indeed shown us, that it only comes to pass through the remission of
their sins that baptized persons reach the kingdom of God; although to
persons of a right understanding, the words, as they stand in the
passage, ought to be sufficiently explicit "Except a man be born again,
he cannot see the kingdom of God;"[1] and: "Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."[2]
For why should he be born again, unless to be renewed? From what is he
to be renewed, if not from some old condition? From what old condition,
but that in which "our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of
sin might be destroyed?"[3] Or whence comes it to pass that "the image
of God" enters not into the kingdom of God, unless it be that the
impediment of sin prevents it? However, let us (as we said before) see,
as earnestly and diligently as we are able, what is the entire context
of this passage of the Gospel, on the point in question.

CHAP. 59.--THE CONTEXT OF THEIR CHIEF TEXT.

    "Now there was," we read, "a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus,
a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him,
Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do
these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered
and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How
can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his
mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto
thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth: so is   every one that is born of the Spirit.
Nicodemus answered and said unto Him, How can these things be? Jesus
answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not
these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know,
and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have
told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I
tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but
He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,[4] even so must
the Son of than be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave
His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the
world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be
saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light
is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the
light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made
manifest, that they are wrought in God."[5] Thus far the Lord's
discourse wholly relates to the subject of our present inquiry; from
this point the sacred historian digresses to another matter.

CHAP. 60 [XXXI.]--CHRIST, THE HEAD AND THE BODY; OWING TO THE UNION OF
THE NATURES IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST, HE BOTH REMAINED IN HEAVEN, AND
WALKED ABOUT ON EARTH; HOW THE ONE CHRIST COULD ASCEND TO HEAVEN; THE
HEAD, AND THE BODY, THE ONE CHRIST.

    Now when Nicodemus understood not what was being told him, he
inquired of the Lord how such things could be. Let us look at what the
Lord said to him in answer to his inquiry; for of course, as He deigns
to answer the question, How can these things be? He will in fact tell us
how spiritual regeneration can come to a man who springs from carnal
generation. After noticing briefly the ignorance of one who assumed a
superiority over others as a teacher, and having blamed the unbelief of
all such, for not accepting His witness to the truth, He went on to
inquire and wonder whether, as He had told them about earthly things and
they had not believed they would believe heavenly things. He
nevertheless pursues the subject, and gives an answer such as others
should believe--though these refuse--to the question that he was asked,
How these things can be? "No man," says He, "hath ascended up to heaven,
but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven."[1] Thus, He says, shall come the spiritual birth,--men, from
being earthly, shall become heavenly; and this they can only obtain by
being made members of me; so that he may ascend who descended, since no
one ascends who did not descend. All, therefore, who have to be changed
and raised must meet together in a union with Christ, so that the Christ
who descended may ascend, reckoning His body (that is to say, His
Church) as nothing else than Himself, because it is of Christ and the
Church that this is most truly understood: "And they twain shall be one
flesh;"[2] concerning which very subject He expressly said Himself, "So
then they are no more twain, but one flesh."[3] To ascend, therefore,
they would be wholly unable, since "no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven."[1] For although it was on earth that He was made the Son of
man, yet He did not deem it unworthy of that divinity, in which,
although remaining in heaven, He came down to earth, to designate it by
the name of the Son of man, as He dignified His flesh with the name of
Son of God: that they might not be regarded as if they were two
Christs,--the one God, the other man,[4]--but one and the same God and
man,--God, because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God;"[5] and man, inasmuch as "the Word was made
flesh and dwelt among us."[6] By this means--by the difference between
His divinity and His humiliation--He remained in heaven as Son of God,
and as Son of man walked on earth; whilst, by that unity of His person
which made His two natures one Christ, He both walked as Son of God on
earth, and at the same time as the very Son of man remained in heaven.
Faith, therefore, in more credible things arises from the  belief of
such things as are more incredible. For if His divine nature, though a
far more distant object, and more sublime in its incomparable diversity,
had ability so to take upon itself the nature of man on our account as
to become one Person, and whilst appearing as Son of man on earth in the
weakness of the flesh, was able to remain all the while in heaven in the
divinity which partook of the flesh, how much easier for our faith is it
to suppose that other men, who are His faithful saints, become one
Christ with the Man Christ, so that, when all ascend by His grace and
fellowship, the one Christ Himself ascends to heaven who came down from
heaven? It is in this sense that the apostle says, "As we have many
members in one body, and all the members of the body, being many, are
one body, so likewise is Christ."[7] He did not say, "So also is
Christ's" --meaning Christ's body, or Christ's members--but his words
are, "So likewise is Christ," thus calling the head and body one Christ.

CHAP. 61 [XXXII.]--THE SERPENT LIFTED UP IN THE WILDERNESS PREFIGURED
CHRIST SUSPENDED ON THE CROSS; EVEN INFANTS THEMSELVES POISONED BY THE
SERPENT'S BITE.

    And since this great and wonderful dignity can only be attained by
the remission of sins, He goes on to say, "And as Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up;
that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life."[8] We know what at that time happened in the wilderness. Many
were dying of the bite of serpents: the people then confessed their
sins, and, through Moses, besought the Lord to take away from them this
poison; accordingly, Moses, at the Lord's command, lifted up a brazen
serpent in the wilderness, and admonished the people that every one who
had been serpent-bitten should look upon the uplifted figure. When they
did so they were immediately healed.[9] What means the uplifted serpent
but the death of Christ, by that mode of expressing a sign, whereby the
thing which is effected is signified by that which effects it? Now death
came by the serpent, which persuaded man to commit the sin, by which he
deserved to die. The Lord, however, transferred to His own flesh not
sin, as the poison of the serpent, but He did transfer to it death, that
the penalty without the fault might transpire in the likeness of sinful
flesh, whence, in the sinful flesh, both the fault might be removed and
the penalty. As, therefore, it then came to pass that whoever looked at
the raised serpent was both healed of the poison and freed from death,
so also now, whosoever is conformed to the likeness of the death of
Christ by faith in Him and His baptism, is freed both from sin by
justification, and from death by resurrection. For this is what He says:
"That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life.''[1] What necessity then could there be for an infant's being
conformed to the death of Christ by baptism, if he were not altogether
poisoned by the bite of the  serpent?

CHAP. 62 [XXXIII.]--NO ONE CAN BE RECONCILED TO GOD, EXCEPT BY CHRIST.

    He then proceeds thus, saying: "God so loved the world, that He gave
His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life."[2] Every infant, therefore, was
destined to perish, and to lose everlasting life, if through the
sacrament of baptism he believed not in the only-begotten Son of God;
while nevertheless, He comes not so that he may judge the world, but
that the world through Him may be saved. This especially appears in the
following clause, wherein He says, "He that believeth in Him is not
condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he
hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God."[3] In
what class, then, do we place baptized infants but amongst believers, as
the authority of the catholic Church everywhere asserts? They belong,
therefore, among those who have believed; for this is obtained for them
by virtue of the sacrament and the answer of their sponsors. And from
this it follows that such as are not baptized are reckoned among those
who have not believed. Now if they who are baptized are not condemned,
these last, as not being baptized, are condemned. He adds, indeed: "But
this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men:
loved darkness rather than light.[4] Of what does He say, "Light is come
into the world," if not of His own advent? and without the sacrament of
His advent, how are infants said to be in the light? And why should we
not include this fact also in "men's love of darkness," that  as they do
not themselves believe, so they refuse to think that their infants ought
to be baptized, although they are afraid of their incurring the death of
the body? "In God," however, he declares are the "works of him wrought,
who cometh to the light,"[5] because he is quite aware that his
justification results from no merits of his own, but from the grace of
God. "For it is God," says the apostle, "who worketh in you both to will
and to do of His own good pleasure."[6] This then is the way in which
spiritual regeneration is effected in all who come to Christ from their
carnal generation. He explained it Himself, and pointed it out, when He
was asked, How these things could be? He left it open to no man to
settle such a question by human reasoning, lest infants should be
deprived of the grace of the remission of sins. There is no other
passage leading to Christ; no man can be reconciled to God, or can come
to God otherwise, than through Christ.

CHAP. 63 [XXXIV.]--THE FORM, OR RITE, OF BAPTISM. EXORCISM.

    What shall I say of the actual form of this sacrament? I only wish
some one of those who espouse the contrary side would bring me an infant
to be baptized.  What does my exorcism work in that babe, if he be not
held in the devil's family? The man who brought the infant would
certainly have had to act as sponsor for him, for he could not answer
for himself. How would it be possible then for him to declare that he
renounced the devil, if there was no devil in him? that he was converted
to God, if he had never been averted from Him? that he believed, besides
other articles, in the forgiveness of sins, if no sins were attributable
to him? For my own part, indeed, if I thought that his opinions were
opposed to this faith, I could not permit him to bring the infant to the
sacraments. Nor can I imagine with what countenance before men, or what
mind before God, he can conduct himself in this. But I do not wish to
say anything too severe. That a false or fallacious form of baptism
should be administered to infants, in which there might be the sound and
semblance of something being done, but yet no remission of sins actually
ensue, has been seen by some amongst them to be as abominable and
hateful a thing as it was possible to mention or conceive. Then, again,
in respect of the necessity of baptism to infants, they admit that even
infants stand in need of redemption,--a concession which is made in a
short treatise written by one of their party,--but yet there is not
found in this work any open admission of the forgiveness of a single
sin. According, however, to an intimation dropped in your letter to me,
they now acknowledge, as you say, that a remission of sins takes place
even in infants through baptism. No wonder; for it is impossible that
redemption should be understood in any other way. Their own words are
these: "It is, however, not originally, but in their own actual life,
after they have been born, that they have begun to have sin."

             CHAP. 64.--A TWOFOLD MISTAKE RESPECTING

                            INFANTS.

    You see how great a difference there is amongst those whom I have
been opposing at such length and persistency in this work,--one of whom
has written the book which contains the points I have refuted to the
best of my ability. You see as I was saying, the important difference
existing between such of them as maintain that infants are absolutely
pure and free from all sin, whether original or actual; and those who
suppose that so soon as born infants have contracted actual sins of
their own, from which they need cleansing by baptism. The latter class,
indeed, by examining the Scriptures, and considering the authority of
the whole Church as well as the form of the sacrament itself, have
clearly seen that by baptism remission of sins accrues to infants; but
they are either unwilling or unable to allow that the sin which infants
have is original sin. The former class, however, have clearly seen (as
they easily might) that in the very nature of man, which is open to the
consideration of all men, the tender age of which we speak could not
possibly commit any sin whatever in its own proper conduct; but, to
avoid acknowledging original sin, they assert that there is no sin at
all in infants. Now in the truths which they thus severally maintain, it
so happens that they first of all mutually agree with each other, and
subsequently differ from us in material aspect. For if the one party
concede to the other that remission of sins takes place in all infants
which are baptized, whilst the other concedes to their opponents that
infants (as infant nature itself in its silence loudly proclaims) have
as yet contracted no sin in their own living, then both sides must agree
in conceding to us, that nothing remains but original sin, which can be
remitted in baptism to infants.

CHAP. 65 [XXXV.]--IN INFANTS THERE IS NO SIN OF THEIR OWN COMMISSION.

    Will this also be questioned, and must we spend time in discussing
it, in order to prove and show how that by their own will--without which
there can be no sin in their own life--infants could never commit an
offence, whom all, for this very reason, are in the habit of calling
innocent? Does not their great weakness of mind and body, their great
ignorance of things, their utter inability to obey a precept, the
absence in them of all perception and impression of law, either natural
or written, the complete want of reason to impel them in either
direction,--proclaim and demonstrate the point before us by a silent
testimony far more expressive than any argument of ours? The very
palpableness of the fact must surely go a great way to persuade us of
its truth; for there is no place where I do not find traces of what I
say, so ubiquitous is the fact of which we are speaking,--clearer,
indeed, to perceive than any thing we can say to prove it.

          CHAP. 66.--INFANTS' FAULTS SPRING FROM THEIR

                        SHEER IGNORANCE.

                                

    I should, however, wish any one who was wise on the point to tell me
what sin he has seen or thought of in a new-born infant, for redemption
from which he allows baptism to be already necessary; what kind of evil
it has in its own proper life committed by its own mind or body. If it
should happen to cry and to be wearisome to its elders, I wonder whether
my informant would ascribe this to iniquity, and not rather to
unhappiness. What, too, would he say to the fact that it is hushed from
its very weeping by no appeal to its own reason, and by no prohibition
of any one else? This, however, comes from the ignorance in which it is
so deeply steeped, by reason of which, too, when it grows stronger, as
it very soon does, it strikes its mother in its little passion, and
often her very breasts which it sucks when it is hungry. Well, now,
these small freaks are not only borne in very young children, but are
actually loved,--and this with what affection except that of the
flesh,[1] by which we are delighted by a laugh or a joke, seasoned with
fun and nonsense by clever persons, although, if it were understood
literally, as it is spoken, they would not be laughed with as facetious,
but at as simpletons? We see, also, how those simpletons whom the common
people call Moriones[2] are used for the amusement of the sane; and that
they fetch higher prices than the sane when appraised for the slave
market. So great, then, is the influence of mere natural feeling, even
over those who are by no means simpletons, in producing amusement at
another's misfortune. Now, although a man may be amused by another man's
silliness, he would still dislike to be a simpleton himself; and if the
father, who gladly enough looks out for, and even provokes, such things
from his own prattling boy, were to foreknow that he would, when grown
up, turn out a fool, he would without doubt think him more to be grieved
for than if he were dead. While, however, hope remains of growth, and
the light of intellect is expected to increase with the increase of
years, then the insults of young children even to their parents seem not
merely not wrong, but even agreeable and  pleasant. No prudent man,
doubtless, could possibly approve of not only not forbidding in children
such conduct in word or deed as this,  as soon as they are able to be
forbidden, but  even of exciting them to it, for the vain amuse. ment of
their elders. For as soon as children are of an age to know their father
and mother, they dare not use wrong words to either, unless permitted or
bidden by either, or both. But such things can only belong to such young
children as are just striving to lisp out words, and whose minds are
just able to give some sort of motion to their tongue. Let us, however,
consider the depth of the ignorance rather of the new-born babes, out of
which, as they advance in age, they come to this merely temporary
stuttering folly,--on their road, as it were, to knowledge and speech.

CHAP. 67 [XXXVI.]--ON THE IGNORANCE OF INFANTS, AND WHENCE IT ARISES.

    Yes, let us consider that darkness of their rational intellect, by
reason of which they are even completely ignorant of God, whose
sacraments they actually struggle against, while being baptized. Now my
inquiry is, When and whence came they to be immersed in this darkness?
Is it then the fact that they incurred it all here, and in this their
own proper life forgat God through too much negligence, after a life of
wisdom and religion in their mother's womb? Let those say  so who dare;
let them listen to it who wish to; let them believe it who can. I,
however, am sure that none whose minds are not blinded by an obstinate
adherence to a foregone conclusion can possibly entertain such an
opinion. Is there then no evil in ignorance,--nothing which needs to be
purged away? What means that prayer "Remember not the sins of my youth
and of my ignorance?"[1] For although those sins are more to be
condemned which are knowingly committed, yet if there were no sins of
ignorance, we should not have read in Scripture what I have quoted,
"Remember not the sins of my youth and of my ignorance." Seeing now that
the soul of an infant fresh from its mother's womb is still the soul of
a human being,--nay, the soul of a rational creature,--not only
untaught, but even incapable of instruction, I ask why, or when, or
whence, it was plunged into that thick darkness of ignorance in which it
lies? If it is man's nature thus to begin, and that nature is not
already corrupt, then why was not Adam created thus ? Why was he capable
of receiving a commandment? and able to give names to his wife, and to
all the animal creation? For of her he said, "She shall be called
Woman;"[2] and in respect of the rest we read: "Whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof."[3] Whereas this one,
although he is ignorant where he is, what he is, by whom created, of
what parents born, is already guilty of offence, incapable as yet of
receiving a commandment, and so completely involved and overwhelmed in a
thick cloud of ignorance, that he cannot be aroused out of his sleep, so
as to recognize even these facts; but a time must be patiently awaited,
until he can shake off this strange intoxication, as it were, (not
indeed in a single night, as even the heaviest drunkenness usually can
be, but) little by little, through many months, and even years; and
until this be accomplished, we have to bear in little children so many
things which we punish in older persons, that we cannot enumerate them.
Now, as touching this enormous evil of ignorance and weakness, if in
this present life infants have contracted it as soon as they were born,
where, when, how, have they by the perpetration of some great iniquity
become suddenly implicated in such darkness?

CHAP. 68 [XXXVII.]--IF ADAM WAS NOT CREATED OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS THAT
IN WHICH WE ARE BORN, HOW IS IT THAT CHRIST, ALTHOUGH FREE FROM SIN, WAS
BORN AN INFANT AND IN WEAKNESS?

    Some one will ask, If this nature is not pure, but corrupt from its
origin, since Adam was not created thus, how is it that Christ, who is
far more excellent, and was certainly born without any sin of a virgin,
nevertheless appeared in this weakness, and came into the world in
infancy? To this question our answer is as follows: Adam was not created
in such a state, because, as no sin from a parent preceded him, he was
not created in sinful flesh. We, however, are in such a condition,
because by reason of his preceding sin we are born in sinful flesh.
While Christ was born in such a state, because, in order that He might
for sin condemn sin, He assumed the likeness of sinful flesh.[4] The
question which we are now discussing is not about Adam in respect of the
size of his body, why he was not made an infant but in the perfect
greatness of his members. It may  indeed be said that the beasts were
thus created likewise,--nor was it owing to their sin that their young
were born small. Why all this came to pass we are not now asking. But
the question before us has regard to the vigor of man's mind and his use
of reason, by virtue of which Adam was capable of instruction, and could
apprehend God's precept and the law of His commandment, and could easily
keep it if he would; whereas man is now born in such a state as to be
utterly incapable of doing so, owing to his dreadful ignorance and
weakness, not indeed of body, but of mind,--although we must all admit
that in every infant there exists a rational soul of the self-same
substance (and no other) as that which belonged to the first man. Still
this great infirmity of the flesh, clearly, in my opinion, points to a
something, whatever it may be, that is penal. It raises the doubt
whether, if the first human beings had not sinned, they would have had
children who could use neither tongue, nor hands, nor feet. That they
should be born children was perhaps necessary, on account of the limited
capacity of the womb. But, at the same time, it does not follow, because
a rib is a small part of a man's body, that God made an infant wife for
the man, and then built her up into a woman. In like manner, God's
almighty power was competent to make her children also, as soon as born,
grown up at once.

CHAP. 69 [XXXVIII.]--THE IGNORANCE AND THE INFIRMITY OF AN INFANT.

    But not to dwell on this, that was at least possible to them which
has actually happened to many animals, the young of which are born
small, and do not advance in mind (since they have no rational soul) as
their bodies grow larger, and yet, even when most diminutive, run about,
and recognize their mothers, and require no external help or care when
they want to suck, but with remarkable ease discover their mothers'
breasts themselves, although these are concealed from ordinary sight. A
human being, on the contrary, at his birth is furnished neither with
feet fit for walking, nor with hands able even to scratch; and unless
their lips were actually applied to the breast by the mother, they would
not know where to find it; and even when close to the nipple, they
would, notwithstanding their desire for food, be more able to cry than
to suck. This utter helplessness of body thus fits in with their
infirmity of mind; nor would Christ's flesh have been "in the likeness
of sinful flesh," unless that sinful flesh had been such that the
rational soul is oppressed by it in the way we have described,--whether
this too has been derived from parents, or created in each case for the
individual separately, or inspired from above,--concerning which I
forbear from inquiring now.

CHAP. 70 [XXXIX.]--HOW FAR SIN IS DONE AWAY IN INFANTS BY BAPTISM, ALSO
IN  ADULTS, AND WHAT ADVANTAGE RESULTS THEREFROM.

    In infants it is certain that, by the grace of God, through His
baptism who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, it is brought to pass
that the sinful flesh is done away. This result, however, is so
effected, that the concupiscence which is diffused over and innate in
the living flesh itself is not removed all at once, so as to exist in it
no longer; but only that might not be injurious to a man at his death,
which was inherent at his birth. For should an infant live after
baptism, and arrive at an age capable of obedience to a law, he finds
there somewhat to fight against, and, by God's help, to overcome, if he
has not received His grace in vain, and if he is not willing to be a
reprobate. For not even to those who are of riper years is it given in
baptism (except, perhaps, by an unspeakable miracle of the almighty
Creator), that the law of sin which is in their members, warring against
the law of their mind, should be entirely extinguished, and cease to
exist; but that whatever of evil has been done, said, or thought by a
man whilst he was servant to a mind subject to its concupiscence, should
be abolished, and regarded as if it had never occurred. The
concupiscence itself, however, (notwithstanding the loosening of the
bond of guilt in which the devil, by it, used to keep the soul, and the
destruction of the barrier which separated man from his Maker,) remains
in the contest in which we chasten  our body and bring it into
subjection, whether to be relaxed for lawful and necessary uses, or to
be restrained by continence.[1] But inasmuch as the Spirit of God, who
knows so much better than we do all the past, and present, and future of
the human race, foresaw and foretold that the life of man would be such
that "no man living should be justified in God's sight,"[2] it happens
that through ignorance or infirmity we do not exert all the powers of
our will against it, and so yield to it in the commission of sundry
unlawful things,--becoming worse in proportion to the greatness and
frequency of our surrender; and better, in proportion to its
un-importance and infrequency. The investigation, however, of the point
in which we are now interested--whether there could possibly be (or
whether in fact there is, has been, or ever will be) a man without sin
in this present life, except Him who said, "The prince of this world
cometh, and hath nothing in me"[3]--requires a much fuller discussion;
and the arrangement of the present treatise is such as to make us
postpone the question to the commencement of another book. 

BOOK II.

IN WHICH AUGUSTIN ARGUES AGAINST SUCH AS SAY THAT IN THE PRESENT LIFE
THERE ARE, HAVE BEEN, AND WILL BE, MEN WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SIN AT
ALL. HE LAYS DOWN FOUR PROPOSITIONS ON THIS HEAD: AND TEACHES, FIRST,
THAT A MAN MIGHT POSSIBLY LIVE IN THE PRESENT LIFE WITHOUT SIN, BY THE
GRACE OF GOD AND HIS OWN FREE WILL; HE NEXT SHOWS THAT NEVERTHELESS IN
FACT THERE IS NO MAN WHO LIVES QUITE FREE FROM SIN IN THIS LIFE;
THIRDLY, HE SETS FORTH THE REASON OF THIS,--BECAUSE THERE IS NO MAN WHO
EXACTLY CONFINES HIS WISHES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE JUST REQUIREMENT OF
EACH CASE, WHICH JUST REQUIREMENT HE EITHER FAILS TO PERCEIVE, OR IS
UNWILLING TO CARRY OUT IN PRACTICE; IN THE FOURTH PLACE, HE PROVES THAT
THERE IS NOT, NOR HAS BEEN, NOR EVER WILL BE, A HUMAN BEING--EXCEPT THE
ONE MEDIATOR, CHRIST--WHO IS FREE FROM ALL SIN.

CHAP. 1 [I.]--WHAT HAS THUS FAR BEEN DWELT ON; AND WHAT IS TO BE TREATED
IN THIS BOOK.

    WE have, my dearest Marcellinus, discussed at sufficient length, I
think, in the former book the baptism of infants,--how that it is given
to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for
attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the
kingdom of God, or without that union with the Saviour Christ, wherein
He has redeemed us by His blood. I undertake in the present book to
discuss and explain the question, Whether there lives in this world, or
has yet lived, or ever will live, any one without any sin whatever,
except "the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who
gave Himself a ransom for all;"[1]--with as much care and ability as He
may Himself vouchsafe to me. And should there occasionally arise in this
discussion, either inevitably or casually from the argument, any
question about the baptism or the sin of infants, I must neither be
surprised nor must I shrink from giving the best answer I can, at such
emergencies, to whatever point challenges my attention.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--SOME PERSONS ATTRIBUTE TOO MUCH TO THE FREEDOM OF MAN'S
WILL; IGNORANCE AND INFIRMITY.

    A solution is extremely necessary of this question about a human
life unassailed by any deception or preoccupation of sin, in consequence
even of our daily prayers. For there are some persons who presume so
much upon the free determination of the human will, as to suppose that
it need not sin, and that we require no divine assistance,--attributing
to our nature, once for all, this determination of free will. An
inevitable consequence of this is, that we ought not to pray "not to
enter into temptation,"-that is, not to be overcome of temptation,
either when it deceives and surprises us in our ignorance, or when it
presses and importunes us in our weakness. Now how hurtful, and how
pernicious and contrary to our salvation in Christ, and how violently
adverse to the religion itself in which we are instructed, and to the
piety whereby we worship God, it cannot but be for us not to beseech the
Lord for the attainment of such a benefit, but be rather led to think
that petition of the Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation,"[2] a
vain and useless insertion,--it is beyond my ability to express in
words.

CHAP. 3 [III.]--IN WHAT WAY GOD COMMANDS  NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE. WORKS OF
MERCY, MEANS OF WIPING OUT SINS.

    Now these people imagine that they are acute (as if none among us
knew it) when they say, that "if we have not the will, we commit no sin;
nor would God command man to do what was impossible for human volition."
But they do not see, that in order to overcome certain things, which are
the objects either of an evil desire or an ill-conceived fear, men need
the strenuous efforts, and sometimes even all the energies, of the will;
and that we should only imperfectly employ these in every instance, He
foresaw who willed so true an utterance to be spoken by the prophet: "In
Thy sight shall no man living be justified."[1] The Lord, therefore,
foreseeing that such would be our character, was pleased to provide and
endow with efficacious virtue certain healthful remedies against the
guilt and bonds even of sins committed after baptism,--for instance, the
works of mercy,--as when he says: "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven;
give, and it shall be given unto you.''[2] For who could quit this life
with any hope of  obtaining eternal salvation, with that sentence
impending: "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all,"[3] if there did not soon after follow: "So
speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty:
for he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy; and
mercy rejoiceth against judgment ?"[4]

CHAP. 4 [IV.]--CONCUPISCENCE, HOW FAR IN US; THE BAPTIZED ARE NOT
INJURED BY CONCUPISCENCE, BUT ONLY BY CONSENT THEREWITH.

    Concupiscence, therefore, as the law of sin which remains in the
members of this body of death, is born with infants. In baptized
infants, it is deprived of guilt, is left for the struggle [of life],[5]
but pursues with no condemnation, such as die before the struggle.
Unbaptized infants it implicates as guilty and as children of wrath,
even if they die in infancy, draws into condemnation. In baptized
adults, however, endowed with reason, whatever consent their mind gives
to this concupiscence for the commission of sin is an act of their own
will. After all sins have been blotted out, and that guilt has been
cancelled which by nature[6] bound men in a conquered condition, it
still remains,--but not to hurt in any way those who yield no  consent
to it for unlawful deeds,--until death  is swallowed up in victory[7]
and, in that perfection of peace, nothing is left to be conquered. Such,
however, as yield consent to it for the commission of unlawful deeds, it
holds as guilty; and unless, through the medicine of repentance, and
through works of mercy, by the intercession in our behalf of the
heavenly High Priest, they be healed, it conducts us to the second death
and utter condemnation. It was on this account that the Lord, when
teaching us to pray, advised us, besides other petitions, to say:
"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and lead us not into
tempation, but deliver us from evil."[8] For evil remains in our flesh,
not by reason of the nature in which man was created by God and wisdom,
but by reason of that offence into which he fell by his own will, and in
which, since its powers are lost, he is not healed with the same
facility of will as that with which he was wounded. Of this evil the
apostle says: "I know that in my flesh dwelleth no good thing ;"[9] and
it is likewise to the same evil that he counsels us to give no
obedience, when he says: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal
body, to obey the lusts thereof."[10] When, therefore, we have by an
unlawful inclination of our will yielded consent to these lusts of the
flesh, we say, with a view to the cure of this fault, "Forgive us our
debts;"[11] and we at the same time apply the remedy of a work of mercy,
in that we add, "As we forgive our debtors." That we may not, however,
yield such consent, let us pray for assistance, and say, "And lead us
not into temptation;"--not that God ever Himself tempts any one with
such temptation, "for God is not a tempter to evil, neither tempteth He
any man;"[12] but in order that whenever we feel the rising of
temptation from our concupiscence, we may not be deserted by His help,
in order that thereby we may be able to conquer, and not be carried away
by enticement. We then add our request for that which is to be perfected
at the last, when mortality shall be swallowed up of life:[13] "But
deliver us from evil."[14] For then there will exist no longer a
concupiscence which we are bidden to struggle against, and not to
consent to. The whole substance, accordingly, of these three petitions
may be thus briefly expressed: "Pardon us for those things in which we
have been drawn away by concupiscence; help us not to be drawn away by
concupiscence; take away concupiscence from us."

             CHAP. 5 [V.]--THE WILL OF MAN REQUIRES

                        THE HELP OF GOD.

    Now for the commission of sin we get no help from God; but we are
not able to do justly, and to fulfil the law of righteousness in every
part thereof, except we are helped by God. For as the bodily eye is not
helped by the light to turn away therefrom shut or averted, but is
helped by it to see, and cannot see at all unless it help it; so God,
who is the light of the inner man, helps our mental sight, in order that
we may do some good, not according to our own, but according to His
righteousness. But if we turn away from Him, it is our own act; we then
are wise according to the flesh, we then consent to the concupiscence of
the flesh for unlawful deeds. When we turn to Him, therefore, God helps
us; when we turn away from Him, He  forsakes us. But then He helps us
even to turn to Him; and this, certainly, is something that light does
not do for the eyes of the body. When, therefore, He commands us in the
words, "Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,"[1] and we say to
Him, "Turn us, O God of our salvation,''[2] and again, "Turn us, O God
of hosts;"[3] what else do we say than, "Give what Thou commandest?"[4]
When He commands us, saying, "Understand now, ye simple among the
people,"[5] and we say to Him, "Give me understanding, that I may learn
Thy commandments;"[6] what else do we say than, "Give what Thou
commandest?" When He commands us, saying, "Go not after thy lusts,"[7]
and we say to Him, "We know that no man can be continent, except God
gives it to him;"[8] what else do we say than, "Give what Thou
commandest?" When He commands us, saying, "Do justice,"[9] and we say,
"Teach me Thy judgments, O Lord;"[10] what else do we say than, "Give
what Thou commandest?" In like manner, when He says: "Blessed are they
which hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be
filled,"[11] from whom ought we to seek for the meat and drink of
righteousness, but from Him who promises His fulness to such as hunger
and thirst after it?

CHAP.6.--WHEREIN THE PHARISEE SINNED WHEN HE THANKED GOD; TO GOD'S GRACE
MUST BE ADDED THE EXERTION OF OUR OWN WILL.

	   Let us then drive away from our ears and minds those who say that we
ought to accept the determination of our own free will and not pray God
to help us not to sin. By such darkness as this even the Pharisee was
not blinded; for although he erred in thinking that he needed no
addition to his righteousness, and supposed himself to be saturated with
abundance of it, he nevertheless gave thanks to God that he was not
"like other men, unjust, extortioners, adulterers, or even as the
publican; for he fasted twice in the week, he gave tithes of all that he
possessed."[12] He wished, indeed, for no  addition to his own
righteousness; but yet, by giving thanks to God, he confessed that all
he had he had received from Him. Notwithstanding, he was not approved,
both because he asked for no further food of righteousness, as if he
were already filled, and because he arrogantly preferred himself to the
publican, who was hungering and thirsting after righteousness. What,
then, is to be said of those who, whilst acknowledging that they have no
righteousness, or no fulness thereof, yet imagine that it is to be had
from themselves alone, not to be besought from their Creator, in whom is
its store and its fountain? And yet this is not a question about prayers
alone, as if the energy of our will also should not be strenuously
added. God is said to be "our Helper;"[13]  but nobody can be helped who
does not make some effort of his own accord. For God does not work our
salvation in us as if he were working in insensate stones, or in
creatures in whom nature has placed neither reason nor will. Why,
however, He helps one man, but not another; or why one man so much, and
another so much; or why one man in one way, and another in another,--He
reserves to Himself according to the method of His own most secret
justice, and to the excellency of His power.

CHAP. 7 [VI.]--FOUR QUESTIONS ON THE PERFECTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: (1.)
WHETHER A MAN CAN BE WITHOUT SIN IN THIS LIFE.

    Now those who aver that a man can exist in this life without sin,
must not be immediately opposed with incautious rashness; for if we
should deny the possibility, we should derogate both from the free will
of man, who in his wish desires it, and from the power or mercy of God,
who by His help effects it. But it is one question, whether he could
exist; and another question, whether he does exist. Again, it is one
question, if he does not exist when he could exist, why he does not
exist; and another question, whether such a man as had never sinned at
all, not only is in existence, but also could ever have existed, or can
ever exist. Now, if in the order of this fourfold set of interrogative
propositions, I were asked, [1st,] Whether it be possible for a man in
this life to be without sin? I should allow the possibility, through the
grace of God and the man's own free will; not doubting that the free
will itself is ascribable to God's grace, in other words, to the gifts
of God,--not only as to its existence, but also as to its being good,
that is, to its conversion to doing the commandments of God. Thus it is
that God's grace not only shows what ought to be done, but also helps to
the possibility of doing what it shows. "What indeed have we that we
have not received?"[1] Whence also Jeremiah says: "I know, O Lord, that
the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man to walk and direct
his steps."[2] Accordingly, when in the Psalms one says to God, "Thou
hast commanded me to keep Thy precepts diligently,"[3] he at once adds
not a word of confidence concerning himself but a wish to be able to
keep these precepts: "O that my ways," says he, "were directed to keep
Thy statutes! Then should I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all
Thy commandments?[4] Now who ever wishes for what he has already so in
his own power, that he requires no further help for attaining it? To
whom, however, he directs his wish,--not to fortune, or fate, or some
one else besides God,--he shows with sufficient clearness in the
following words, where he says: "Order my steps in Thy word; and let not
any iniquity have dominion over me."[5] From the thraldom of this
execrable dominion they are liberated, to whom the Lord Jesus gave power
to become the sons of God.[6] From so horrible a domination were they to
be freed, to whom He says, "If the Son shall make you free, then shall
ye be free indeed."[7] From these and many other like testimonies, I
cannot doubt that God has laid no impossible command on man; and that,
by God's aid and help, nothing is impossible, by which is wrought what
He commands. In this way may a man, if he pleases, be without sin by the
assistance of God.

CHAP. 8 [VII.]--(2) WHETHER THERE IS IN THIS WORLD A MAN WITHOUT SIN.

    [2nd.] If, however, I am asked the second question which I have
suggested,--whether there be a sinless man,--I believe there is not. For
I rather believe the Scripture, which says: "Enter not into judgment
with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified."[8]
There is therefore need of the mercy of God, which "exceedingly
rejoiceth against judgment,"[9] and which that man shall not obtain who
does not show mercy.[9] And whereas the prophet says, "I said, I will
confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity
of my heart,"[10] he yet immediately adds, "For this shall every saint
pray unto Thee in an acceptable time."[11] Not indeed every sinner, but
"every saint;" for it is the voice of saints which says, "If we say that
we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."[12]
Accordingly we read, in the Apocalypse of the same Apostle, of "the
hundred and forty and four thousand" saints, "which were not defiled
with women; for they continued virgins: and in their mouth was found no
guile; for they are  without fault."[13] "Without fault," indeed, they
no doubt are for this reason,--because they truly found fault with
themselves; and for this reason," in their mouth was discovered no
guile,"--" because if they said they had no sin, they deceived
themselves, and the truth was not in them."[12] Of course, where the
truth was not, there would be guile; and when a righteous man begins a
statement by accusing himself, he verily utters no falsehood.

CHAP. 9.--THE BEGINNING OF RENEWAL; RESURRECTION CALLED REGENERATION;
THEY ARE THE SONS OF GOD WHO LEAD LIVES SUITABLE TO NEWNESS OF LIFE.

    And hence in the passage, "Whosoever is born of God doth not sin,
and he cannot sin, for His seed remaineth in him,"[14] and in every
other passage of like import, they much deceive themselves by an
inadequate consideration of the Scriptures. For they fail to observe
that men  severally become sons of God when they begin to live in
newness of spirit, and to be renewed as to the inner man  after the
image of Him that created them.[15] For it is not from the moment of a
man's baptism that all his old infirmity is destroyed, but renovation
begins with the remission of all his sins, and so far as he who is now
wise is spiritually wise. All things else, however, are accomplished in
hope, looking forward to their being also realized in fact,[16] even to
the renewal of the body itself in that better state of immortality and
incorruption with which we shall be clothed at the resurrection of the
dead. For this too the Lord calls a regeneration,--though, of course,
not such as occurs through baptism, but still a regeneration wherein
that which is now begun in the spirit shall be brought to perfection
also in the body. "In the regeneration," says He, "when the Son of man
shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."[17] For however entire
and full be the remission of sins in baptism, nevertheless, if there was
wrought by it at once, an entire and full change of the man into his
everlasting newness,--I do not mean change in his body, which is now
most clearly tending evermore to the old corruption and to death, after
which it is to be renewed into a total and true newness,--but, the body
being excepted, if in the soul itself, which is the inner man, a perfect
renewal was wrought in baptism, the apostle would not say: "Even though
our outward man perishes, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."[1]
Now, undoubtedly, he who is still renewed day by day is not as yet
wholly renewed; and in so far as he is not yet wholly renewed, he is
still in his old state. Since, then, men, even after they are baptized,
are still in some degree in their old condition, they are on that
account also still children of the world; but inasmuch as they are also
admitted into a new state, that is to say, by the full and perfect
remission of their sins, and in so far as they are spiritually-minded,
and behave correspondingly, they are the children of God. Internally we
put off the old man and put on the new; for we then and there lay aside
lying, and speak truth, and do those other things wherein the apostle
makes to consist the putting off of the old man and the putting on of
the new, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness?
Now it is men who are already baptized and faithful whom he exhorts to
do this,--an exhortation which would be unsuitable to them, if the
absolute and perfect change had been already made in their baptism. And
yet made it was, since we were then actually saved; for "He saved us by
the layer of regeneration."[3] In another passage, however, he tells us
how this took place. "Not they only," says he, "but ourselves also,
which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan
within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of
our body. For 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."[4]

            CHAP. 10 [VIII.]--PERFECTION, WHEN TO BE

                            REALIZED.

    Our full adoption, then, as children, is to happen at the redemption
of our body. It is therefore the first-fruits of the Spirit which we now
possess, whence we are already really become the children of God; for
the rest, indeed, as it is by hope that we are saved and renewed, so are
we the children of God. But inasmuch as we are not yet actually saved,
we are also not yet fully renewed, nor yet also fully sons of God, but
children of the world. We are therefore advancing in renewal and
holiness of life,--and it is by this that we are children of God, and by
this also we cannot commit sin;--until at last the whole of that by
which we are kept as yet children of this world is changed into
this;--for it is owing to this that we are as yet able to sin. Hence it
comes to pass that "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;"[5]
and as well, "if we were to say that we have no sin, we should deceive
ourselves, and the truth would not be in us."[6] There shall be then an
end put to that within us which keeps us children of the flesh and of
the world; whilst that other shall be perfected which makes us the
children of God, and renews us by His Spirit. Accordingly the same John
says, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be."[7] Now what means this variety in the expressions,
"we are," and "we shall be," but this --we are in hope, we shall be in
reality? For he goes on to say, "We know that when He shall appear, we
shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."[7] We have therefore
even now begun to be like Him, having the first-fruits of the Spirit;
but yet we are still unlike Him, by reason of the remainders of the old
nature. In as far, then, as we are like Him, in so far are we, by the
regenerating Spirit, sons of God; but in as far as we are unlike Him, in
so far are we the children of the flesh and of the world. On the one
side, we cannot commit sin; but, on the other, if we say that we have no
sin, we only deceive ourselves,--until we pass entirely into the
adoption, and the sinner be no more, and you look for his place and find
it not.[8]

CHAP. 11 [IX.]--AN OBJECTION OF THE PELAGIANS: WHY DOES NOT A RIGHTEOUS
MAN BEGET A RIGHTEOUS MAN ?[9]

    In vain, then, do some of them argue: "If a sinner begets a sinner,
so that the guilt of original sin must be done away in his infant son by
his receiving baptism, in like manner ought a righteous man to beget a
righteous son." Just as if a man begat children in the flesh by reason
of his righteousness, and not because he is moved thereto by the
concupiscence which is in his members, and the law of sin is applied by
the law of his mind to the purpose of procreation. His begetting
children, therefore, shows that he still retains the old nature among
the children of this world; it does not arise from the fact of his
promotion to newness of life among the children of God. For "the
children of this world beget and are begotten."[10] Hence also what is
born of them is like them; for "that which is born of the flesh is
flesh."[11] Only the children of God, however, are righteous; but in so
far as they are the children of God, they do not carnally beget, because
it is of the Spirit, and not of the flesh, that they are themselves
begotten. But as many of them as become parents, beget children from the
circumstance that they have not yet put off the entire remains of their
old nature in exchange for the perfect renovation which awaits them. It
follows, therefore, that every son who is born in this old and infirm
condition of his father's nature, must needs himself partake of the same
old and infirm condition. In order, then, that he may be begotten again,
he must also himself be renewed by the Spirit through the remission of
sin; and if this change does not take place in him, his righteous father
will be of no use to him. For it is by the Spirit that he is righteous,
but it is not by the Spirit that he begat his son. On the other hand, if
this change does accrue to him, he will not be damaged by an unrighteous
father: for it is by the grace of the Spirit that he has passed into the
hope of the eternal newness; whereas it is owing to his carnal mind that
his father has wholly remained in the old nature.

           CHAP. 12 [X.]--HE RECONCILES SOME PASSAGES 

                          OF SCRIPTURE.

    The statement, therefore, "He that is born of God sinneth not,"[1]
is not contrary to the passage in which it is declared by those who are
born of God, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us."[2] For however complete may be a man's present
hope, and however real may be his renewal by spiritual regeneration in
that part of his nature, he still, for all that, carries about a body
which is corrupt, and which presses down his soul; and so long as this
is the case, one must distinguish even in the same individual the
relation and source of each several action. Now, I suppose it is not
easy to find in God's Scripture so weighty a testimony of holiness given
of any man as that which is written of His three servants, Noah, Daniel,
and Job, whom the Prophet Ezekiel describes as the only men able to be
delivered from God's impending wrath.[3] In these three men he no doubt
prefigures three classes of mankind to be delivered: in Noah, as I
suppose, are represented righteous leaders of nations, by reason of his
government of the ark as a type of the Church; in Daniel, men who are
righteous in continence; in Job, those who are righteous in wedlock; --
to say nothing of any other view of the passage, which it is unnecessary
now to consider. It is, at any rate, clear from this testimony of the
prophet, and from other inspired statements, how eminent were these
worthies in righteousness. Yet no man must be led by their history to
say, for instance, that drunkenness is not sin, although so good a man
was overtaken by it; for we read that Noah was once drunk,[4] but God
forbid that it should be thought that he was an habitual drunkard.

            CHAP. 13.--A SUBTERFUGE OF THE PELAGIANS.

    Daniel, indeed, after the prayer which he poured out before God,
actually says respecting himself, "Whilst I was praying and confessing
my sins, and the sins of my people, before the Lord my God."[5] This is
the reason, if I am not mistaken, why in the above-mentioned Prophet
Ezekiel a certain most haughty person is asked, "Art thou then wiser
than Daniel?"[6] Nor on this point can that be possibly said which some
contend for in opposition to the Lord's Prayer: "For although," they
say, "that prayer was offered by the apostles, after they became holy
and perfect, and had no sin whatever, yet it was not in behalf of their
own selves, but of imperfect and still sinful men that they said,
'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.' They used the
word our," they say, "in order to show that in one body are contained
both those who still have sins, and themselves, who were already
altogether free from sin." Now this certainly cannot be said in the case
of Daniel, who (as I suppose) foresaw as a prophet this presumptuous
opinion, when he said so often in his prayer, "We have sinned;" and
explained to us why he said this, not so as that we should hear from
him, Whilst was praying and confessing the sins of my people to the
Lord, my God; nor yet confounding distinction, so as that it would be
uncertain whether he had said, on account of the fellowship of one body,
While I was confessing

sins to the Lord my God; but he expresses himself in language so
distinct and precise, as if he were full of the distinction himself, and
wanted above all things to commend it to our notice: "My sins," says he,
"and the sins of my people." Who can gainsay such evidence as this, but
he who is more pleased to defend what he thinks than to find out what he
ought to think ?

              CHAP. 14. --JOB WAS NOT WITHOUT SIN.

    But let us see what Job has to say of himself, after God's great
testimony of his righteousness. "I know of a truth," he says, "that it
is so: for how shall a mortal man be just before the Lord? For if He
should enter into judgment with him, he would not be able to obey
Him."[7] And shortly afterwards he asks: "Who shall resist His judgment?
Even if I should seem righteous, my mouth will speak profanely."[1] And
again, further on, he says: "I know He will not leave me unpunished. But
since I am ungodly, why have I not died? If I should wash myself with
snow, and be purged with clean hands, thou hadst thoroughly stained me
with filth."[2] In another of his discourses he says: "For Thou hast
written evil things against me, and hast compassed me with the sins of
my youth; and Thou hast placed my foot in the stocks. Thou hast watched
all my works, and hast inspected the soles of my feet, which wax old
like a bottle, or like a moth-eaten garment. For man that is born of a
woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of wrath; like a flower
that hath bloomed, so doth he fall; he is gone like a shadow, and
continueth not. Hast Thou not taken account even of him, and caused him
to enter into judgment with Thee? For who is pure from uncleanness? Not
even one; even should his life last but a day."[3] Then a little
afterwards he says: "Thou hast numbered all my necessities; and not one
of my sins hath escaped Thee. Thou hast sealed up my transgressions in a
bag, and hast marked whatever I have done unwillingly."[4] See how Job,
too, confesses his sins, and says how sure he is that there is none
righteous before the Lord. So he is sure of this also, that if we say we
have no sin, the truth is not in us. While, therefore, God bestows on
him His high testimony of righteousness, according to the standard of
human conduct, Job himself, taking his measure from that rule of
righteousness, which, as well as he can, he beholds in God, knows of a
truth that so it is; and he goes on at once to say, "How shall a mortal
man be just before the Lord? For if He should enter into judgment with
him, he would not be able to obey Him;" in other words, if, when
challenged to judgment, he wished to show that nothing could be found in
him which He could condemn, "he would not be able to obey him," since he
misses even that obedience which might enable him to obey Him who
teaches that sins ought to be confessed. Accordingly [the Lord] rebukes
certain men, saying, "Why will ye contend with me in judgment?"[5] This
[the Psalmist] averts, saying, "Enter not into judgment with Thy
servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified."[6] In
accordance with this, Job also asks: "For who shall resist his judgment?
Even if I should seem righteous, my mouth will speak profanely;" which
means: If, contrary to His judgment, I should call myself righteous,
when His perfect rule of righteousness proves me to be unrighteous, then
of a truth my mouth would speak profanely, because it would speak
against the truth of God.

            CHAP. 15.--CARNAL GENERATION CONDEMNED ON

                    ACCOUNT OF ORIGINAL SIN.

    He sets forth that this absolute weakness, or rather condemnation,
of carnal generation is from the transgression of original sin, when,
treating of his own sins, he shows, as it were, their causes, and says
that "man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is
full of wrath." Of what wrath, but of that in which all are, as the
apostle says, "by nature," that is, by origin, "children of wrath,"[7]
inasmuch as they are children of the concupiscence of the flesh and of
the world? He further shows that to this same wrath also pertains the
death of man. For after saying, "He hath but a short time to live, and
is full of wrath," he added, "Like a flower that hath bloomed, so doth
he fall; he is gone like a shadow, and continueth not." He then
subjoins: "Hast Thou not caused him to enter into judgment with Thee?
For who is pure from uncleanness? Not even one; even should his life
last but a day." In these words he in fact says, Thou hast thrown upon
man, short-lived though he be, the care of entering into judgment with
Thee. For how brief soever be his life, -- even if it last but a single
day,--he could not possibly be clean of filth; and therefore with
perfect justice must he come under Thy judgment. Then, when he says
again, "Thou hast numbered all my necessities, and not one of my sins
hath escaped Thee: Thou hast sealed up my transgressions in a bag, and
hast marked whatever I have done unwillingly;" is it not clear enough
that even those  sins are justly imputed which are not committed through
allurement of pleasure, but for the sake of avoiding some trouble, or
pain, or death? Now these sins, too, are said to be committed under some
necessity, whereas they ought all to be overcome by the love and
pleasure of righteousness. Again, what he said in the clause, "Thou hast
marked whatever I have done unwillingly," may evidently be connected
with the saying: "For what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that
do I."[8]

CHAP. 16--JOB FORESAW THAT CHRIST WOULD COME TO SUFFER; THE WAY OF
HUMILITY IN THOSE THAT ARE PERFECT.

    Now it is remarkable[9] that the Lord Himself, after bestowing on
Job the testimony which is expressed in Scripture, that is, by the
Spirit of God, "In all the things which happened to him  he sinned not
with his lips before the Lord,"[1] did yet afterwards speak to him with
a rebuke, as Job himself tells us: "Why do I yet plead, being
admonished, and hearing the rebukes of the Lord?"[2] Now no man is
justly rebuked unless there be in him something which deserves rebuke.
[XI.] And what sort of rebuke is this, -- which, moreover, is understood
to proceed from the person of Christ our Lord? He re-counts to him all
the divine operations of His power, rebuking him under this idea,--that
He seems to say to him, "Canst thou effect all these  mighty works as I
can?" But to what purpose  is all this but that Job might understand
(for  this instruction was divinely inspired into him, that he might
foreknow Christ's coming to suffer),--that he might understand how
patiently he ought to endure all that he went through, since Christ,
although, when He became man for us, He was absolutely without sin, and
although as God He possessed so great power, did for all that by no
means refuse to obey even to the suffering of death? When Job understood
this with a purer intensity of heart, he added to his own answer these
words: "I used before now to hear of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but
behold now mine eye seeth Thee: therefore I abhor myself and melt away,
and account myself but dust and ashes."[3] Why was he thus so deeply
displeased with himself? God's work, in that he was man, could not
rightly have given him displeasure, since it is even said to God
Himself, "Despise not Thou the work of Thine own hands."[4] It was
indeed in view of that righteousness, in which he had discovered his own
unrighteousness,[5] that he abhorred himself and melted away, and deemed
himself dust and ashes,--beholding, as he did in his mind, the
righteousness of Christ, in whom there could not possibly be any sin,
not only in respect of His divinity, but also of His soul and His flesh.
It was also in view of this righteousness which is of God that the
Apostle Paul, although as "touching the righteousness which is of the
law he was blameless," yet "counted all things" not only as loss, but
even as dung.[6]

            CHAP. 17 [XII.]--NO ONE RIGHTEOUS IN ALL

                           THINGS.[7]

    That illustrious testimony of God, therefore, in which Job is
commended, is not contrary to the passage in which it is said, "In Thy
sight shall no man living be justified;"[8] for it does not lead us to
suppose that in him there was nothing at all which might either by
himself truly or by the Lord God rightly be blamed, although at the same
time he might with no untruth be said to be a righteous man, and a
sincere worshipper of God, and one who keeps himself from every evil
work. For these are God's words concerning him: "Hast thou diligently
considered my servant Job? For there is none like him on the earth,
blameless, righteous, a true worshipper of God, who keeps himself from
every evil work."[9] First, he is here praised for his excellence in
comparison with all men on earth. He therefore excelled all who were at
that time able to be righteous upon earth; and yet, because of this
superiority over others in righteousness, he was not therefore
altogether without sin. He is next said to be "blameless" -- no one
could fairly bring an accusation against him in respect of his life;
"righteous" -- he had advanced so greatly in moral probity, that no man
could be mentioned on a par with him; "a true worshipper of
God"--because he was a sincere and humble confessor of his own sins;
"who keeps himself from every evil work"-it would have been wonderful if
this had extended to every evil word and thought. How great a man indeed
Job was, we are not told; but we know that he was a just man; we know,
too, that in the endurance of terrible afflictions and trials he was
great; and we know that it was not on account of his sins, but for the
purpose of demonstrating his righteousness, that he had to bear so much
suffering. But the language in which the Lord commends Job might also be
applied to him who "delights in the law of God after the inner man,
whilst he sees another law in his members warring against the law of his
mind;"[10] especially as he says, "The good that I would I do not: but
the evil which I would not, that I do. Now, if I do that I would not, it
is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."[11] Observe how
he too after the inward man is separate from every evil work, because
such work he does not himself effect, but the evil which dwells in his
flesh; and yet, since he does not have even that ability to delight in
the law of God except from the grace of God, he, as still in want of
deliverance, exclaims, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me
from the body of this death? God's grace, through Jesus Christ our
Lord!" [12]

            CHAP. 18 [XIII.]--PERFECT HUMAN RIGHTEOUS-

                       NESS IS IMPERFECT.

    There are then on earth righteous men, there are great men, brave,
prudent, chaste, patient, pious, merciful, who endure all kinds of
temporal evil with an even mind for righteousness' sake. If, however,
there is truth -- nay, because there is truth -- in these words, "If we
say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,"[1] and in these, "In Thy
sight shall no man living be justified," they are not without sin; nor
is there one among them so proud and foolish as not to think that the
Lord's Prayer is needful to him, by reason of his manifold sins.

CHAP. 19. -- ZACHARIAS AND ELISABETH, SINNERS.

    Now what must we say of Zacharias and Elisabeth, who are often
alleged against us in discussions on this question, except that there is
clear evidence in the Scripture[2] that Zacharias was a man of eminent
righteousness among the chief priests, whose duty it was to offer up the
sacrifices of the Old Testament? We also read, however, in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, in a passage which I have already quoted in my previous
book,[3] that Christ was the only High Priest who had no need, as those
who were called high priests, to offer daily a sacrifice for his own
sins first, and then for the people. "For such a High Priest," it says,
"became us, righteous, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high
priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins."[4] Amongst the
priests here referred to was Zacharias, amongst them was Phinehas, yea,
Aaron himself, from whom this priesthood had its beginning, and whatever
others there were who lived laudably and righteously in this priesthood;
and yet all these were under the necessity, first of all, of offering
sacrifice for their own sins, -- Christ, of whose future coming they
were a type, being the only one who, as an incontaminable priest, had no
such necessity.

CHAP. 20.--PAUL WORTHY TO BE THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES, AND YET A
SINNER.

    What commendation, however, is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth
which is not comprehended in what the apostle has said about himself
before he believed in Christ? He said that, "as touching the
righteousness which is in the law, he had been blameless."[5] The same
is said also of them: "They were both righteous before God, walking in
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."[6] It was
because whatever righteousness they had in them was not a pretence
before men that it is said accordingly, "They walked before the Lord."
But that which is written of Zacharias and his wife in the phrase, in
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, the apostle briefly
expressed by the words, in the law. For there was not one law for him
and another for them previous to the gospel. It was one and the same law
which, as we read, was given by Moses to their fathers, and according to
which, also, Zacharias was priest, and offered sacrifices in his course.
And yet the apostle, who was then endued with the like righteousness,
goes on to say: "But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss
for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the
excellency of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ; for whose sake I
have not only thought all things to be only detriments, but I have even
counted them as dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in Him, not
having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the
fellowship of His suffering, being made comformable unto His death; if
by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead."[7] So
far, then, is it from being true that we should, from the words in which
Scripture describes them, suppose that Zacharias and Elisabeth had a
perfect righteousness without any sin, that we must even regard the
apostle himself, according to the selfsame rule, as not perfect, not
only in that righteousness of the law which he possessed in common with
them, and which he counts as loss and dung in comparison with that most
excellent righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, but also in the
very gospel itself, wherein he deserved the pre-eminence of his great
apostleship. Now I would not venture to say this if I did not deem it
very wrong to refuse credence to himself. He extends the passage which
we have quoted, and says: "Not as though I had already attained, or were
already perfect; but I follow after, if I may comprehend that for which
also I am apprehended in Christ Jesus. 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.''[8] Here he confesses that he has not yet attained, and
is not yet perfect in that plenitude of righteousness which he had
longed to obtain in Christ; but that he was as yet pressing towards the
mark, and, forgetting what was past, was reaching out to the things
which are before him. We are sure, then, that what he says elsewhere is
true even of himself: "Al- though our outward man is perishing, yet the
inward man is renewed day by day."[1] Although he was already a
perfect[2] traveller, he had not yet attained the perfect end of his
journey. All such he would fain take with him as companions of his
course. This he expresses in the words which follow our former
quotation: "Let as many, then, of us as are perfect, be thus minded: and
if ye be yet of another mind, God will reveal even this also to you.
Nevertheless, whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by that
rule."[3] This "walk" is not performed with the legs of the body, but
with the affections, of the soul and the character of the life, so that
they who possess righteousness may arrive at perfection, who, advancing
in their renewal day by day along the straight path of faith, have by
this time become perfect as travellers in the selfsame righteousness.

CHAP. 21 [XIV.]--ALL RIGHTEOUS MEN SINNERS.

    In like manner, all who are described in the Scriptures as
exhibiting in their present life good will and the actions of
righteousness, and all who  have lived like them since, although lacking
the same testimony of Scripture; or all who are even now so living, or
shall hereafter so live: all these are great, they are all righteous,
and they are all really worthy of praise, -- yet they are by no means
without sin: inasmuch as, on the authority of the same Scriptures which
make us believe in their virtues, we believe also that in "God's sight
no man living is justified,"[4] whence all ask that He will "not enter
into judgment with His servants:"[4] and that not only to all the
faithful in general, but to each of them in particular, the Lord's
Prayer is necessary, which He delivered to His disciples.[5]

CHAP. 22 [XV.]--AN OBJECTION OF THE PELAGIANS; PERFECTION IS RELATIVE;
HE IS RIGHTLY SAID TO BE PERFECT IN RIGHTEOUSNESS WHO HAS MADE MUCH
PROGRESS THEREIN.

    "Well, but," they say, "the Lord says, 'Be ye perfect even as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect,'[6]--an injunction which He would
not have given, if He had known that what He enjoined was
impracticable." Now the present question is not whether it be possible
for any  men, during this present life, to be without sin if they
receive that perfection for the purpose; for the question of possibility
we have already discussed:[7]--but what we have now to consider is,
whether any man in fact achieves perfection. We have, however, already
recognised the fact that no man wills as much as the duty demands, as
also the testimony of the Scriptures, which we have quoted so largely
above, declares. When, indeed, perfection is ascribed to any particular
person; we must look carefully at the thing in which it is ascribed. For
I have just above quoted a passage of the apostle, wherein he confesses
that he was not yet perfect in the attainment of righteousness which he
desired; but still he immediately adds, "Let as many of us as are
perfect be thus minded." Now he would certainly not have uttered these
two sentences if he had not been perfect in one thing, and not in
another. For instance, a man may be perfect as a scholar in the pursuit
of wisdom: and this could not yet be said of those to whom [the apostle]
said, "I have fed you with milk, sand not with meat: for hitherto ye
have not   been able to bear it, neither are ye yet able;"[8] whereas to
those of whom it could be said he says," Howbeit we speak wisdom among
them that are perfect," --meaning, of course, "perfect pupils" to be
understood. It may happen, therefore, as I have said, that a man may be
already perfect as a scholar, though not as yet perfect as a teacher of
wisdom; may be perfect as a learner, though not as yet perfect as a doer
of righteousness; may be perfect as a lover of his enemies, though not
as yet perfect in bearing their wrong.[9] Even in the case of him who is
so far perfect as to love all men, inasmuch as he has attained even to
the love of his enemies, it still remains a question whether he be
perfect in that love,--in other words, whether he so loves those whom he
loves as is prescribed to be exercised towards those to be loved, by the
unchangeable love of truth. Whenever, then, we read in the Scriptures of
any man's perfection, it must be carefully considered in what it is
asserted, since a man is not therefore to be understood as being
entirely without sin because he is described as perfect in some
particular thing; although the term may also be employed to show, not,
indeed, that there is no longer any point left for a man to reach his
way to perfection, but that he has in fact advanced a very great way,
and on that account may be deemed worthy of the designation. Thus, a man
may be said to be perfect in the science of the law, even if there be
still something unknown to him; and in the same manner the apostle
called men perfect, to whom he said at the same time, "Yet if in
anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this to you.
Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same
rule."[10]

CHAP. 23 [XXI.]--WHY GOD PRESCRIBES WHAT HE KNOWS CANNOT BE OBSERVED.

    We must not deny that God commands that we ought to be so perfect in
doing righteousness, as to have no sin at all. Now that cannot be sin,
whatever it may be, unless God has enjoined that it shall not be. Why
then, they ask, does He command what He knows no man living will
perform? In this manner it may also be asked, Why He commanded the first
human beings, who were only two, what He knew they would not obey? For
it must not be pretended that He issued that command, that some of us
might obey it, if they did not; for, that they should not partake of the
fruit of the particular tree, God commanded them, and none besides.
Because, as He knew what amount of righteousness they would fail to
perform, so did He also know what righteous measures He meant Himself to
adopt concerning them. In the same way, then, He orders all men to
commit no sin, although He knows beforehand that no man will fulfil the
command; in order that He may, in the case of all who impiously and
condemnably despise His precepts, Himself do what is just in their
condemnation; and, in the case of all who while obediently and piously
pressing on in his precepts, though failing to observe to the utmost all
things which He has enjoined, do yet forgive others as they wish to t be
forgiven themselves, Himself do what is good in their cleansing. For how
can forgiveness be bestowed by God's mercy on the forgiving, when there
is no sin? or how prohibition fail to be given by the justice of God,
when there is sin?

CHAP. 24. --AN  OBJECTION OF THE PELAGIANS. THE APOSTLE PAUL WAS NOT
FREE PROM SIN SO LONG AS HE LIVED.

  "But see," say they, "how the apostle says, 'I have fought a good
fight, I have kept the faith, I have finished my course: henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness; '[1] which he would
not have said if he had any sin." It is for them, then, to explain how
he could have said this, when there still remained for him to encounter
the great conflict, the grievous and excessive weight of that suffering
which he had just said awaited him.[2] In order to finish his course,
was there yet wanting only a small thing, when that in fact was still
left to suffer wherein would be a fiercer and more cruel foe? If,
however, he uttered such words of joy feeling sure and secure, because
he had been made sure and secure by Him who had revealed to him the
imminence of his suffering, then he spoke these words, not in the
fulness of realization, but in the firmness of hope, and represents what
he foresees is to come as if it had already been done. If, therefore, he
had added to those words the further statement, "I have no longer any
sin," we must have understood him as even then speaking of a perfection
arising from a future prospect, not from an accomplished fact. For his
having no sin, which they suppose was completed when he spoke these
words, pertained to the finishing of his course; just in the same way as
his triumphing over his adversary in the decisive conflict of his
suffering had also reference to the finishing of his course, although
this they must needs themselves allow remained yet to be effected, when
he was speaking these words. The whole of this, therefore, We declare to
have been as yet awaiting its accomplishment, at the time when the
apostle, with his perfect trust in the promise of God, spoke of it all
as having been already realized. For it was in reference to the
finishing of his course that he forgave the sins of those who sinned
against him, and prayed that his own sins might in like manner be
forgiven him; and it was in his most certain confidence in this promise
of the Lord, that he believed he should have no sin in that last end,
which was still future, even when in his trustfulness he spoke of it as
already accomplished. Now, omitting all other considerations, I wonder
whether, when he uttered the words in which he is thought to imply that
he had no sin, that "thorn of the flesh" had been already removed from
him, for the taking away of which he had three times entreated the Lord,
and had received this  answer: "My grace is sufficient for thee; for my
strength is made perfect in weakness."[3] For bringing so great a man to
perfection, it was needful that that "messenger of Satan" should not be
taken away by whom he was therefore to be buffeted, "lest he should be
unduly exalted by the abundance of his revelations,"[4] and is there
then any man so bold as either to think or to say, that any one who has
to bend beneath the burden of this life is altogether clean from all sin
whatever?

CHAP. 25.--GOD PUNISHES BOTH IN WRATH AND IN MERCY,

   Although there are some men who are so eminent in righteousness that
God speaks to them out of His cloudy pillar, such as "Moses and Aaron
among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name,"[5] 
the latter of whom is much praised for his piety and purity in the
Scriptures of truth, from his earliest childhood, in which his mother,
to accomplish her vow, placed him in God's temple, and devoted him to
the Lord as His servant;--yet even of such men it is written, "Thou, O
God, wast propitious unto them, though Thou didst punish all their
devices."[1] Now the children of wrath God punishes in anger; whereas it
is in mercy that He punishes the children of grace; since "whom He
loveth He correcteth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."[2]
However, there are no punishments, no correction, no scourge of God, but
what are owing to sin, except in the case of Him who prepared His back
for the smiter, in order that He might experience all things in our
likeness without sin, in order that He might be the saintly Priest of
saints, making intercession even for saints, who with no sacrifice of
truth say each one even for himself, "Forgive us our trespasses, even as
we also forgive them that trespass against us."[3] Wherefore even our
opponents in this controversy, whilst they are chaste in their life, and
commendable in character, and although they do not hesitate to do that
which the Lord enjoined on the rich man, who inquired of Him about the
attainment of eternal life, after he had told Him, in answer to His
first question, that he had already fully kept every commandment in the
law, -- that "if he wished to be perfect, he must sell all that he had
and give to the poor, and transfer his treasure to heaven;"[4] yet they
do not in any one instance venture to say that they are without sin. But
this, as we believe, they refrain from saying, with deceitful intent;
but if they are lying, in this very act they begin either to augment or
commit sin.

CHAP. 26 [XVII.] -- (3)[5] WHY NO ONE IN THIS LIFE IS WITHOUT SIN.

    [3d.][5] Let us now consider the point which I mentioned as our
third inquiry. Since by divine grace assisting the human will, man may
possibly exist in this life without sin, why does he not? To this
question I might very easily and truthfully answer: Because men are
unwilling. But if I am asked why they are unwilling, we are drawn into a
lengthy statement. And yet, without prejudice to a more careful
examination, I may briefly say this much: Men are unwilling to do what
is right, either because what is right is unknown to them, or because it
is unpleasant to them. For we desire a thing more ardently in proportion
to the certainty of our knowledge of its goodness, and the warmth of our
delight in it. Ignorance, therefore, and infirmity are faults which
impede the will from moving either for doing a good work, or for
refraining from an evil one. But that what was hidden may come to light,
and what was unpleasant may be made agreeable, is of the grace of God
which helps the wills of men; and that they are not helped by it, has
its cause likewise in themselves, not in God, whether they be
predestinated to condemnation, on account of the iniquity of their
pride, or whether they are to be judged and disciplined contrary to
their very pride, if they are children of mercy. Accordingly Jeremiah,
after saying, "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself,
and that it belongeth not to any man to walk and direct his steps,"[6]
immediately adds, "Correct me, O Lord, but with judgment, and not in
Thine anger;"[7] as much as to say, I know that it is for my correction
that I am too little assisted by Thee, for my footsteps to be perfectly
directed: but yet do not in this so deal with me as Thou dost in Thine
anger, when Thou dost determine to condemn the wicked; but as Thou dost
in Thy judgment whereby Thou dost teach Thy children not to be proud.
Whence in another passage it is said, "And Thy judgments shall help
me."[8]

           CHAP. 27.[9]--THE DIVINE REMEDY FOR PRIDE.

    You cannot therefore attribute to God the cause of any human fault.
For of all human offences, the cause is pride. For the conviction and
removal of this a great remedy comes from heaven. God in mercy humbles
Himself, descends from above, and displays to man, lifted up by pride,
pure and manifest grace in very manhood, which He took upon Himself out
of vast love for those who partake of it. For, not even did even this
One, so conjoined to the Word of God that by that conjunction he became
at once the one Son of God and the same One the one Son of man, act by
the antecedent merits of His own will. It behoved Him, without doubt, to
be one; had there been two, or three, or more, if this could have been
done, it would not have come from the pure and simple gift of God, but
from man's free will and choice.[10] This, then, is especially commended
to us; this, so far as I dare to think, is the divine lesson especially
taught and learned in those treasures of wisdom and knowledge which are
hidden in Christ. Every one of us, therefore, now knows, now does not
know--now rejoices, now does not rejoice --to begin, continue, and
complete our good work, in order that he may know that it is due not to
his own will, but to the gift of God, that he either knows or rejoices;
and thus he is cured of vanity which elated him, and knows how truly it
is said not of this earth of ours, but spiritually, "The Lord will give
kindness and sweet grace, and our land shall yield her fruit."[1] A good
work, moreover, affords greater delight, in proportion as God is more
and more loved as the highest unchangeable Good, and as the Author of
all good things of every kind whatever. And that God may be loved, "His
love is shed abroad in our hearts," not by ourselves, but "by the Holy
Ghost that is given unto us."[2]

             CHAP. 28 [XVIII.] -- A GOOD WILL COMES

                            FROM GOD.

    Men, however, are laboring to find in our own will some good thing
of our own, -- not given to us by God; but how it is to be found I
cannot imagine. The apostle says, when speaking of men's good works,
"What hast thou that thou didst not receive? now, if thou didst receive
it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"[3] But,
besides this, even reason itself, which may be estimated in such things
by such as we are, sharply restrains every one of us in our
investigations so as that we may not so defend grace as to seem to take
away free will, or, on the other hand, so assert free will as to be
judged ungrateful to the grace of God, in our arrogant impiety.[4]

CHAP. 29.--A SUBTERFUGE OF THE PELAGIANS.

    Now, with reference to the passage of the apostle which I have
quoted, some would maintain it to mean that "whatever amount of good
will a man has, must be attributed to God on this account,--namely,
because even this amount could not be in him if he were not a human
being. Now, inasmuch as he has from God alone the capacity of being any
thing at all, and of being human, why should there not be also
attributed to God whatever there is in him of a good will, which could
not exist unless he existed in whom it is?" But in this same manner it
may also be said that a bad will also may be attributed to God as its
author; because even it could not exist in man unless he were a man in
whom it existed; but God is the author of his existence as man; and thus
also of his bad will, which could have no existence if it had not a man
in whom it might exist. But to argue thus is blasphemy.

CHAP. 30. -- ALL WILL IS EITHER GOOD, AND THEN IT LOVES RIGHTEOUSNESS,
OR EVIL, WHEN IT DOES NOT LOVE RIGHTEOUSNESS.

     Unless, therefore, we obtain not simply determination of will,
which is freely turned in this direction and that, and has its place
amongst those natural goods which a bad man may use badly; but also a
good will, which has its place among those goods of which it is
impossible to make a bad use:--unless the impossibility is given to us
from God, I know not how to defend what is said: "What hast thou that
thou didst not receive?" For if we have from God a certain free will,
which may still be either good or bad; but the good will comes from
ourselves; then that which comes from ourselves is better than that
which comes from Him. But inasmuch as it is the height of absurdity to
say this, they ought to acknowledge that we attain from God even a good
will. It would indeed be a strange thing if the will could so stand in
some mean as to be neither good nor bad; for we either love
righteousness, and it is good, and if we love it more, more good, -- if
less, it is less good; or if we do not love it at all, it is not good.
And who can hesitate to affirm that, when the will loves not
righteousness in any way at all, it is not only a bad, but even a wholly
depraved will? Since therefore the will is either good or bad, and since
of course we have not the bad will from God, it remains that we have of
God a good will; else, I am ignorant, since our justification is from
it, in what other gift from Him we ought to rejoice. Hence, I suppose,
it is written, "The will is prepared of the Lord;"[5] and in the Psalms,
"The steps of a man will be rightly ordered by the Lord, and His way
will be the choice of his will;"[6] and that which the apostle says,
"For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His own good
pleasure."[7]

CHAP, 31.--GRACE IS GIVEN TO SOME MEN IN MERCY; IS WITHHELD FROM OTHERS
IN JUSTICE AND TRUTH.

    Forasmuch then as our turning away from God is our own act, and this
is evil will; but our turning to God is not possible, except He rouses
and helps us, and this is good will,--what have we that we have not
received? But if we received, why do we glory as if we had not received?
Therefore, as "he that glorieth must glory in the Lord," s it comes from
His mercy, not their merit, that God wills to impart this to   some, but
from His truth that He wills not to impart it to others. For to sinners
punishment is justly due, because "the Lord God loveth mercy and
truth"[9] and "mercy and truth are met together;"[10] and "all the paths
of the Lord are mercy and truth."[1] And who can tell the numberless
instances in which Holy Scripture combines these two attributes?
Sometimes, by a change in the terms, grace is put for mercy, as in the
passage, "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth."[2] Sometimes also judgment occurs
instead of truth, as in the passage, "I will sing of mercy and judgment
unto Thee, O Lord."[3]

CHAP. 32.--GOD'S SOVEREIGNITY IN HIS GRACE.

    As to the reason why He wills to convert some, and to punish others
for turning away, -although nobody can justly censure the merciful One
in conferring His blessing, nor can any man justly find fault with the
truthful One in awarding His punishment (as no one could justly blame
Him, in the parable of the labourers, for assigning to some their
stipulated hire, and to others unstipulated largess[4]), yet, after all,
the purpose of His more hidden judgment is in His own power. [XIX.] So
far as it has been given us, let us have wisdom, and let us understand
that the good Lord God sometimes withholds even from His saints either
the certain knowledge or the triumphant joy of a good work, just in
order that they may discover that it is not from themselves, but from
Him that they receive the light which illuminates their darkness, and
the sweet grace which causes their land s to yield her fruit.

CHAP. 33.--THROUGH GRACE WE HAVE BOTH THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD, AND THE
DELIGHT WHICH IT AFFORDS.

    But when we pray Him to give us His help to do and accomplish
righteousness, what else do we pray for than that He would open what was
hidden, and impart sweetness to that which gave no pleasure? For even
this very duty of praying to Him we have learned by His grace, whereas
before it was hidden; and by His grace have come to love it, whereas
before it gave us no pleasure,--so that "he who glorieth must glory not
in himself, but in the Lord." To be lifted up, indeed, to pride, is the
result of men's own will, not of the operation of God; for to such a
thing God neither urges us nor helps us. There first occurs then in the
will of man a certain desire of its own power, to become disobedient
through pride. If it were not for this desire, indeed, there would be
nothing difficult; and whenever man willed it, he might refuse without
difficulty. There ensued, however, out of the penalty which was justly
due such a defect, that henceforth it became difficult to be obedient
unto righteousness; and unless this defect were overcome by assisting
grace, no one would turn to holiness; nor unless it were healed by
efficient grace would any one enjoy the peace of righteousness. But
whose grace is it that conquers and heals, but His to whom the prayer is
directed: "Convert us, O God of our salvation, and turn Thine anger away
from us?"[6] And both if He does this, He does it in mercy, so that it
is said of Him, "Not according to our sins hath He dealt with us, nor
hath He recompensed us according to our iniquities;"[7] and when He
refrains from doing this to any, it is in judgment that He refrains. And
who shall say to Him, "What hast Thou done?" when with pious mind the
saints sing to the praise of His mercy and judgment? Wherefore even in
the case of His saints and faithful servants He applies to them a
tardier cure in certain of their failings, in order that, while they are
involved in these, a less pleasure than is sufficient for the fulfilling
of righteousness in all its perfection may be experienced by them at any
good they may achieve, whether hidden or manifest; so that in respect of
His most perfect rule of equity and truth" no man living can be
justified in His sight."[8] He does not in His own self, indeed, wish us
to fall under condemnation, but that we should become humble; and He
displays to us all the self-same grace of His own. Let us not, however,
after   we have attained facility in all things,   suppose that to be
our own which is really His;  for that would be an error most
antagonistic to religion and piety. Nor let us think that we should,
because of His grace, continue in the same sins as of old; but against
that very pride, on account of which we are humiliated in them, let us,
above all things, both vigilantly strive and ardently pray Him, knowing
at the same time that it is by His gift that we have the power thus to
strive and thus to pray; so that in every case, while we look not at
ourselves, but raise our hearts above, we may render thanks to the Lord
our God, and whenever we glory, glory in Him alone.

CHAP. 34 [XX.]--(4) THAT NO MAN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHRIST, HAS EVER
LIVED, OR CAN LIVE WITHOUT SIN.[9]

    [4th.] There now remains our fourth point, after the explanation of
which, as God shall help us, this lengthened treatise of ours may at
last be brought to an end. It is this: Whether the man who never has had
sin or is to have it, not merely is now living as one of the sons of
men, but even could ever have existed at any time, or will yet in time
to come exist? Now it is altogether most certain that such a man neither
does now live, nor has lived, nor ever will live, except the one only
Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. we have already said
a good deal on this subject in our remarks on the baptism of infants;
for if these have no sin, not only are there at present, but also there
have been, and there will be, persons innumerable without sin. Now if
the point which we treated of under the second head be truly
substantiated, that there is in fact no man without sin,[1] then of
course not even infants are without sin. From which the conclusion
arises, that even supposing a man could possibly exist in the present
life so far advanced in virtue as to have reached the perfect fulness of
holy living which is absolutely free from sin, he still must have been
undoubtedly a sinner previously, and have been converted from the sinful
state to this subsequent newness of  life. Now when we were discussing
the second head, a different question was before us from that which is
before us under this fourth head. For then the point we had to consider
was, Whether any man in this life could ever attain to such perfection
as to be absolutely without sin by the grace of God, by the hearty
desire of his own will? whereas the question now proposed in this fourth
place is, Whether there be among the sons of men, or could possibly ever
have been, or yet ever can be, a man who has not indeed emerged out of
sin and attained to perfect righteousness, but has never, at any time
whatever, been under the bondage of sin? If, therefore, the remarks are
true which we have made at so great length concerning infants, there
neither is, has been, nor will be, among the sons of men any such man,
except the one Mediator, in whom there accrues to us propitiation and
justification through which we have reconciliation with God, by the
termination of the enmity produced by our sins. It will therefore be not
unsuitable to retrace a few considerations, so far as the present
subject seems to require, from the very commencement of the human race,
in order that they may inform and strengthen the reader's mind in answer
to some objections which may possibly disturb him.

CHAP.  35 [XXI.] -- ADAM AND EVE; OBEDIENCE MOST STRONGLY ENJOINED BY
GOD ON MAN.

    When the first human beings--the one man Adam, and his wife Eve who
came out of him --willed not to obey the commandment which they had
received from God, a just and deserved punishment overtook them. The
Lord had threatened that, on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, they
should surely die.[2] Now, inasmuch as they had received the permission
of using for food every tree that grew in Paradise, among which God had
planted the tree of life, but had been forbidden to partake of one only
tree, which He called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to signify
by this name the consequence of their discovering whether what good they
would experience if they kept the prohibition, or what evil if they
transgressed it: they are no doubt rightly considered to have abstained
from the forbidden food previous to the malignant persuasion of the
devil, and to have used all which had been allowed them, and therefore,
among all the others, and before all the others, the tree of life. For
what could be more absurd than to suppose that they partook of the fruit
of other trees, but not of that which had been equally with others
granted to them, and which, by its especial virtue, prevented even their
animal bodies from undergoing change through the decay of age, and from
aging into death, applying this benefit from its own body to the man's
body, and in a mystery demonstrating what is conferred by wisdom (which
it symbolized) on the rational soul, even that, quickened by its fruit,
it should not be changed into the decay and death of iniquity? For of
her it is rightly said, "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold of
her."[3] Just as the one tree was for the bodily   Paradise, the other
is for the spiritual; the one   affording a vigour to the senses of the
outward man, the other to those of the inner man, such as will abide
without any change for the worse through time. They therefore served
God, since that dutiful obedience was committed to them, by which alone
God can be worshipped. And it was not possible more suitably to intimate
the inherent importance of obedience, or its sole sufficiency securely
to keep the rational creature under the Creator, than by forbidding a
tree which was not in itself evil. For God forbid that the Creator of
good things, who made all things, "and behold they were very good,"[4]
should plant anything evil amidst the fertility of even that material
Paradise. Still, however, in order that he might show man, to whom
submission to such a Master would be very useful, how much good belonged
simply to obedience (and this was all that He had demanded of His
servant, and this would be of advantage not so much for the lordship of
the Master as for the profit of the servant), they were forbidden the
use of a tree, which, if it had not been for the prohibition, they might
have used without suffering any evil result whatever; and from this
circumstance it may be clearly understood, that whatever evil they
brought on themselves because they made use of it in spite of the
prohibition, the tree did not produce from any noxious or pernicious
quality in its fruit, but entirely on account of their violated
obedience.

            CHAP. 36 [XXII.]--MAN'S STATE BEFORE THE FALL.

     Before they had thus violated their obedience they were pleasing to
God, and God was pleasing to them; and though they carried about an
animal body, they yet felt in it no disobedience moving against
themselves. This was the righteous appointment, that inasmuch as their
soul had received from the Lord the body for its servant, as it itself
obeyed the Lord, even so its body should obey Him, and should exhibit a
service suitable to the life given it without resistance. Hence "they
were both naked, and were not ashamed."' It is with a natural instinct
of shame that the rational soul is now indeed affected, because in that
flesh, over whose service it received the right of power, it can no
longer, owing to some indescribable infirmity, prevent the motion of the
members thereof, notwithstanding its own unwillingness, nor excite them
to motion even when it wishes. Now these members are on this account, in
every man of chastity, rightly called "pudenda,"[2] because they excite
themselves, just as they like, in opposition to the mind which is their
master, as if they were their own masters; and the sole authority which
the bridle of virtue possesses over them is to check them from
approaching impure and unlawful pollutions. Such disobedience of the
flesh as this, which lies in the very excitement, even when it is not
allowed to take. effect, did not exist in the first man and woman whilst
they were naked and not ashamed. For not yet had the rational soul,
which rules the flesh, developed such a disobedience to its Lord, as by
a reciprocity of punishment to bring on itself the rebellion of its own
servant the flesh, along with that feeling of confusion and trouble to
itself which it certainly failed to inflict upon God by its own
disobedience to Him; for God is put to no shame or trouble when we do
not obey Him, nor are we able in any wise to lessen His very great power
over us; but we are shamed in that the flesh is not submissive to our
government,--a result which is brought about by the infirmity which we
have earned by sinning, and is called "the sin which dwelleth in our
members."[3] But this sin is of such a character that it is the
punishment of sin. As soon, indeed, as that transgression was effected,
and the disobedient soul turned away from the law of its Lord, then its
servant, the body, began to cherish a law of disobedience against it;
and then the man and the woman grew ashamed of their nakedness, when
they perceived the rebellious motion of the flesh, which they had not
felt before, and which perception is called "the opening of their
eyes;"[4] for, of course, they did not walk about among the trees with
closed eyes. The same thing is said of Hagar: "Her eyes were opened, and
she saw a well."[5] Then the man and the woman covered their parts of
shame, which God had made for them as members, but they had made parts
of shame.

CHAP. 37 [XXIII.] --THE CORRUPTION OF NATURE IS BY SIN, ITS RENOVATION
IS BY CHRIST.

    From this law of sin is born the flesh of sin, which requires
cleansing through the sacrament of Him who came in the likeness of
sinful flesh, that the body of sin might be destroyed, which is also
called "the body of this death," from which only God's grace delivers
wretched man through Jesus Christ our Lord.[6] For this law, the origin
of death, passed on from the first pair to their posterity, as is seen
in the labour with which all men toil in the earth, and the travail of
women in the pains of childbirth. For these sufferings they merited by
the sentence of God, when they were convicted of sin; and we see them
fulfilled not only in them, but also in their descendants, in some more,
in others less, but nevertheless in all. Whereas, however, the primeval
righteousness of the first human beings consisted in obeying God, and
not having in their members the law of their own concupiscence against
the law of their mind; now, since their sin, in our sinful flesh which
is born of them, it is obtained by  those who obey God, as a great
acquisition, that they do not obey the desires of this evil
concupiscence, but crucify in themselves the flesh with its affections
and lusts, in order that they may be Jesus Christ's, who on His cross
symbolized this, and who gave them power through His grace to become the
sons of God. For it is not to all men, but to as many as have received
Him, that He has given to be born again to God of the Spirit, after they
were born to the world by the flesh. Of these indeed it is written: "But
as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of
God; which were born, not of the flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of
man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God."[7]

CHAP. 38 [XXIV]--WHAT BENEFIT HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON US BY THE
INCARNATION OF THE WORD; CHRIST'S BIRTH IN THE FLESH, WHEREIN IT IS LIKE
AND WHEREIN UNLIKE OUR OWN BIRTH.

            He goes on to add, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us;"[1] as much as to say, A great thing indeed has been done
among them, even that they are born again to God of God, who had before
been born of the flesh to the world, although created by God Himself;
but a far more wonderful thing has been done that, although it accrued
to them by nature to be born of the flesh, but by the divine goodness to
be born of God,--in order that so great a benefit might be imparted to
them, He who was in His own nature born of God, vouchsafed in mercy to
be also born of the flesh;--no less being meant by the passage, "And the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Hereby, he says in effect, it
has been wrought that we who were born of the flesh as flesh, by being
afterwards born of the Spirit, may be spirit and dwell in God; because
also God, who was born of God, by being afterwards born of the flesh,
became flesh, and dwelt among us. For the Word, which became flesh, was
in the beginning, and was God with God.[2] But at the same time His
participation in our inferior condition, in order to our participation
in His higher state, held a kind of medium[3] in His birth of the flesh;
so that we indeed were born in sinful flesh, but He was born in the
likeness of sinful flesh,--we not only of flesh and blood, but also of
the will of man, and of the flesh, but He was born only of flesh and
blood, not of the will of man, nor or the will of the flesh, but of God:
we, therefore, to die on account of sin, He, to die on our account
without sin. So also, just as His inferior circumstances, into which He
descended to us, were not in every particular exactly the same with our
inferior circumstances, in which He found us here; so our superior
state, into which we ascend to Him, will not be quite the same with His
superior state, in which we are there to find Him. For we by His grace
are to be made the sons of God, whereas He was evermore by nature the
Son of God; we, when we are converted, shall cleave to God, though not
as His equals; He never turned from God, and remains ever equal to God;
we are partakers of  eternal life, He is eternal life. He, therefore,
alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any
sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal[4]
flesh of sin. For what He then took of flesh, He either cleansed in
order to take it, or cleansed by taking it. His virgin mother,
therefore, whose conception was not according to the law of sinful flesh
(in other words, not by the excitement of carnal concupiscence), but who
merited by her faith that the holy seed should be framed within her, He
formed in order to choose her, and chose in order to be formed from her.
How much more needful, then, is it for sinful flesh to be baptized in
order to escape the judgment, when the flesh which was untainted by sin
was baptized to set an example for imitation?

                CHAP. 39 [XXV.]--AN OBJECTION OF

                           PELAGIANS.

    The answer, which we have already given,[5] to those who say, "If a
sinner has begotten a sinner, a righteous man ought also to have
begotten a righteous man," we now advance in reply to such as argue that
one who is born of a baptized man ought himself to be regarded as
already baptized. "For why," they ask, "could he not have been baptized
in the loins of his father, when, according to the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Levi,[6] was able to pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?" They
who propose this argument ought to observe that Levi did not on this
account subsequently not pay tithes, because he had paid tithes already
in the loins of Abraham, but because he was ordained to the office of
the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not to pay them; otherwise
neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him,
have been tithed--because they too, whilst in the loins of Abraham, had
already paid tithes to Melchisedec.

               CHAP. 40.--AN ARGUMENT ANTICIPATED.

    And let no one contend that the descendants of Abraham might fairly
enough have paid tithes, although they had already paid tithes in the
loins of their forefather, seeing that paying tithes was an obligation
of such a nature as to require constant repetition from each several
person, just as the Israelites used to pay such contributions every year
all through life to their Levites, to whom were due various tithes from
all kinds of produce; whereas baptism is a sacrament of such a nature as
is administered once for all, and if one had already received it when in
his father, he must be considered as no other than baptized, since he
was born of a man who had been himself baptized. Well, whoever thus
argues (I will simply say, without discussing the point at length,)
should look at circumcision, which was administered once for all, and
yet was administered to each person separately and individually. Just as
therefore it was necessary in the time of that ancient sacrament for the
son of a circumcised man to be himself circumcised, so now the son of
one who has been baptized must himself also receive baptism.

 CHAP. 41.-- CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS ARE CALLED

                   " CLEAN" BY THE APOSTLE.[1]

    The apostle indeed says, "Else were your children unclean, but now
are they holy;" [2] and "therefore" they infer  "there was no necessity
for the children of believers to be baptized." I am surprised at the use
of such language by persons who deny that original sin has been
transmitted from Adam. For, if they take this passage of the apostle to
mean that the children of believers are born in a state of holiness, how
is it that even they have no doubt about the necessity of their being
baptized? Why, in fine, do they refuse to admit that any original sin is
derived from a sinful parent, if some holiness is received from a holy
parent? Now it certainly does not contravene our assertion, even if from
the faithful "holy" children are propagated, when we hold that unless
they are baptized those go into damnation, to whom our opponents
themselves shut the kingdom of heaven, although they insist that they
are without sin, whether actual or original.[3] Or, if they think it an
unbecoming thing for "holy ones" to be damned, how can it be a becoming
thing to exclude "holy ones" from the kingdom of God? They should rather
pay especial attention to this point, How can something sinful help
being derived from sinful parents, if something holy is derived from
holy parents, and uncleanness from unclean parents? For the twofold
principle was affirmed when he said, "Else were your children unclean,
but now are they holy." They should also explain to us how it is right
that the holy children of believers and the unclean children of
unbelievers are, notwithstanding their different circumstances, equally
prohibited from entering the kingdom of God, if they have not been
baptized. What avails that sanctity of theirs to the one? Now if they
were to maintain that the unclean children of unbelievers are damned,
but that the holy children of believers are unable to enter the kingdom
of heaven unless they are baptized, -- but nevertheless are not damned,
because they are "holy," --that would be some sort of a distinction; but
as it is, they equally declare respecting the holy children of holy
parents and the unclean offspring of unclean parents, that they are not
damned, since they have not any sin; and that they are excluded from the
kingdom of God because they are unbaptized. What an absurdity! Who can
suppose that such splendid geniuses do not perceive it?

           CHAP. 42.--SANCTIFICATION MANIFOLD; SACRA- 

                      MENT OF CATECHUMENS.

         Our opinions on this point are strictly in unison with the
apostle's himself, who said, "From one all to condemnation," and "from
one all to justification of life." [4] Now how consistent these
statements are with what he elsewhere says, when treating of another
point, "Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy,"
consider a while. [XXVI.] Sanctification is not of merely one measure;
for even catechumens, I take it, are sanctified in their own measure by
the sign of Christ, and the prayer of imposition of hands; and what they
receive is holy, although it is not the body of Christ, -- holier than
any food which constitutes our ordinary nourishment, because it is a
sacrament.[5] However, that very meat and drink, wherewithal the
necessities of our present life are sustained, are, according to the
same apostle, "sanctified by the word of God and prayer," [6] even the
prayer with which we beg that our bodies may be refreshed. Just as
therefore this sanctification of our ordinary food does not hinder what
enters the mouth from descending into the belly, and being ejected into
the draught,[7]] and partaking of the corruption into which everything
earthly is resolved, whence the Lord exhorts us to labour for the other
food which never perishes: [8] so the sanctification of the catechumen,
if he is not baptized, does not avail for his entrance into the kingdom
of heaven, nor for the remission of his sins. And, by parity of
reasoning, that sanctification likewise, of whatever measure it be,
which, according to the apostle, is in the children of believers, has
nothing whatever to do with the question of baptism and of the origin or
the remission of sin.[9] The apostle, in this very passage which has
occupied our attention, says that the unbeliever of a married couple is
sanctified by a believing partner: "For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
husband. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy."[2]
Now, I should say, there is not a man whose mind is so warped by
unbelief, as to suppose that, whatever sense he gives to these words,
they can possibly mean that a husband who is not a Christian should not
be baptized, because his wife is a Christian, and that he has already
obtained remission of his sins, with the certain prospect of entering
the kingdom of heaven, because he is described as being sanctified by
his wife.

 CHAP. 43 [XXVII.] --WHY THE CHILDREN OF

                THE BAPTIZED SHOULD BE BAPTIZED.

    If any man, however, is still perplexed by the question why the
children of baptized persons are baptized, let him briefly consider
this: Inasmuch as the generation of sinful flesh through the one man,
Adam, draws into condemnation all who are born of such generation, so
the generation of the Spirit of grace through the one man Jesus Christ,
draws to the justification of eternal life all who, because
predestinated, partake of this regeneration. But the sacrament of
baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regenation: Wherefore, as the
man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot
rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From
which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could
possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man
must be, after he has been born; because, "Except a man be born again,
he cannot see the kingdom of God "' Even an infant, therefore, must be
imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be
an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered
except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in
this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded
His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent.
Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to
the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from
the serpent's poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of
the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their
own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted.

CHAP. 44. --AN OBJECTION OF THE PELAGIANS.

    Nor do they fail to see this point, that his own sins are no
detriment to the parent after his conversion; they therefore raise the
question: "How much more impossible is it that they should be a
hinderance to his son?" But they who thus think do not attend to this
consideration, that as his own sins are not injurious to the father for
the very reason that he is born again of the Spirit, so in the case of
his son, unless he be in the same manner born again, the sins which he
derived from his father will prove injurious to him. Because even
renewed parents beget children, not out of the first-fruits of their
renewed condition, but carnally out of the remains of the old nature;
and the children who are thus the offspring of their parents' remaining
old nature, and are born in sinful flesh, escape from the condemnation
which is due to the old man by the sacrament of spiritual regeneration
and renewal. Now this is a consideration which, on account of the
controversies that have arisen, and may still arise, on this subject, we
ought to keep in our view and memory, -- that a full and perfect
remission of sins takes place only in baptism, that the character of the
actual man does I not at once undergo a total change, but that the
first-fruits of the Spirit in such as walk worthily change the old
carnal nature into one of like character by a process of renewal, which
increases day by day, until the entire old nature is so renovated that
the very weakness of the natural body attains to the strength and
incorruptibility of the spiritual body.

CHAP. 45 [XXVIII.]-- THE LAW OF SIX IS CALLED SIN; HOW CONCUPISCENCE
STILL REMAINS AFTER ITS EVIL HAS BEEN REMOVED IN THE BAPTIZED.

    This law of sin, however, which the apostle also designates "sin,"
when he says, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
should obey it in the lusts thereof,'' [2] does not so remain in the
members of those who are born again of water and the Spirit, as if no
remission  thereof has been made, because there is a full and perfect
remission of our sins, all the enmity being slain, which separated us
from God; but it remains in our old carnal nature, as if overcome and
destroyed, if it does not, by consenting to unlawful objects, somehow
revive, and recover its own reign and dominion. There is, however, so
clear a distinction to be seen between this old carnal nature, in which
the law of sin, or sin, is already repealed, and that life of the
Spirit, in the newness of which they who are baptized are through God's
grace born again, that the apostle deemed it too little to say of such
that they were not in sin; unless he also said that they were not in the
flesh itself, even before they departed out of this mortal life. "They
that are in the flesh," says he, "cannot please God; but ye are not in
the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in
you." [3] And indeed, as they turn to good account the flesh itself,
however corruptible it be, who apply its members to good works, and no
longer are in that flesh, since they do not mould their understanding
nor their life according to its principles; and as they in like manner
make even a good use of death, which is the penalty of the first sin,
who encounter it with fortitude and patience for their brethren's sake,
and for the faith, and in defence of whatever is true and holy and just,
-- so also do all "true yokefellows" in the faith turn to good account
that very law of sin which still remains, though remitted, in their old
carnal nature, who, because they have the new life in Christ, do not
permit lust to have dominion over them. And yet these very persons,
because they still carry about Adam's old nature, mortally generate
children to be immortally regenerated, with that propagation of sin, in
which such as are born again are not held bound, and from which such as
are born are released by being born again. As long, then, as the law by
concupiscence [1] dwells in the members, although it remains, the guilt
of it is released; but it is released only to him who has received the
sacrament of regeneration, and has already begun to be renewed. But
whatsoever is born of the old nature, which still abides with its
concupiscence, requires to be born again in order to be healed. Seeing
that believing parents, who have been both carnally born and spiritually
born again, have themselves begotten children in a carnal manner, how
could their children by any possibility, previous to their first birth,
have been born again?

            CHAP. 46.2-- GUILT MAY BE TAKEN AWAY BUT

                      CONCUPISCENCE REMAIN.

    You must not be surprised at what I have said, that although the law
of sin remains with its concupiscence, the guilt thereof is done away
through the grace of the sacrament. For as wicked deeds, and words, and
thoughts have already passed away, and cease to exist, so far as regards
the mere movements of the mind and the body, and yet their guilt remains
after they have passed away and no longer exist, unless it be done away
by the remission of sins; so, contrariwise, in this law of
concupiscence, which is not yet done away but still remains, its guilt
is done away, and continues no longer, since in baptism there takes
place a full forgiveness of sins. Indeed, if a man were to quit this
present life immediately after his baptism, there would be nothing at
all left to hold him liable, inasmuch as all which held him is released.
As, on the one hand, therefore, there is nothing strange in the fact
that the guilt of past sins of thought, and word, and deed remains
before their remission; so, on the other hand, there ought to be nothing
to create surprise, that the guilt of remaining concupiscence passes
away after the remission of sin.

CHAP. 47 [XXIX.] -- ALL THE PREDESTINATED ARE SAVED THROUGH THE ONE
MEDIATOR CHRIST, AND BY ONE AND THE SAME FAITH.

    This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus
entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to
all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world,
the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed,
nor ever Will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours,
it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the
one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of
sins. Now this same Lord of ours has never yet refused, at any period of
the human race, nor to the last judgment will He ever refuse, this His
healing to those whom, in His most sure foreknowledge and future
loving-kindness, He has predestinated to reign with Himself to life
eternal. For, previous to His birth in the flesh, and weakness in
suffering, and power in His own resurrection, He instructed all who then
lived, in the faith of those then future blessings, that they might
inherit everlasting life; whilst those who were alive when all these
things were being accomplished in Christ, and who were witnessing the
fulfilment of prophecy, He instructed in the faith of these then present
blessings; whilst again, those who have since lived, and ourselves who
are now alive, and all those who are yet to live, He does not cease to
instruct, in the faith of these now past blessings. It is therefore "one
faith" which saves all, who after their carnal birth are born again of
the Spirit, and it terminates in Him, who came to be judged for us and
to die,-- the Judge of quick and dead. But the sacraments of this "one
faith" are varied from time to time in order to its suitable
signification.

CHAP. 48. --CHRIST THE SAVIOUR EVEN OF INFANTS; CHRIST, WHEN AN INFANT,
WAS FREE FROM IGNORANCE AND MENTAL WEAKNESS.

    He is therefore the Saviour at once of infants and of adults, of
whom the angel said, "There is born unto you this day a Saviour;" [3]
and concerning whom it was declared to the Virgin Mary,[4] "Thou shalt
call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins,"
where it is plainly shown that He was called Jesus because of the
salvation which He bestows upon us,--Jesus being tantamount to the Latin
Salvator, "Saviour." Who then can be so bold as to maintain that the
Lord Christ is Jesus only for adults and not for infants also? who came
in the likeness of sinful flesh, to destroy the body of sin, with
infants' limbs fitted and suitable for no use in the extreme weakness of
such body, and His rational soul oppressed with miserable ignorance! Now
that such entire ignorance existed, I cannot suppose in the infant in
whom the Word was made flesh, that He might dwell among us; nor can I
imagine that such weakness of the mental faculty ever existed in the
infant Christ which we see in infants generally. For it is owing to such
infirmity and ignorance that infants are disturbed with irrational
affections, and are restrained by no rational command or government, but
by pains and penalties, or the terror of such; so that you can quite see
that they are children of that disobedience, which excites itself in the
members of our body in opposition to the law of the mind,-- and refuses
to be still, even when the reason wishes; nay, often is either repressed
only by some actual infliction of bodily pain, as for instance by
flogging; or is  checked only by fear, or by some such mental emotion,
but not by any admonishing of the will. Inasmuch, however, as in Him
there was the likeness of sinful flesh, He willed to pass through the
changes of the various stages of life, beginning even with infancy, so
that it would seem as if even His flesh might have arrived at death by
the gradual approach of old age, if He had not been killed while young.
Nevertheless, the death is inflicted in sinful flesh as the due of
disobedience, but in the likeness of sinful flesh it was undergone in
voluntary obedience. For when He was on His way to it, and was soon to
suffer it, He said, "Behold, the prince of this world cometh, and hath
nothing in me. But that all may know that I am doing my Father's will,
arise, let us go hence."[1] Having said these words, He went
straightway, and encountered His undeserved death, having become
obedient even unto death.

              CHAP. 49 [XXX.]-- AN OBJECTION OF THE

                           PELAGIANS.

    They therefore who say, "If through the sin of the first man it was
brought about that we must die, by the coming of Christ it should be
brought about that, believing in Him, we shall not die; "and they add
what they deem a reason, saying, "For the sin of the first transgressor
could not possibly have injured us more than the incarnation or
redemption of the Saviour has benefited us." But why do they not rather
give an attentive ear, and an unhesitating belief, to that which the
apostle has stated so unambiguously: "Since by man came death, by Man
came also the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so
in Christ shall all be made alive?"[2] For it is of nothing else than of
the resurrection of the body that he was speaking. Having said that the
bodily death of all men has come about through one man, he adds the
promise that the bodily resurrection of all men to eternal life shall
happen through one, even Christ. How can it therefore be that "the one
has injured us more by sinning than the other has benefited us by
redeeming," when by the sin of the former we die a temporal death, but
by the redemption of the latter we rise again not to a temporal, but to
a perpetual life? Our body, therefore, is dead because of sin, but
Christ's body only died without sin, in order that, having poured out
His blood without fault, "the bonds" [3] which contain the register of
all faults "might be blotted out," by which they who now believe in Him
were formerly held as debtors by the devil. And accordingly He says,
"This is my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
[4]]

CHAP. 50 [XXXI.] --WHY IT IS THAT DEATH ITSELF IS NOT ABOLISHED, ALONG
WITH SIN, BY BAPTISM.

    He might, however, have also conferred this upon believers, that
they should not even experience the death of their body. But if He had
done this, there might no doubt have been l added a certain felicity to
the flesh, but the fortitude of faith would have been diminished; for
men have such a fear of death, that they would declare Christians happy,
for nothing else than their mere immunity from dying. And no one would,
for the sake of that life which is to be so happy after death, hasten to
the grace of Christ by the power of his contempt of death itself; but
with a view to remove the trouble of death, would rather resort to a
more delicate mode of believing in Christ. More grace, therefore, than
this has He conferred on those who believe on Him; and a greater gift,
undoubtedly, has He vouchsafed to them! What great matter would it have
been for a man, on seeing that people did not die when they became
believers, himself also to believe that he was not to die? How much
greater a thing is it, how much braver, how much more laudable, so to
believe, that although one is sure to die, he can still hope to live
hereafter for evermore! At last, upon some there will be bestowed this
blessing at the last day, that they shall not feel death itself in
sudden change, but shall be caught up along with the risen in the clouds
to meet Christ in the air, and so shall they ever live with the Lord.[5]
And rightly shall it be these who receive this grace, since there will
be no posterity after them to be led to believe, not by the hope of what
they see not, but by the love of what they see. This faith is weak and
nerveless, and must not be called faith at all, inasmuch as faith is
thus defined: "Faith is the firmness of those who hope,[6] the clear
proof of things which they do not see." [7] Accordingly, in the same
Epistle to the Hebrews, where this passage occurs, after enumerating in
subsequent sentences certain worthies who pleased God by their faith, he
says: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but
seeing them afar off, and hailing them, and confessing that they were
strangers and pilgrims on the earth."[2] And then afterwards he
concluded his eulogy on faith in these words: "And these all, having
obtained a good report through faith, did not indeed receive God's
promises; for they foresaw better things for us, and that without us
they could not themselves become perfect."[2] Now this would be no
praise for faith, nor (as I said) would it be faith at all, were men in
believing to follow after rewards which they could see, -- in other
words, if on believers were bestowed the reward of immortality in this
present world.

CHAP. 51.-- WHY THE DEVIL IS SAID TO HOLD THE POWER AND DOMINION OF
DEATH.

    Hence the Lord Himself willed to die, "in order that," as it is
written of Him, "through death He might destroy him that had the power
of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage." [3] From this passage it is
shown with sufficient clearness that even the death of the body came
about by the instigation and work of the devil,-- in a word, from the
sin which he persuaded man to commit; nor is there any other reason why
he should be said in strictness of truth to hold the power of death.
Accordingly, He who died without any sin, original or actual, said in
the passage I have already quoted: "Behold, the prince of this world,"
that is, the devil, who had the power of death, "cometh and findeth
nothing in me,"--meaning, he shall find no sin in me, because of which
he has caused men to die. As if the question were asked Him: Why then
should you die? He says, "That all may know that I am doing the will of
my Father, arise, let us go hence;"[4] that is, that I may die, though I
have no cause of death from sin under the author of sin, but only from
obedience and righteousness, having become obedient unto death. Proof is
likewise afforded us by this passage, that the fact of the faithful
overcoming the fear of death is a part of the struggle of faith itself;
for all struggle would indeed be at an end, if immortality were at once
to become the reward of them that believe.

CHAP. 52 [XXXII.] --WHY CHRIST, AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, WITHDREW HIS
PRESENCE FROM THE WORLD.

           Although, therefore, the Lord wrought many visible miracles
in order that faith might sprout at first and be fed by infant
nourishment, and grow to its full strength by and by out of this
softness (for as faith becomes stronger the less does it seek such
help); He nevertheless wished us to wait quietly, without visible
inducements, for the promised hope, in order that "the just might live
by faith;"[5] and so great was this wish of His, that though He rose
from the dead the third day, He did not desire to remain among men, but,
after leaving a proof of his resurrection by showing Himself in the
flesh to those whom He deigned to have for His witnesses of this event,
He ascended into heaven, withdrawing Himself thus from their sight, and
conferring no such thing on the flesh of any one of them as He had
displayed in His own flesh, in order that they too "might live by
faith," and in the present world might wait in patience and without
visible inducements for the reward of that righteousness in which men
live by faith, -a reward which should hereafter be visibly and openly
bestowed. To this signification I believe that passage must be referred
which He speaks concerning the Holy Ghost: "He will not come, unless I
depart." [6] For this was in fact saying Ye shall not be able to live
righteously by faith, which ye shall have as a gift of mine, -- that is,
from the Holy Ghost,-- unless I withdraw from your eyes that which ye
now gaze upon, in order that your heart may advance in spiritual growth
by fixing its faith on invisible things. This righteousness of faith He
constantly commends to them. Speaking of the Holy Ghost, He says, "He
shall reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
of sin, because they have not believed on me: of righteousness, because
I go to the Father, and ye shall see me no more." [7] What is that
righteousness, whereby men were not to see Him, except that "the just is
to live by faith," and that we, not looking at the things which are
seen, but at those which are not seen, are to wait in the Spirit for the
hope of the righteousness that is by faith?

CHAP. 53 [XXXIII.] -- AN OBJECTION OF THE PELAGIANS.

    But those persons who say, "If the death of the body has happened by
sin, we of course ought not to die after that remission of sins which
the Redeemer has bestowed upon us," do not understand how it is that
some things, whose guilt God has cancelled in order that they may not
stand in our way after this life, He yet permits to remain for the
contest of faith, in order that they may become the means of instructing
and exercising those who are advancing in the struggle after holiness.
Might not some man, by not understanding this, raise a question and ask,
If God has said to man because of his sin, "In the sweat of thy brow
thou shall eat thy bread: thorns also and thistles shall the ground
bring forth to thee,"[1] how comes it to pass that this labour and toil
continues since the remission of sins, and that the ground of believers
yields them this rough and terrible harvest? Again, since it was said to
the woman in consequence of her sin, "In sorrow shall thou bring forth
children," [2] how is it that believing women, notwithstanding the
remission of their sins, suffer the same pains in the process of
parturition? And nevertheless it is an incontestable fact, that by
reason of the sin which they had committed, the primeval man and woman
heard these sentences pronounced by God, and deserved them; nor does any
one resist these words of the sacred volume, which I have quoted about
man's labour and woman's travail, unless some one who is utterly hostile
to the catholic faith, and an adversary to the inspired writings.

CHAP. 54 [XXXIV.]-- WHY PUNISHMENT IS INFLICTED, AFTER SIN HAS BEEN
FORGIVEN. 

    But, inasmuch as there are not wanting persons of such character,
just as we say in answer to those who raise this question, that those
things are punishments of sins before remission, which after remission
become contests and exercises of the righteous; so again to such persons
as are similarly perplexed about the death of the body, our answer ought
to be so drawn as to show both that we acknowledge it to have accrued
because of sin, and that we are not discouraged by the punishment of
sins having been bequeathed to us for an exercise of discipline, in
order that our great fear of it may be overcome by us as we advance in
holiness. For if only small virtue accrued to "the faith which worketh
by love" in conquering the fear of death, there would be no great glory
for the martyrs; nor could the Lord say, "Greater love hath no man than
this, that he lay down his life for his friends;" [3] which John in his
epistle expresses in these terms: "As He laid down His  life for us, so
ought we to lay down our lives for  the brethren." [4] In vain,
therefore, would commendation be bestowed on the most eminent suffering
in encountering or despising death for righteousness' sake, if there
were not in death, itself a really great and very severe trial. And the
man who overcomes the fear of it by his faith, procures a great glory
and just recompense for his faith itself. Wherefore it ought to surprise
no one, either that the death of the body could not possibly have
happened to man unless sin had been previously committed, since it was
of this that it was to become the punishment; nor that after the
remission of their sins it comes to the faithful, in order that in their
triumphing over the fear of it, the fortitude of righteousness may be
exercised.

CHAP. 55.-- TO RECOVER THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH HAD BEEN LOST BY SIN, MAN
HAS TO STRUGGLE, WITH ABUNDANT LABOUR AND SORROW.

    The flesh which was originally created was not that sinful flesh in
which man refused to maintain his righteousness amidst the delights of
Paradise, wherefore God determined that sinful flesh should propagate
itself after it had sinned, and struggle for the recovery of holiness,
in many toils and troubles. Therefore, after Adam was driven out of
Paradise, he had to dwell over against Eden, --that is, over against the
garden of delights,--to indicate that it is by labours and sorrows,
which are the very contraries of delights, that sinful flesh had to be
educated, after it had failed amidst its first pleasures to maintain its
holiness, previous to its becoming sinful flesh. As therefore our first
parents, by their subsequent return to righteous living, by which they
are supposed to have been released from the worst penalty of their
sentence through the blood of the Lord, were still not deemed worthy to
be recalled to Paradise during their life on earth, so in like manner
our sinful flesh, even if a man lead a righteous life in it after the
remission of his sins, does not deserve to be immediately exempted from
that death which it has derived from its propagation of sin.[5]

CHAP. 56.--THE CASE OF DAVID, IN ILLUSTRATION.

    Some such thought has occurred to us about the patriarch David, in
the Book of Kings. After the prophet was sent to him, and threatened him
with the evils which were to arise from the anger oF God on account of
the sin which he had committed, he obtained pardon by the confession of
his sin, and the prophet replied that the shame and crime had been
remitted to him; but yet, for all that, the evils with which God had
threatened him followed in due course, so that he was brought low by his
son. Now why is not an objection at once raised here: "If it was on
account of his sin that God threatened him, why, when the sin was
forgiven, did He fulfil His threat?" except because, if the cavil had
been raised, it would have been most correctly answered, that the
remission of the sin was given that the man might not be hindered from
gaining the life eternal, but the threatened evil was still carried into
effect, in order that the man's piety might be exercised and approved in
the lowly condition to which he was reduced. Thus also God has both
inflicted on man the death of his body, because of his sin, and, after
his sins are forgiven, has not released him in order that he may be
exercised in righteousness.

CHAP. 57 [XXXV.] --TURN TO NEITHER HAND.

    Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without
filtering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in
the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of
others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. "Let us turn
neither to the right hand nor to the left.'' (1) For to turn to the
right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and
to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one's sins with a sort of
impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. "God
indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand," (2) even He who alone is
without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; "but the ways on the left
hand are perverse," (3) in friendship with sins. Of such inflexibility
were those youths of twenty years, (4) who foretokened in figure God's
new people; they entered the land of promise; they, it is said, turned
neither to the fight hand nor to the left.s Now this age of twenty is
not to be compared with the age of children's innocence, but if I
mistake not, this number is the shadow and echo of a mystery. For the
Old Testament has its excellence in the five books of Moses, while the
New Testament is most refulgent in the authority of the four Gospels.
These numbers, when multiplied together, reach to the number twenty:
four times five, or five times four, are twenty. Such a people (as I
have already said), instructed in the kingdom of heaven by the two
Testaments--the Old and the New--turning neither to the right hand, in a
proud assumption of righteousness, nor to the left hand, in a reckless
delight in sin, shall enter into the land of promise, where we shall
have no longer either to pray that sins may be forgiven to us, or to
fear that they may be punished in us, having been freed from them all by
that Redeemer, who, not being "sold under sin," (6) "hath redeemed
Israel out of all his iniquities," (7) whether committed in the actual
life, or derived from the original transgression.

CHAP. 58 [XXXVI.]--"LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH" IMPLIES THE REALITY.

    It is no small concession to the authority and truthfulness of the
inspired pages which those persons have made, who, although unwilling to
admit openly in their writings that remission of sins is necessary for
infants, have yet confessed that they need redemption. Nothing that they
have said differs indeed from another word, even that which is derived
from Christian instruction. Whilst by those who faithfully read,
faithfully hear, and faithfully hold fast the Holy Scriptures, it cannot
be doubted that from that flesh, which first became sinful flesh by the
choice of sin, and which has been subsequently transmitted to all
through successive generations, there has been propagated a sinful
flesh, with the single exception of that "likeness of sinful flesh,"
(8)--which likeness, however, there could not have been, had there not
been also the reality of sinful flesh.

CHAP. 59.--WHETHER THE SOUL IS PROPAGATED; ON OBSCURE POINTS, CONCERNING
WHICH THE SCRIPTURES GIVE US NO ASSISTANCE, WE MUST BE ON OUR GUARD
AGAINST FORMING HASTY JUDGMENTS AND OPINIONS; THE SCRIPTURES ARE CLEAR
ENOUGH ON THOSE SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO SALVATION.

    Concerning the soul, indeed, the question arises, whether it, too,
is propagated in the same way [as the flesh,] and bound by the same
guilt, which is forgiven to it--for we cannot say that it is only the
flesh of the infant, and not his soul also, which requires the help of a
Saviour and Redeemer, or that the latter must not be included in that
thanksgiving in the Psalms, where we read and repeat, "Bless the Lord, O
my soul, and forget not all His benefits; who forgiveth all thine
iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; who redeemeth thy life from
destruction." (9) Or if it be not likewise propagated, we may ask,
whether, by the very fact of its being mingled with and weighed down by
the sinful flesh, it still has need of the remission of its own sin, and
of a redemption of its own, God being judge, in the height of His
foreknowledge, (10) what infants do not deserve (11) to be absolved from
that guilt, even before they are born, or have in any instance ever done
anything good or evil. The question also arises, how God (even if He
does not create souls by natural propagation) can yet not be the Author
of that very guilt, on account of which redemption by the sacrament is
necessary to the infant's soul. The subject is a wide and important one,
(12) and requires another treatise. The discussion,  however, so far as
I can judge, ought to be conducted with temper and moderation, so as to
deserve the praise of cautious inquiry, rather than the censure of
headstrong assertion. For whenever a question arises on an unusually
obscure subject, on which no assistance can be rendered by clear and
certain proofs of the Holy Scriptures, the presumption of man ought to
restrain itself; nor should it attempt anything definite by leaning to
either side. But if I must indeed be ignorant concerning any points of
this sort, as to how they can be explained and proved, this much I
should still believe, that from this very circumstance the Holy
Scriptures would possess a most clear authority, whenever a point arose
which no man could be ignorant of, without imperilling the salvation
which has been promised him. You have now before you, [my dear
Marcellinus,] this treatise, worked out to the best of my ability. I
only wish that its value equalled its length; for its length I might
probably be able to justify, only I should fear that, by adding the
justification, I should stretch the prolixity beyond  your endurance.

 BOOK III.,

IN THE SHAPE OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE SAME MARCELLINUS.

IN WHICH AUGUSTIN REFUTES SOME ERRORS OF PELAGIUS ON THE QUESTION OF THE
MERITS OF SINS AND THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS--BEING SUNDRY ARGUMENTS OF HIS
WHICH HE HAD INTERSPERSED AMONG HIS EXPOSITIONS OF SAINT PAUL, IN
OPPOSITION TO ORIGINAL SIN.

To his beloved son Marcellinus, Augustin, bishop and servant of Christ
and of the servants of Christ, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

CHAP. I [I.]--PELAGIUS ESTEEMED A HOLY MAN; HIS EXPOSITIONS ON SAINT
PAUL.

    THE questions which you proposed that I should write to you about,
in opposition to those persons who say that Adam would have died even if
he had not sinned, and that nothing of his sin has passed to his
posterity by natural transmission; and especially on the subject of the
baptism of infants, which the universal Church, with most pious and
maternal care, maintains in constant celebration; and whether in this
life there are, or have been, or ever will be, children of men without
any sin at all--I have already discussed in two lengthy books. And I
venture to think that if in them I have not met all the points which
perplex all men's minds on such matters (an achievement which, I
apprehend,--nay, which I have no doubt,--lies beyond the power either of
myself, or of any other person), I have at all events prepared something
in the shape of a firm ground on which those who defend the faith
delivered to us by our fathers, against the novel opinions of its
opponents, may at any time take their stand, not unarmed for the
contest. However, within the last few days I have read some writings by
Pelagius,--a holy man, as I am told, who has made no small progress in
the Christian life,--containing some very brief expository notes on the
epistles of the Apostle Paul; (1) and therein I found, on coming to the
passage where the apostle says, "By one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men," (2) an argument which
is used by those who say that infants are not burdened with original
sin. Now I confess that I have not refuted this argument in my lengthy
treatise, because it did not indeed once occur to me that anybody was
capable of thinking such sentiments. Being, however, unwilling to add to
that work, which I had concluded, I have thought it right to insert in
this epistle both the argument itself in the very words in which I read
it, and the answer which it seems to me proper to give to it.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--PELAGIUS' OBJECTION; INFANTS RECKONED AMONG THE NUMBER OF
BELIEVERS AND THE FAITHFUL.

    In these terms, then, the argument is stated: --"But they who deny
the transmission of sin endeavour to impugn it thus: If (say they)
Adam's sin injured even those who do not sin, therefore Christ's
righteousness also profits even those who do not believe; because 'In
like manner, nay, much more,' he says, 'are men saved by one, than they
had previously perished by one.'" Now to this argument, I repeat, I
advanced no reply in the two books which I previously addressed to you;
nor, indeed, had I proposed to myself such a task. But now I beg you
first of all to observe, when they say, "If Adam's sin injures even
those who do not sin, then Christ's righteousness also profits even
those who do not believe," how absurd and false they judge it to be,
that the righteousness of Christ should profit even those who do not
believe; and that thence they think to put together such an argument as
this: That no more could the first man's sin possibly do injury to
infants who commit no sin, than the righteousness of Christ can benefit
any who do not believe. Let them therefore tell us what is the benefit
of Christ's righteousness to baptized infants; let them by all means
tell us what they mean. For of course, since they do not forget that
they are Christians themselves, they have no doubt that there is some
benefit. But whatever be this benefit, it is incapable (as they
themselves assert) of benefiting those who do not believe. Whence they
are compelled to class baptized infants in the number of believers, and
to assent to the authority of the Holy Universal Church, which does not
account those unworthy of the name of believers, to whom the
righteousness of Christ could be, according to them, of no use except as
believers. As, therefore, by the answer of those, through whose agency
they are born again, the Spirit of righteousness transfers to them that
faith which, of their own will, they could not yet have; so the sinful
flesh of those, through whose agency they are born, transfers to them
that injury, which they have not yet contracted in their own life. And
even as the Spirit of life regenerates them in Christ as believers, so
also the body of death had generated them in Adam as sinners. The one
generation is carnal, the other Spiritual; the one makes children of the
flesh, the other children of the Spirit; the one children of death, the
other children of the resurrection; the one the children of the world,
the other the children of God; the one children of wrath, the other
children of mercy; and thus the one binds them under original sin, the
other liberates them from the bond of every sin.

              CHAP. 3.--PELAGIUS MAKES GOD UNJUST.

    We are driven at last to yield our assent on divine authority to
that which we are unable to investigate with even the dearest intellect.
It is well that they remind us themselves that Christ's righteousness is
unable to profit any but believers, while they yet allow that it
somewhat profits infants; according to this (as we have already said)
they must, without evasion, find room for baptized infants among the
number of believers. Consequently, if they are not baptized, they will
have to rank amongst those who do not believe; and therefore they will
not even have life, but "the wrath of God abideth on them," inasmuch as
"he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him;" (1) and they are under judgment, since "he that
believeth not is condemned already;" (2) and they shall be condemned,
since "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." (3) Let them, now, then see to it with
what justice they can hold or strive to maintain that human beings have
no part in eternal life, but in the wrath of God, and incur the divine
judgment and condemnation, who are without sin; if, that is, as they
cannot have any actual sin, so also they have within them no original
sin.

                            CHAP. 4.

    To the other points which Pelagius makes them urge who argue against
original sin, I have already, I think, sufficiently and clearly replied
in the two former books of my lengthy treatise. Now if my reply should
seem to any persons to be brief or obscure, I beg their pardon, and
request the favour of their coming to terms with those who perhaps
censure my treatise, not for being too brief, but rather as being too
long; whilst any who still do not understand the points which I cannot
help thinking I have explained as clearly as the nature of the subject
allowed me, shall certainly hear no blame or reproach from me for
indifference, or want of understanding me. (4) I would rather that they
should pray God to give them intelligence.

CHAP. 5 [III.]--PELAGIUS PRAISED BY SOME; ARGUMENTS AGAINST ORIGINAL SIN
PROPOSED BY PELAGIUS IN HIS COMMENTARY.

    But we must not indeed omit to observe that this good and
praiseworthy man (as they who know him describe him to be) has not
advanced this argument against the natural transmission of sin in his
own person, but has reproduced what is alleged by those persons who
disapprove of the doctrine, and this, not merely so far as I have just
quoted and confuted the allegation, but also as to those other points on
which I have now further undertaken to furnish a reply. Now, after
saying, "If (they say) Adam's sin injured even those who do not sin,
therefore Christ's righteousness also profits even those who do not
believe,"--which sentence, you will perceive from what I have said in
answer to it, is not only not repugnant to what we hold, but even
reminds us what we ought to hold,--he at once goes on to add, "Then they
contend, if baptism cleanses away that old sin, those children who are
born of two baptized parents must needs be free from this sin, for they
could not have transmitted to their children what they did not possess
themselves. Besides," says he, "if the soul is not of transmission, but
only the flesh, then only the latter has the transmission of sin, and it
alone deserves punishment; for they allege that it would be unjust for
the soul, which is only now born, and comes not of the lump of Adam, to
bear the burden of so old an alien sin. They say, likewise," says
Pelagius, "that it cannot by any means be conceded that God, who remits
to a man his own sins, should impute to him another's."

 CHAP. 6.--WHY PELAGIUS DOES NOT SPEAK IN HIS OWN PERSON.

    Pray, don't you see how Pelagius has inserted the whole of this
paragraph in his writings, not in his own person, but in that of others,
knowing so well the novelty of this unheard-of doctrine, which is now
beginning to raise its voice  against the ancient ingrafted opinion of
the Church, that he was ashamed or afraid to acknowledge it himself? And
perhaps he does not himself think that a man is born without sin for
whom he confesses that baptism to be necessary by which comes the
remission of sins; or that the man is condemned without sin who must be
reckoned, when unbaptized, in the class of non-believers, since the
gospel of course cannot deceive us, when it most clearly asserts, "He
that believeth not shall be damned;" (1) or, lastly, that the image of
God, when without sin, is not admitted into the kingdom of God,
forasmuch as "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God," (2)--and so must either be precipitated
into eternal death without sin, or, what is still more absurd, must have
eternal life outside the kingdom of God; for the Lord, when foretelling
what He should say to His people at last,--"Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the
world," (3)--also clearly indicated what the kingdom was of which He was
speaking, by concluding thus: "So these shall go away into everlasting
punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." (4) These opinions,
then, and others which spring from the central error, I believe so
worthy a man, and so good a Christian, does not at all accept, as being
too perverse and repugnant to Christian truth. But it is quite possible
that he may, by the very arguments of those who deny the transmission of
sin, be still so far distressed as to be anxious to hear or know what
can be said in reply to them; and on this account he was both unwilling
to keep silent the tenets propounded by them who deny the transmission
of sin, in order that he might get the question in due time discussed,
and, at the same time, declined to report the opinions in his own
person, lest he should be supposed to entertain them himself.

CHAP. 7 [IV.]--PROOF OF ORIGINAL SIN IN INFANTS.

    Now, although I may not be able myself to refute the arguments of
these men, I yet see how necessary it is to adhere closely to the
clearest statements of the Scriptures, in order that the obscure
passages may be explained by help of these, or, if the mind be as yet
unequal to either perceiving them when explained, or investigating them
whilst abstruse, let them be believed without misgiving. But what can be
plainer than the many weighty testimonies of the divine declarations,
which afford to us the dearest proof possible that without union with
Christ there is no man who can attain to eternal life and salvation; and
that no man can unjustly be damned,--that is, separated from that life
and salvation,--by the judgment of God? The inevitable conclusion from
these truths is this, that, as nothing else is effected when infants are
baptized except that they are incorporated into the church, in other
words, that they are united with the body and members of Christ, unless
this benefit has been bestowed upon them, they are manifestly in danger
of (5) damnation. Damned, however, they could not be if they really had
no sin. Now, since their tender age could not possibly have contracted
sin in its own life, it remains for us, even if we are as yet unable to
understand, at least to believe that infants inherit original sin.

CHAP. 8.--JESUS  IS THE SAVIOUR EVEN OF INFANTS.

    And therefore, if there is an ambiguity in the apostle's words when
he says, "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and
so it passed upon all men;" (6) and if it is possible for them to be
drawn aside, and applied to some other sense,--is there anything
ambiguous in this statement: "Except a man be born again of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God?" (2) Is this,
again, ambiguous: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His
people from their sins?" (7) Is there any doubt of what this means: "The
whole need not a physician, but they that are sick?" (8)--that is, Jesus
is not needed by those who have no sin, but by those who are to be saved
from sin. Is there anything, again, ambiguous in this: "Except men eat
the flesh of the Son of man," that is, become partakers of His body,
"they shall not have life?" (9) By these and similar statements, which I
now pass over, --absolutely clear in the light of God, and absolutely
certain by His authority,--does not truth proclaim without ambiguity,
that unbaptized infants not only cannot enter into the kingdom of God,
but cannot have everlasting life, except in the body of Christ, in order
that they may be incorporated into which they are washed in the
sacrament of baptism? Does not truth, without any dubiety, testify that
for no other reason are they carried by pious hands to Jesus (that is,
to Christ, the Saviour and Physician), than that they may be healed of
the plague of their sin by the medicine of His sacraments? Why then do
we delay so to understand the apostle's very words, of which we perhaps
used to have some doubt, that they may agree with these statements of
which we can have no manner of doubt?

CHAP. 9.--THE AMBIGUITY OF "ADAM IS THE FIGURE OF HIM TO COME."

    To me, however, no doubt presents itself about the whole of this
passage, in which the apostle speaks of the condemnation of many through
the sin of one, and the justification of many through the righteousness
of One, except as to the words, "Adam is the figure of Him that was to
come." (1) For this phrase in reality not only suits the sense which
understands that Adam's posterity were to be born of the same form as
himself along with sin, but the words are also capable of being drawn
out into several distinct meanings. For we have ourselves perhaps
actually contended for various senses from the words in question at
different times, (2) and very likely we shall propound yet another view,
which, however, will not be incompatible with the sense here mentioned;
and even Pelagius has not always expounded the passage in one way. All
the rest, however, of the passage in which these doubtful words occur,
if its statements are carefully examined and treated, as I have tried my
best to do in the first book of this treatise, will not (in spite of the
obscurity of style necessarily engendered by the subject itself) fail to
show the incompatibility of any other meaning than that which has
secured the adhesion of the universal Church from the earliest
times--that believing infants have obtained through the baptism of
Christ the remission of original sin.

CHAP. 10 [V.]--HE SHOWS THAT CYPRIAN HAD NOT DOUBTED THE ORIGINAL SIN OF
INFANTS.

    Accordingly, it is not without reason that the blessed Cyprian a
carefully shows how from the very first the Church has held this as a
well understood article of faith. When he was asserting the fitness of
infants only just born to receive Christ's baptism, on a certain
occasion when he was consulted whether this ought to be administered
before the eighth day, he endeavoured, as far as he could, to prove that
they were perfect, (4) lest any one should suppose, from the number of
the days (because it was on the eighth day that infants were before
circumcised), that they so far lacked perfection. However, after
bestowing upon them the full support of his argument, he still confessed
that they were not free from original sin; because if he had denied
this, he would have removed all reason for the very baptism which he was
maintaining their fitness to receive. You can, if you wish, read for
yourself the epistle of the illustrious martyr On the Baptism of Little
Children; for it cannot fail to be within reach at Carthage. But I have
deemed it right to transcribe some few statements of it into this letter
of mine, so far as applies to the question before us; and I pray you to
mark them carefully. "Now with respect," says he, "to the case of
infants, whom you declared it  would be improper to baptize if presented
within the second and third day after their birth, since that due regard
ought to be paid to the law of circumcision of old, so that you thought
that the infant should not be baptized and sanctified before the eighth
day after its birth,--a far different view has been formed of the
question in our council. Not a man there assented to what you thought
ought to be done; but the whole of us rather determined that to no one
born of men ought God's mercy and grace to be denied. For since the Lord
in His gospel says, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives,
but to save them,' (5) so far as in us lies, not a soul ought, if
possible, to be lost." You observe how in these words he supposes that
it is fraught with ruin and death, not only to the flesh, but also to
the soul, for one to depart this life without that saving sacrament.
Wherefore, if he said nothing else, it was competent to us to conclude
from his words that without sin the soul could not perish. See, however,
what (when he shortly afterwards maintains the innocence of infants) he
at the same time allows concerning them in the plainest terms: "But if,"
says he, "anything could hinder men from the attainment of grace, then
their heavier sins might rather hinder those who have reached the stages
of adults, and advanced life, and old age. Since, however, remission of
sins is given even to the greatest sinners after they have believed,
however much they have previously sinned against God, and since nobody
is forbidden baptism and grace, how much more ought an infant not to be
forbidden who newborn has done no sin, except that from having  been
born cam ally after Adam he has contracted from his very birth the
contagion of the primeval death! How, too, does this fact contribute in
itself the more easily to their reception of the forgiveness of sins,
that the remission which

 they have is not of their own sins, but of those of another !"

CHAP. 11. --THE ANCIENTS ASSUMED ORIGINAL SIN.

    You see with what confidence this great man expresses himself after
the ancient and undoubted rule of faith. In advancing such very certain
statements, his object was by help of these firm conclusions to prove
the uncertain point which had been submitted to him by his
correspondent, and concerning which he informs him that a decree of a
council had been passed, to the effect that, if an infant were brought
even before the eighth day after his birth, no one should hesitate to
baptize him. Now it was not then determined or confirmed by the council
that infants were held bound by original sin as if it were new, or as if
it were attacked by the opposition of some one; but when another
controversy was being conducted, and the question was discussed, in
reference to the law of the circumcision of the flesh, whether they
ought to be baptized before the eighth day. None agreed with the person
who denied this; because it was not an open question admitting of
discussion, but was fixed and unassailable, that the soul would forfeit
eternal salvation if it ended this life without obtaining the sacrament
of baptism: but at the same time infants fresh from the womb were held
to be affected only by the guilt of original sin. On this account,
although remission of sins was easier in their case, because the sins
were derived from another, it was nevertheless indispensable. It was on
sure grounds like these that the uncertain question of the eighth day
was solved, and the council decided that after a man was born, not a day
ought to be lost in rendering him that succour which should prevent his
perishing for ever. When also a reason was given for the circumcision of
the flesh as being itself a shadow of what was to be, its purport was
not that we should understand that baptism ought to be administered on
the eighth day after birth, but rather that we are spiritually
circumcised in the resurrection of Christ, who rose  from the dead on
the third day, indeed, after His passion, but among the days of the
week, by  which time is counted, on the eighth, that is, on the first
day after the Sabbath.

CHAP. 12 [VI.]-- THE UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS RESPECTING ORIGINAL SIN.

    And now, again, with a strange boldness in new controversy, certain
persons are endeavouring to make us uncertain on a point which our
forefathers used to bring forward as most certainly fixed, whenever they
would solve such questions as seemed uncertain to some. When this
controversy, indeed, first began, I am unable to say; but one thing I
know, that even the holy Jerome, who is in our own day renowned for
great industry and learning in ecclesiastical literature, for the
solution of sundry questions treated in his writings, makes use of the
same most certain assumption without exhibition of proofs. For instance,
in his commentary on the prophet Jonah, when he comes to the passage
where the infants were mentioned as chastened by the fast, he says:(1)
"The greatest age comes first, and then all the rest is pervaded down to
the least.(2) For there is no man without sin, whether the span of his
age be but that of a single day, or he reckon many years to his life.
For if the very stars are unclean in the sight of God,(3) how much more
is a worm and corruption, such as are they who are held subject to the
sin of the offending Adam?" If, indeed, we could readily interrogate
this most learned man, how many authors who have treated of the divine
Scriptures. in both languages,(4) and have written on Christian
controversies, would he mention to us, who have never held any other
opinion since  the Church of Christ was rounded,-- who neither received
any other from their forefathers, nor handed down any other to their
posterity? My own reading, indeed, has been far more limited, but yet I
do not recollect ever having heard of any other doctrine on this point
from Christians, who accept the two Testaments, whether established in
the Catholic Church, or in any heretical or schismatic body whatever. I
do not remember, I say, that I have at any time found any other doctrine
in such writers as have contributed anything to literature of this kind,
whether they have followed the canonical Scriptures, or have supposed
that they have followed them, or had wished to be so supposed. From what
quarter this question has suddenly come upon us I know not. A short time
ago,(5) in a passing conversation with certain persons while we were at
Carthage, my ears were suddenly offended with such a proposition as
this: "That infants are not baptized for the purpose of receiving
remission of sin, but that they may be sanctified in Christ." Although I
was much disturbed by so novel an opinion, still, as there was no
opportunity afforded me for gainsaying it, and as its propounders were
not persons whose influence gave me anxiety, I readily let the subject
slip into neglect and oblivion. And lo! it is now maintained with
burn-ins zeal against the Church; lo! it is committed to our permanent
notice by writing; nay, the matter is brought to such a pitch of
distracting influence, that we are even consulted on it by our brethren;
and we are actually obliged to oppose its progress both by disputation
and by writing.

CHAP. 13 [VII.] --THE ERROR OF JOVINIANUS DID NOT EXTEND SO FAR.

    A few years ago there lived at Rome one Jovinian,(1) who is said to
have persuaded nuns of even advanced age to marry,-- not, indeed, by
seduction, as if he wanted to make any of them his wife, but by
contending that virgins who dedicated themselves to the ascetic life had
no more merit before God than believing wives. It never entered his
mind, however, along with this conceit, to venture to affirm that
children of men are born without original sin. If, indeed, he had added
such an opinion, the women might have more readily consented to marry,
to give birth to such pure offspring. When this man's writings (for he
dared to write) were by the brethren forwarded to Jerome to refute, he
not only discovered no such error in them, but, while looking out his
conceits for refutation, he found among other passages this very clear
testimony to the doctrine of man's original sin, from which Jerome
indeed felt satisfied of the man's belief of that doctrine.(2) These are
his words when treating of it: "He who says that he abides in Christ,
ought himself also to walk even as He walked.(3) We give our opponent
the option to choose which alternative he likes. Does he abide in
Christ, or does he not? If he does, then, let him walk like Christ. If,
however, it is a rash thing to undertake to resemble the excellences of
Christ, he abides not in Christ, because he walks not as Christ did. He
did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth;(4) who, when He
was reviled, reviled not again; and as a lamb before its shearer is
dumb, so He opened not His mouth;(5) to whom the prince of this world
came, and found nothing in Him;(6) whom, though He had done no sin, God
made sin for us.(7) We, however, according to the Epistle of James, all
commit many sins;(8) and none of us is pure from uncleanness, even if
his life should be but of one day.(9) For who shall boast that he has a
clean heart? Or who shall be confident that he is pure from sins? We are
held guilty according to the likeness of Adam's transgression.
Accordingly David also says: 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in
sin did my mother conceive me.'"(10)

CHAP. 14.--THE OPINIONS OF ALL CONTROVERSIALISTS WHATEVER ARE NOT,
HOWEVER, CANONICAL AUTHORITY; ORIGINAL SIN, HOW ANOTHER'S; WE WERE ALL
ONE MAN IN ADAM.

    I have not quoted these words as if we might rely upon the opinions
of every disputant as on canonical authority; but I have done it, that
it may be seen how, from the beginning down to the present age, which
has given birth to this novel opinion, the doctrine of original sin has
been guarded with the utmost constancy as a part of the Church's faith,
so that it is usually adduced as most certain ground whereon to refute
other opinions when false, instead of being itself exposed to refutation
by any one as false. Moreover, in the sacred books of the canon, the
authority of this doctrine is vigorously asserted in the clearest and
fullest way. The apostle exclaims: "By one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men, in which all
have sinned;(11) Now from these words it cannot certainly be said, that
Adam's sin has injured even those who commit no sin, for the Scripture
says, "In which all have sinned." Nor, indeed, are those sins of infancy
so said to be another's, as if they did not belong to the infants at
all, inasmuch as all then sinned in Adam, when in his nature, by virtue
of that Innate power whereby he was able to produce them, they were all
as yet the one Adam; but they are called another's,(12) because as yet
they were not living their own lives, but the life of the one man
contained whatsoever was in his future posterity.

CHAP. 15 [VIII.]-- WE ALL SINNED ADAM'S SIN.

    "It is," they say, "by no means conceded that God who remits to a
man his own sins imputes to him another's." He remits, indeed, but it is
to those regenerated by the Spirit, not to those generated by the flesh;
but He imputes to a man no longer the sins of another, but only his 
own. They were no doubt the sins of another, whilst as yet they were not
in existence who bore them when propagated; but now the sins belong to
them by carnal generation, to whom they have not yet been remitted by
spiritual regeneration.

CHAP. 16.--ORIGIN OF ERRORS; A SIMILE SOUGHT FROM THE FORESKIN OF THE
CIRCUMCISED, AND FROM THE CHAFF OF WHEAT.

    "But surely," say they, "if baptism cleanses the primeval sin, they
who are born of two bap- tized parents ought to be free from this sin;
for these could not have transmitted to their children that thing which
they did not themselves possess." Now observe whence error usually
thrives: it is when persons are able to start subjects which they are
not able to understand. For before what audience, and in what words, can
I explain how it is that sinful mortal beginnings bring no obstacle to
those who have inaugurated other, immortal, beginnings, and at the same
time prove an obstacle to those whom those very persons, against whom it
was not an obstacle, have begotten out of the self-same sinful
beginnings? How can a man understand these things, whose labouring mind
is impeded both by its own prejudiced opinions and by the chain of its
own stolid obstinacy? If indeed I had undertaken my cause in opposition
to those who either altogether forbid the baptism of infants, or else
contend that it is superfluous to baptize them alleging that as they are
born of believing parents, they must needs enjoy the merit of their
parents; then it would have been my duty to have roused myself perhaps
to greater labour and effort for the purpose of refuting their opinion.
In that case, if I encountered a difficulty before obtuse and
contentious men in refuting error and inculcating truth, owing to the
obscurity which besets the nature of the subject, I should probably
resort to such illustrations as were palpable and at hand; and I should
in my turn ask them some questions, -- how, for instance, if they were
puzzled to know in what way sin, after being cleansed by baptism, still
remained in those who were begotten of baptized parents, they would
explain how it is that the foreskin, after being removed by
circumcision, should still remain in the sons of the circumcised? or
again, how it happens that the chaff which is winnowed off so carefully
by human labour still keeps its place in the grain which springs from
the winnowed wheat?

CHAP. 17 [IX.] -- CHRISTIANS DO NOT ALWAYS BEGET CHRISTIAN, NOR THE
PURE, PURE CHILDREN,

    With these and such like palpable arguments, should I endeavour, as
I best could, to convince those persons who believed that sacraments of
cleansing were superfluously applied to the children of the cleansed,
how right is the judgment of baptizing the infants of baptized parents,
and how it may happen that to a man who has within him the twofold
seed--of death in the flesh, and of immortality in the spirit --that may
prove no obstacle, regenerated as he is by the Spirit, which is an
obstacle to his son, who is generated by the flesh; and that that may be
cleansed in the one by remission, which in the other still requires
cleansing by like remission, just as in the case supposed of
circumcision, and as in the case of the winnowing and thrashing. But
now, when we are contending with those who allow that the children of
the baptized ought to be baptized, we may much more conveniently conduct
our discussion, and can say: You who assert that the children of such
persons as have been cleansed from the pollution of sin ought to have
been born without sin, why do you not perceive that by the same rule you
might just as well say that the children of Christian parents ought to
have been born Christians? Why, therefore, do you rather maintain that
they ought to become Christians? Was there not in their parents, to whom
it is said, "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?"(1)
a Christian body? Perhaps you suppose that a Christian body may be born
of Christian parents, without having received a Christian soul? Well,
this would render the case much more wonderful still. For you would
think of the soul one of two things as you pleased, --because, of
course, you hold with the apostle, that before birth it had done nothing
good or evil:(2) --either that it was derived by transmission, and just
as the body of Christians is Christian, so should also their soul be
Christian; or else that it was created by Christ, either in the
Christian body, or for the sake of the Christian body, and it ought
therefore to have been created or given in a Christian condition. Unless
perchance you shall pretend that, although Christian parents had it in
their power to beget a Christian body, yet Christ Himself was not able
to produce a Christian soul. Believe then the truth, and see that, as it
has been possible (as [you yourselves admit) for one who is not a
Christian to be born of Christian parents, for  one who is not a member
of Christ to be born of members of Christ, and (that we may answer all,
who, however falsely, are yet in some sense possessed with a sense of
religion) for a man who is not consecrated to be born of parents who are
consecrated; so also it is quite possible for one who is not cleansed to
be born of parents who are cleansed. Now what account will you give us,
of why from Christian parents is born one who is not a Christian, unless
it be that not generation, but regeneration makes Christians? Resolve
therefore your own question with a like reason, that cleansing from sin
comes to no one by being born, but to all by being born again. And thus
any child who is born of parents who are cleansed, because born again,
must himself be born again, in order that he too may be cleansed. For it
has been quite possible for parents to transmit to their children that
which they did not possess themselves,-- thus resembling not only the
wheat which yielded the chaff, and the circumcised the foreskin, but
also the instance which you yourselves adduce, even that of believers
who convey unbelief to their posterity; which, however, does not accrue
to the faithful as regenerated by the Spirit, but it is owing to the
fault of the mortal seed by which they have been born of the flesh. For
in respect of the infants whom you judge it necessary to make believers
by the sacrament of the faithful you do not deny that they were born in
unbelief although of believing parents.

              CHAP. 18 [x.]--IS THE SOUL DERIVED BY

                      NATURAL PROPAGATION?

    Well, but "if the soul is not propagated, but the flesh alone, then
the latter alone has propagation of sin, and it alone deserves
punishment:" this is what they think, saying "that it is unjust that the
soul which is only recently produced, and that not out of Adam's
substance, should bear the sin of another committed so long ago." Now
observe, I pray you, how the circumspect Pelagius felt the question
about the soul to be a very difficult one, and acted accordingly,--for
the words which I have just quoted are copied from his book. He does not
say absolutely, "Because the soul is not propagated," but
hypothetically, If the soul is not propagated, rightly determining on so
Obscure a subject (on which we can find in Holy Scriptures no certain
and obvious testimonies, or with very great difficulty discover any) to
speak with hesitation rather than with confidence. Wherefore I too, on
my side, answer this proposition with no hasty assertion: If the soul is
not propagated, where is the justice that, what has been but recently
created and is quite free from the contagion of sin, should be compelled
in infants to endure the passions and other torments of the flesh, and,
what is more terrible still, even the attacks of evil spirits? For never
does the flesh so suffer anything of this kind that the living and
feeling soul does not rather undergo the punishment. If this, indeed, is
shown to be just, it may be shown, on the same terms, with what justice
original sin comes to exist in our sinful flesh, to be subsequently
cleansed by the sacrament of baptism and God's gracious mercy. If the
former point cannot be shown, I imagine that the latter point is equally
incapable of demonstration. We must therefore either bear with both
positions in silence, and remember that we are human, or else we must
prepare, at some other time, another work on the soul, if it shall
appear necessary, discussing the whole question with caution and
sobriety.

CHAP. 19 [XI.] --SIN AND DEATH IN ADAM, RIGHTEOUSNESS AND LIFE IN
CHRIST.

    What the apostle says.: "By one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so it passed upon all men, in which all have
sinned;"(1) we must, however, for the present so accept as not to seem
rashly and foolishly to oppose the many great passages of Holy
Scripture, which teach us that no man can obtain eternal life without
that union with Christ which is effected in Him and with Him, when we
are imbued with His sacraments and incorporated with the members of His
body. Now this statement which the apostle addresses to the Romans, "By
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed
upon all men, in which all have sinned," tallies in sense with his words
to the Corinthians: "Since by man came death, by Man came also the
resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive."(2) For nobody doubts that the subject here
referred to is the death of the body, because the apostle was with much
earnestness dwelling on the resurrection of the body; and he seems to be
silent here about  sin for this reason, namely, because the question was
not about righteousness. Both points are mentioned in the Epistle to the
Romans, and both points are, at very great length, insisted on by the
apostle,--sin in Adam, righteousness in Christ; and death in Adam, life
in Christ. However, as I have observed already, I have thoroughly
examined and opened, in the first book of this treatise, all these words
of the apostle's argument, as far as I was able, and as much as seemed
necessary.

              CHAP. 20.--THE STING OF DEATH, WHAT?

    But even in the passage to the Corinthians, where he had been
treating fully of the resurrection, the apostle concludes his statement
in such a way as not to permit us to doubt that the death of the body is
the result of sin. For  after he had said, "This corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality: so when this
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality,
then," he added, "shall be brought to pass the saying which is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O
death, where is thy sting?" and at last he subjoined these words: "The
sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."(3) Now,
because (as the apostle's words most plainly declare) death shall then
be swallowed up in victory when this corruptible and mortal shall have
put on incorruption and immortality,-that is, when "God shall quicken
even our mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in us,"--it
manifestly follows that the sting of the body of this death, which is
the contrary of the resur- rection of the body, is sin. The sting,
however, is that by which death was made, and not that which death made,
since it is by sin that we die, and not by death that we sin. It is
therefore called "the sting of death" on the principle which originated
the phrase "the tree of life," --not because the life of man produced
it, but because by it the life of man was made. In like manner "the tree
of knowledge" was that whereby man's knowledge was made, not that which
man made by his knowledge. So also "the sting of death" is that by which
death was produced, not that which death made. We similarly use the
expression "the cup of death," since by it some one has died, or might
die, --not meaning, of course, a cup made by a dying or dead man.(1) The
sting of death is therefore sin, because by the puncture of sin the
human race has been slain. Why ask further: the death  of what, --
whether of the soul, or of the body? Whether the first which we are all
of us now dying, or the second which the wicked hereafter shall die?
There is no occasion for plying the question so curiously; there is no
room for subterfuge. The words in which the apostle expresses the case
answer the questions: "When this mortal," says he, "shall have put on
immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying which is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O
death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin, and the strength
of sin is the law." He was treating of the resurrection of the body,
wherein death shall be swallowed up in victory, when this mortal shall
have put on immortality. Then over death itself shall be raised the
shout of triumph, when at the resurrection of the body it shall be
swallowed up in victory; then shall be said to it, "O death, where is
thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" To the death of  the body,
therefore, is this said. For victorious immortality shall swallow it up,
when this mortal shall put on immortality. I repeat it, to the death of
the body shall it be said, "Where is thy victory?" -- that victory in
which thou didst conquer all, so that even the Son of God engaged in
conflict with thee, and by not shrinking but grappling with thee
overcame. In these  that die thou hast conquered; but thou art thyself
conquered in these that rise again. Thy victory was but temporal, in
which thou didst swallow up the bodies of them that die. Our victory
will abide eternal, in which thou art swallowed up in the bodies of them
that rise again. "Where is thy sting? "--that is, the sin wherewithal we
are punctured and poisoned, so that thou didst fix thyself in our very
bodies, and for so long a time didst hold them in possession. "The sting
of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." We all sinned in
one, so that we all die in one; we received the law, not by amendment
according to its precepts to put an end to sin, but by transgression to
increase it. For "the law entered that sin might abound;"(2) and "the
Scripture hath concluded all under sin; "(3) but "thanks be to God, who
hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ,"(4) in order
that "where sin abounded, grace might much more abound; "(2) and "that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe; "(3) and that we might overcome death by a deathless
resurrection, and sin, "the sting" thereof, by a free justification.

CHAP. 21 [XII.] -- THE PRECEPT ABOUT TOUCH ING THE MENSTRUOUS WOMAN NOT
TO BE FIGURATIVELY UNDERSTOOD ; THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS.

    Let no one, then, on this subject be either deceived or a deceiver.
The manifest sense of Holy Scripture which we have considered, removes
all obscurities. Even as death is in this our mortal body derived from
the beginning, so from the beginning has sin been drawn into this sinful
flesh of ours, for the cure of which, both as it is derived by
propagation and augmented by wilful transgression, as well as for the
quickening of our flesh itself, our Physician came in the likeness of
sinful flesh, who is not needed by the sound, but only by the sick,--
and who came not to call the righteous, but sinners.(5) Therefore the
saying of the apostle, when advising believers not to separate
themselves from unbelieving partners: "For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy,"(6)
must be either so understood as both we ourselves elsewhere,(7) and as
Pelagius in his notes on this same Epistle to the Corinthians,(8) has
expounded it, according to the purport of the passages already
mentioned, that sometimes wives gained husbands to Christ, and sometimes
husbands converted wives, whilst the Christian will of even one of the
parents prevailed towards making their children Christians; or else (as
the apostle's words seem rather to indicate, and to a certain degree
compel us) some particular sanctification is to be here understood, by
which an unbelieving husband or wife was sanctified by the believing
partner, and by which the children of the believing parents were
sanctified,-whether it was that the husband or the wife, during the
woman's menstruation, abstained from cohabiting, having learned that
duty in the law (for Ezekiel classes this amongst the precepts which
were not to be taken in a metaphorical sense(1)), or on account of some
other voluntary sanctification which is not there expressly prescribed,
-- a sprinkling of holiness arising out of the close ties of married
life and children. Nevertheless, whatever be the sanctification meant,
this must be steadily held: that there is no other valid means of making
Christians and remitting sins, except by men becoming believers through
the sacrament according to the institution of Christ and the Church. For
neither are unbelieving husbands and wives, notwithstanding their
intimate union with holy and righteous spouses, cleansed of the sin
which separates men from the kingdom of God and drives them into
condemnation, nor are the children who are born of parents, however just
and holy, absolved from the guilt of original sin, unless they have been
baptized into Christ; and in behalf of these our plea should be the more
earnest, the less able they are to urge one themselves.

CHAP. 22 [XIII.] --WE OUGHT TO BE ANXIOUS TO SECURE THE BAPTISM OF
INFANTS.

    For this is the point aimed at by the controversy, against the
novelty of which we have to struggle by the aid of ancient truth: that
it is clearly altogether superfluous for infants to be baptized. Not
that this opinion is avowed in so many words, lest so firmly established
a custom of the Church should be unable to endure its assailants. But if
we are taught to render help to orphans, how much more ought we to
labour in behalf of those children who, though under the protection of
parents, will still be left more destitute and wretched than orphans,
should that grace of Christ be denied them, which they are all unable to
demand for themselves?

                      CHAP. 23.--EPILOGUE.

    As for what they say, that some men, by the use of their reason,
have lived, and do live, in this world without sin, we should wish that
it were true, we should strive to make it true, we should pray that it
be true; but, at the same time, we should confess that it is not yet
true. For to those who wish and strive and worthily pray for this
result, whatever sins remain in them are daily remitted because we
sincerely pray, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."(2)
Whosoever shall deny that this prayer is in this life necessary for
every righteous man who knows and does the will of God, except the one
Saint of saints, greatly errs, and is utterly incapable of pleasing Him
whom he praises. Moreover, if he supposes himself to be such a
character, "he deceives himself, and the truth is not in him,"(3) -- for
no other reason than that he thinks what is false. That Physician, then,
who is not needed by the sound, but by the sick, knows how to heal us,
and by healing to perfect us unto eternal life; and He does not in this
world take away death, although inflicted because of sin, from those
whose sins He remits, in order that they may enter on their conflict,
and overcome the fear of death with full sincerity of faith. In some
cases, too, He declines to help even His righteous servants, so long as
they are capable of still higher elevation, to the attainment of a
perfect righteousness, in order that (while in His sight no man living
is justified (4)) we may always feel it to be our duty to give Him
thanks for mercifully bearing with us, and so, by holy humility, be
healed of that first cause of all our failings, even the swellings of
pride. This letter, as my intention first sketched it, was to have been
a short one; it has grown into a lengthy book. Would that it were as
perfect as it has at last become complete!

A TREATISE ON THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER,

                          IN ONE BOOK,

               ADDRESSED TO MARCELLINUS, A.D. 412.

MARCELLINUS, IN A LETTER TO AUGUSTIN, HAD EXPRESSED SOME SURPRISE AT
HAVING READ, IN THE PRECEDING WORK, OF THE POSSIBILITY BEING ALLOWED OF
A MAN CONTINUING IF HE WILLED IT, BY GOD'S HELP, WITHOUT SIN IN THE
PRESENT LIFE, ALTHOUGH NOT A SINGLE HUMAN EXAMPLE ANYWHERE OF SUCH
PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS EVER EXISTED. AUGUSTIN TAKES THE OPPORTUNITY
OF DISCUSSING, IN OPPOSITION TO THE PELAGIANS, THE SUBJECT OF THE AID OF
GOD'S GRACE; AND HE SHOWS THAT THE DIVINE HELP TO THE WORKING OF
RIGHTEOUSNESS BY US DOES NOT LIE IN THE FACT OF GOD'S HAVING GIVEN US A
LAW WHICH IS FULL OF GOOD AND HOLY PRECEPTS; BUT IN THE FACT THAT OUR
WILL ITSELF, WITHOUT WHICH WE CAN DO NOTHING GOOD, IS ASSISTED AND
ELEVATED BY THE SPIRIT OF GRACE BEING IMPARTED TO US, WITHOUT THE AID OF
WHICH THE TEACHING OF THE LAW IS "THE LETTER THAT KILLETH," BECAUSE
INSTEAD OF JUSTIFYING THE UNGODLY, IT RATHER HOLDS THEM GUILTY OF
TRANSGRESSION. HE BEGINS TO TREAT OF THE QUESTION PROPOSED TO HIM AT THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK, AND RETURNS TO IT TOWARDS ITS CONCLUSION; HE
SHOWS THAT, AS ALL ALLOW, MANY THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD'S HELP, OF
WHICH THERE OCCURS INDEED NO EXAMPLE; AND THEN CONCLUDES THAT, ALTHOUGH
A PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS IS UNEXAMPLED AMONG MEN, IT IS FOR ALL THAT NOT
IMPOSSIBLE.

CHAP. 1 [I.] -- THE OCCASION OF WRITING THIS WORK; A THING MAY BE
CAPABLE OF BEING DONE, AND YET MAY NEVER BE DONE.

    AFTER reading the short treatises which I lately drew up for you, my
beloved son Marcellinus, about the baptism of infants, and the
perfection of man's righteousness, -- how that no one in this life seems
either to have attained or to be likely to attain to it, except only the
Mediator, who bore humanity in the likeness of sinful flesh, without any
sin whatever, -- you wrote me in answer that you were embarrassed by the
point which I advanced in the second book,(1) that it was possible for a
man to be without sin, if he wanted not the will, and was assisted by
the aid of God; and yet that except One in whom "all shall be made
alive,"(2) no one has ever lived or will live by whom this perfection
has been attained whilst living here. It appeared to you absurd to say
that anything was possible of which no example ever occurred, --
although I suppose you would not hesitate to admit that no camel ever
passed through a needle's eye,(3) and yet He said that even this was
possible with God; you may read, too, that twelve thousand legions(4) of
angels could possibly have fought for Christ and rescued Him from
suffering, but in fact did not; you may read that it was possible for
the nations to be exterminated at once out of the land which was given
to the children of Israel,(1) and yet that God willed it to be gradually
effected.(2) And one may meet with a thousand other incidents, the past
or the future possibility of which we might readily admit, and yet be
unable to produce any proofs of their having ever really happened.
Accordingly, it would  not be right for us to deny the possibility of a
man's living without sin, on the ground that amongst men none can be
found except Him who is in His nature not man only, but also God, in
whom we could prove such perfection of character to have existed.

             CHAP. 2 [II.] -- THE EXAMPLES APPOSITE.

    Here, perhaps, you will say to me in answer, that the things which I
have instanced as not having been realized, although capable of
realization, are divine works; whereas a man's being without sin falls
in the range of a man's own work, -- that being indeed his very noblest
work which effects a full and perfect righteousness complete in every
part; and therefore that it is incredible that no man has ever existed,
or is existing, or will exist in this life, who has achieved such a
work, if the achievement is possible for a human being. But then you
ought to reflect that, although this great work, no doubt, belongs to
human agency to accomplish, yet it is also a divine gift, and therefore,
not doubt that it is a divine work; "for it is God who worketh in you
both to will and to do of His good pleasure."(3)

CHAP. 3. -- THEIRS IS COMPARATIVELY A HARMLESS ERROR, WHO SAY THAT A MAN
LIVES HERE WITHOUT SIN.

    They therefore are not a very dangerous set of persons and they
ought to be urged to show, if they are able, that they are themselves
such, who hold that man lives or has lived here without any sin
whatever. There are indeed passages of Scripture, in which I apprehend
it is definitely stated that no man who lives on earth, although
enjoying freedom of will, can be found without sin; as, for instance,
the place where it is written, "Enter not into judgment with Thy
servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified."(4) If,
however, anybody shall have succeeded in showing that this text and the
other similar ones ought to be taken in a different sense from their
obvious one, and shall have proved that some man or men have spent a
sinless life on earth, -- whoever does not, not merely refrain from much
opposing him, but also does not rejoice with him to the full, is
afflicted by extraordinary goads of envy. Moreover, if there neither is,
has been, nor will be any man endowed with such perfection of purity
(which I am more inclined to believe), and yet it is firmly set forth
and thought there is or has been, or is to be, -- so far as I can judge,
no great error is made, and certainly not a dangerous one, when a man is
thus carried away by a certain benevolent feeling; provided that he who
thinks so much of another, does not think himself to be such a being,
unless he has ascertained that he really and clearly is such.

CHAP. 4. -- THEIRS IS A MUCH MORE SERIOUS ERROR, REQUIRING A VERY
VIGOROUS REFUTATION, WHO DENY GOD'S GRACE TO BE NECESSARY.

    They, however, must be resisted with the utmost ardor and vigor who
suppose that without God's help, the mere power of the human will in
itself, can either perfect righteousness, or advance steadily towards
it; and when they begin to be hard pressed about their presumption in
asserting that this result can be reached without the divine assistance,
they check themselves, and do not venture to utter such an opinion,
because they see how impious and insufferable it is. But they allege
that such attainments are not made without God's help on this account,
namely, because God both created man with the free choice of his will,
and, by giving him commandments, teaches him, Himself, how man ought to
live; and indeed assists him, in that He takes away his ignorance by
instructing him in the knowledge of what he ought to avoid and to desire
in his actions: and thus, by means of the free-will naturally implanted
within him, he enters on the way which is pointed out to him, and by
persevering in a just and pious course of life, deserves to attain to
the blessedness of eternal life.

CHAP. 5 [III.] -- TRUE GRACE IS THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST, WHICH
KINDLES IN THE SOUL THE JOY AND LOVE OF GOODNESS.

    We, however, on our side affirm that the human will is so divinely
aided in the pursuit of righteousness, that (in addition to man's being
created with a free-will, and in addition to the teaching by which he is
instructed how he ought to live) he receives the Holy Ghost, by whom
there is formed in his mind a delight in, and a love of, that supreme
and unchangeable good which is God, even now while he is still "walking
by faith" and not yet "by sight;"(5) in order that by this gift to him
of the earnest, as it were, of the free gift, he may conceive an ardent
desire to cleave to his Maker, and may burn to enter upon the
participation in that true light, that it may go well with him from Him
to whom he owes his existence. A man's free-will, indeed, avails for
nothing except to sin, if he knows not the way of truth; and even after
his duty and his proper aim shall begin to become known to him, unless
he also take delight in and feel a love for it, he neither does his
duty, nor sets about it, nor lives rightly. Now, in order that such a
course may engage our affections, God's "love is shed abroad in our
hearts," not through the free-will which arises from ourselves, but
"through the Holy Ghost, which is given to us." (1)

CHAP. 6 [iv.]-- THE TEACHING OF LAW WITHOUT THE LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT IS
"THE LETTER THAT KILLETH."

    For that teaching which brings to us the command to live in chastity
and righteousness is "the letter that killeth," unless accompanied with
"the spirit that giveth life." For that is not the sole meaning of the
passage, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life, (2) which
merely prescribes that we should not take in the literal sense any
figurative phrase which in the proper meaning of its words would produce
only nonsense, but should consider what else it signifies, nourishing
the inner man by our spiritual intelligence, since "being
carnally-minded is death, whilst to be spiritually-minded is life and
peace." (3) If, for instance, a man were to take in a literal and carnal
sense much that is written in the Song of Solomon, he would minister not
to the fruit of a luminous charity, but to the feeling of a libidinous
desire. Therefore, the apostle is not to be confined to the limited
application just mentioned, when he says, "The letter killeth, but the
spirit giveth life;" (2) but this is also (and indeed especially)
equivalent to what he says elsewhere in the plainest words: "I had not
known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;" (4) and
again, immediately after: "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
deceived me, and by it slew me." (5) Now from this you may see what is
meant by "the letter that killeth." There is, of course, nothing, said
figuratively which is not to be accepted in its plain sense, when it is
said, "Thou shall not covet;" but this is a very plain and salutary 
precept, and any man who shall fulfil it will have I no sin at all. The
apostle, indeed, purposely selected this general precept, in which he
embraced everything, as if this were the voice of the law, prohibiting
us from all sin, when he says, "Thou shalt not covet;" for there is no
sin committed except by evil concupiscence; so that the law which
prohibits this is a good and praiseworthy law. But, when the Holy Ghost
withholds His help, which inspires us with a good desire instead of this
evil desire (in other words, diffuses love in our hearts), that law,
however good in itself, only augments the evil desire by forbidding it.
Just as the rush of water which flows incessantly in a particular
direction, becomes more violent when it meets with any impediment, and
when it has overcome the stoppage, falls in a greater bulk, and with
increased impetuosity hurries forward in its downward course. In some
strange way the very object which we covet becomes all the more pleasant
when it is forbidden. And this is the sin which by the commandment
deceives and by it slays, whenever transgression is actually added,
which occurs not where there is no law. (6)

CHAP. 7 [V.] --WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE HERE TREATED.

    We will, however, consider, if you please, the whole of this passage
of the apostle and thoroughly handle it, as the Lord shall enable us.
For I want, if possible, to prove that the apostle's words, "The letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life," do not refer to figurative
phrases,-although even in this sense a suitable signification might be
obtained from them,-- but rather plainly to the law, which forbids
whatever is evil. When I shall have proved this, it will more manifestly
appear that to lead a holy life is the gift of God,-- not only because
God has given a free-will to man, without which there is no living ill
or well; nor only because He has given him a commandment to teach him
how he ought to live; but because through the Holy Ghost He sheds love
abroad in the hearts (4) of those whom he foreknew, in order to
predestinate them; whom He predestinated, that He might call them; whom
He called, that he might justify them; and whom he justified, that He
might glorify them. (7) When this point also shall be cleared, you will,
I think, see how vain it is to say that those things only are unexampled
possibilities, which are the works of God,-- such as the passage of the
camel through the needle's eye, which we have already referred to, and
other similar cases, which to us no doubt are impossible, but easy
enough to God; and that man's righteousness is not to be counted in this
class of things, on the ground Of its being properly man's work, not
God's; although there is no reason for supposing, without an example,
that his perfection exists, even if it is possible. That these
assertions are vain will be clear enough, after it has been also plainly
shown that even man's righteousness must be attributed to the operation
of God, although not taking place without man's will; and we therefore
cannot deny that his perfection is possible even in this life, because
all things are possible with God, (1)--both those which He accomplishes
of His own sole will, and those which He appoints to be done with the
cooperation with Himself of His creature's will. Accordingly, whatever
of such things He does not effect is no doubt without an example in the
way of accomplished facts, although with God it possesses both in His
power the cause of its possibility, and in His wisdom the reason of its
unreality. And should this cause be hidden from man, let him not forget
that he is a man; nor charge God with folly simply because he cannot
fully comprehend His wisdom.

            CHAP. 8.-- ROMANS INTERPRETS CORINTHIANS.

    Attend, then, carefully, to the apostle while in his Epistle to the
Romans he explains and clearly enough shows that what he wrote to the
Corinthians, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," (2) must
be understood in the sense which we have already indicated, --that the
letter of the law, which teaches us not to commit sin, kills, if the
life-giving spirit be absent, forasmuch as it causes sin to be known
rather than avoided, and therefore to be increased rather than
diminished, because to an evil concupiscense there is now added the
transgression of the law.

CHAP.  9 [VI]. --THROUGH  THE  LAW  SIN  HAS ABOUNDED.

    The apostle, then, wishing to commend the grace which has come to
all nations through Jesus Christ, lest the Jews should extol themselves
at the expense of the other peoples on account of their having received
the law, first says that sin and death came on the human race through
one man, and that righteousness and eternal life came also through one,
expressly mentioning Adam as the former, and Christ as the latter; and
then says that "the law, however, entered, that the offence might
abound: but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin
hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness
unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (3) Then, proposing a
question for himself to answer, he adds, "What shall we say then? Shall
we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." (4) He saw,
indeed, that a perverse use might be made by perverse men of what he had
said: "The law entered, that the offence might abound: but where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound,"--as if he had said that  sin had
been of advantage by reason of the abundance of grace. Rejecting this,
he answers his question with a "God forbid!" and at once adds: "How
shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (5) as much as
to say, When grace has brought it to pass that we should die unto sin,
what else shall we be doing, if we continue to live in it, than showing
ourselves ungrateful to grace? The man who extols the virtue of a
medicine does not contend that the diseases and wounds of which the
medicine cures him are of advantage to him; on the contrary, in
proportion to the praise lavished on the remedy are the blame and horror
which are felt of the diseases and wounds healed by the much-extolled
medicine. In like manner, the commendation and praise of grace are
vituperation and condemnation of offences. For there was need to prove
to man how corruptly weak he was, so that against his iniquity, the holy
law brought him no help towards good, but rather increased than
diminished his iniquity; seeing that the law entered, that the offence
might abound; that being thus convicted and confounded, he might see not
only that he needed a physician, but also God as his helper so to direct
his steps that sin should not rule over him, and he might be healed by
betaking himself to the help of the divine mercy; and in this way, where
sin abounded grace might much more abound,-- not through the merit of
the sinner, but by the intervention of his Helper.

              CHAP. 10. -- CHRIST THE TRUE HEALER.

    Accordingly, the apostle shows that the same medicine was mystically
set forth in the passion and resurrection of Christ, when he says, "Know
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism
into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory
of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be
also in the likeness of His resurrection: knowing this, that our old man
is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is justified
from sin. Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also
live with Him: knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no
more; death hath no more dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died
unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God. Likewise
reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God
through Jesus Christ our Lord." (6) Now it is plain enough that here by
the mystery of the Lord's death and resurrection is figured the death of
our old sinful life, and the rising of the new; and that here is shown
forth the abolition of iniquity and the renewal of righteousness. Whence
then arises this vast benefit to man through the letter of the law,
except it be through the faith of Jesus Christ?

            CHAP. II [VII.]-- FROM WHAT FOUNTAIN GOOD

                           WORKS FLOW.

    This holy meditation preserves "the children of men, who put their
trust under the shadow of God's wings," (1) so that they are "drunken
with the fatness of His house, and drink of the full stream of His
pleasure. For with Him is the fountain of life, and in His light shall
they see light. For He extendeth His mercy to them that know Him, and
His righteousness to the upright in heart." (2) He does not, indeed,
extend His mercy to them because they know Him, but that they may know
Him; nor is it because they are upright in heart, but that they may
become so, that He extends to them His righteousness, whereby He
justifies the ungodly. (3) This meditation does not elevate with pride:
this sin arises when any man has too much confidence in himself, and
makes himself the chief end of living. Impelled by this vain feeling, he
departs from that fountain of life, from the draughts of which alone is
imbibed the holiness which is itself the good life,-- and from that
unchanging light, by sharing in which the reasonable soul is in a
certain sense inflamed, and becomes itself a created and reflected
luminary; even as "John was a burning and a shining light," (4) who
notwithstanding acknowledged the source of his own illumination in the
words, "Of His fulness have all we received." (5) Whose, I would ask,
but His, of course, in comparison with whom John indeed was no light a t
all ? For" that was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh
into the world." (6) Therefore, in the same psalm, after saying, "Extend
Thy mercy to them that know Thee, and Thy righteousness to the upright
in heart," (7) he adds, "Let not the foot of pride come against me, and
let not the hands of sinners  move me. There have fallen all the workers
of iniquity: they are cast out, and are not able to  stand." (8) Since
by that impiety which leads each i to attribute to himself the
excellence which is God's, he is cast out into his own native darkness,
in which consist the works of iniquity. For it is manifestly these works
which he does, and for the achievement of such alone is he naturally
fit. The works of righteousness he never does, except as he receives
ability from that fountain and that light, where the life is that wants
for nothing, and where is "no variableness, nor the shadow of turning."
(9)

          CHAP. I2. -- PAUL, WHENCE SO CALLED; BRAVELY

                       CONTENDS FOR GRACE.

    Accordingly Paul, who, although he was formerly called Saul, (10)
chose this new designation, for no other reason, as it seems to me, than
because he would show himself little, (11) --the "least of the 
apostles," (12) -- contends with much courage and earnestness against
the proud and arrogant, and  such as plume themselves on their own
works, in order that he may commend the grace of God. This grace,
indeed, appeared more obvious and manifest in his case, inasmuch as,
while he was pursuing such vehement measures of persecution against the
Church of God as made him worthy of the greatest punishment, he found
mercy instead of condemnation, and instead of punishment obtained grace.
Very properly, therefore, does he lift voice and hand in defence of
grace, and care not for the envy either of those who understood not a
subject too profound and abstruse for them, or of those who perversely
misinterpreted his own sound words; whilst at the same time he
unfalteringly preaches that gift of God, whereby alone salvation accrues
to those who are the children of the promise, children of the divine
goodness, children of grace and mercy, children of the new covenant. In
the salutation with which he begins every epistle, he prays: "Grace be
to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ;
" (13) whilst this forms almost the only topic discussed for the Romans,
and it is plied with so much persistence and variety of argument, as
fairly to fatigue the reader's attention, yet with a fatigue so useful
and salutary, that it rather exercises than breaks the faculties of the
inner man.

CHAP. 13 [VIII.] --KEEPING THE LAW; THE JEWS' GLORYING; THE FEAR OF
PUNISHMENT; THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART.

    Then comes what I mentioned above; then he shows what the Jew is,
and says that he is called a Jew, but by no means fulfils what he
promises to do. "But if," says he, "thou callest thyself a Jew, and
restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will,
and triest the things that are different, being instructed out of the
law; and art confident that thou art thyself a guide of the blind, a
light of them that are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a
teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in
the law. Thou therefore who teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?
thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? thou that
sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou
that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? thou that makest thy
boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God? For the
name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is
written. Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if
thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,
shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not
uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who
by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a
Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward
in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is
that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is
not of men, but of God." (1) Here he plainly showed in what sense he
said, "Thou makest thy boast of God." For undoubtedly if one who was
truly a Jew made his boast of God in the way which grace demands (which
is bestowed not for merit of works, but gratuitously), then his praise
would be of God, and not of men. But they, in fact, were making their
boast of God, as if they alone had deserved to receive His law, as the
Psalmist said: "He did not the like to any nation, nor His judgments has
He displayed to them.'' (2) And yet, they thought they were fulfilling
the law of God by their righteousness, when they were rather breakers of
it all the while! Accordingly, it "wrought wrath" (3) upon them, and sin
abounded, committed as it was by them who knew the law. For whoever did
even what the law commanded, without the assistance of the Spirit of
grace, acted through fear of punishment, not from love of righteousness,
and hence in the sight of God that was not in the will, which in the
sight of men appeared in the work; and such doers of the law were held
rather guilty of that which God knew they would have preferred to
commit, if only it had been possible with impunity. He calls, however,
"the circumcision of the heart" the will that is pure from all unlawful
desire; which comes not from the letter, inculcating and threatening,
but from the Spirit, assisting and healing. Such doers of the law have
their praise therefore, not of men but of God, who by His grace provides
the grounds on which they receive praise, of whom it is said, "My soul
shall make her boast of the Lord;" (4) and to whom it is said, "My
praise shall be of Thee:" (5) but those are not such who would have God
praised because they are men; but themselves, because they are
righteous.

CHAP. 14.--IN WHAT RESPECT THE PELAGIANS ACKNOWLEDGE GOD AS THE AUTHOR
OF OUR JUSTIFICATION.

    "But," say they, "we do praise God as the Author of our
righteousness, in that He gave the law, by the teaching of which we have
learned how we ought to live." But they give no heed to what they read:
"By the law there shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God." (6)
This may indeed be possible before men, but not before Him who looks
into our very heart and inmost will, where He sees that, although the
man who fears the law keeps a certain precept, he would nevertheless
rather do another thing if he were permitted. And lest any one should
suppose that, in the passage just quoted from him, the apostle had meant
to say that none are justified by that law, which contains many
precepts, under the figure of the ancient sacraments, and among them
that circumcision of the flesh itself, which infants were commanded to
receive on the eighth day after birth; he immediately adds what law he
meant, and says, "For by the law is the knowledge of sin." (6) He refers
then to that law of which he afterwards declares, "I had not known sin
but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou
shalt not covet." (7) For what means this but that "by the law comes the
knowledge of sin?"

CHAP. 15 [IX.] --THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD MANIFESTED BY THE LAW AND THE
PROPHETS.

    Here, perhaps, it may be said by that presumption of man, which is
ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishes to establish one of its
own, that the apostle quite properly said," For by the law shall no man
be justified," (6) inasmuch as the law merely shows what one ought to
do, and what one ought to guard against, in order that what the law thus
points out may be accomplished by the will, and so man be justified, not
indeed by the power of the law, but by his free determination. But I ask
your attention, O man, to what follows. "But now the righteousness of
God," says he, "without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the
law and the prophets." (8) Does this then sound a light thing in deaf
ears? He says, "The righteousness of God is manifested." Now this
righteousness they are ignorant of, who wish to establish one of their
own; they will not submit themselves to it. (9) His words are," The
righteousness of God is manifested:" he does not say, the righteousness
of man, or the righteousness of his own will, but the "righteousness of
God,"--not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He
endows man when He justifies the ungodly. This is witnessed by the law
and the prophets; in other words, the law and the prophets each afford
it testimony. The law, indeed, by issuing its commands and threats, and
by justifying no man, sufficiently shows that it is by God's gift,
through the help of the Spirit, that a man is justified; and the
prophets, because it was what they predicted that Christ at His coming
accomplished. Accordingly he advances a step further, and adds, "But
righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ," (1) that is by the faith
wherewith one believes in Christ for just as there is not meant the
faith with which Christ Himself believes, so also there is not meant the
righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous. Both no doubt are ours,
but yet they are called God's, and Christ's, because it is by their
bounty that these gifts are bestowed upon us. The righteousness of God
then is without the law, but not manifested without the law; for if it
were manifested without the law, how could it be witnessed by the law?
That righteousness of God, however, is without the law, which God by the
Spirit of grace bestows on the believer without the help of the
law,--that is, when not helped by the law. When, indeed, He by the law
discovers to a man his weakness, it is in order that by faith he may
flee for refuge to His mercy, and be healed. And thus concerning His
wisdom we are told, that "she carries law and mercy upon her tongue,"
(2) -- the "law," whereby she may convict the proud, the "mercy,"
wherewith she may justify the humbled. "The righteousness of God," then,
"by faith of Jesus Christ, is unto all that believe; for there is no
difference, for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (3)
--not of their own glory. For what have they, which they have not
received? Now if they received it, why do they glory as if they had not
received it? (4) Well, then, they come short of the glory of God; now
observe what follows: "Being justified freely by His grace." (5) It is
not, therefore, by the law, nor is it by their own will, that they are
justified; but they are justified freely by His grace, -- not that it is
wrought without our will; but our will is by the law shown to be weak,
that grace may heal its infirmity; and that our healed will may fulfil
the law, not by compact under the law, nor yet in the absence of law.

             CHAP. 16 X.] --HOW THE LAW WAS NOT MADE

                      FOR a RIGHTEOUS MAN.

    Because "for a righteous man the law was not made;" (6) and yet "the
law is good, if a man use it lawfully." (7) Now by connecting together
these two seemingly contrary statements, the apostle warns and urges his
reader to sift the question and solve it too. For how can it be that
"the law is good, if a man use it lawfully," if what follows is also
true: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man?" (7)
For who but a righteous man lawfully uses the law? Yet it is not for him
that it is made, but for the unrighteous. Must then the unrighteous man,
in order that he may be justified,-- that is, become a righteous man,--
lawfully use the law, to lead him, as by the schoolmaster's hand,s to
that grace by which alone he can fulfil what the law commands? Now it is
freely that he is justified thereby,--that is, on account of no
antecedent merits of his own works; "otherwise grace is no more grace,"
(9) since it is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but
that we may be able to do them,-- in other words, not because we have
fulfilled the law, but in order that we may be able to fulfil the law.
Now He said, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it," (10)
of whom it was said, "We have seen His glory, the glory as of the
only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (11) This is the
glory which is meant in the words, "All have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God;" (12) and this the grace of which he speaks in the
next verse, "Being justified freely by His grace." (5) The unrighteous
man therefore lawfully uses the law, that he may become righteous; but
when he has become so, he must no longer use it as a chariot, for he has
arrived at his journey's end,-- or rather (that I may employ the
apostle's own simile, which has been already mentioned) as a
schoolmaster, seeing that he is now fully learned. How then is the law
not made for a righteous man, if it is necessary for the righteous man
too, not that he  may be brought as an unrighteous man to the grace that
justifies, but that he may use it lawfully, now that he is righteous?
Does not the case perhaps stand thus, --nay, not perhaps, but rather
certainly,-- that the man who is become righteous thus lawfully uses the
law, when he applies it to alarm the unrighteous, so that whenever the
disease of some unusual desire begins in them, too, to be augmented by
the incentive of the law's prohibition and an increased amount of
transgression, they may in faith flee for refuge to the grace that
justifies, and becoming delighted with the sweet pleasures of holiness,
may escape the penalty of the law's menacing letter through the spirit's
soothing gift? In this way the two statements will not be contrary, nor
will they be repugnant to each other: even the righteous man may
lawfully use a good law, and yet the law be not made for the righteous
man; for it is not by the law that he becomes righteous, but by the law
of faith, which led him to believe that no other resource was possible
to his weakness for fulfilling the precepts which "the law of works" (1)
commanded, except to be assisted by the grace of God.

             CHAP. I7.-- THE EXCLUSION OF BOASTING.

    Accordingly he says, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By
what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith." (1) He may either
mean, the laudable boasting, which is in the Lord; and that it is
excluded, not in the sense that it is driven off so as to pass away, but
that it is clearly manifested so as to stand out prominently. Whence
certain artificers in silver are called "exclusores." (2) In this sense
it occurs also in that passage in the Psalms: "That they may be
excluded, who have been proved with silver," (3) --that is, that they
may stand out in prominence, who have been tried by the word of God. For
in another passage it is said: "The words of the Lord are pure words, as
silver which is tried in the fire." (4) Or if this be not his meaning,
he must have wished to mention that vicious boasting which comes of
pride--that is, of those who appear to themselves to lead righteous
lives, and boast of their excellence as if they had not received it,
--and further to inform us, that by the law of faith, not by the law of
works, this boasting was excluded, in the other sense of shut out and
driven away; because by the law of faith every one learns that whatever
good life he leads he has from the grace of God, and that from no other
source whatever can he obtain the means of becoming perfect in the love
of righteousness.

CHAP. 18 [XI.] -- PIETY IS WISDOM; THAT IS CALLED THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF
GOD, WHICH HE PRODUCES.

    Now, this meditation makes a man godly, and this godliness is true
wisdom. By godliness I mean that which the Greeks designate
qeosbee, --that very virtue which is commended to than in
the passage of Job, where it is said to him, "Behold, godliness is
wisdom." (5) Now if the word qeosbee be interpreted
according to its derivation, it might be called "the worship of God; "
(6) and in this worship the essential point is, that the soul be not
ungrateful to Him. Whence it is that in the most true and excellent
sacrifice we are admonished to "give thanks unto our Lord God." (7)
Ungrateful however, our soul would be, were it to attribute to itself
that which it received from God, especially the righteousness, with the
works of which (the especial property, as it were, of itself, and
produced, so to speak, by the soul itself for itself) it is not puffed
up in a vulgar pride, as it might be with riches, or beauty of limb, or
eloquence, or those other accomplishments, external or internal, bodily
or mental, which wicked men too are in the habit of possessing, but, if
I may say so, in a wise complacency, as of things which constitute in an
especial manner the good works of the good. It is owing to this sin of
vulgar pride that even some great men have drifted from the sure
anchorage of the divine nature, and have floated down into the shame of
idolatry. Whence the apostle again in the same epistle, wherein he so
firmly maintains the principle of grace, after saying that he was a
debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, to the wise and to the
unwise, and professing himself ready, so far as to him pertained, to
preach the gospel even to those who lived in Rome, adds: "I am not
ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for 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." (8) This is the
righteousness of God, which was veiled in the Old Testament, and is
revealed in the New; and it is called the righteousness of God, because
by His bestowal of it He makes us righteous, just as we read that
"salvation is the Lord's," (9) because He makes us safe. And this is the
faith "from which" and "to which" it is revealed,--from the faith of
them who preach it, to the faith of those who obey it. By this faith of
Jesus Christ -- that is, the faith which Christ has given to us --we
believe it is from God that we now have, and shall have more and more,
the ability of living righteously; wherefore we give Him thanks with
that dutiful worship with which He only is to be worshipped.

 CHAP. 19 [XII]--THE KNOWLEDGED OF GOD

                      THROUGH THE CREATION.

    And then the apostle very properly turns from this point to describe
with detestation those men who, light-minded and puffed up by the sin
which I have mentioned in the preceding chapter, have been carried away
of their own conceit, as it were, through empty space where they could
find no resting-place, only to fall shattered to pieces against the vain
figments of their idols, as against stones. For, after he had commended
the piety of that faith, whereby, being justified, we must needs be
pleasing to God, he proceeds to call our attention to what we ought to
abominate as the opposite. "For the wrath of God," says he, "is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold
down the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of
God is manifest in them: for God hath showed it unto them. For the
invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world,
being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal
power and divinity; so that they are without excuse: because, knowing
God, they yet glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; and they changed
the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made  like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and to four fooled beasts, and to
creeping things."(1) Observe, he does not say that they were ignorant of
the truth, but that they held down the truth in  unrighteousness. For it
occurred to him, that he  would inquire whence the knowledge of the
truth  could be obtained by those to whom God had  not given the law;
and he was not silent on the source whence they could have obtained it:
for he declares that it was through the visible works of creation that
they arrived at the knowledge of the invisible attributes of the
Creator. And, in very deed, as they continued to possess great faculties
for searching, so they were able to find. Wherein then lay their
impiety? Because "when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor
gave Him thanks, but became vain in their imaginations." Vanity is a
disease especially of those who mislead themselves, and "think
themselves to be something, when they are nothing."(2) Such men, indeed,
darken themselves in that swelling pride, the foot of which the holy
singer prays that it may not come against him,(3) after saying, "In Thy
light shall we see light;''(4) from which very light of unchanging truth
they turn aside, and "their foolish heart is darkened."(5) For theirs
was not a wise heart, even though they knew God; but it was foolish
rather, because they did not glorify Him as God, or give Him thanks; for
"He said unto man, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom."(6) So
by this conduct, while "professing themselves to be wise" (which can
only be understood to mean that they attributed this to themselves),
"they became fools."(7)

                CHAP. 20.--THE LAW WITHOUT GRACE.

    Now why need I speak of what follows? For why it was that by this
their impiety those men --I mean those who could have known the Creator
through the creature--fell (since "God resisteth the proud"(8)) and
whither they plunged, is better shown in the sequel of this epistle than
we can here mention. For in this letter of mine we have not undertaken
to expound this epistle, but only mainly on its authority, to
demonstrate, so far as we are able, that we are assisted by divine aid
towards the achievement of righteousness,--not merely because God has
given us a law fall of good and holy precepts, but because our very will
without which we cannot do any good thing, is assisted and elevated by
the importation of the Spirit of grace, without which help mere teaching
is "the letter that killeth,"(9) forasmuch as it rather holds them
guilty of transgression, than justifies the ungodly. Now just as those
who come to know the Creator through the creature received no benefit
towards salvation, from their knowledge, -- because "though they knew
God, they glorified Him not as God, nor gave Him thanks, although
professing themselves to be wise;"(5) -- so also they who know from the
law how man ought to live, are not made righteous by their knowledge,
because, "going about to establish their own righteousness, they have
not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."(10)

CHAP. 21 [XIII.] -- THE LAW OF WORKS AND THE LAW OF FAITH.

    The law, then, of deeds, that is, the law of works, whereby this
boasting is not excluded, and the law of faith, by which it is excluded,
differ from each other; and this difference it is worth our while to
consider, if so be we are able to observe and discern it. Hastily,
indeed, one might say that the law of works lay in Judaism, and the law
of faith in Christianity; forasmuch as circumcision and the other works
prescribed by the law are just those which the Christian system no
longer retains. But there is a fallacy in this distinction, the
greatness of which I have for some time been endeavoring to expose; and
to such as are acute in appreciating distinctions, especially to
yourself and those like you, I have possibly succeeded in my effort.
Since, however, the subject is an important one, it will not be
unsuitable, if with a view to its illustration, we linger over the many
testimonies which again and again meet our view. Now, the apostle says
that that law by which no man is justified,(1) entered in that the
offence might abound,(2) and yet in order to save it from the aspersions
of the ignorant and the accusations of the impious, he defends this very
law in such words as these: "What shall we say then? Is, the law sin?
God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known
concupiscence, except the law had said, Thou shall not covet. But sin,
taking occasion, wrought, by the commandment, in me all manner of
concupiscence,"(3) He says also: "The law indeed is holy, and the
commandment is holy, and just, and good; but sin, that it might appear
sin, worked death in me by that which is good."(4) It is therefore the
very letter that kills which says, "Thou shalt not covet," and it is of
this that he speaks in a passage which I have before referred to: "By
the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God
without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus
Christ upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: seeing
that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being
justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His
blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God; to declare His righteousness at
this time; that He might be just, and the justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus."(5) And then he adds the passage which is now under
consideration: "Where, then, is your boasting? It is excluded. By what
law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith."(6) And so it is the very
law of works itself which says, "Thou shalt not covet;" because thereby
comes the knowledge of sin. Now I wish to know, if anybody will dare to
tell me, whether the law of faith does not say to us, "Thou shalt not
covet"? For if it does not say so to us, what reason is there why we,
who are placed under it, should not sin in safety and with impunity?
Indeed, this is just what those people thought the apostle meant, of
whom he writes: "Even as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that
good may come; whose damnation is just."(7) If, on the contrary, it too
says to us, "Thou shall not covet" (even as numerous passages in the
gospels and epistles so often testify and urge), then why is not this
law also called the law of works? For it by no means follows that,
because it retains not the "works"  of the ancient sacraments, -- even
circumcision and the other ceremonies, -- it therefore has no "works" in
its own sacraments, which are adapted to the present age; unless,
indeed, the question was about sacramental works, when mention was made
of the law, just because by it is the knowledge of sin, and therefore
nobody is justified by it, so that it is not by it that boasting is
excluded, but by the law of faith, whereby the just man lives. But is
there not by it too the knowledge of sin, when even it says, "Thou shall
not covet?"

              CHAP. 22.--NO MAN JUSTIFIED BY WORKS.

    What the difference between them is, I will briefly explain. What
the law of works enjoins by menace, that the law of faith secures by
faith. The one says, "Thou shalt not covet;"(8) the other says, "When I
perceived that nobody could be continent, except God gave it to him; and
that this was the very point of wisdom, to know whose gift she was; I
approached unto the Lord, and I besought Him."(9) This indeed is the
very wisdom which is called piety,, in which  is worshipped "the Father
of lights, from whom is every best giving and perfect gift."(10) This
worship, however, consists in the sacrifice of praise and giving of
thanks, so that the worshipper of God boasts not in himself, but in
Him.(11) Accordingly, by the law of works, God says to us, Do what I
command thee; but by the law of faith we say to God, Give me what Thou
commandest. Now this is the reason why the law gives its command, -- to
admonish us what faith ought to do, that is, that he to whom the command
is given, if he is as yet unable to perform it, may know what to ask
for; but if he has at once the ability, and complies with the command,
he ought also to be aware from whose gift the ability comes. "For we
have received not the spirit of this world," says again that most
constant preacher of grace, "but the Spirit which is of God, that we
might know the things that are freely given to us of God."(12) What,
however, "is the spirit of this world," but the spirit of pride? By it
their foolish heart is darkened, who, although knowing God, glorified
Him not as God, by giving Him thanks.(1) Moreover, it is really by this
same spirit that they too are deceived, who, while ignorant of the
righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted to God's righteousness.(2) It appears to me,
therefore, that he is much more "a child of faith" who has learned from
what source to hope for what he has not yet, than he who attributes to
himself whatever he has; although, no doubt, to both of these must be
preferred the man who both has, and at the same time knows from whom he
has it, if nevertheless he does not believe himself to be what he has
not yet attained to. Let him not fall into the mistake of the Pharisee,
who, while thanking God for what he possessed, yet failed to ask for any
further gift, just as if he stood in, want of nothing for the increase
or perfection of his righteousness.(3) Now, having duly considered and
weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man
is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus
Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith;
not by the letter,  but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but
by free grace.

CHAP. 23 [XIV.] --HOW THE DECALOGUE KILLS, IF GRACE BE NOT PRESENT.

    Although, therefore, the apostle seems to reprove and correct those
who were being persuaded to be circumcised, in such terms as to
designate by the word "law" circumcision itself and other similar legal
observances, which are now rejected as shadows of a future substance by
Christians who yet hold what those shadows figuratively promised; he at
the same time nevertheless would have it to be clearly understood that
the law, by which he says no man is justified, lies not merely in those
sacramental institutions which contained promissory figures, but also in
those works by which whosoever has done them lives holily, and amongst
which occurs this prohibition: "Thou shalt not covet." Now, to make our
statement all the clearer, let us look at the Decalogue itself. It is
certain, then, that Moses on the mount received the law, that he might
deliver it to the people, written on tables of stone by the finger of
God. It is summed up in these ten commandments, in which there is no
precept about circumcision, nor anything concerning those animal
sacrifices which have ceased to be offered by Christians. Well, now, I
should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except
the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a
Christian,--whether it prohibit the making and worshipping of idols and
of any other gods than the one true God, or the taking of God's name in
vain; or prescribe honour to parents; or give warning against
fornication, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, or coveting other
men's property? Which of these commandments would any one say that the
Christian ought not to keep? Is it possible to contend that it is not
the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle describes
as "the letter that killeth," but the law of circumcision and the other
sacred rites which are now abolished? But then how can we think so, when
in the law occurs this precept, "Thou shall not covet," by which very
commandment, notwithstanding its being holy, just, and good, "sin," says
the apostle, "deceived me, and by it slew me?"(4) What else can this be
than "the letter" that "killeth"?

             CHAP. 24.--THE PASSAGE IN CORINTHIANS.

    In the passage where he speaks to the Corinthians about the letter
that kills, and the spirit that gives life, he expresses himself more
clearly, but he does not mean even there any other "letter" to be
understood than the Decalogue itself, which was written on the two
tables. For these are His words: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly
declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with
ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but
in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to
God-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as
of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; who hath made us fit, as
ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit:
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the
ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of
Moses for the glory of his countenance, which was to be done away; how
shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the
ministration of condemnation be glory, much more shall the ministration
of righteousness abound in glory.(5) A good deal might be said about
these words; but perhaps we shall have a more fitting opportunity at
some future time. At present, however, I beg you to observe how he
speaks of the letter that killeth, and contrasts therewith the spirit
that giveth life. Now this must certainly be "the ministration of death
written and engraven in stones," and "the ministration of condemnation,"
since the law entered that sin might abound.(6) But the commandments
themselves are so useful and salutary to the doer of them, that no one
could have life unless he kept them. Well, then, is it owing to the one
precept about the Sabbath-day, which is included in it, that the
Decalogue is called "the letter that killeth?" Because, forsooth, every
man that still observes that day in its literal appointment is carnally
wise, but to be carnally wise is nothing else than death? And must the
other nine commandments, which are rightly observed in their literal
form, not be regarded as belonging to the law of works by which none is
justified, but to the law of faith whereby the just man lives? Who can
possibly entertain so absurd an opinion as to suppose that "the
ministration of death, written and engraven in stones," is not said
equally of all the ten commandments, but only of the solitary one
touching the Sabbath-day? In which class do we place that which is thus
spoken of: "The law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
transgression?"(1) and again thus: "Until the law sin was in the world:
but sin is not imputed when there is no law?"(2) and also that which we
have already so often quoted: "By the law is the knowledge of sin?"(3)
and especially the passage in which the apostle has more clearly
expressed the question of which we are treating: "I had not known lust,
except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet?"(4)

               CHAP. 25. -- THE PASSAGE IN ROMANS.

    Now carefully consider this entire passage, and see whether it says
anything about circumcision, or the Sabbath, or anything else pertaining
to a foreshadowing sacrament. Does not its whole scope amount to this,
that the letter which forbids sin fails to give man life, but rather
"killeth," by increasing concupiscence, and aggravating sinfulness by
transgression, unless indeed grace liberates us by the law of faith,
which is in Christ Jesus, when His love is "shed abroad in our hearts by
the Holy Ghost, which is given to us?"(5) The apostle having used these
words: "That we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the
oldness of the letter,"(6) goes on to inquire, "What shall we say then?
Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay; I had not known sin, but by the law:
for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without
the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto
death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by
it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and
just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God
forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, worked death in me by that
which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding
sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual; whereas I am carnal, sold
under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that I do
not; but what I hate, that I do. If then I do that which I would not, I
consent unto the law that it is good. But then it is no longer I that do
it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my
flesh) dwelleth no good thing. To will, indeed, is present with me; but
how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I
would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now, if I do
that which I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that,

when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law
of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of
sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver
me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ
out Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with
the flesh the law of sin."(7)

CHAP. 26.- NO FRUIT GOOD EXCEPT IT GROW FROM THE ROOT OF LOVE.

    It is evident, then, that the oldness of the letter, in the absence
of the newness of the spirit, instead of freeing us from sin, rather
makes us guilty by the knowledge of sin. Whence it is written in another
part of Scripture, "He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth
sorrow,"(8)__ not that the law is itself evil, but because the
commandment has its good in the demonstration of the letter, not in the
assistance of the spirit; and if this commandment is kept from the fear
of punishment and not from the love of righteousness, it is servilely
kept, not freely, and therefore it is not kept at all. For no fruit is
good which does not grow from the root of love. If, however, that faith
be present which worketh by love,(9) then one begins to delight in the
law of God after the inward man,(10) and this delight is the gift of the
spirit, not of the letter; even though there is another law in our
members still warring against the law of the mind, until the old state
is changed, and passes into that newness which increases from day to day
in the inward man, whilst the grace of God is liberating us from the
body of this death through Jesus Christ our Lord.

CHAP. 27 [XV.] -- GRACE, CONCEALED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, IS REVEALED IN
THE NEW.

    This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has
been revealed in the New Testament according to the most perfectly
ordered dispensation of the ages, forasmuch as God knew how to dispose
all things. And perhaps it is a part of this hiding of grace, that in
the Decalogue, which was given on Mount Sinai, only the portion which
relates to the Sabbath was hidden under a prefiguring precept. The
Sabbath is a day of sanctification; and it is not without significance
that, among all the works which God accomplished, the first sound of
sanctification was heard on the day when He rested from all His labours.
On this, indeed, we must not now enlarge. But at the same time I deem it
to be enough for the point now in question, that it was not for nothing
that the nation was commanded on that day to abstain from all servile
work, by which sin is signified; but because not to commit sin belongs
to sanctification, that is, to God's gift through the Holy Spirit. And
this precept alone among the others, was placed in the law, which was
written on the two tables of stone, in a prefiguring shadow, under which
the Jews observe the Sabbath, that by this very circumstance it might be
signified that it was then the time for concealing the grace, which had
to be revealed in the New Testament by the death of Christ, -- the
rending, as it were, of the veil.(1) "For when," says the apostle, "it
shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away."(2)

CHAP. 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."(3) 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."(4) 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,(5) 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,(6) so, in like manner, from the death and
resurrection of Him who was led as a lamb to the slaughter,(7) there
were fifty complete days up to the time when the finger of God -- that
is, the Holy Spirit--gathered together in ones perfect company those who
believed.

CHAP. 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;(9) here it was given inwardly,
so that they might be justified.(10) 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."(11) 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."(12) God's law,
therefore, is love. "To it the carnal mind is not subject, neither
indeed can be;"(13) 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.

             CHAP. 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."(1) 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,(2) --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,"(3)
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." (4)

CHAP.	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," (5) meaning the law which is written
externally to man, he therefore designates it both as "the ministration
of death," (6) and "the ministration of condemnation;" (7) but the
other, that is, the law of the New Testament, he calls "the ministration
of the Spirit" (8) and "the ministration of righteousness," (7) 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." (9) 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." (10) 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." (11)
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."
(12) 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." (13) 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;"(14) -- 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;" (15) and
after a little he thus briefly draws the conclusion of the matter: "That
we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (16) This is not the
righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous, but that whereby we are
made righteous by Him.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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."(1) 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.

                  CHAP. 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."(2) 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."(3) 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?"(4) 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."(5) 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,"(6) -- 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."(7)

CHAP. 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,"(1) is fulfilled by
the New Testament? "Because," says the prophet, "they continued not in
my covenant, I have also rejected them, saith the Lord."(2) 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."(3) 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,"(4) because "not
with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God."(4) 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."(3)

CHAP. 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,(5) and the end of the commandment?(6) 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,(7) 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,"(8)
"and whatsoever other commandment is briefly comprehended in the saying,
Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself."(9) 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,"(3) -- 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.

CHAP. 37 [XXII.] --THE ETERNAL REWARD.

He then went on to state the reward: "I will be their God, and they
shall be my people."(3) This corresponds to the Psalmist's words to God:
"It is good for me to hold me fast by God."(10) "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?(11) Of this life the Lord Himself speaks in these words: "This is
life eternal that they may know Thee the only true God, land Jesus
Christ whom Thou hast sent,"(12)-- 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"(13)-- 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."(14)
Then also shall" the wicked go into everlasting punishment, and the
righteous into life eternal."(15) Now this eternal life, as I have just
mentioned, has been defined to be, that they may know the one true
God.(12) 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."(16) 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.(17) 

CHAP. 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."(1) 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." (2)

CHAP. 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." (3)
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," (4)  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?"
(5) 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," (3) 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?

CHAP. 40. -- HOW THAT IS TO BE THE REWARD OF ALL; THE APOSTLE EARNESTLY
DEPENDS 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 eider shall serve the
younger." (6) 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," (7) 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.(8) "They shall all know me,"(3) He says,--"All," the
house of Israel and house of Judah. "All," however, "are not Israel
which are of Israel," (9) but they only to whom it is said in "the psalm
concerning the morning aid"(10) (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."(11) 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.(12) "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." (13) "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."(1) 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.

CHAP. 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,"(2)--even
that imperfect knowledge of "the child "(3) in which this present life
is passed, and which is but "in part," "by means of a mirror darkly."
(4) 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," (5) 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;(6) then shall we be like Him, (7) because "we shall then
know, even as we are known;"(8) 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." (9)
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.(10) 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.(11) 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.

CHAP. 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 m their hearts,(12)
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;"(13) 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,(14) but God Himself, "to whom it is good
to hold fast,"(15) 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."(9) By the law of works, then, the Lord
says, "Thou shalt not covet: "(16) but by the law of faith He says,
"Without me ye can do nothing;" (17) for He was treating of good works,
even the fruit of the vine-branches. It is therefore apparent what dif-
ference 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," (1) is by externally addressing to our faculties precepts of
holiness; for He gives His increase internally,(2) by shedding love
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us."(3)

CHAP. 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,"(4) 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,(5) 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?"

CHAP. 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." (6) 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.(7) 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."(8) 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," (5) 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." (9) 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;" (9) 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,(10) and since it is not the hearers of the law, but
the doers thereof, that are justified,(11) 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." (1) How then could he say that any
Gentile person, who was a doer of the law, was justified without the
Saviour's grace?

CHAP. 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,"(2) 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, (3)
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."
(4) But the statement that "the  doers of the law shall be justified
"(2) 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," (5) -- 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; "(6) 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.

CHAP. 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, (7) 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,(8) inasmuch as they too, by the grafting which he says had
been made of the wild olive, belong to the self-same olive-tree,(9)--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.(10) 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,"(11) 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," (12) 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."(13) Now what the apostle attributed to Gentiles of this
character,--how that "they have the work of the law written in their
hearts;"(14) must be some such thing as what he says to the Corinthians:
"not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." (15) 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 excis- ion 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?"(1) And therefore in the house of the true Israel, in
which is no guile,(2) 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 (3)
which is the" fulfilling of the law." (4)

	CHAP. 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.(5) 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."(6)
Therefore it is by nature that men do the things which are contained in
the law; (7) 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;" (8)
wherefore "there is no difference: they all come short of the glory of
God, being justified freely by His grace." (9) 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." (10)

CHAP. 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," (7) 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,"(11) 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." (12) 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."(1) 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,'' (2) of
what use will be their "excusing thoughts" to them "in the day when God
shall judge the secrets of men," (3) 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,(4) so likewise, in the condemnation of
everlasting punishment, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for
that other city;(5) whilst some men will be twofold more the children of
hell than others.(6) 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.

CHAP. 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,"(7)--immediately afterwards speaking of them "which, having
not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,"(2) 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," (8) and had afterwards said that "God is not the
God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles," (9)--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.(10) This is the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which love
is shed abroad in our hearts,(11) --not, indeed, any kind of love, but
the love of God, "out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an
unfeigned faith," (12) 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.(13) 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.(14)

CHAP. 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;(15) 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." (16) 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,(17) 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.(18) "For it is one God which justifies the
circumcision by faith, and the uncircum-cision through faith;" (19) 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;"(20) 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."(21) 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,(1)--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 (2)--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." (3) And hereby "they
stumbled at the stumbling-stone." (4) For what he said, "not by faith,
but as it were by works," (4) 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."(5) 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;"(6) because, as the apostle says, Israel,
which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the
law of righteousness." (7) 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," (8) 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."(9) 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." (10)

CHAP. 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." (11) 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." (12) 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." (13) "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 !" (14) 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 sweet-
ness,--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.

CHAP. 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.(1) 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." (2) Faith says: "Heal
my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." (3) Grace says: "Behold, thou
art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."(4)
Health says: "O Lord my God, I cried unto Thee, and Thou hast healed
me." (5) Free will says: "I will freely sacrifice unto Thee." (6) Love
of righteousness says: "Transgressors told me pleasant tales, but not
according to Thy law, O Lord." (7) 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." (8)
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.(9) 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;"(10) and "If
the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?

CHAP. 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.(12) 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. 

CHAP. 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.(1) 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."
(2) 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." (3) And again, "To him that
believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness." (4) 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," (5) what reason then is there why it
may not be said to us even of this: "What hast thou which thou hast not
received ?" (6)--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.(7) 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."(8)
Accordingly, the Lord also said to Pilate: "Thou couldest have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above."(9) 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.(10) 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.

CHAP. 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." (11) Nor must the
clause in commendation of love, that it "believeth all things," (12) 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.(13)

CHAP. 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."(1) 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;(2) since
there is "one God, which justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the
uncircumcision through faith." (3) 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?"(4) 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;"(5) 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,(6) 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?" (7) When,
therefore, that strength of sin, the law,(8) inflamed the sting of
death, even sin, to take occasion and by the commandment work all manner
of concupiscence in them,(9) 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.(10) 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; "(11) 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? "(12) This is the faith by which the just man
lives;(13) this is the faith whereby he believes on Him who justifies
the ungodly; (14) this is the faith through which boasting is
excluded,(15) 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." (16) 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,(17) 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." (18) 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." (19) This, in short, is the faith which works not
by fear, but by love; (20) 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.(21) 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" (22) is used in
the sense of our being made righteous by His gift; and "the salvation of
the Lord," (23) in that we are saved by Him; and "the faith of Jesus
Christ," (24) 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.

            CHAP. 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 ?"(1)--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,"(2) 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?"(3)

          CHAP. 58.--THE FREE WILL OF MAN IS AN INTER-

                         MEDIATE 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(4)
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(3) 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 l 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.(5) 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."(6) 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(7) 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.

            CHAP. 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."(8) 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;"(9) 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;(10) be- cause 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;(1) whilst also another law in our members wars against the law
of our mind;(2) whilst to will is present indeed to us but not how to
perform that which is good.(3) 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.(4) "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."(5) There
will, however, be also "judgment without mercy;" but it will be for him"
that hath not showed mercy."(6) But "blessed are the merciful: for they
shall obtain mercy"(7) 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,(8) because He says: "This is life eternal, that they
may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast
sent."(9) 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."(10) 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;'(1) nor does it, in ignorance of God's righteousness, wish
to set up one of its own;(12) but it believes in Him who justifies the
ungodly,(13) and until it arrives at sight, it lives by faith,--even the
faith which works by love.(4) 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.(14)

             CHAP. 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?"(15) 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?"(15) 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 per- suaded 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!" (1) and "Is there
unrighteousness with God?" (2) If the man is displeased with such an
answer, he must seek more learned disputants; but let him beware lest he
find presumptuous ones.

CHAP. 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." (3)

CHAP.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."(4) 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;(5) and the twelve thousand legions of
angels, who could fight for Christ, if He pleased;(6) and those nations
which God said He could have exterminated at once from the face of His
people,(7)--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,(8) 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,(9) although, nevertheless, it was never done, so far as we have
ever read(10) 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.

                    CHAP. 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;"(11) 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."(12) 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."(1) 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.

CHAP. 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;(2) 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."(3) 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,(4) 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."(5)
Who, however, can make so bold, on arriving far enough, to say: "Then
shall I know even as also I am known,"(5) 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,(6)--then after their
pilgrimage here, in which their walk is by "faith," when they shall have
reached the "sight" of that final happiness(7) which we hope for, though
as yet we see it not, and wait for in patience,(8) 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;(9) 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(10) (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.(5) 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."(11) 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.

   	CHAP. 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(12) although
absent from the Lord, and, therefore, walking by faith and not yet by
sight,(1)--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;"(2) 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."(3) To the one, again,
belongs, "Thou shalt not covet;" to the other, "Thou shalt not go after
thy lusts."(5) 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.)(6) Have such just men, while living by faith,
no need to say: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors?"(7)
And do they prove this to be wrong which is written, "In Thy sight shall
no man living be justified?"(8) and this: "If we say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?"(9) and, "There
is no man  that sinneth not;"(10) and again, "There is not on the earth
a righteous man, who doeth good and sinneth not"(11) (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;(12) and to forgive, that it
may be forgiven him;(13) 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(14) from Him who is the living bread,(15) and with whom is
the fountain of life;(16) 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.

CHAP. 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,(17) 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,(1) 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,(2)--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? so also there is no iniquity with Him.(4) Equally
sure am I that He resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.(5) 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."(6) 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."(7)

 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.

CHAP. 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!"(1) 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."(2) 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."(3) 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,(1) 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."(2) 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.(3) For all men have sinned and come
short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His blood.(4) 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;"(5) whence it is, that He came not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance.(6)

CHAP. 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 fleshy For how could they
believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a
preacher?(8)' 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."(9) 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."(2) 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.

CHAP. 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,(10) we were, for all that,
children of wrath, even as others,(11) "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."(12)

                   CHAP. 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."(13) 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."(14)

 CHAP. 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."(1) 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?(2) 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.

             CHAP. 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,(3) by which the cross of Christ is made of none effect.
This, however, "is not the wisdom which descendeth from above."(4) 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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? 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.(6) 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,(7) 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 per- sons 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."

CHAP. 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."(1) 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.

CHAP. 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,(2) 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? 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."

            CHAP. 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 than 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."

 CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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(1) 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"(2) "shutting them up unto the same faith
which should afterwards be revealed;"(3) that by it their transgres-

sions 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.

            CHAP. 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,"(4)--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.

CHAP. 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."(5) 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,''(6)--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;"(7) 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,"(8)--I have already explained, with such care as
I was able, in those books which I wrote to Marcellinus on this very
subject.(9) 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?

CHAP. 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," 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,"(1)--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."(2) 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."(3)
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.

            CHAP. 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" 4--he at once, after finishing some remarks which arose out of
his subject, goes on to add I 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."(5) 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."(6) This is the faith to which the commandments drive
us, in order that the law may prescribe our duty and faith accomplish
it.(7) 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."(8) 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."(1)

CHAP. 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;"(1) 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;(2) 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.(3)

CHAP. 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
blame-worthy 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."(4) 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;"(5) 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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"(6) 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."(7) 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: "0 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,'"(1) -- in which words,
of course, He designated the righteous as the whole, and sinners as the
sick.

CHAP. 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."(2) 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."(3)

            CHAP. 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,(2) 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."(4) 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."(5) 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.

 CHAP. 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?"(1) 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."(2) 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."(3) 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."(3) 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."(4) 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."(5) 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."(6) 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."(7) 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."

CHAP. 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."(8) 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
l 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."(1)
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.(2)

           CHAP. 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,(3) into the kingdom of
Christ the Lord.(4) And yet, when the Lord drew near His passion, He
said, "Behold, the prince of this world cometh and shall find nothing in
me,"(5) -- 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;"(6) as much as to say, I am going to die, not through the
necessity of sin, but in voluntariness of obedience.

          CHAP. 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?"(7) 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;"(8) and so was ascribing to himself what he was receiving from
the Lord. "For what had he that he did not receive?"(9) 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."(7) 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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.(1)

    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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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;"(2) 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" test he should be unduly exalted through
the abundance of the revelation."(3) 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."(1) 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?"(2) 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.

CHAP. 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,(3) 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."(4) 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.

CHAP. 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 endear-ours 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."(5)
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."(6) Truly then is it said,
"Pride is the commencement of all sin;"(5) and, "The beginning of pride
is when a man departeth from God."(7)

CHAP. 34 [XXX.] -- A MAN'S SIN IS HIS OWN, BUT HE NEEDS GRACE FOR HIS
CURE.

    Well, but what does he mean when he says: "Then again, how can one
be subjected to God for the guilt of that sin, which he knows is not his
own? For," says he, "his own it is not, if it is necessary. Or, if it is
his own, it is voluntary: and if it is voluntary, it can be avoided." We
reply: It is unquestionably his own. But the fault by which sin is
committed is not yet in every respect healed, and the fact of its
becoming permanently fixed in us arises from our not rightly using the
healing virtue; and so out of this faulty condition the man who is now
grow- ing 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.

CHAP. 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;" '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,"(2) -- 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.(3) Now the Scriptures refer to
both these operations of grace. There is both this: "The God of my mercy
shall anticipate me,"(4) and again this: "Thy mercy shall follow me all
the days of my life."(5) 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.

CHAP. 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,"(6) 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,"(7) and who, wishing to frame a righteousness of their own,
"have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God."(8) "For
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth;"(9) and He has said, "I am the way."(10) 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,"(11) 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."(12) 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,"(1) 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;"(2) 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;"(2) 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;"(3) 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;"(4) 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."(5)  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?

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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,"(6) 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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;"(1) 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."(2) 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.

CHAP. 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.(3) 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?"(4) 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.

CHAP. 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,"(1) 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?

CHAP. 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."

CHAP. 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,"(2) 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?"(3) 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,"(1) 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?

CHAP. 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."(2) 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 fide experienced
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;"(3) 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;"(4) 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!

CHAP.  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."(5) He, however, who said, "I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise,"(6) 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,"(7) and therefore also
"the offence of the cross is ceased."(8) 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;"(9) for, "being ignorant
of God's righteousness, and  wishing to establish your own
righteousness, you have not submitted yourselves to the righteousness of
God."(10) 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."(11)

            CHAP. 48 [XLI.] -- HOW THE TERM "ALL" IS

                        TO BE UNDERSTOOD,

    His opponents adduced the passage, "All have sinned,"(12) 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,"(3) 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."(13) "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.(1)

CHAP. 49 [XLII.] -- A MAN CAN BE SINLESS, BUT ONLY BY THE HELP OF GRACE.
IN THE SAINTS THISPOSSIBILITY ADVANCES AND KEEPS PACE

WITHTHE 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."(2) 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.

CHAP. 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"(3) 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,"(4) 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.

CHAP. 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."(5) 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," (1) -- 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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 (2) 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 55 [XLVII.] -- THE SAME CONTINUED.

    Mark also what follows. "We may perceive," says he, "the same thing
to be true of heating, 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.

CHAP. 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" (1) ), 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.

CHAP. 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?" (1) It is corrupted. It
implores the Physician's help. "Save me, O Lord," (2) is its cry; "Heal
my soul," (3) it exclaims. Why does he check such cries so as to hinder
future health, by insisting, as it were, on its present capacity?

CHAP. 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?" (4) Whence
also this: "For what good I would, that I do not; but what evil I hate,
that do I?" (5) 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." (6) 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," (7) since it is pretended that human
nature is sufficient for its own holiness and justification.

CHAP. 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.'' (6) 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.

CHAP. 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 (4) 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.' " (8) Very well;
we shall soon see (9) 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. (1)
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.

CHAP. 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?" (2) 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?" (3) 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. (4) 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!" (5)

CHAP. 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." (6) 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?" (7) 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, (1) 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.

CHAP. 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," (2) is a defect, not
nature. The Physician's grace must be sought, and their controversy must
end.

CHAP. 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 un-baptized 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. (1) "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.

CHAP. 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?" (2) 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 held From these it was
that he was unable to liberate himself, who said: "Who shall liberate me
from the body of this death?" (2) 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." (4)
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."Hence comes that cry
of his: "O wretched man that I am! who shall liberate me from the body
of this death?" (2) 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; (6) whence the response: "The
grace of God, through Jesus Christ out Lord." (7)

CHAP. 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,' (8) 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." (9)

CHAP. 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." (8) 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." (10) 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
be 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." (1) 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." (2) 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, he is not under the law; because, so far he rejoices
in the law of God, he lives not in far of the law, since fear has
torment," (3) not joy and delight.

CHAP. 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. (4) 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.' (5) From
which it may be observed, what his harming amounts to against those whom
he tees; 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;" (6) 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." (7)

CHAP. 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
tightly 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 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 rise assisted by it, because in itself it is so insufficient?

             CHAP. 70 [LX.]--WHETHER ANY MAN IS WITH

                      OUT 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; (8) 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" (1) (and so of similar
passages), yet I could wish it were possible to show either that such
quotations were capable of beating 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," (2) 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.

CHAP. 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 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
authors name, either because he has not given it, or because from some
casual mistake the copy which you (3) 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 (4) 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." (5) 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.

CHAP. 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, (6)
that we shall see that which is immortal in God." (7) Now I am reply 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 cause he worshipped God purely with a mind unmixed with
offences: now such worship of God is the proper work of righteousness."
(8) It is what 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. (9) 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, how- ever, 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;" (1) 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." (2) 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."
(3)

            CHAP. 73.--HE MEETS PELAGIUS WITH ANOTHER

                      PASSAGE FROM HILARY.

    Now even Job himself is not silent respecting his own sins; and your
friend, (4) 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. (5) 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," (6) 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," (7)--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." (8)

                   CHAP. 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." (9) 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 praestat sedulis,

		    Sanctum mereri Spiritum," (10)--

"To those who sedulously seek He gives to gain the Holy Spirit."

            CHAP. 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" (11) 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." (1) 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, bad 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 bring
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.

CHAP. 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." (2) 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.

                       CHAP. 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?" (3) 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." (4) 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
dean heart must be brought to this perfection, whilst "the inward man is
renewed day by day," (5) 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 receded 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"); (6)--nevertheless, as I began to say, Xystus
designed his words to be an admonition that, on any man's attiring 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;" (7) which they were
not by nature, nor could at all become, unless by receiving Him they
also receivedpower through His grace. This is the power that love which
is only communicated to us by the Holy Ghost bestowed upon us.

                    CHAP. 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.' (8) These are
they whom no conscious- ness of sin reproves," he says, and adds: "The
pure man is seen by his purity of hear; the temple of God cannot be
defiled." (1) 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;" (2)--who would
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.

CHAP. 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." (3) By
whom given if not by Him who "ascended up on high, led captivity
captive, and gave gifts unto men?" (4) 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 exit,
learn to say to God, "Bring Thou me out of my necessities;" (5) because
in the very offering up of such a prayer there h 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.

CHAP. 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.'" (6) 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
help us as a medicine through the Mediator; not about the impossibility
of righteousness. Whatever, then, may be the cause, it ca be resisted.
Most certainly it can. Now it is because of this that we pray for help,
saying, "Lead us not into temptation," (7) 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
decayed. (8) 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" (9) 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.

CHAP. 81. -- AUGUSTIN QUOTES HIMSELF ON FREE WILL.

    In order, however, that my meaning on this subject may be dear 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'?"
(10) 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." (1) In such terms did I exhort
them, as web 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 puttied. 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.' " (2)

CHAP. 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," (3) 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, (4) 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; (5) even as the truth h not in those persons
who, though they have sin, yet say that they have it not.

CHAP. 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. (6) 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,"
(1)--or rather, it is itself alone the burden which is light.
Accordingly it is said, "And His commandments are not grievous;" (2) 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" (3)
(and, as the verse also has it, in thine hands, (4) for in man's heart
are his spiritual hands), adds in explanation, "This is the word of
faith which we preach." (5) No man, therefore, who "returns to the Lord
his God," as he is there commanded, "with all his heart and with all his
sol," (6) 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 alI
his soul. "A new commandment" says He, "do I give unto you, that ye love
one another; "(7) and "He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the
law;" (8) and again, "Love is the fulfilling of the law." (9) In
accordance with these sayings is that passage, "Had they trodden good
paths, they would have found, indeed, the ways of righteousness easy."
(10) How then is it written, "Because of the words of Thy lips, I have
kept the paths of difficulty," (11) except it be that both statements
are true: These paths are paths of difficulty to fear; but to love they
are easy?

            CHAP. 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," (12) which in this life is then the
greatest, when life itself is contemned in comparison with it." (13) 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
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," "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.

 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,[1] SAID TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP BY
COELESTIUS, WAS PUT INTO THE HANDS OF AUGUSTIN. IN THIS DOCUMENT,
COELESTIUS, 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.

Augustin to his holy brethren and fellow-bishops Eutropius and
Paulus.[2]

                            CHAP. 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 Coelestius; for so
runs the title of the paper which you have given me, "The definitions,
so it is said, of Coelestius." As for this title, I take it that it is
not his, but theirs who have brought this work from Sicily, where
Coelestius is said not to be,--although many there[3] make boastful
pretension of holding views like his, and, to use the apostle's word,
"being themselves deceived, lead others also astray."[4] That these
views are, however, his, or those of some associates s 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
Coelestius 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.

CHAP. II. (I.) THE FIRST BREVIATE OF COELESTIUS.

    1. "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,"[1] so that a man does not
do the things which he would.

                    (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."[2]

                    (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;[3] 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"[4]) has too little determination of will to avoid sin, unless
assisted and healed by God's grace through Jesus Christ our Lord.

                    (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[5] 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,"[6]
and censures itself, and yet remains avaricious. By faith, however, it
receives renovation; in other words, it is healed day by day,[7]--yet
only by God's grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.

              CHAP.  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;"[1] since "the whole need not the physician, but only they that
be sick."[2]

                    (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,[3] until their righteousness becomes perfect, like fully restored
health.

                    (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."[4] 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; "[5] and then
shall come fulness of love, when "we shall see Him even as He is."[6]
Nor will any addition to love be possible more, when faith shall have
reached the fruition of sight.

CHAP.  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."[7] 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."[8] 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."[9] Since
therefore "the whole need not the physician, but only they that be
sick;"[2] 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."[10] 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.

                    (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,[1] 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.

              CHAP. V. (II.) 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[2] His word, expressly declared that the law
and the prophets hung on two commandments,[3] 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 shall love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind;"[4] and "Thou shall love thy neighbour  as thyself."[5] "On these
two commandments," says He, "hang all the law and the prophets."[3]
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;"[6] and the general precept, "Thou shall
love."[7] Accordingly the Apostle Paul, in a certain place, briefly
embraced the two, expressing the prohibition in these words, "Be not
conformed to this world,"[8] and the command in these, "But be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind."[8] 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;[9] nor is God's love shed abroad in our hearts by our own
selves, but by the Holy Ghost that is given to us.[10] 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."[11] 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?

              CHAP. 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."[13] 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."[4] 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;"[1] 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.

                 (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 Manichaeus 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."[2] This deliverance, indeed, is
not fully wrought, so long as the soul is oppressed by the body, which
is hastening to corruption.[3] 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;"[4] 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.

(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."[5] Now He does not impute it to those who say to Him in faith,
"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."[6] 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."[7] 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,[8]--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.

            CHAP. 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,"[1] 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.

CHAP. 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."[2] 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."[3]

(18.) THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THIS LIFE COMPREHENDED IN THREE
PARTS,--FASTING, ALMS-GIVING, AND PRAYER.

            As long, then, as we are "absent from the Lord, we walk by
faith, not by sight;"[4] whence it is said, "The just shall live by
faith."[5] 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,"[6] 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;"[7]--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[8] before
men, to be seen of them,"[9]])  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 fails
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.[10] 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."[1] 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.

(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  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."(1) 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; "(2) 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."(3) For while
there remains any remnant of the lust of the flesh, to be kept m 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,(4)
but wholly will he love God, with all his heart, with all his soul, and
with all his mind? 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?(6) Let us therefore "so run that we may obtain."(7) 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.(8) 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.

CHAP. 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.'(9) Again, in the same book, 'There shall be not an imperfect
man(10) among the sons of Israel.'(11) In like manner the Saviour says
in the Gospel, Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect.'(12) So the apostle, in his second Epistle to the Corinthians,
says: 'Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect.'(13) 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.'(14) 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.'(15)
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.'(16) 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.'(17) 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.(1) So in his first Epistle to the Corinthians he
says 'Be ye sober, and righteous, and sin not.'(2) 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,(3) Be ye holy; for I am holy.'(4) 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.'(5) And in another passage: 'I shall be blameless with
Him.'(6) And yet again: 'Blessed are the blameless in the way, who walk
in the law of the Lord.'(7) To the same effect it is written in Solomon:
'The Lord loveth holy hearts, and all they that are blameless are
acceptable unto Him.'"(8) 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."(9) 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.

CHAP. 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 OFMAN'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,(10) and
"love is the fulfilling of the law"(11)), 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;"(12) 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."(13) 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;"(14) and, "Order Thou
my steps according to Thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion
over me;"(15) and, "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven;"(16)
and, "Lead us not into temptation;"(17) 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.18 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.

           (22.) PASSAGES TO SHOW THAT GOD'S COMMAND-

                     MENTS 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.'1 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.'2 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.'"3 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."4 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;"(5) since "the that be whole need not a
physician, but they that are sick,"(6)--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"(3)) 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.

CHAP. XI. (23.) PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH, WHEN OBJECTED AGAINST HIM
BY THE CATHOLICS, COELESTIUS 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.' "(7)
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,"(8)--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.

           (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."(9) 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."(10)
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."(11) 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,"(12) 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.

    (25.) Hence the force of the statement: "There was no injustice in
my hands, but my prayer was pure."(1) 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.

             (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,''(2) 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.(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;
"(4) 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.(5) 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."(6) Hence also he says: "I put on
righteousness, and clothed myself with judgment like a mantle."(7) 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,(8)
and our righteousness shall be full and complete, without an enemy to
molest us more.

(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,"(9) 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."(10) Now it is a good thing to avoid concupiscence, and this good
the just man would, who lives by faith;(11) and still he does what he
hates, because he has concupiscence, although "he goes not after his
lusts;"(12) 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,(13) and yields not his
members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,(14) 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:(15) 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."(16) 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."(1) 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."(2)

CHAP. 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.'"(3) 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.'(4) 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.'"(5) 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(6) 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.

(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.'(7) Again we read in Solomon, touching
wisdom: 'Men that are liars cannot remember her, but men of truth shall
be found in her.'(8) Again in the Apocalypse: 'And in their mouth was
found no guile, for they are without fault.' "(9) 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."(3) 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,(10)--when he said, "Ye were darkness," he did
not add, "in the Lord;" but after saving, "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."(11) The "faultless" ones, indeed, in the Apocalypse, are so
called because "no guile was found in their mouth." (9) 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;(12) 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.

CHAP. 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;"(1) 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.'"(2) 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.'"(3) 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."(4) 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."(5) 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.(6) It was upon such that God looked down in His
foreknowledge, and passed sentence.

CHAP. 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? '"(7) 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.'(8) And again: 'He maketh His sun to rise on the good and on the
evil.'(9) Then in another passage it is written, 'For the good things
are created from the beginning ;'(10) and yet again, 'They that are good
shall dwell in the land.'"(11) 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."[1] 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;"[2] although
the Lord calls him "a lamp,"[3] 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."[4] Still, in comparison with that light which is "the
true light which light every man that cometh into the world,"[5] 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 ?"[6] 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,"[7] was
admonished to seek Him[8] 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.

      (33.) THE  FIFTH  PASSAGE.[9]

 "This," says he, "is another text of theirs: `Who will boast that he
has a pure heart?'"[10] 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 be 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."[11] 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?"[12] "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?"[13] Except perhaps those who wish to boast of their own
righteousness, and not glory in the mercy of the Judge Himself.

             CHAP. 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.'[14] 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;'[15] and again
in another passage, 'Do good, O Lord, unto those that be good and
upright in heart.'[16] So also in Solomon: 'Riches are good unto him
that hath no sin on his conscience;'[17] and again in the same book,
'Leave off from sin, and order thine hands aright, and cleanse thy heart
from wickedness.'[18] 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.'"[19] 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."[20] 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."[21] 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.[1]

(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,"[2] 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."[3] 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"[4]), how, shall His Church be described as glorious, before
its resurrection? He cleanses it, therefore, now "by the layer of the
water in the word,"[5] 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."[6] 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.[7] 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.

(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"[8] 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."[9] 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."[10] 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,"[11]-- 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."[12] 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.

              CHAP. 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."[13] 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.'"[14] On this passage we have already
made some remarks.[15] 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." [1]

CHAP. 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.'" [2] 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.'" [3] 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," [4] 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. [5] "And," he adds, "the blessed apostle says,
'That we should be holy, and without blame before Him.'" [6] 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 be 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," [7] 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." [2] 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. [8]
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.

CHAP. 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.'" [9]  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.' [10] Also elsewhere: 'Whosoever is born of God
sinneth not; because his being born of God preserveth him, and the evil
one toucheth him not.' [11] And again in another passage, when speaking
of the Saviour, he says: 'Since He was manifested to take away sins,
whosoever abideth in Him inneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen
Him, neither known Him.' [12] 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.'" [13] 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." [9] 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;" [14]
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" [15] 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" [1] 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.

               CHAP. 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.'"
[2] 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."
[3] 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.' [4] Likewise, in
Deuteronomy: 'Life and death hath He set before thee, and good and evil:
. . . choose thou life, that thou mayest live.' [5] 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.' [6] 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.'"[7] 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;" [8] or again this, "Lead us not
into temptation, but deliver us from evil." [9] 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.'
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.

              (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," [3]--in the matter, as I suppose, which he
goes on to treat, when he says, "He sinneth not, let him marry!" [3] 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." [1] 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." [2]

    Or again, because it is said, "The commandments, if thou wilt, shall
save thee," [3]--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;" [4] 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
shall come, and pass on from the beginning of faith." [5] Every one
makes his choice of good, "according as God hath dealt to every man the
measure of faith;" [6] and as the Prince of faith says, "No man can come
to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." [7] 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 call come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father." [8]

(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." [9] 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." [10] "It entered, therefore, that the offence might abound;
but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." [11] 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;" [12] 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," [13] 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.

CHAP. 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;" [14] 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." [5] 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;" [16] for
"whom He did fore-know, 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." [1] We run, therefore, whenever we make advance; and our
wholeness runs with us in our advance (just as a sore is said to run [2]
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 heads [3] that love, "which maketh
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered," [4] until
wholeness and salvation be perfected in us, and God be manifested to us
as He will be seen in His eternal truth.

CHAP. 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 [5]) 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." [6] 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;" [7] "I am not come
to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." [8] 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." [9]
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, [10]--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."
[11] 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." [12] Nor could the
Apostle James say: "In many things we all offend." [13] 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," [14] 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), [15]--I do not
deem it necessary to contest the point over much. I am quite aware that
some hold this opinion, [16] 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.

 A WORK ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS,[1]

                          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.

                     CHAP. 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.

           CHAP. 2 [I.]--THE FIRST ITEM IN THE ACCUSA-

                   TION, 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 trot 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 be 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'"[1] 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.

CHAP. 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.

               CHAP. 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."[1] 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.

CHAP. 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."[2] 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."[3] 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."[4]

              CHAP. 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,"[5]--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."[6] 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;"[7]
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.

                  CHAP. 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,"[1] 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,"[2]
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,"[3] should be given up to their own desire to perish. This is
suffered only by "the vessels of wrath,"[4] who are perfected for
perdition; in whose very destruction, indeed, God "makes known the
riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy."[5] Now it is on this
account that, after saying, "He is my God, His mercy shall go before
me,"[6] he immediately adds, "My God will show me vengeance: upon my
enemies."[6] That therefore happens to them which is mentioned in
Scripture, "God gave them up to the lusts of their own heart."[7] 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."[8] 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.[9] 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.

                  CHAP, 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.

CHAP. 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,"[10] 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."[1] 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,'"[2] 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[3]
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.

CHAP. 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,"[4] 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."[5]

                 CHAP. II.--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."[6] 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."[7] 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.[8] In
two other passages He deals with that wicked and slothful servant, who
neglected to trade with His money,[9] 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.[10] And in yet
another scripture, after admitting the five virgins who were wise, He
shuts the door against the other five foolish ones." 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;"[12] 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?"[1] 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.

CHAP.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!"[2] 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.

CHAP. 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.'"[3] After they had heard this
answer, the synod said: "Neither is this opposed to the Church's faith."

CHAP. 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."[4] 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,"[5] 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."[1] 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."[2] 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."[3] 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."[4] 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.[5] Whence we can easily
see who they are thai 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.

                 CHAP. 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 Manichaeus 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.

           CHAP, 16 [VI.]--THE SIXTH ITEM OF THE ACCU-

                  SATION, 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; arid 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."

           CHAP. 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?

                 CHAP. 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.[1]
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? 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,"[1] and "offendeth not in word ?"[2] 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.

                 CHAP. 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,[3] 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.

CHAP. 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,[1] [VII.] and for the
obtaining of which we pray that we may not be led into temptation.[2]
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."[3]
Therefore it is not "the letter that killeth, but the life-giving
spirit."[4] 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."[5] 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."[6] 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."[7] 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."[8] 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,"
[9]--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."[1]

              CHAP. 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.[10]

               CHAP. 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."[11] 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."[11] Already had he the knowledge of God's holy law, for he said:
"I had not known sin but through the law;"[12] 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."[13] And again, "How to accomplish that which is good I find
not."[11] 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.

CHAP. 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.14 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 sin- ning, 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.[1] 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."[2] 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."[3] 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,[4] which we should be
most unwilling to see making further progress or becoming aggravated in
guilt, was undoubtedly itself condemned.

CHAP. 23 [XI.]--THE SEVENTH ITEM OF THE ACCUSATION: THE BREVIATES OF
COELESTIUS OBJECTED TO PELAGIUS.

         Then follow sundry statements charged against Pelagius, which
are said to be found among the opinions of his disciple Coelestius: 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.[5] 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.[6] 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,[7] who had consulted me respecting them
m 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."

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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,[1] 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,[2] assembled in synod in
the land where the Lord manifested His presence in the days of His
flesh, refused to acquit Pillages 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.

CHAP. 26.--THE ACCUSATIONS IN THE SEVENTH ITEM, WHICH PILLAGES
CONFESSED.

    Let us now see what were the two points out of all that were alleged
which Pillages was unwilling to anathematize, and admitted to be his own
opinions, but to remove their offensive aspect explained m 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 Coelestius. 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."[1] 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."[2] 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
Coelestius, 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.

          CHAP. 27 [XII.] --THE EIGHTH ITEM IN THE AC-

                            CUSATION.

    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?"[1] or how could the Church offer up that
prayer which the Lord taught her to use, "Forgive us our debts," [2] 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.

            CHAP. 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 layer 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 layer 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 layer, 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.

CHAP. 29 [XIII.]--THE NINTH ITEM OF THE ACCUSATION; AND PELAGIUS' REPLY.

    The next objections were urged out of the book of Coelestius,
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 Coelestius' 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.'"Upon this the synod said: "This also the
Church receives." I have read for myself the meaning which Coelestius
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."[2] 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"),[3] said to them: "All men cannot
receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."[4] 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 Coelestius regarded this subject,
the judges were not aware.

CHAP. 30 [XIV.]--THE TENTH ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION. THE MORE PROMINENT
POINTS OF COELESTIUS' WORK CONTINUED.

    After this we find objected against Pelagius some other points of
Coelestius' 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 Coelestius 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 Coelestius 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
Coelestius, 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.

              CHAP. 31.--REMARKS ON THE TENTH ITEM.

    I shall make my next remark with greater satisfaction. In a former
section I expressed a fear[5] 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;[6] 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,"[1] 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?"[2] 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."[3] 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,"[4] 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."[5]

            CHAP. 32.--THE ELEVENTH ITEM OF THE ACCU-

                             SATION.

    But what comes afterwards again fills me with anxiety. On its being
objected to him, from the fifth chapter of Coelestius' 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."[6] 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 lie
says: "In the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed
to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils?"[7] He was, moreover, "the
teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity?[8] He performed miracles
also and cures; for he shook off from his hand, unhurt, the biting
viper;[9] and the cripple stood upright on his feet at the apostle's
word, and his strength was at once restored.[10] 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?"[11] 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?"[1] 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? 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.

CHAP. 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."[3] In accordance with this, he says again: "Now to him that
worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."[4] 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.

CHAP. 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."[5] 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."[6] 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 be 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."1 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."[2] 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."[3] 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."[4]
Whence, too, arises the well-known challenge: "What hast thou that thou
didst not receive ?"[5] inasmuch as we have received even that which is
the spring from which everything we have of good in our actions takes
its beginning.

                 CHAP. 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;'[6] 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; "6 but then he also says: "Thanks be to God, who
giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord."[7] 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."[8] 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.[9] 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,[10] of which He said," I have prayed for thee, Peter,
that thy faith fail not,"[11] than that God would preserve his faith,
that it should not fail I 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!

CHAP. 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;[12] 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;"[13] 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.[1] Let us hear also why he is not worthy to be called an
apostle: "Because," says he, "I persecuted the Church of God."[2] 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."[3] 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."[4] 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 ?"[3] 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."[3] 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.

CHAP. 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 triad 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; '[3] and again: ' It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;'[6] and again: 'Except the Lord
build the house, they labour but in vain who build it.'[7] 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.'"

CHAP. 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.'"[6]

CHAP. 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,[8]--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,1 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,[2]--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,[3] 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 ?

CHAP. 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,"4 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 Coelestius. Now among these it was objected to him that Coelestius
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
Coelestius, 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,"[5] 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 ? "[6] Who that carefully
considers all this can help feeling some anxiety about his answer or
defence?

CHAP. 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[1] 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.

CHAP. 42 [XVIII.]--THE TWELFTH ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION. OTHER HEADS OF
COELESTIUS' DOCTRINE ABJURED BY PELAGIUS.

    For it was objected that in the sixth chapter of Coelestius' 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."2 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;"[3]
although too, in the law, sacrifices are offered for ignorance, as if
for sin.[4] 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,"[5] 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."

[CHAP. 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."

CHAP. 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."

CHAP. 45 [XXI.] -- PELAGIUS' ACQUITTAL BECOMES SUSPECTED.

    If these are the proceedings by which Pelagius' friends rejoice that
he was exculpated, we, on our part,--since he certainly took much pains
to prove that we were well affected towards him, by going so far as to
produce even our private letters to him, and reading them at the
trial,--undoubtedly wish and desire his salvation in Christ; but as
regards his exculpation, which is rather believed than clearly shown, we
ought not to be in a hurry to exult. When I say this, indeed, I do not
charge the judges either with negligence or connivance, or with
consciously holding unsound doctrine--which they most certainly would be
the very last to entertain. But although by their sentence Pelagius is
held by those who are on terms of fullest and closest intimacy with him
to have been deservedly acquitted, with the approval and commendation of
his judges, he certainly does not appear to me to have been cleared of
the charges brought against him. They conducted his trial as of one whom
they knew nothing of, especially in the absence of those who had
prepared the indictment against him, and were quite unable to ex- amine
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 ?

CHAP. 46 [XXII.]--HOW PELAGIUS BECAME KNOWN TO AUGUSTIN; COELESTIUS
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 Coelestius 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.

CHAP. 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 why hold these opinions," which we
should have regarded in the light of a self-censure; but when be 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.

CHAP.  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." We have found, indeed, that
your holiness has so thoroughly sired 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.2 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.'[3] 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." [4]

CHAP. 49 [XXV.]--PELAGIUS' BEHAVIOUR CONTRASTED WITH THAT OF THE WRITERS
OF THE LETTER.

If now that man,[5] 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.

CHAP. 50.--PELAGIUS HAS NO GOOD REASON TO BE ANNOYED IF HIS NAME BE AT
LAST USED IN THE CONTROVERSY, AND HE BE EXPRESSLY REFUTED.

    But now if Pelagius thinks of God, if he is not ungrateful for His
mercy in having brought him before this tribunal of the bishops, that
thus he might be saved from the hardihood of afterwards defending these
anathematized opinions, and be at once led to acknowledge them as
deserving of abhorrence and rejection, he will be more thankful to us
for our book, in which, by mentioning his name, we shall open the wound
in order to cure it, than for one in which we were afraid to cause him
pain, and, in fact, only produced irritation,--a result which causes us
regret. Should he, however, feel angry with us, let him reflect how
unfair such anger is; and, in order to subdue it, let him ask God to
give him that grace which, in this trial, he has confessed to be
necessary for each one of our actions, that so by His assistance he may
gain a real victory. For of what use to him are all those great
laudations contained in the letters of the bishops, which he thought fit
to be men- tioned, 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?

CHAP. 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"[1]--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."2 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:

           CHAP. 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[3] 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."

          CHAP. 53 [XXIX.]--PELAGIUS' USE OF RECOMMEN-

                            DATIONS.

    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.

CHAP. 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,1 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
I struggle to abstain froth 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.'"[2] And so on, as I have already
mentioned.

             CHAP. 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 Pela-gius 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 anti conducting his defence,[3] 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,[1] 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;"[2] or whether this gift shall be
consummated at the time when "we shall be like Him, when we shall see
Him as He is,"[3]--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,"[4] but by those that are triumphing: "O death, where is thy
victory ? O death, where is thy sting?"[5] 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.[6]

             CHAP. 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?

CHAP. 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
Coelestius, 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.

                 CHAP. 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 Coelestius' 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.

CHAP. 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 be 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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,"[1]--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;"[2] 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."

CHAP. 62.--THE HISTORY CONTINUED. COELESTIUS 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 Coelestius,
who entertained these sentiments, was brought up for trial before the
Church of Carthage, and was condemned by a sentence of the bishops.[1]
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.[2] 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;'"[3] 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."[4] 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."[5] 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.'"[6] 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."[7] 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."[8] 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 [9]--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.

CHAP. 63.--THE SAME CONTINUED. THE DOGMAS OF COELESTIUS LAID TO THE
CHARGE OF PELAGIUS, AS HIS MASTER, AND CONDEMNED.

    Of the opinions which Coelestius 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."[10] Coelestius, however, was stated to have said that "they
lived sinless lives. Again, it was objected that Coelestius declared
"the Church to be without spot and wrinkle."[11] Pelagius, however, said
in his reply, "that he had made such an assertion, but as meaning that
the Church is by the layer cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and
that in this purity the Lord would have her continue." Respecting that
statement of Coelestius: "That we do more than is commanded us in the
law and the gospel," Pelagius urged in his own vindication,[1] that "he
spoke concerning virginity," of which Paul says: "I have no commandment
of the Lord."[2] Another objection alleged that Coelestius 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.[3] 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."

CHAP. 64. -- HOW THE BISHOPS CLEARED PELAGIUS OF THOSE CHARGES.

    These four dogmas, thus connected with the name of Coelestius, were
therefore not approved by the bishops in their judgment, in the sense in
which Coelestius 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 layer 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;") [4] 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.

          CHAP. 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.[5] 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[6] 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[7] 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,'[8] 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 Coelestius,--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 Coelestius 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.

CHAP. 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[1] 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.

 EXTRACT FROM AUGUSTIN'S "RETRACTATIONS,"

                       BOOK II. CHAP. 50,

                   ON THE FOLLOWING TREATISE,

"DE GRATIA CHRISTI, ET DE PECCATO ORIGINALI."

    "AFTER the conviction and condemnation(1) of the Pelagian heresy
with its authors by the bishops of the Church of Rome,--first Innocent,
and then Zosimus,--with the co-operation of letters of African councils,
I wrote two books against them: one On the Grace of Christ, and the
other On Original Sin. The work began with the following words: 'How
greatly we rejoice on account of your bodily, and, above all, because of
your Spiritual welfare.'"

            A TREATISE ON THE GRACE OF CHRIST, AND ON

                          ORIGINAL SIN.

             BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO;

                          IN TWO BOOKS,

WRITTEN AGAINST PELAGIUS AND C[?]LESTIUS IN THE YEAR A.D, 418.

                             BOOK I.

                     ON THE GRACE OF CHRIST.

WHEREIN HE SHOWS THAT PELAGIUS IS DISINGENUOUS IN HIS CONFESSION OF
GRACE, INASMUCH AS HE PLACES GRACE EITHER IN NATURE AND FREE WILL, OR IN
LAW AND TEACHING; AND, MOREOVER, ASSERTS THAT IT IS MERELY THE
"POSSIBILITY" (AS HE CALLS IT) OF WILL AND ACTION, AND NOT THE WILL AND
ACTION ITSELF, WHICH IS ASSISTED BY DIVINE GRACE; AND THAT THIS
ASSISTING GRACE, TOO, IS GIVEN BY GOD ACCORDING TO MEN'S MERITS; WHILST
HE FURTHER THINKS THAT THEY ARE SO ASSISTED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
BEING ABLE THE MORE EASILY TO FULFIL THE COMMANDMENTS. AUGUSTIN EXAMINES
THOSE PASSAGES OF HIS WRITINGS IN WHICH HE BOASTED THAT HE HAD BESTOWED
EXPRESS COMMENDATION ON THE GRACE OF GOD, AND POINTS OUT HOW THEY CAN BE
INTERPRETED AS REFERRING TO LAW AND TEACHING,--IN OTHER WORDS, TO THE
DIVINE REVELATION AND THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST WHICH ARE ALIKE INCLUDED IN
"THE TEACHING,"--OR ELSE TO THE REMISSION OF SINS; NOR DO THEY AFFORD
ANY EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT PELAGIUS REALLY ACKNOWLEDGED CHRISTIAN GRACE,
IN THE SENSE OF HELP RENDERED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF RIGHT ACTION TO
NATURAL FACULTY AND INSTRUCTION, BY THE INSPIRATION OF A MOST GLOWING
AND LUMINOUS LOVE; AND HE CONCLUDES WITH A REQUEST THAT PELAGIUS WOULD
SERIOUSLY LISTEN TO AMBROSE, WHOM HE IS SO VERY FOND OF QUOTING, IN HIS
EXCELLENT EULOGY IN COMMENDATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD.

                    CHAP.I[I.]--INTRODUCTORY.

    How greatly we rejoice on account of your bodily, and, above all,
your spiritual welfare, my most sincerely attached brethren and beloved
of God, Albina, Pinianus, and Melania,(1) we cannot express in words; we
therefore leave all this to your own thoughts and belief, in order that
we may now rather speak of the matters on which you consulted us. We
have, indeed, had to compose these words to the best of the ability
which God has vouchsafed to us, while our messenger was in a hurry to be
gone, and amidst many occupations, which are much more absorbing to me
at Carthage than in any other place whatever.

 CHAP. 2 [II.]--SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER OF PELAGIUS' CONFESSION AS TO THE
NECESSITY OF GRACE FOR EVERY SINGLE ACT OF OURS.

    You informed me in your letter, that you had entreated Pelagius to
express in writing his condemnation of all that had been alleged against
him; and that he had said, in the audience of you all: "I anathematize
the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby 'Christ
Jesus came into the world to save sinners,'(1) is not necessary not only
for ever hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives:
and those who endeavour to disannul it deserve everlasting punishment."
Now, whoever hears these words, and is ignorant of the opinion which he
has clearly enough expressed in his books,--not those, indeed, which he
declares to have been stolen from him in an incorrect form, nor those
which he repudiates, but those even which he mentions in his own letter
which he forwarded to Rome,--would certainly suppose that the views he
holds are in strict accordance with the truth. But whoever notices what
he openly declares in them, cannot fail to regard these statements with
suspicion. Because, although he makes that grace of God whereby Christ
came into the world to save sinners to consist simply in the remission
of sins, he can still accommodate his words to this meaning, by alleging
that the necessity of such grace for every hour and for every moment and
for every action of our life, comes to this, that while we recollect 
and keep in mind the forgiveness of our past sins, we sin no more, aided
not by any supply of power from without, but by the powers of our own
will as it recalls to our mind, in every action we do, what advantage
has been conferred upon us by the remission of sins. Then, again,
whereas they are accustomed to say that Christ has given us assistance
for avoiding sin, in that He has left us an example by living
righteously and teaching what is right Himself, they have it in their
power here also to accommodate their words, by affirming that this is
the necessity of grace to us for every moment and for every action,
namely, that we should in all our conversation regard the example of the
Lord's conversation. Your own fidelity, however, enables you clearly to
perceive how such a profession of opinion as this differs from that true
confession of grace which is now the question before us. And yet how
easily can it be obscured and disguised by their ambiguous statements!

             CHAP. 3 [III.]--GRACE ACCORDING TO THE

                           PELAGIANS.

    But why should we wonder at this? For the same Pelagius, who in the
Proceedings of the episcopal synod unhesitatingly condemned those who
say "that God's grace and assistance are not given for single  acts, but
consist m free will, or in law and teaching, upon which points we were
apt to think that he had expended all his subterfuges; and who also
condemned such as affirm that the grace of God is bestowed in proportion
to our merits:--is proved, notwithstanding, to hold, in the books which
he has published on the freedom of the will, and which he mentions in
the letter he sent to Rome, no other sentiments than those which he
seemingly condemned. For that grace and help of God, by which we are
assisted in avoiding sin, he places either in nature and free will, or
else in the gift of the law and teaching; the result of which of course
is this, that whenever God helps a man, He must be supposed to help him
to turn away from evil and do good, by revealing to him and teaching him
what he ought to do,(3) but not with the additional assistance of His
co-operation and inspiration of love, that he may accomplish that which
he had discovered it to be his duty to do.

CHAP. 4.--PELAGIUS' SYSTEM OF FACULTIES.

    In his system, he posits and distinguishes three faculties, by which
he says God's commandments are fulfilled,--capacity, volition, and
action:(4) meaning by "capacity," that by which a man is able to be
righteous; by "volition" that by which he wills to be righteous; by
"action," that by which he actually is righteous. The first of these,
the capacity, he allows to have been bestowed on us by the Creator of
our nature; it is not in our power, and we possess it even against our
will. The other two, however, the volition and the action, he asserts to
be our own; and he assigns them to us so strictly as to contend that
they proceed simply from ourselves. In short, according to his view,
God's grace has nothing to do with assisting those two faculties which
he will have to be altogether our own, the volition and the action, but
that only which is not in our own power and comes to us from God, namely
the capacity; as if the faculties which are our own, that is, the
volition and the action, have such avail for declining evil and doing
good, that they require no divine help, whereas that faculty which we
have of God, that is to say, the capacity, is so weak, that it is always
assisted by the aid of grace.

             CHAP. 5 [IV.]--PELAGIUS' OWN ACCOUNT OF

                     THE FACULTIES, QUOTED.

    Lest, however, it should chance to be said that we either do not
correctly understand what he advances, or malevolently pervert to
another meaning what he never meant to bear such a sense, I beg of you
to consider his own actual words: "We distinguish," says he, "three
things, arranging them in a certain graduated order. We put in the first
place 'ability;' in the second, 'volition;' and in the third,
'actuality.'[1] The 'ability' we place in our nature, the 'volition' in
our will, and the 'actuality' in the effect. The first, that is, the
'ability,' properly belongs to God, who has bestowed it on His creature;
the other two, that is, the 'volition' and the 'actuality,' must be
referred to man, because they flow forth from the fountain of the will
For his willing, therefore, and doing a good work, the praise belongs to
man; or rather both to man, and to God who has bestowed on him the
'capacity' for his will and work, and who evermore by the help of His
grace assists even this capacity. That a man is able to will and effect
any good work, comes from God alone. So that this one faculty can exist,
even when the other two have no being; but these latter cannot exist
without that former one. I am therefore free not to have either a good
volition or action; but I am by no means able not to have the capacity
of good. This capacity is inherent in me, whether I will or no; nor does
nature at any time receive in this point freedom for itself. Now the
meaning of all this will be rendered clearer by an example or two. That
we are able to see with our eyes is not of us; but it is our own that we
make a good or a bad use of our eyes. So again (that I may, by applying
a general case in illustration, embrace all), that we are able to do,
say, think, any good thing, comes from Him who has endowed us with this
'ability,' and who also assists this 'ability;' but that we really do a
good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from
our own selves, because we are also able to turn all these into evil.
Accordingly,--and this is a point which needs frequent repetition,
because of your calumniation of us,--whenever we say that a man can live
without sin, we also give praise to God by our acknowledgment of the
capacity which we have received from Him, who has bestowed such
'ability' upon us; and there is here no occasion for praising the human
agent, since it is God's matter alone that is for the moment treated of;
for the question is not about 'willing,' or 'effecting,' but simply and
solely about that which may possibly be."

          CHAP. 6 [V.]--PELAGIUS AND PAUL OF DIFFERENT

                            OPINIONS.

    The whole of this dogma of Pelagius, observe, is carefully expressed
in these words, and none other, in the third book of his treatise in
de-fence of the liberty of the will, in which he has taken care to
distinguish with so great subtlety these three things,--the "capacity,"
the "volition,'' and the "action," that is, the" ability," the
"volition," and the "actuality,"--that, whenever we read or hear of his
acknowledging the assistance of divine grace in order to our avoidance
of evil and accomplishment of good,--whatever he may mean by the said
assistance of grace, whether law and the teaching or any other
thing,--we are sure of what he says; nor can we run into any mistake by
understanding him otherwise than he means. For we cannot help knowing
that, according to his belief, it is not our "volition" nor our "action"
which is assisted by the divine help, but solely our "capacity" to will
and act, which alone of the three, as he affirms, we have of God. As if
that faculty were infirm which God Himself placed in our nature; while
the other two, which, as he would have it, are our own, are so strong
and firm and self-sufficient as to require none of His help! so that He
does not help us to will, nor help us to act, but simply helps us to the
possibility of willing and acting. The apostle, however, holds the
contrary, when he says, "Work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling."[2] And that they might be sure that it was not simply in
their being able to work (for this they had already received in nature
and in teaching), but in their actual working, that they were divinely
assisted, the apostle does not say to them, "For it is God that worketh
in you to be able," as if they already possessed volition and operation
among their own resources, without requiring His assistance in respect
of these two; but he says, "For it is God which worketh in you both to
will and to perform of His own good pleasure;"[3] or, as the reading
runs in other copies, especially the Greek, "both to will and to
operate." Consider, now, whether the apostle did not thus long before
foresee by the Holy Ghost that there would arise adversaries of the
grace of God; and did not therefore declare that God works within us
those two very things, even "willing" and "operating," which this man so
determined to be our own, as if they were in no wise assisted by the
help of divine grace.

         CHAP. 7 [VI.]--PELAGIUS POSITS GOD'S AID ONLY

                       FOR OUR "CAPACITY."

    Let not Pelagius, however, in this way deceive incautious and simple
persons, or even himself; for after saying," Man is therefore to be
praised for his willing and doing a good work," he added, as if by way
of correcting himself, these words: "Or rather, this praise belongs to
man and to God." It was not, however, that he wished to be understood as
showing any deference to the sound doctrine, that it is "God which
worketh in us both to will and to do," that he thus expressed himself;
but it is clear enough, on his own showing, why he added the latter
clause, for he immediately subjoins: "Who has bestowed on him the
'capacity' for this very will and work." From his preceding words it is
manifest that he places this capacity in our nature. Lest he should
seem, however, to have said nothing about grace, he added these words:
"And who evermore, by the help of His grace, assists this very
capacity,"--" this very capacity," observe; not "very will," or "very
action;" for if he had said so much as this, he would clearly not be at
variance with the teaching of the apostle. But there are his words:
"this very capacity;" meaning that very one of the three faculties which
he had placed in our nature. This God "evermore assists by the help of
His grace." The result, indeed, is, that "the praise does not belong to
man and to God," because man so wills that yet God also inspires his
volition with the ardour of love, or that man so works that God
nevertheless also cooperates with him,--and without His help, what is
man ? But he has associated God in this praise in this wise, that were
it not for the nature which God gave us in our creation wherewith we
might be able to exercise volition and action, we should neither will
nor act.

CHAP. 8.--GRACE, ACCORDING TO THE PELAGIANS, CONSISTS IN THE INTERNAL
AND MANIFOLD ILLUMINATION OF THE MIND.

    As to this natural capacity which, he allows, is assisted by the
grace of God, it is by no means clear from the passage either what grace
he means, or to what extent he supposes our nature to be assisted by it.
But, as is the case in other passages in which he expresses himself with
more clearness and decision, we may here also perceive that no other
grace is intended by him as helping natural capacity than the law and
the teaching. [VII.] For in one passage he says: "We are supposed by
very ignorant persons to do wrong in this matter to divine grace,
because we say that it by no means perfects sanctity in us without our
will,--as if God could have imposed any command on His grace, without
also supplying the help of His grace to those on whom he imposed His
commands, so that men might more easily accomplish through grace what
they are required to do by their free will." Then, as if he meant to
explain what grace he meant, he immediately went on to add these words:
"And this grace we for our part do not, as you suppose, allow to consist
merely in the law, but also in the help of God." Now who can help
wishing that he would show us what grace it is that he would have us
understand? Indeed, we have the strongest reason for desiring him to
tell us what he means by saying that he does not allow grace merely to
consist in the law. Whilst, however, we are in the suspense of our
expectation, observe, I pray you, what he has further to tell us: "God
helps us," says he, "by His teaching and revelation, whilst He opens the
eyes of our heart; whilst He points out to us the future, that we may
not be absorbed in the present; whilst He discovers to us the snares of
the devil; whilst He enlightens us with the manifold and ineffable gift
of heavenly grace." He then concludes his statement with a kind of
absolution: "Does the man," he asks, "who says all this appear to you to
be a denier of grace? Does he not acknowledge both man's free will and
God's grace?" But, after all, he has not got beyond his commendation of
the law and of teaching; assiduously inculcating this as the grace that
helps us, and so following up the idea with which he had started, when
he said, "We, however, allow it to consist in the help of God." God's
help, indeed, he supposed must be recommended to us by manifold lures;
by setting forth teaching and revelation, the opening of the eyes of the
heart, the demonstration of the future, the discovery of the devil's
wiles, and the illumination of our minds by the varied and indescribable
gift of heavenly grace,--all this, of course, with a view to our
learning the commandments and promises of God. And what else is this
than placing God's grace in "the law and the teaching"?

CHAP. 9 [VIII.]--THE LAW ONE THING, GRACE ANOTHER. THE UTILITY OF THE
LAW.

    Hence, then, it is clear that he acknowledges that grace whereby God
points out and reveals to us what we are bound to do; but not that
whereby He endows and assists us to act, since the knowledge of the law,
unless it be accompanied by the assistance of grace, rather avails for
producing the transgression of the commandment. "Where there is no law,"
says the apostle, "there is no transgression;"[1] and again: "I had not
known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." [2] Therefore
so far are the law and grace from being the same thing, that the law is
not only unprofitable, but it is absolutely prejudicial, unless grace
assists it; and the utility of the law may be shown by this, that it
obliges all whom it proves guilty of transgression to betake themselves
to grace for deliverance and help to overcome their evil lusts. For it
rather commands than assists; it discovers disease, but does not heal
it; nay, the malady that is not healed is rather aggravated by it, so
that the cure of grace is more earnestly and anxiously sought for,
inasmuch as "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."[1] "For if
there had been a law given which could have given life, verily
righteousness should have been by the law."[2] To what extent, however,
the law gives assistance, the apostle informs us when he says
immediately afterwards: "The Scripture hath concluded all under sin,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe."[3] Wherefore, says the apostle, "the law was our schoolmaster
in Christ Jesus." [4] Now this very thing is serviceable to proud men,
to be more firmly and manifestly "concluded under sin," so that none may
pre-sumptuously endeavour to accomplish their justification by means of
free will as if by their own resources; but rather "that every mouth may
be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Because by
the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for
by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God
without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets."[5] How then manifested without the law, if witnessed by the
law? For this very reason the phrase is not, "manifested without the
law," but "the righteousness without the law," because it is "the
righteousness of God;" that is, the righteousness which we have not from
the law, but from God,--not the righteousness, indeed, which by reason
of His commanding it, causes us fear through our knowledge of it; but
rather the righteousness which by reason of His bestowing it, is held
fast and maintained by us through our loving it,--"so that he that
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." [6]

              CHAP. 10 [IX.]--WHAT PURPOSE THE LAW

                           SUBSERVES.

    What object, then, can this man gain by accounting the law and the
teaching to be the grace whereby we are helped to work righteousness?
For, in order that it may help much, it must help us to feel our need of
grace. No man, indeed, is able to fulfil the law through the law. "Love
is the fulfilling of the law."[7] And the love of God is not shed abroad
in our hearts by the law, but by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto
us.8 Grace, therefore, is pointed at by the law, in order that the law
may be fulfilled by grace. Now what does it avail for Pelagius, that he
declares the self-same thing under different phrases, that he may not be
understood to place in law and teaching that grace which, as he avers,
assists the "capacity" of our nature? So far, indeed, as I can
conjecture, the reason why he fears being so understood is, because he
condemned all those who maintain that God's grace and help are not given
for a man's single actions, but exist rather in his freedom, or in the
law and teaching. And yet he supposes that he escapes detection by the
shifts he so constantly employs for disguising what he means by his
formula of "law and teaching" under so many various phrases.

CHAP. II [X.]--PELAGIUS' DEFINITION OF HOW GOD HELPS US: "HE PROMISES US
FUTURE GLORY."

    For in another passage, after asserting at length that it is not by
the help of God, but out of our own selves, that a good will is formed
within us, he confronted himself with a question out of the apostle's
epistle; and he asked this question: "How will this stand consistently
with the apostle's words,[9] 'It is God that worketh in you both to will
and to perfect'?" Then, in order to obviate this opposing authority,
which he plainly saw to be most thoroughly contrasted with his own
dogma, he went on at once to add: "He works in us to will what is good,
to will what is holy, when He rouses us from our devotion to earthly
desires, and from our love of the present only, after the manner of
brute animals, by the magnitude of the future glory and the promise of
its rewards; when by revealing wisdom to us He stirs up our sluggish
will to a longing after God; when (what you are not afraid to deny in
another passage) he persuades us to everything which is good." Now what
can be plainer, than that by the grace whereby God works within us to
will what is good, he means nothing else than the law and the teaching?
For in the law and the teaching of the holy Scriptures are promised
future glory and its great rewards. To the teaching also appertains the
revelation of wisdom, whilst it is its further function to direct our
thoughts to everything that is good. And if between teaching and
persuading (or rather exhorting) there seems to be a difference, yet
even this is provided for in the general term "teaching," which is
contained in the several discourses or letters; for the holy Scriptures
both teach and exhort, and in the processes of teaching and exhorting
there is room likewise for man's operation. We, however, on our side
would fain have him sometime confess that grace, by which not only
future glory in all its magnitude is promised, but also is believed in
and hoped for; by which wisdom is not only re- vealed, but also loved;
by which everything that is good is not only recommended, but pressed
upon us until we accept it. For all men do not possess faith,[1] who
hear the Lord in the Scriptures promising the kingdom of heaven; nor are
all men persuaded, who are counselled to come to Him, who says, "Come
unto me, all ye that labour."[2] They, however, who have faith are the
same who are also persuaded to come to Him. This He Himself set forth
most plainly, when He said, "No man can come to me, except the Father,
which hath sent me, draw him."[3] And some verses afterwards, when
speaking of such as believe not, He says, "Therefore said I unto you,
that no man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my
Father." [4]  This is the grace which Pelagius ought to acknowledge, if
he wishes not only to be called a Christian, but to be one.

             CHAP. 12 [XI.]--THE SAME CONTINUED: "HE

                        REVEALS WISDOM."

    But what shall I say about the revelation of wisdom? For there is no
man who can in the present life very well hope to attain to the great
revelations which were given to the Apostle Paul; and of course it is
impossible to suppose that anything was accustomed in these revelations
to be made known to him but what appertained to wisdom. Yet for all this
he says: "Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance
of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the
messenger of Satan to buffet me. For this thing I besought the Lord
thrice, that He would take it away from me. And He said unto me, My
grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in
weakness."[5] Now, undoubtedly, if there were already in the apostle
that perfection of love which admitted of no further addition, and which
could be puffed up no more, there could have been no further need of the
messenger of Satan to buffet him, and thereby to repress the excessive
elation which might arise from abundance of revelations. What means this
elation, however, but a being puffed up? And of love it has been indeed
most truly said, "Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up."[6]  This
love, therefore, was still in process of constant increase in the great
apostle, day by day, as long as his "inward man was renewed day by
day,"[7] and would then be perfected, no doubt, when he was got beyond
the reach of all further vaunting and elation. But at that time his mind
was still in a condition to be inflated by an abundance of revelations
before it was perfected in the solid edifice of love; for he had not
arrived at the goal and apprehended the prize, to which he was reaching
forward in his course.

             CHAP. 13 [XII.]--GRACE CAUSES US TO DO.

    To him, therefore, who is reluctant to endure the troublesome
process, whereby this vaunting disposition is restrained, before he
attains to the ultimate and highest perfection of charity, it is most
properly said, "My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made
perfect in weakness," [8]--in weakness, that is, not of the flesh only,
as this man supposes, but both of the flesh and of the mind; because the
mind, too, was, in comparison of that last stage of complete perfection,
weak, and to it also was assigned, in order to check its elation, that
messenger of Satan, the thorn in the flesh; although it was very strong,
in contrast with the carnal or animal faculties, which as yet understand
not the things of the Spirit of God.[9] Inasmuch, then, as strength is
made perfect in weakness, whoever does not own himself to be weak, is
not in the way to be perfected. This grace, however, by which strength
is perfected in weakness, conducts all who are predestinated and called
according to the divine purpose[10] to the state of the highest
perfection and glory. By such grace it is effected, not only that we
discover what ought to be done, but also that we do what we have
discovered,--not only that we believe what ought to be loved, but also
that we love what we have believed.

CHAP. 14 [XII.]--THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD, AND THE
RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF THE LAW.

    If this grace is to be called "teaching," let it at any rate be so
called in such wise that God may be believed to infuse it, along with an
ineffable sweetness, more deeply and more internally, not only by their
agency who plant and water from without, but likewise by His own too who
ministers in secret His own increase,--in such a way, that He not only
exhibits truth, but likewise imparts love. For it is thus that God
teaches those who have been called according to His purpose, giving them
simultaneously both to know what they ought to do, and to do what they
know. Accordingly, the apostle thus speaks to the Thessalonians: "As
touching love of the brethren, ye need not that I write unto you; for ye
yourselves are taught of God to love one another."[11] And then, by way
of proving that they had been taught of God, he subjoined: "And indeed
ye do it towards all the brethren which are in all Macedonia." [12] As
if the surest sign that you have been taught of God, is that you put
into practice what you have been taught. Of that character are all who
are called accord- ing to God's purpose, as it is written in the
prophets: "They shall be all taught of God." [1] The man, however, who
has learned what ought to be done, but does it not, has not as yet been
"taught of God" according to grace, but only according to the law,--not
according to the spirit, but only according to the letter. Although
there are many who appear to do what the law commands, through fear of
punishment, not through love of righteousness; and such righteousness as
this the apostle calls "his own which is after the law,"--a thing as it
were commanded, not given. When, indeed, it has been given, it is not
called our own righteousness, but God's; because it becomes our own only
so that we have it from God. These are the apostle's words: "That I may
be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law,
but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is
of God by faith."[2] So great, then, is the difference between the law
and grace, that although the law is undoubtedly of God, yet the
righteousness which is "of the law" is not "of God," but the
righteousness which is consummated by grace is "of God." The one is
designated "the righteousness of the law," because it is done through
fear of the curse of the law; while the other is called "the
righteousness of God," because it is bestowed through the beneficence of
His grace, so that it is not a terrible but a pleasant commandment,
according to the prayer in the psalm: "Good art Thou, O Lord, therefore
in Thy goodness teach me Thy righteousness; "[3] that is, that I may not
be compelled like a slave to live under the law with fear of punishment;
but rather in the freedom of love may be delighted to live with law as
my companion. When the freeman keeps a commandment, he does it readily.
And whosoever learns his duty in this spirit, does everything that he
has learned ought to be done.

CHAP. 15 [XIV.]--HE WHO HAS BEEN TAUGHT BY GRACE ACTUALLY COMES TO
CHRIST.

    Now as touching this kind of teaching, the Lord also says: "Every
man that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."[4]
Of the man, therefore, who has not come, it cannot be correctly said:
"Has heard and has learned that it is his duty to come to Him, but he is
not willing to do what he has learned." It is indeed absolutely improper
to apply such a statement to that method of teaching, whereby God
teaches by grace. For if, as the Truth says, "Everyman that hath learned
cometh," it follows, of course, that whoever does not come has not
learned. But who can fail to see that a man's coming or not coming is by
the determination of his will? This determination, however, may stand
alone, if the man does not come; but if he does come, it cannot be
without assistance; and such assistance, that he not only knows what it
is he ought to do, but also actually does what he thus knows. And thus,
when God teaches, it is not by the letter of the law, but by the grace
of the Spirit. Moreover, He so teaches, that whatever a man learns, he
not only sees  with his perception, but also desires with his choice,
and accomplishes in action. By this mode, therefore, of divine
instruction, volition itself, and performance itself, are assisted, and
not merely the natural "capacity" of willing and performing. For if
nothing but this "capacity" of ours were assisted by this grace, the
Lord would rather have said, "Every man that hath heard and hath learned
of the Father may possibly come unto me." This, however, is not what He
said; but His words are these: "Every man that hath heard and hath
learned of the Father cometh unto me." Now the possibility coming
Pelagius places in nature, or even--as we found him attempting to say
some time ago[5]--in grace (whatever that may mean according to
him),--when he says, "whereby this very capacity is assisted;" whereas
the actual coming lies in the will and act. It does not, however, follow
that he who may come actually comes, unless he has also willed and acted
for the coming. But every one who has learned of the Father not only has
the possibility of coming, but comes; and in this result are already
included the motion of the capacity, the affection of the will, and the
effect of the action.6

CHAP. 16 [XV.]--WE NEED DIVINE AID IN THE USE OF OUR POWERS.
ILLUSTRATION FROM SIGHT.

    Now what is the use of his examples, if they do not really
accomplish his own promise of making his meaning clearer to us;[7] not,
indeed, that we are bound to admit their sense, but that we may discover
more plainly add openly what is his drift and purpose in using them?
"That we are able," says he, "to see with our eyes is not of us; but it
is of us that we make a good or a bad use of our sight." Well, there is
an answer for him in the psalm, in which the psalmist says to God, "Turn
Thou away mine eyes, that they behold not iniquity."[8] Now although
this was said of the eyes of the mind, it still follows from it, that in
respect of our bodily eyes there is either a good use or a bad use that
may be made of them: not in the literal sense merely of a good sight
when the eyes are sound, and a bad sight when they are bleared, but in
the moral sense of a right sight when it is directed towards succouring
the helpless, or a bad sight when its object is the indulgence of lust.
For although both the pauper who is succoured, and the woman who is
lusted after, are seen by these external eyes; it is after all from the
inner eyes that either compassion in the one case or lust in the other
proceeds. How then is it that the prayer is offered to God, "Turn Thou
away mine eyes, that they behold not iniquity "? Or why is that asked
for which lies within our own power, if it be true that God does not
assist the will?

CHAP. 17 [XVI.]--DOES PELAGIUS DESIGNEDLY REFRAIN FROM OPENLY SAYING
THAT ALL GOOD ACTION IS FROM GOD?

    "That we are able to speak," says he, "is of God; but that we make a
good or a bad use of speech is of ourselves." He, however, who has made
the most excellent use of speech does not teach us so. "For," says He,
"it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in
you."  "So, again," adds Pelagius, "that I may, by applying a general
case in illustration, embrace all,--that we are able to do, say, think,
any good thing, comes from Him who has endowed us with this ability, and
who also assists it." Observe how even here he repeats his former
meaning --that of these three, capacity, volition, action, it is only
the capacity which receives help. Then, by way of completely stating
what he intends to say, he adds: "But that we really do a good thing, or
speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from our own
selves." He forgot what he had before[2] said by way of correcting, as
it were, his own words; for after saying, "Man is to be praised
therefore for his willing and doing a goOd work," he at once goes on to
modify his statement thus: "Or rather, this praise belongs both to man,
and to God who has given him the capacity of this very will and work."
Now what is the reason why he did not remember this admission when
giving his examples, so as to say this much at least after quoting them:
"That we are able to do, say, think any good thing, comes from Him who
has given us this ability, and who also assists it. That, however, we
really do a good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought,
proceeds both from ourselves and from Him!" This, however, he has not
said. But, if I am not mistaken, I think I see why he was afraid to do
so.

CHAP. 18 [XVII.]--HE DISCOVERS THE REASON OF PELAGIUS' HESITATION SO TO
SAY.

    For, when wishing to point out why this lies within our own
competency, he says: "Because we are able to turn all these actions into
evil." This, then, was the reason why he was afraid to admit that such
an action proceeds "both from ourselves and from God," lest it should be
objected to him in reply: "If the fact of our doing, speaking, thinking
anything good, is owing both to ourselves and to God, because He has
endowed us with this ability, then it follows that our doing, thinking,
speaking evil things, is due to ourselves and to God, because He has
here also endowed us with ability of indifferency; the conclusion from
this being--and God forbid that we should admit any such--that just as
God is associated with ourselves in the praise of good actions, so must
He share with us the blame of evil actions." For that "capacity" with
which He has endowed us makes us capable alike of good actions and of
evil ones.

CHAP. 19 [XVIII.]--THE TWO ROOTS OF ACTION, LOVE AND CUPIDITY; AND EACH
BRINGS FORTH ITS OWN FRUIT.

    Concerning this "capacity," Pelagius thus writes in the first book
of his Defence of Free Will: "Now," says he, "we have implanted in us by
God a capacity for either part.[3] It resembles, as I may say, a
fruitful and fecund root which yields and produces diversely according
to the will of man, and which is capable, at the planter's own choice,
of either shedding a beautiful bloom of virtues, or of bristling with
the thorny thickets of vices." Scarcely heeding what he says, he here
makes one and the same root productive both of good and evil fruits, in
opposition to gospel truth and apostolic teaching. For the Lord declares
that "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither  can a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit;" [4] and when the Apostle Paul says that
covetousness is "the root of all evils,"[5] he intimates to us, of
course, that love may be regarded as the root of all good things. On the
supposition, therefore, that two trees, one good and the other corrupt,
represent two human beings, a good one and a bad, what else is the good
man except one with a good will, that is, a tree with a good root? And
what is the bad man except one with a bad will, that is, a tree with a
bad root? The fruits which spring from such roots and trees are deeds,
are words, are thoughts, which proceed, when good, from a good will, and
when evil, from an evil one.

             CHAP. 20 [XIX.]--HOW A MAN MAKES A GOOD

                         OR A BAD TREE.

    Now a man makes a good tree when he receives the grace of God. For
it is not by himself that he makes himself good instead of evil; but it
is of Him, and through Him, and in Him who is always good. And in order
that he may not only be a good tree, but also bear good fruit, it is
necessary for him to be assisted by the self-same grace, without which
he can do nothing good. For God Himself cooperates in the production of
fruit in good trees, when He both externally waters and tends them by
the agency of His servants, and internally by Himself also gives the
increase.1 A man, however, makes a corrupt tree when he makes himself
corrupt, when he falls away from Him who is the unchanging good; for
such a declension from Him is the origin of an evil will. Now this
decline does not initiate some other corrupt nature, but it corrupts
that which has been already created good. When this corruption, however,
has been healed, no evil remains; for although nature no doubt had
received an injury, yet nature was not itself a blemish.2

CHAP. 21 [XX.]--LOVE THE ROOT OF ALL GOOD THINGS; CUPIDITY, OF ALL EVIL
ONES.

    The "capacity," then, of which we speak is not (as he supposes) the
one identical root both of good things and evil. For the love which is
the root of good things is quite different from the cupidity which is
the root of evil things--as different, indeed, as virtue is from vice.
But without doubt this "capacity" is capable of either root: because a
man is not only able to possess love, whereby the tree becomes a good
one; but he is likewise able to have cupidity, which makes the tree
evil. This human cupidity, however, which is a vice, has for its author
man, or man's deceiver, but not man's Creator. It is indeed that "lust
of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is
not of the Father, but is of the world."3 And who can be ignorant of the
usage of the Scripture, which under the designation of "the world" is
accustomed to describe those who inhabit the world ?

              CHAP. 22 [XXI.]--LOVE IS a GOOD WILL.

    That love, however, which is a virtue, comes to us from God, not
from ourselves, according to the testimony of Scripture, which says:
"Love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth
God: for God is love."[4] It is on the principle of this love that one
can best understand the passage, "Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin; "[5] as well as the sentence, "And he cannot sin."[6]
Because the love according to which we are born of God "doth not behave
itself unseemly," and "thinketh no evil."[7] Therefore, whenever a man
sins, it is not according to love: but it is according to cupidity that
he commits sin; and following such a disposition, he is not born of God.
Because, as it has been already stated, "the capacity" of which we speak
is capable of either root. When,  therefore, the Scripture says, "Love
is of God," or still more pointedly, "God is love;" when the Apostle
John so very emphatically exclaims, "Behold what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and be, the sons
of God !"[8] with what face can this writer, on hearing that "God is
love," persist in maintaining his opinion, that we bare of God one only
of those three,[9] namely, "the capacity;" whereas it is of ourselves
that we have "the good will" and "the good action?" As if, indeed, this
good will were a different thing from that love which the Scripture so
loudly proclaims to have come to us from God, and to have been given to
us by the Father, that we might become His children.

CHAP. 23 [XXII.]--PELAGIUS' DOUBLE DEALING CONCERNING THE GROUND OF THE
CONFERRENCE OF GRACE.

    Perhaps, however, our own antecedent merits caused this gift to be
bestowed upon us; as this writer has already suggested in reference to
God's grace, in that work which he addressed to a holy virgin,10 whom he
mentions in the letter sent by him to Rome. For, after adducing the
testimony of the Apostle James, in which he says, "Submit yourselves
unto God; but resist the devil, and be will flee from you,"[11] he goes
on to say: "He shows us how we ought to resist the devil, if we submit
ourselves indeed to God and by doing His will merit His divine grace,
and by the help of the Holy Ghost more easily withstand the evil
spirit." Judge, then, how sincere was his condemnation in the Palestine
Synod of those persons who say that God's grace is conferred on us
according to our merits! Have we any doubt as to his still holding this
opinion, and most openly proclaiming it? Well, how could that confession
of his before the bishops have been true and real? Had he already
written the book in which he most explicitly alleges that grace is
bestowed on us according to our deserts--the very position which he
without any reservation condemned at that Synod in the East? Let him
frankly acknowledge that he once held the opinion, but that he holds it
no longer; so should we most frankly rejoice in his improvement. As it
is, however, when, besides other objections, this one was laid to his
charge which we are now discussing, he said in reply: "Whether these are
the opinions of Coelestius or not, is the concern of those who affirm
that they are. For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views;
on the contrary, I anathematize every one who does entertain them."[1]
But how could he "never have entertained such views," when he had
already composed this work? Or how does he still "anathematize everybody
who entertains these views," if he afterwards composed this work?

CHAP. 24.--PELAGIUS PLACES FREE WILL AT THE BASIS OF ALL TURNING TO GOD
FOR GRACE.

    But perhaps he may meet us with this rejoinder, that in the sentence
before us he spoke of our "meriting the divine grace by doing the will
of God," in the sense that grace is added to those who believe anti lead
godly lives, whereby they may boldly withstand the tempter; whereas
their very first reception of grace was, that they might do the will of
God. Lest, then, he make such a rejoinder, consider, some other words of
his on this subject: "The man," says he, "who hastens to the Lord, and
desires to be directed by Him, that is, who makes his own will depend
upon God's, who moreover cleaves so closely to the Lord as to become (as
the apostle says) 'one spirit' with Him,[2] does all this by nothing
else than by his freedom of will." Observe how great a result he has
here stated to be accomplished only by our freedom of will; and how, in
fact, he supposes us to cleave to God without the help of God: for such
is the force of his words, "by nothing else than by his own freedom of
will." So that, after we have cleaved to the Lord without His help, we
even then, because of such adhesion of our own, deserve to be assisted.
[XXIII.] For he goes on to say: "Whosoever makes a right use of this"
(that is, rightly uses his freedom of will), "does so entirely surrender
himself to God, and does so completely mortify his own will, that he is
able to say with the apostle, 'Nevertheless it is already of I that
live, but Christ liveth in me;'[3] and 'He placeth his heart in the hand
of God, so that He turneth it whithersoever He willeth.'" [4] Great
indeed is the help of the grace of God, so that He turns our heart in
whatever direction He pleases. But according to this writer's foolish
opinion, however great the help may be, we deserve it all at the moment
when, without any assistance beyond the liberty of our will, we hasten
to the Lord, desire His guidance and direction, suspend our own will
entirely on His, and by close adherence to Him become one spirit with
Him. Now all these vast courses of goodness we (according to him)
accomplish, forsooth, simply by the freedom of our own free will; and by
reason of such antecedent merits we so secure His grace, that He turns
our heart which way soever He pleases. Well, now, how is that grace
which is not gratuitously conferred? How can it be grace, if it is given
in payment of a debt? How can that be true which the apostle says, "It
is not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any
man should boast;"[5] and again, "If it is of grace, then is it no more
of works, otherwise grace is no more grace:''6 how, I repeat, can this
be true, if such meritorious works precede as to procure for us the
bestowal of grace? Surely, under the circumstances, there can be no
gratuitous gift, but only the recompense of a due reward. Is it the
case, then, that in order to find their way to the help of God, men run
to God without God's help? And in order that we may receive God's help
while cleaving to Him, do we without His help cleave to God? What
greater gift, or even what similar gift, could grace itself bestow upon
any man, if he has already without grace been able to make himself one
spirit with the Lord by no other power than that of his own free will?

CHAP. 25 [XXIV.]--GOD BY HIS WONDERFUL POWER WORKS IN OUR HEARTS GOOD
DISPOSITIONS OF OUR WILL.

    Now I want him to tell us whether that king of Assyria,[7] whose
holy wife Esther "abhorred his bed,"[8] whilst sitting upon the throne
of his kingdom, and clothed in all his glorious apparel, adorned all
over with gold and precious stones, and dreadful in his majesty  when he
raised his face, which was inflamed with anger, in the midst of his
splendour, and beheld her, with the glare of a wild bull in the
fierceness of his indignation; and the queen was afraid, and her colour
changed as she fainted, and she bowed herself upon the head of the maid
that went before her; [9]--I want him to tell us whether this king had
yet "hastened to the Lord, and had desired to be directed by Him, and
had subordinated his own will to His, and had, by cleaving fast to God,
become one spirit with Him, simply by the force of his own free will."
Had he surrendered himself wholly to God, and entirely mortified his own
will, and placed his heart in the hand of God? I suppose that anybody
who should think this of the king, in the state he was then in, would be
not foolish only, but even mad. And yet God converted him, and turned
his indignation into gentleness. Who, however, can fail to see how much
greater a task it is to change and turn wrath completely into
gentleness, than to bend the heart to something, when it is not
preoccupied with either affection, but is indifferently poised between
the two? Let them therefore read and understand, observe and
acknowledge, that it is not by law and teaching uttering their lessons
from without, but by a secret, wonderful, and ineffable power operating
within, that God works in men's hearts not only revelations of the
truth, but also good dispositions of the will.

CHAP. 26 [XXV.]--THE PELAGIAN GRACE OF "CAPACITY" EXPLODED. THE
SCRIPTURE TEACHES THE NEED OF GOD'S HELP IN DOING, SPEAKING, AND
THINKING, ALIKE.

    Let Pelagius, therefore, cease at last to deceive both himself and
others by his disputations against the grace of God. It is not on
account of only one of these three [1]--that is to say, of the
"capacity" of a good will and work--that the grace of God towards us
ought to be proclaimed; but also on account of the good "will" and
"work" themselves. This "capacity," indeed, according to his definition,
avails for both directions; and yet our sins must not also be attributed
to God in consequence, as our good actions, according to his view, are
attributed to Him owing to the same capacity. It is not only, therefore,
on this account that the help of God's grace is maintained, because it
assists our natural capacity. He must cease to say, "That we are able to
do, say, think any good, is from Him who has given us this ability, and
who also assists this ability; whereas that we really do a good thing,
or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from our own
selves." He must, I repeat, cease to say this. For God has not only
given us the ability and aids it, but He further works in us "to will
and to do." [2] It is not because we do, not will, or do not do, that we
will and do nothing good, but because we are without His help. How can
he say, "That we are able to do good is of God, but that we actually do
it is of ourselves," when the apostle tells us that he "prays to God" in
behalf of those to whom he was writing, "that they should do no evil,
but that they should do that which is good?"[3] His words are not, "We
pray that ye be able to do nothing evil;" but, "that ye do no evil."
Neither does he say, "that ye be able to do good;" but, "that ye do
good." Forasmuch as it is written, "As many as are led by the Spirit of
God, they are the sons of God," [4] it follows that, in order that they
may do that which is good, they must be led by Him who is good. How can
Pelagius say, "That we are  able to make a good use of speech comes from
God; but that we do actually make this good use of speech proceeds from
ourselves," when the Lord declares, "It is the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you"?[5] He does not say, "It is not you who have
given to yourselves the power of speaking well;" but His words are," It
is not ye that speak."[5] Nor does He say, "It is the Spirit of your
Father which giveth, or hath given, you the power to speak well;" but He
says, "which speaketh in you." He does not allude to the motion[6] of
"the capacity," but He asserts the effect of the cooperation. How can
this arrogant asserter of free will say, "That we are able to think a
good thought comes from God, but that we actually think a gOod thought
proceeds from ourselves"? He has his answer from the humble preacher of
grace, who says, "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think
anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God."[7] Observe he
does not say, "to be able to think anything;" but, "to think anything."

CHAP. 27 [XXVI.]--WHAT TRUE GRACE IS, AND WHEREFORE GIVEN. MERITS DO NOT
PRECEDE GRACE.

    Now even Pelagius should frankly confess that this grace is plainly
set forth in the inspired Scriptures; nor should he with shameless
effrontery hide the fact that he has too long opposed it, but admit it
with salutary regret; so that the holy Church may cease to be harassed
by his stubborn persistence, and rather rejoice in his sincere
conversion. Let him distinguish between knowledge and love, as they
ought to be distinguished; because "knowledge puffeth up, but love
edifieth."[8] And then knowledge no longer puffeth up when love builds
up. And inasmuch as each is the gift of God (although one is less, and
the other greater), he must not extol our righteousness above the praise
which is due to Him who justifies us, in such a way as to assign to the
lesser of these two gifts the help of divine grace, and to claim the
greater one for the human will. And should he consent that we receive
love from the grace of God, he must not suppose that any merits of our
own preceded our reception of the gift. For what merits could we
possibly have had at the time when we loved not God? In order, indeed,
that we might receive that love whereby we might love, we were loved
while as yet we had no love ourselves. This the Apostle John most
expressly declares: "Not that we loved God," says he, "but that He loved
us;"[9] and again, "We love Him, because He first loved us." 10 Most
excellently and truly spoken! For we could not have wherewithal to love
Him, unless we received it from Him in His first loving us. And what
good could we possibly do if we possessed no love? Or how could we help
doing good if we have love? For although God's commandment appears
sometimes to be kept by those who do not love Him, but only fear Him;
yet where there is no love, no good work is imputed, nor is there any
good work, rightly so called; because "whatsoever is not of faith is
sin,"[1] and "faith worketh by love."[2] Hence also that grace of God,
whereby "His love is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost,
which is given unto us,"[3] must be so confessed by the man who would
make a true confession, as to show his undoubting belief that nothing
whatever in the way of goodness pertaining to godliness and real
holiness can be accomplished without it. Not after the fashion of him
who clearly enough shows us what he thinks of it when he says, that
"grace is bestowed in order that what God commands may be the more
easily fulfilled;" which of course means, that even without grace God's
commandments may, although less easily, yet actually, be accomplished.

CHAP. 28 [XXVII.]--PELAGIUS TEACHES THAT SATAN MAY BE RESISTED WITHOUT
THE HELP OF THE GRACE OF GOD.

    In the book which he addressed to a certain holy virgin, there is a
passage which I have already mentioned,[4] wherein he plainly indicates
what he holds on this subject; for he speaks of our "deserving the grace
of God, and by the help of the Holy Ghost more easily resisting the evil
spirit." Now why did he insert the phrase "more easily"? Was not the
sense already complete: "And by the help of the Holy Ghost resisting the
evil spirit"? But who can fail to perceive what an injury he has done by
this insertion? He wants it, of course, to be supposed, that so great
are the powers of  our nature, which he is in such a hurry to exalt, 
that even without the assistance of the Holy  Ghost the evil spirit can
be resisted--less easily it may be, but still in a certain measure.

CHAP. 29 [XXVIII.]--WHEN HE SPEAKS OF GOD'S HELP, HE MEANS IT ONLY TO
HELP US DO WHAT WITHOUT IT WE STILL COULD DO.

    Again, in the first book of his Defence of the Freedom of the Will,
he says: "But while we have within us a free will so strong and so
sted-fast against sinning, which our Maker has implanted in human nature
generally, still, by His unspeakable goodness, we are further defended
by His own daily help." What need is there of such help, if free will is
so strong and so stedfast against sinning? But here, as before, he would
have it understood that the purpose of the alleged assistance is, that
may be more easily accomplished by grace which he nevertheless supposes
may be effected, less easily, no doubt, but yet actually, without grace.

CHAP. 30 [XXIX.] --WHAT PELAGIUS THINKS IS NEEDFUL  FOR EASE OF
PERFORMANCE IS REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE.

    In like manner, in another passage of the same book, he says: "In
order that men may more easily accomplish by grace that which they are
commanded to do by free will." Now, expunge the phrase "more easily,"
and you leave not only a full, but also a sound sense, if it be regarded
as meaning simply this: "That men may accomplish through grace what they
are commanded to do by free will." The addition of the words "more
easily," however, tacitly suggests the possibility of accomplishing good
works even without the grace of God. But such a meaning is disallowed by
Him who says, "Without me ye can do nothing."[5]

CHAP. 31 [XXX.]--PELAGIUS AND COELESTIUS NOWHERE REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE
GRACE.

    Let him amend all this, that if human infirmity has erred in
subjects so profound, he may not add to the error diabolical deception
and wilfulness, either by denying what he has really believed, or by
maintaining what he has rashly believed, after he has once discovered,
on recollecting the light of truth, that he ought never to have so
believed. As for that grace, indeed, by which we are justified,--in
other words, whereby "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts  by
the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us," [3]--I have nowhere, in those
writings of Pelagius and Coelestius which I have had the opportunity of
reading, found them acknowledging it as it ought to be acknowledged. In
no passage at all have I observed them recognising "the children of the
promise," concerning whom the apostle thus speaks: "They which are
children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the
children of the promise are counted for the seed."6 For that which God
promises we do not ourselves bring about by our own choice or natural
power, but He Himself effects it by grace.

CHAP. 32.--WHY THE PELAGIANS DEEMED PRAYERS TO BE NECESSARY. THE LETTER
WHICH PELAGIUS DESPATCHED TO POPE INNOCENT WITH AN EXPOSITION OF HIS
BELIEF.

    Now I will say nothing at present about the works of Coelestius, or
those tracts of his which he produced in those ecclesiastical
proceedings,[1] copies of the whole of which we have taken care to send
to you, along with another letter which we deemed it necessary to add.
If you carefully examine all these documents, you will observe that he
does not posit the grace of God, which helps us whether to avoid evil or
to do good, beyond the natural choice of the will, but only in the law
and teaching. Thus he even asserts that their very prayers are necessary
for the purpose of showing men what to desire and love. All these
documents, however, I may omit further notice of at present; for
Pelagius himself has lately forwarded to Rome both a letter and an
exposition of his belief, addressing it to Pope Innocent, of blessed
memory, of whose death he was ignorant. Now in this letter he says that
"there are certain subjects about which some men are trying to vilify
him. One of these is, that he refuses to infants the sacrament of
baptism, and promises the kingdom of heaven to some, independently of
Christ's redemption. Another of them is, that he so speaks of man's
ability to avoid sin as to exclude God's help, and so strongly confides
in free will that he repudiates the help of divine grace." Now, as
touching the perverted opinion he holds about the baptism of infants
(although he allows that it ought to be administered to them), in
opposition to the Christian faith and catholic truth, this is not the
place for us to enter on an accurate discussion, for we must now
complete our treatise on the assistance of grace, Which is the subject
we undertook Let us see what answer he makes out of this very letter to
the objection which he has proposed concerning this matter. Omitting his
invidious complaints about his opponents, we approach the subject before
us; and find him expressing himself as follows.

CHAP. 33 [XXXI.]--PELAGIUS PROFESSES NOTHING ON THE SUBJECT OF GRACE
WHICH MAY NOT BE  UNDERSTOOD OF THE LAW AND TEACHING.

    "See," he says, "how this epistle will clear me before your
Blessedness; for in it we clearly and simply declare, that we possess a
free will which is unimpaired for sinning and for not sinning;[2] and
this free will is in all good works always assisted by divine help." Now
you perceive, by the understanding which the Lord has given you, that
these words of his are inadequate to solve the question. For it is still
open to us to inquire what the help is by which he would say that the
free will is assisted; lest perchance he should, as is usual with him,
maintain that law and teaching are meant. If, indeed, you  were to ask
him why he used the word" always," he might answer: Because it is
written, And in His law will he meditate day and night." [3] Then, after
interposing a statement about the condition of man, and his natural
capacity for sinning and not sinning, he added the following words: "Now
this power of free will we declare to reside generally in all alike--in
Christians, in Jews, and in Gentiles. In all men free will exists
equally by nature, but in Christians alone is it assisted by grace." We
again ask: "By what grace?" And again he might answer: "By the law and
the Christian teaching."

CHAP. 34.--PELAGIUS SAYS THAT GRACE IS GIVEN ACCORDING TO MEN'S MERITS.
THE BEGINNING, HOWEVER, OF MERIT IS FAITH; AND THIS IS A GRATUITOUS
GIFT, NOT A RECOMPENSE FOR OUR MERITS.

    Then, again, whatever it is which he means by " grace," he says is
given even to Christians according to their merits, although (as I have
already mentioned above[4]), when he was in Palestine, in his very
remarkable vindication of himself, he condemned those who hold this
opinion. Now these are his words: "In the one," says he, "the good of
their created[5] condition is naked and defenceless;" meaning in those
who are not Christians. Then adding the rest: "In these, however, who
belong to Christ, there is defence afforded by Christ's help." You see
it is still uncertain what the help is, according to the remark we have
already made on the same subject. He goes on, however, to say of those
who are not Christians: "Those deserve judgment and condemnation,
because, although they possess free will whereby they could come to have
faith and deserve God's grace, they make a bad use of the freedom which
has been granted to them. But these deserve to be rewarded, who by the
right use of free will merit the Lord's grace, and keep His
commandments." Now it is clear that he says grace is bestowed according
to merit, whatever and of what kind soever the grace is which he means,
but which he does not plainly declare. For when he speaks of those
persons as deserving reward who make a good use of their free will, and
as therefore meriting the Lord's grace, he asserts in fact that a debt
is paid to them. What, then, becomes of the apostle's saying, "Being
justified freely by His grace "?[6] And what of his other statement too,
"By grace are ye saved"?[7]--where, that he might prevent men's
supposing that it is by works, he expressly added, "by faith."[1] And
yet further, lest it should be imagined that faith itself is to be
attributed to men independently of the grace of God, the apostle says:
"And that not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God."[1] It follows,
therefore, that we receive, without any merit of our own, that from
which everything which, according to them, we obtain because of our
merit, has its beginning--that is, faith itself. If, however, they
insist on denying that this is freely given to us, what is the meaning
of the apostle's words: "According as God hath dealt to every man the
measure of faith"? [2] But if it is contended that faith is so bestowed
as to be a recompense for merit, not a free gift, what then becomes of
another saying of the apostle: "Unto you it is given in the behalf of
Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake"?[3]
Each is by the apostle's testimony made a gift,--both that he believes
in Christ, and that each suffers for His sake. These men however,
attribute faith to free will in such a way as to make it appear that
grace is rendered to faith not as a gratuitous gift, but as a debt--thus
ceasing to be grace any longer, because that is not grace which is not
gratuitous.

CHAP. 35 [XXXII.]--PELAGIUS BELIEVES THAT INFANTS HAVE NO SIN TO BE
REMITTED IN BAPTISM.

    But Pelagius would have the reader pass from this letter to the book
which states his belief. This he has made mention of to yourselves, and
in it he has discoursed a good deal on points about which no question
was raised as to his views. Let us, however, look simply at the subjects
about which our own controversy with them is concerned. Having, then  
terminated a discussion which he had conducted to his heart's
content,--from the Unity of the Trinity to the resurrection of the
flesh, on which nobody was questioning him,--he goes on to say: "We hold
likewise one baptism, which we aver ought to be administered to infants
in the same sacramental formula as it is to adults." Well, now, you have
yourselves affirmed that you heard him admit at least as much as this in
your presence. What, however, is the use of his saying that the
sacrament of baptism is administered to children "in the same words as
it is to adults," when our inquiry concerns the thing, not merely the
words? It is a more important matter, that (as you write) with his own
mouth he replied to your own question, that "infants receive baptism for
the remission of sins." For he did not say here, too, "in words of
remission  of sins," but he acknowledged that they are baptized for the
remission itself; and yet for all this, if you were to ask him what the
sin is which he supposes to be remitted to them, he would contend that
they had none whatever.

CHAP. 36 [XXXIII.]--COELESTIUS OPENLY DECLARES INFANTS TO HAVE NO
ORIGINAL SIN.

    Who would believe that, under so clear a confession, there is
concealed a contrary meaning, if Coelestius had not exposed it? He who
in that book of his, which he quoted at Rome in the ecclesiastical
proceedings there,[4] distinctly acknowledged that "infants too are
baptized for the remission of sins," also denied "that they have any
original sin." But let us now observe what Pelagius thought, not about
the baptism of infants, but rather about the assistance of divine grace,
in this exposition of his belief which he forwarded to Rome. "We
confess," says he, "free will in such a sense that we declare ourselves
to be always in need of the help of God." Well, now, we ask again, what
the help is which he says we require; and again we find ambiguity, since
he may possibly answer that he meant the law and the teaching of Christ,
whereby that natural "capacity" is assisted. We, however, on our side
require them to acknowledge a grace like that which the apostle
describes, when he says: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind;"[5] although it does not
follow by any means that the man who has the gift of knowledge, whereby
he has discovered what he ought to do, has also the grace of love so as
to do it.

CHAP. 37 [XXXIV.]--PELAGIUS NOWHERE ADMITS THE NEED OF DIVINE HELP FOR
WILL AND ACTION.

    I also have read those books or writings of his which he mentions in
the letter which he sent to Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, with the
exception of a brief epistle which he says he sent to the holy Bishop
Constantius; but I have nowhere been able to find in them that he
acknowledges such a grace as helps not only that "natural capacity of
willing and acting" (which according to him we possess, even when we
neither will a good thing nor do it), but also the will and the action
itself, by the ministration of the Holy Ghost.

           CHAP. 38 [XXXV.]--A DEFINITION OF THE GRACE

                     OF CHRIST BY PELAGIUS.

    "Let them read," says he, "the epistle which we wrote about twelve
years ago to that holy man Bishop Paulinus: its subject throughout in
some three hundred lines is the confession of God's grace and assistance
alone, and our own inability to do any good thing at all without God."
Well, I have read this epistle also, and found him dwelling throughout
it on scarcely any other topic than the faculty and capacity of nature,
whilst he makes God's grace consist almost entirely. in this. Christ's
grace, indeed, he treats with great brevity, simply mentioning its name,
so that his only aim seems to have been to avoid the scandal of ignoring
it altogether. It is, however, absolutely uncertain whether he means
Christ's grace to consist in the remission of sins, or even in the
teaching of Christ, including also the example of His life (a meaning
which he asserts in several passages of his treatises); or whether he
believes it to be a help towards good living, in addition to nature and
teaching, through the inspiring influence of a burning and shining love.

CHAP. 39 [XXXVI]--A LETTER OF PELAGIUS UNKNOWN TO AUGUSTIN.

    "Let them also read," says he, "my epistle to the holy Bishop
Constantius, wherein I have--briefly no doubt, but yet
plainly--conjoined the grace and help of God with man's free will." This
epistle, as I have already stated,[1] I have not read; but if it is not
unlike the other writings which he mentions, and with which I am
acquainted, even this work does nothing for the subject of our present
inquiry.          

CHAP. 40 [XXXVII--THE HELP OF GRACE PLACED BY PELAGIUS IN THE MERE
REVELATION OF TEACHING.

            "Let them read moreover" says he, "what I wrote,[2] when I
was in the East, to Christ's holy virgin Demetrias, and they will find
that we so commend the nature of man as always to add the help of God's
grace." Well, I read this letter too; and it had almost persuaded me
that he did acknowledge therein the grace about which our discussion is
concerned, although he did certainly seem in many passages of this work
to contradict himself. But when there also came to my hands those other
treatises which he afterwards wrote for more extensive circulation, I
discovered in what sense he must have intended to speak of
grace,--concealing what he believed under an ambiguous generality, but
employing the term "grace" in order to break the force of obloquy, and
to avoid giving offence. For at the very commencement of this work
(where he says: "Let us apply ourselves with all earnestness to the task
which we have set before us, nor let us have any misgiving because of
our own humble ability; for we believe that we are assisted by the
mother's faith and her daughter's merit"[3]) he appeared to me at first
to acknowledge the grace which helps us to individual action; nor did I
notice at once the fact that he might possibly have made this grace
consist simply in the revelation of teaching.

CHAP. 41.--RESTORATION OF NATURE UNDERSTOOD BY PELAGIUS AS FORGIVENESS
OF SINS.

    In this same work he says in another passage: "Now, if even without
God men show of what character they have been made by God, see what
Christians have it in their power to do, whose nature has been through
Christ restored to a better condition, anti who are, moreover, assisted
by the help of divine grace."[4] By this restoration of nature to a
better state he would have us understand the remission of sins. This he
has shown with sufficient clearness in another passage of this epistle,
where he says: "Even those who have become in a certain sense obdurate
through their long practice of sinning, can be restored through
repentance."[5] But he may even here too make the assistance of divine
grace consist in the revelation of teaching.

CHAP. 42 [XXXVIII.]--GRACE PLACED BY PELAGIUS IN THE REMISSION OF SINS
AND THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST.

    Likewise in another place in this epistle of his he says: "Now, if
even before the law, as we have already remarked, and long previous to
the coming of our Lord and Saviour, some men are related to have lived
righteous and holy lives; how much more worthy of belief is it that we
are capable of doing this since the illumination of His coming, who have
been restored by the grace of Christ, and born again into a better man?
How much better than they, who lived before the law, ought we to be, who
have been reconciled and cleansed by His blood, and by His example
encouraged to the perfection of righteousness!"[6] Observe how even
here, although in different language, he has made the assistance of
grace to consist in the remission of sins and the example of Christ. He
then completes the passage by adding these words: "Better than they were
even who lived trader the law; according to the apostle, who says, 'Sin
shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but
under grace.'[7] Now, inasmuch as we have," says he, "said enough, as I
suppose, on this point, let us describe a perfect virgin, who shall
testify the good at once of nature and of grace by the holiness of her
conduct, evermore warmed with the virtues of both."[8] Now you ought to
notice that in these words also he wished to conclude what he was saying
in such a way that we might understand the good of nature to be that
which we received when we were created; but the good of grace to be that
which we receive when we regard and follow the example of Christ,--as if
sin were not permitted to those who were or are under the law, on this
account, because they either had not Christ's example, or else do not
believe in Him.

CHAP. 43 [XXXIX.]--THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND EXAMPLE OF CHRIST HELD BY
PELAGIUS ENOUGH TO SAVE THE MOST HARDENED SINNER.

    That this, indeed, is his meaning, other words also of his show
us,--not contained in this work, but in the third book of his Defence of
Free Will, wherein he holds a discussion with an opponent, who had
insisted on the apostle's words when he says, "For what I would, that do
I not;"[1] and again, "I see another law in my members, warring against
the law of my mind."[2] To this he replied in these words: "Now that
which you wish us to understand of the apostle himself, all Church
writers[3] assert that he spoke in the person of the sinner, and  of one
who was still under the law,--such a man as was, by reason of a very
long custom of vice, held bound, as it were, by a certain necessity of
sinning, and who, although he desired good with his will, in practice
indeed was hurried headlong into evil. In the person, however, of one
man," he continues, "the apostle designates the people who still sinned
under the ancient law. This nation he declares was to be delivered from
this evil of custom through Christ, who first of all remits all sins in
baptism to those who believe in Him, and then urges them by an imitation
of Himself to perfect holiness, and by the example of His own virtues
overcomes the evil custom of their sins." Observe in what way he
supposes them to be assisted who sin under the law: they are to be
delivered by being justified through Christ's grace, as if the law alone
were insufficient for them, without some reinforcement from Christ,
owing to their long habit of sinning; not the inspiration of love by His
Holy Spirit, but the contemplation and copy of His example in the
inculcation of virtue by the gospel. Now here, at any rate, there was
the very greatest call on him to say plainly what grace he meant, seeing
that the apostle closed the very. passage which formed the ground of
discussion with these telling words: "0  wretched man that I am, who
shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through
Jesus Christ our Lord."[4] Now, when he places this grace, not in the
aid of His power, but in His example for imitation, what further hope
must we entertain of him, since everywhere the word "grace" is mentioned
by him under an ambiguous generality?

CHAP. 44 [XL.]--PELAGIUS ONCE MORE GUARDS HIMSELF AGAINST THE NECESSITY
OF GRACE.

    Then, again, in the work addressed to the holy virgin,[5] of which
we have spoken already, there is this passage: "Let us submit ourselves
to God, and by doing His will let us merit the divine grace; and let us
the more easily, by the help of the Holy Ghost, resist the evil spirit."
Now, in these words of his, it is plain enough that be regards us as
assisted by the grace of the Holy Ghost, not because we are unable to
resist the tempter without Him by the sheer capacity of our nature, but
in order that we may resist more easily. With respect, however, to the
quantity and quality, whatever these might be, of this assistance, we
may well believe that he made them consist of the additional knowledge
which the Spirit reveals to us through teaching, and which we either
cannot, or scarcely can, possess by nature. Such are the particulars
which I have been able to discover in the book which he addressed to the
virgin of Christ, and wherein he seems to confess grace. Of what purport
and kind these are, you of course perceive.

CHAP. 45 [XLI.]--TO WHAT PURPOSE PELAGIUS THOUGHT PRAYERS OUGHT TO BE
OFFERED.

    "Let them also read," says he, "my recent little treatise which we
were obliged to publish a short while ago in defence of free will, and
let them acknowledge how unfair is their determination to disparage us
for a denial of grace, when we throughout almost the whole work
acknowledge fully and sincerely both free will and grace." There are
four books in this treatise, all of which I read, marking such passages
as required consideration, and which I proposed to discuss: these I
examined as well as I was able, before we came to that epistle of his
which was sent to Rome. But even in these four books, that which he
seems to regard as the grace which helps us to turn aside from evil and
to do good, he describes in such a manner as to keep to his old
ambiguity of language, and thus have it in his power so to explain to
his followers, that they may suppose the assistance which is rendered by
grace, for the purpose of helping our natural capacity, consists of
nothing else than the law and the teaching. Thus our very prayers (as,
indeed, he most plainly affirms in his writings) are of no other use, in
his opinion, than to procure for us the explanation of the teaching by a
divine revelation, not to procure help for the mind of man to perfect by
love and action what it has learned should be done. The fact is, he does
not in the least relinquish that very manifest dogma of his system in
which he sets forth those three things, capacity, volition, action;
maintaining that only the first of these, the capacity, is favoured with
the constant assistance of divine help, but supposing that the volition
and the action stand in no need of God's assistance. Moreover, the very
help which he says assists our natural capacity, be places in the law
and teaching. This teaching, he allows, is revealed or explained to us
by the Holy Ghost, on which account it is that he concedes the necessity
of prayer. But still this assistance of law and teaching he supposes to
have existed even in the days of the prophets; whereas the help of
grace, which is properly so called, he will have to lie simply in the
example of Christ. But this example, you can plainly see, pertains after
all to "teaching,"--even that which is preached to us as the gospel. The
general result, then, is the pointing out, as it were, of a road to us
by which we are bound to walk, by the powers of our free will, and
needing no assistance from any one else, may suffice to ourselves not to
faint or fail on the way. And even as to the discovery of the road
itself, he contends that nature alone is competent for it; only the
discovery will be more easily effected if grace renders assistance.

           CHAP. 46 [XLII]--PELAGIUS PROFESSES TO RE-

                   SPECT THE CATHOLIC AUTHORS.

    Such are the particulars which, to the best of my ability, I have
succeeded in obtaining from the writings of Pelagius, whenever he makes
mention of grace. You perceive, however, that men who entertain such
opinions as we have reviewed are "ignorant of God's righteousness, and
desire to establish their own,"[1] and are far off from "the
righteousness which we have of God "[2] and not of ourselves; and this
they ought to have discovered and recognised in the very holy canonical
Scriptures. Forasmuch, however, as they read these Scriptures in a sense
of their own, they of course fail to observe even the most obvious
truths therein. Would that they would but turn their attention in no
careless mood to what might be learned concerning  the help of God's
grace in the writings, at all events, of catholic authors; for they
freely allow that the Scriptures were correctly understood by these, and
that they would not pass them by in neglect, out of an overweening
fondness for their own opinions. For note how this very man Pelagius, in
that very treatise of his so recently put forth, and which he formally
mentions in his self-defence (that is to say, in the third book of his
Defence of  Free Will), praises St. Ambrose.

CHAP. 47 [XLIII.]--AMBROSE MOST HIGHLY PRAISED BY PELAGIUS.

    "The blessed Bishop Ambrose," says he, "in whose writings the Roman
faith shines forth with especial brightness, and whom the Latins have
always regarded as the very flower and glory of  their authors, and who
has never found a foe  bold enough to censure his faith or the purity of
his understanding of the Scriptures." Observe the sort as well as the
amount of the praises which he bestows; nevertheless, however holy and
learned he is, he is not to be compared to the authority of the
canonical Scripture. The reason of this high commendation of Ambrose
lies in the circumstance, that Pelagius sees proper to quote a certain
passage from his writings to prove that man is able to live without
sin.[3] This, however, is not the question before us. We are at present
discussing that assistance of grace which helps us towards avoiding sin,
and leading holy lives.

           CHAP. 48 [XLIV].--AMRBOSE IS NOT IN AGREE-

                       MENT WITH PELAGIUS.

    I wish, indeed, that he would listen to the venerable bishop when,
in the second book of his Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke,[4]
he expressly teaches us that the Lord co-operates' also with our wills.
"You see, therefore," says he, "because the power of the Lord
co-operates everywhere with human efforts, that no man is able to build
without the Lord, no man to watch without the Lord, no man to undertake
anything without the Lord. Whence the apostle tires enjoins: 'Whether ye
eat, or whether ye drink, do all to the glory of God.' "[5] You observe
how the holy Ambrose takes away from men even their familiar
expressions,--such as, "We undertake, but God accomplishes,"--when he
says here that "no man is able to undertake anything without the Lord."
To the same effect he says, in the sixth book of the same work,[6]
treating of the two debtors of a certain creditor: "According to men's
opinions, he perhaps is the greater offender who owed most. The case,
however, is altered by the Lord's mercy, so that he loves the most who
owes the most, if he yet obtains grace." See how the catholic doctor
most plainly declares that the very love which prompts every man to an
ampler love appertains to the kindly gift of grace.

CHAP. 49 [XLV.]--AMBROSE TEACHES WITH WHAT EYE CHRIST TURNED AND LOOKED
UPON PETER.

    That repentance, indeed, itself, which beyond all doubt is an action
of the will, is wrought into action by the mercy and help of the Lord,
is asserted by the blessed Ambrose in the following passage in the ninth
book of the same work:[1] "Good, says he, "are the tears which wash away
sin. They upon whom the Lord at last turns and looks, bewail. Peter
denied Him first, and did not weep, because the Lord had not turned and
looked upon him. He denied Him a second time, and still wept not,
because the Lord had not even yet turned and looked upon him. The third
time also he denied Him, Jesus turned and looked, and then he wept most
bitterly." Let these persons read the Gospel; let them consider how that
the Lord Jesus was at that moment within, having a hearing before the
chief of the priests; whilst the Apostle Peter was outside,[2] and down
in the hall,[3] sitting at one time with the servants at the fire,[4] at
another time standing,[5] as the most accurate and consistent narrative
of the evangelists shows. It cannot therefore be said that it was with
His bodily eyes that the Lord turned and looked upon him by a visible
and apparent admonition. That, then, which is described in the words,
"The Lord turned and looked upon Peter,"[6] was effected internally; it
was wrought in the mind, wrought in the will. In mercy the Lord silently
and secretly approached, touched the heart, recalled the memory of the
past, with His own internal grace visited Peter, stirred and brought out
into external tears the feelings of his inner man. Behold in what manner
God is present with His help to our wills and actions; behold how "He
worketh in us both to will and to do."

             CHAP. 50.--AMBROSE TEACHES THAT ALL MEN

                        NEED GOD'S HELP.

    In the same book the same St. Ambrose says again:[7] "Now if Peter
fell, who said, 'Though all men shall be offended, yet will I never be
offended,' who else shall rightly presume concerning himself? David,
indeed, because he had said, 'In my prosperity I said, I shall never be
moved,' confesses how injurious his confidence had proved to himself:
'Thou didst turn away Thy face,' he says, 'and I was troubled.' "[8]
Pelagius ought to listen to the teaching of so eminent a man, and should
follow his faith, since he has commended his teaching and faith. Let him
listen humbly; let him follow with fidelity; let him indulge no longer
in obstinate presumption, lest he perish. Why does Pelagius choose to be
sunk in that sea whence Peter was rescued by the Rock?[9]

CHAP. 51 [XLVI.]--AMBROSE TEACHES THAT IT IS GOD THAT DOES FOR MAN WHAT
PELAGIUS ATTRIBUTES TO FREE WILL.

    Let him lend an ear also to the same godly bishop, who says, in the
sixth book of this same book:[10] "The reason why they would not receive
Him is mentioned by the evangelist himself in these words, 'Because His
face was as though He would go to Jerusalem.'[11] But His disciples had
a strong wish that He should be received into the Samaritan town. God,
however, calls whomsoever He deigns, and whom He wills He makes
religious." What wise insight of the man of God, drawn from the very
fountain of God's grace! "God," says he, "calls whomsoever He deigns,
and whom He wills He makes religious." See whether this is not the
prophet's own declaration: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and will show pity on whom I will be pitiful;"[12]  and the apostle's
deduction therefrom: "So then," says he, "it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."[13] Now, when
even his model man of our own times says, that "whomsoever God deigns He
calls, and whom He wills He makes religious," will any one be bold
enough to contend that that man is not yet religious "who hastens to the
Lord, and desires to be directed by Him, and makes his own will depend
upon God's; who, moreover, cleaves so closely to the Lord, that he
becomes (as the apostle says) 'one spirit' with Him?"[14] Great,
however, as is this entire work of a "religious man," Pelagius maintains
that "it is effected only by the freedom of the will." But his own
blessed Ambrose, whom he so highly commends in word, is against him,
saying, "The Lord God calls whomsoever He deigns, and whom He wills He
makes religious." It is God, then, who makes religious whomsoever He
pleases, in order that he may "hasten to the Lord, and desire to be
directed by Him, and make his own will depend upon God's, and cleave so
closely to the Lord as to become (as the apostle says) 'one spirit' with
Him;" and all this none but a religious man does. Who, then, ever does
so much, unless he be made by God to do it?

 CHAP. 52 [XLVII.]--IF PELAGIUS AGREES WITH AMBROSE, AUGUSTIN HAS NO
CONTROVERSY WITH HIM.

    Inasmuch, however, as the discussion about free will and God's grace
has such difficulty in its distinctions, that when free will is
maintained, God's grace is apparently denied; whilst when God's grace is
asserted, free will is supposed to be done away with,--Pelagius can so
involve himself in the shades of this obscurity as to profess agreement
with all that we have quoted from St. Ambrose, and declare that such is,
and always has been, his opinion also; and endeavour so to explain each,
that men may suppose his opinion, to be in fair accord with Ambrose's.
So far therefore, as concerns the questions of God's help and grace, you
are requested to observe the three things which he has distinguished so
very plainly, under the terms "ability," "will," and "actuality," that
is, "capacity," "volition," and "action."[1] If, then, he has come round
to an agreement with us, then not the "capacity" alone in man, even if
he neither wills nor performs the good, but the volition and the action
also,--in other words, our willing well and doing  well,--things which
have no existence in man, except when he has a good will and acts
rightly:--if, I repeat, he thus consents to hold with us that even the
volition and the action are assisted by God, and so assisted that we can
neither will nor do any good thing without such help; if, too, he
believes that this is that very grace of God through our Lord Jesus
Christ which makes us righteous through His righteousness, and not our
own, so that our true righteousness is that which we have of Him,--then,
so far as I can judge, there will remain no further controversy between
us concerning the assistance we have from the grace of God.

CHAP. 53 [XLVIII.]--IN WHAT SENSE SOME MEN MAY BE SAID TO LIVE WITHOUT
SIN IN THE

PRESENT LIFE.

    But in reference to the particular point in which he quoted the holy
Ambrose with so much approbation,--because he found in that author's
writings, from the praises he accorded to Zacharias and Elisabeth, the
opinion that a man might possibly in this life be without sin;[2]
although this cannot be denied if God wills it, with whom all things are
possible, yet he ought to consider more carefully in what sense this was
said. Now, so far as I can see, this statement was made in accordance
with a certain standard of conduct, which is among men held to be worthy
of approval and praise, and which no human being could justly call in
question for the purpose of laying accusation or censure. Such a
standard Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth are said to have maintained in
the sight of God, for no other reason than that they, by walking
therein, never deceived people by any dissimulation; but as they in
their sincerity appeared to men, so were they known in the sight of
God.[3] The statement, however, was not made with any reference to that
perfect state of righteousness in which we shall one day live truly and
absolutely in a condition of spotless purity. The Apostle Paul, indeed,
has told us that he was "blameless, as touching the righteousness which
is of the law;"[4] and it was in respect of the same law that Zacharias
also lived a blameless life. This righteousness, however, the apostle
counted as "dung" and "loss," in comparison with the righteousness which
is the object of our hope,[5] and which we ought to "hunger and thirst
after,"[6] in order that hereafter we may be satisfied with the vision
thereof, enjoying it now by faith, so long as "the just do live by
faith."[7]

CHAP. 54 [XLIX.]--AMBROSE TEACHES THAT NO ONE IS SINLESS IN THIS WORLD.

    Lastly, let him give good heed to his venerable bishop, when he is
expounding the Prophet Isaiah,[8] and says that "no man in this world
can be without sin." Now nobody can pretend to say that by the phrase
"in this world" he simply meant, in the love of this world. For he was
speaking of the apostle, who said, "Our conversation is in heaven;"[9]
and while unfolding the sense of these words, the eminent bishop
expressed himself thus: "Now the apostle says that many men, even while
living in the present world, are perfect with themselves, who could not
possibly be deemed perfect, if one looks at true perfection. For he says
himself: 'We now see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known.'[10]
Thus, there are those who are spotless in this world, there are those
who will be spotless in the kingdom of God; although, of course, if you
sift the thing minutely, no one could be spotless, because no one is
without sin." That passage, then, of the holy Ambrose, which Pelagius
applies in support of his own opinion, was either written in a qualified
sense, probable, indeed, but not expressed with minute accuracy; or if
the holy and lowly-minded author did think that Zacharias and Elisabeth
lived according to the highest and absolutely perfect righteousness,
which was incapable of increase or addition, he certainly corrected his
opinion on a minuter examination of it.

CHAP. 55 [L.]--AMRBOSE WITNESSES  THAT  PERFECT PURITY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
HUMAN NATURE.

    He ought, moreover, carefully to note that, in the very same context
from which he quoted that passage of Ambrose's, which seemed so
satisfactory for his purpose, he also said this: "To be spotless from
the beginning is an impossibility to human nature."[1] In this sentence
the venerable Ambrose does undoubtedly predicate feebleness and
infirmity of that natural "capacity," which Pelagius refuses faithfully
to regard as corrupted by sin, and therefore boastfully extols. Beyond
question, this runs counter to this man's will and inclination, although
it does not contravene the truthful confession of the apostle, wherein
he says: "We too were once by nature the children of wrath, even as
others."[2] For through the sin of the first man, which came from his
free will, our nature became corrupted and ruined; and nothing but God's
grace alone, through Him who is the Mediator between God and men, and
our Almighty Physician, succours it. Now, since we have already
prolonged this work too far in treating of the assistance of the divine
grace towards our justification, by which God co-operates in all things
for good with those who love Him,[3] and whom He first loved[4]--giving
to them that He might receive from them: we must commence another
treatise, as the Lord shall enable us, on the subject of sin also, which
by one man has entered into the world, along with death, and so has
passed upon all men,[5] setting forth as much as shall seem needful and
sufficient, in opposition to those persons who have broken out into
violent and open error, contrary to the truth here stated.

 BOOK II.

                        ON ORIGINAL SIN.

WHEREIN AUGUSTIN SHOWS THAT PELAGIUS REALLY DIFFERS IN NO RESPECT, ON
THE QUESTION OF ORIGINAL SIN AND THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, FROM HIS
FOLLOWER COELESTIUS, WHO, REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE ORIGINAL SIN AND EVEN
DARING TO DENY THE DOCTRINE IN PUBLIC, WAS CONDEMNED IN TRIALS BEFORE
THE BISHOPS -- FIRST AT CARTHAGE, AND AFTERWARDS AT ROME; FOR THIS
QUESTION IS NOT, AS THESE HERETICS WOULD HAVE IT, ONE WHEREIN PERSONS
MIGHT ERR WITHOUT DANGER TO THE FAITH. THEIR HERESY, INDEED, AIMED AT
NOTHING ELSE THAN THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF. HE
AFTERWARDS REFUTES ALL SUCH AS MAINTAINED THAT THE BLESSING OF MATRIMONY
IS DISPARAGED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY, AND AN INJURY DONE
TO GOD HIMSELF, THE CREATOR OF MAN WHO IS BORN BY MEANS OF MATRIMONY.

CHAP. I [I.] -- CAUTION NEEDED IN ATTENDING TO PELAGIUS' DELIVERANCES ON
INFANT BAPTISM.

    NEXT I beg of you,[1] carefully to observe with what caution you
ought to lend an ear, on the question of the baptism of infants, to men
of this character, who dare not openly deny the layer of regeneration
and the forgiveness of sins to this early age, for fear that Christian
ears would not bear to listen to them; and who yet persist in holding
and urging their opinion, that the carnal generation is not held guilty
of man's first sin, although they seem to allow infants to be baptized
for the remission of sins. You have, indeed, yourselves informed me in
your letter, that you heard Pelagius say in your presence, reading out
of that book of his which he declared that he had also sent to Rome,
that they maintain that "infants ought to be baptized with the same
formula of sacramental words as adults." [2] Who, after that statement,
would suppose that one ought to raise any question at all on this
subject? Or if he did, to whom would he not seem to indulge a very
calumnious disposition --previous to the perusal of their plain
assertions, in which they deny that infants inherit original sin, and
contend that all persons are born free from all corruption ?

CHAP. 2 [II.] --COELESTIUS, ON HIS TRIAL AT CARTHAGE, REFUSES TO CONDEMN
HIS ERROR; THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WHICH HE GAVE TO ZOSIMUS.

    Coelestius, indeed, maintained this erroneous doctrine with less
restraint. To such an extent did he push his freedom as actually to
refuse, when on trial before the bishops at Carthage,[3] to condemn
those who say, "That Adam's sin injured only Adam himself, and not the
human race; and that infants at their birth are in the same state that
Adam was in before his transgression." [4] In the written statement,
too, which he presented to the most blessed Pope Zosimus at Rome, he
declared with especial plainness, "that original sin binds no single
infant." Concerning the ecclesiastical proceedings at Carthage we copy
the following account of his words.

CHAP. 3 [III.] --PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE
AGAINST COELESTIUS.

    "The bishop Aurelius said: 'Let what follows be recited.' It was
accordingly recited, 'That the sin of Adam was injurious to him alone,
and not to the human race.' Then, after the recital, Coelestius said: '
I said that I was in doubt about the transmission of sin,[5] but so as
to yield assent to any man whom God has gifted with the grace of
knowledge; for I have heard different opinions from those who have been
even appointed presbyters in the Catholic Church.' The deacon
Paulinus[1] said: 'Tell us their names.' Coelestius answered: 'The holy
presbyter Rufinus,[2] who lived at Rome with the holy Pammachius. I have
heard him declare that there is no transmission of sin.' The deacon
Paulinus then asked: 'Is there any one else?' Coelestius replied: 'I
have heard more say the same.' The deacon Paulinus rejoined: 'Tell us
their names.' Coelestius said: 'Is not one priest enough for you?'" Then
afterwards in another place we read: "The bishop Aurelius said: 'Let the
rest of the accusation be read.' It then was recited 'That infants at
their birth are in the same state that Adam was before the
transgression; [1] and they read to the very end of the brief accusation
which had been previously put in. [iv.] The bishop Aurelius inquired:
'Have you, Coelestius, taught at any time, as the deacon Paulinus has
stated, that infants are at their birth in the same state that Adam was
before his transgression?' Coelestius answered: 'Let him explain what he
meant when he said, "before the transgression."' The deacon Paulinus
then said 'Do you on your side deny that you ever taught this doctrine?
It must be one of two things: he must either say that he never so
taught, or else he must now condemn the opinion.' Coelestius rejoined:
'I have already said, Let him explain the words he mentioned, "before
the transgression."' The deacon Paulinus then said: ' You must deny ever
having taught this.' The bishop Aurelius said: 'I ask, What conclusion I
have on my part to draw from this man's obstinacy; my affirmation is,
that although Adam, as created in Paradise, is said to have been made
immortal at first, he afterwards became corruptible through
transgressing the commandment. Do you say this, brother Paulinus?' 'I
do, my lord,' answered the deacon Paulinus. Then the bishop Aurelius
said: 'As regards the condition of infants before baptism at the present
day, the deacon Paulinus wishes to be informed whether it is such as
Adam's was before the transgression; and whether it derives the guilt of
transgression from the same origin of sin from which it is born?' The
deacon Paulinus asked: 'Let him deny whether he taught this, or not.'
Coelestius answered: 'As touching the transmission of sin, I have
already asserted, that I have heard many persons of acknowledged
position in the catholic Church deny it altogether; and on the other
hand, others affirm it: it may be fairly deemed a matter for inquiry,
but not a heresy. I have always maintained that infants require baptism,
and ought to be baptized. What else does he want?'"

CHAP. 4.-- COELESTIUS CONCEDES BAPTISM FOR INFANTS, WITHOUT AFFIRMING
ORIGINAL SIN.

    You, of course, see that Coelestius here conceded baptism for
infants only in such a manner as to be unwilling to confess that the sin
of the first man, which is washed away in the lover of regeneration,
passes over to them, although at the same time he did not venture to
deny this; and on account of this doubt he refused to condemn those who
maintain "That Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the human race;"
and "that infants at their birth are in the same condition wherein Adam
was before the transgression."

CHAP. 5  [v.] --CO0LESTIUS  BOOK WHICH WAS PRODUCED IN THE PROCEEDINGS
AT ROME.

    But in the book which he published at Rome, and produced in the
proceedings before the church there, he so speaks on this question as to
show that he really believes what he had professed to be in doubt about.
For these are his words:[3] "That infants, however, ought to be baptized
for the remission Of sins, according to the rule of the Church
universal, and according to the meaning of the Gospel, we confess. For
the Lord has determined that the kingdom of heaven should only be
conferred on baptized persons; [4] and since the resources of nature do
not possess it, it must necessarily be conferred by the gift of grace."
Now if he had not said anything. elsewhere on this subject, who would
not have supposed that he acknowledged the remission of original sin
even in infants at their baptism, by saying that they ought to be
baptized for the remission of sins? Hence the point of what you

have stated in your letter, that Pelagius' answer

to you was on this wise, " That infants are baptized with the same words
of sacramental formula as adults," and that you were rejoiced to hear
the very thing which you were desirous of hearing, and yet that you
preferred holding a consultation with us concerning his words.

CHAP. 6 [VI.] -- COELESTIUS THE DISCIPLE IS INTHIS WORK BOLDER THAN HIS
MASTER.

    Carefully observe, then, what Coelestius has advanced so very
openly, and you will discover what amount of concealment Pelagius has
practised upon you. Coelestius goes on to say as follows: "That infants,
however, must be baptized for the remission of sins, was not admitted by
us with the view of our seeming to affirm sin by transmission. This is
very alien from the catholic meaning, because sin is not born with a
man,-- it is subsequently committed by the man for it is shown to be a
fault, not of nature, but of the will. It is fitting, therefore, to
confess this, lest we should seem to make different kinds of baptism; it
is, moreover, necessary to lay down this preliminary safeguard, lest by
the occasion of this mystery evil should, to the disparagement of the
Creator, be said to be conveyed to man by nature, before that it has
been committed by man." Now Pelagius was either afraid or ashamed to
avow this to be his own opinion before you; although his disciple
experienced neither a qualm nor a blush in openly professing it to be
his, without any obscure subterfuges, in presence of the Apostolic See.

CHAP. 7. --POPE ZOSIMUS KINDLY EXCUSES HIM.

    The bishop, however, who presides over this See, upon seeing him
hurrying headlong in so great presumption like a madman, chose in his
great compassion, with a view to the man's repentance, if it might be,
rather to bind him tightly by eliciting from him answers to questions
proposed by himself, than by the stroke of a severe condemnation to
drive him over the precipice, down which he seemed to be even now ready
to fall. I say advisedly, "down which he seemed to be ready to fall,"
rather than "over which he had actually fallen," because he had already
in this same book of his forecast the subject with an intended reference
to questions of this sort in the following words: "If it should so
happen that any error of ignorance has stolen over us human beings, let
it be corrected by your decisive sentence."

CHAP. 8 [VII.] -- Coelestius CONDEMNED BY ZOSIMUS.

    The venerable Pope Zosimus, keeping in view this deprecatory
preamble, dealt with the man, puffed up as he was with the blasts of
false doctrine, so as that he should condemn all the objectionable
points which had been alleged against him by the deacon Paulinus, and
that he should yield his assent to the rescript of the Apostolic See
which had been issued by his predecessor of sacred memory. The accused
man, however, refused to condemn the objections raised by the deacon,
yet he did not dare to hold out against the letter of the blessed Pope
Innocent; indeed, he went so far as to "promise that he would condemn
all the points which the Apostolic See condemned." Thus the man was
treated with gentle remedies, as a delirious  patient who required rest;
but, at the same time, he was not regarded as being yet ready to be
released from the restraints of excommunication. The interval of two
months being granted him, until communications could be received from
Africa, a place for recovery was conceded to him, under the mild
restorative of the sentence which had been pronounced. For in truth, if
he would have laid aside his vain obstinacy, and be now willing to carry
out what he had undertaken, and would carefully read the very letter to
which he had replied by promising submission, he would yet come to a
better mind. But after the rescripts were duly issued from the council
of the African bishops, there were very good reasons why the sentence
should be carried out against him, in strictest accordance with equity.
What these reasons were you may read for yourselves, for we have sent
you all the particulars.

CHAP. 9 [VIII.]-- PELAGIUS DECEIVED THE COUNCIL IN PALESTINE, BUT WAS
UNABLE TO DECEIVE THE CHURCH AT ROME.

    Wherefore Pelagius, too, if he will only reflect candidly on his own
position and writings, has no reason for saying that he ought not to
have been banned with such a sentence. For although he deceived the
council in Palestine, seemingly clearing himself before it, he entirely
failed in imposing on the church at Rome (where, as you well know, he is
by no means a stranger), although he went so far as to make the attempt,
if he might somehow succeed. But, as I have just said, he entirely
failed. For the most blessed Pope Zosimus recollected what his
predecessor, who had set him so worthy an example, had thought of these
very proceedings. Nor did he omit to observe what opinion was
entertained about this man by the trusty Romans, whose faith deserved to
be spoken of in the Lord,, and whose consistent zeal in defence of
catholic truth against this heresy he saw prevailing amongst them with
warmth, and at the same time most perfect harmony. The man had lived
among them for a long while, and his opinions could not escape their
notice; moreover, they had so completely found out his disciple
Coelestius, as to be able at once to adduce the most trustworthy and
irrefragable evidence on this subject. Now what was the solemn judgment
which the holy Pope Innocent formed respecting the proceedings in the
Synod of Palestine, by which Pelagius boasts of having been acquitted,
you may indeed read in the letter which he addressed to me. It is duly
mentioned also in the answer which was forwarded by the African Synod to
the venerable Pope Zosimus and which, along with the other instructions,
we have despatched to your loving selves.1 But it seems to me, at the
same time, that I ought not to omit producing the particulars in the
present work.

CHAP. 10 [IX.]--THE JUDGMENT  OF INNOCENT RESPECTING THE PROCEEDINGS IN
PALESTINE.

    Five bishops, then, of whom I was one, wrote him a letter,[2]
wherein we mentioned the proceedings in Palestine, of which the report
had already reached us. We informed him that in the East, where this man
lived, there had taken place certain ecclesiastical proceedings, in
which he was thought to have been acquitted on all the charges. To this
communication from us Innocent replied in a letter which contains the
following among other words: "There are," says he, "sundry positions, as
stated in these very Proceedings, which, when they were objected against
him, he partly suppressed by avoiding them, and partly confused in
absolute obscurity, by wresting the sense of many words; whilst there
are other allegations which he cleared off, -- not, indeed, in the
honest way which he might seem at the time to use, but rather by methods
of sophistry, meeting some of the objections with a fiat denial, and
tampering with others by a fallacious interpretation. Would, however,
that he would even now adopt what is the far more desirable course of
turning from his own error back to the true ways of catholic faith; that
he would also, duly considering God's daily grace, and acknowledging the
help thereof, be willing and desirous to appear, amidst the approbation
of all men, to be truly corrected by the method of open conviction, --
not, indeed, by judicial process, but by a hearty conversion to the
catholic faith. We are therefore unable either to approve of or to blame
their proceedings at that trial; for we cannot tell whether the
proceedings were true, or even, if true, whether they do not really show
that the man escaped by subterfuge, rather than that he cleared himself
by entire truth."3 You see clearly from these words, how that the most
blessed Pope Innocent without doubt speaks of this man as of one who was
by no means unknown to him.

You see what opinion he entertained about his acquittal. You see,
moreover, what his successor the holy Pope Zosimus was bound to
recollect,-- as in truth he did,-- so as to confirm without hesitation
the judgment of his predecessor in this case.

CHAP. II [X.] --HOW THAT PELAGIUS DECEIVED THE SYNOD OF PALESTINE.

    Now I pray you carefully to observe by what evidence Pelagius is
shown to have deceived his judges in Palestine, not to mention other
points, on this very question of the baptism of infants, lest we should
seem to any one to have used calumny and suspicion, rather than to have
ascertained the certain fact, when we alleged that Pelagius concealed
the opinion which Coelestius expressed with greater frankness, while at
the same time he actually entertained the same views. Now, from what has
been stated above, it has been clearly seen that Coelestius refused to
condemn the assertion that "Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the
human race, and that infants at their birth are in the same state that
Adam was before the transgression," because he saw that, if he condemned
these propositions, he would affirm that there was in infants a
transmission of sin from. Adam. When, however, it was objected to
Pelagius that he was of one mind with Coelestius on this point, he
condemned the words without hesitation. I am quite aware that you have
read all this before. Since, however, we are not writing this account
for you alone, we proceed to transcribe the very words of the synodal
acts, lest the reader should. be unwilling either to turn to the record
for himself, or if he does not possess it, take the trouble to procure a
copy. Here, then, are the words: --

CHAP. 12 [XI.] --A PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYNOD OF PALESTINE
IN THE CAUSE OF PELAGIUS.

    "The synod said: 4 Now, forasmuch as Pelagius has pronounced his
anathema on this uncertain utterance of folly, rightly replying that a
man by God's help and grace is able to live agamarghgqs,
that is to say, without sin, let him give us his answer on other
articles also. Another particular in the teaching of Coelestius,
disciple of Pelagius, selected from the heads which were mentioned and
heard at Carthage before the holy Aurelius bishop of Carthage, and other
bishops, was to this effect: 'That Adam was made mortal, and that he
would have died, whether he sinned or did not sin; that Adam's sin
injured himself alone, and not the human race; that the law no less than
the gospel leads us to the kingdom; that before the coming of Christ
there were persons without sin; that newborn infants are in the same
condition that Adam was before the transgression; that, on the one hand,
the entire human race does not die on account of Adam's death and
transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise
again through the resurrection of Christ; that the holy bishop Augustin
wrote a book in answer to his followers in Sicily, on articles which
were subjoined, and in this book, which was addressed to Hilary, are
contained the following statements: That a man is able to be without sin
if he wishes; that infants, even if they are 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 unto them, neither can they possess the kingdom of heaven.'
Pelagius then said: As regards man's ability to be without sin, my
opinion has been already spoken. With respect, however, to the
allegation that there were even before the Lord's coming persons who
lived without sin, we also on our part say, that before the coming of
Christ there certainly were persons who passed their lives in holiness
and righteousness, according to the accounts which have been handed down
to us in the Holy Scriptures. As for the other points, indeed, even on
their own showing, they are not of a character which obliges me to be
answerable for them; but yet, for the satisfaction of the sacred Synod,
I anathematize those who either now hold or have ever held these
opinions."

CHAP. 13 [XII.] -- COELESTIUS THE BOLDER HERETIC; PELAGIUS THE MORE
SUBTLE.

    You see, indeed, not to mention other points,  how that Pelagius
pronounced his anathema  against those who hold that" Adam's sin injured
only himself, and not the human race; and that infants are at their
birth in the same condition in which Adam was before the transgression."
Now what else could the bishops who sat in judgment on him have possibly
understood him to mean by this, but that the sin of Adam is transmitted
to infants? It was to avoid making such an admission that Coelestius
refused to condemn this statement, which this man on the contrary
anathematized. If, therefore, I shall show that he did not really
entertain any other opinion concerning infants than that they are born
without any contagion of a single sin, what difference will there remain
on this question between him and Coelestius, except this, that the one
is more open, the other more reserved; the one more pertinacious, the
other more mendacious; or, at any rate, that the one is more candid, the
other more astute? For, the one before the church of Carthage refused to
condemn what he afterwards in the church at Rome publicly confessed to
be a tenet of his own; at the same time professing himself "ready to
submit to correction if an error had stolen over him, considering that
he was but human;" whereas the other both condemned this dogma as being
contrary to the truth lest he should himself be condemned by his
catholic judges, and yet kept it in reserve for subsequent defence, so
that either his condemnation was a lie, or his interpretation a trick.

CHAP. 14 [XIII.]-- HE SHOWS THAT, EVEN AFTER THE SYNOD OF PALESTINE,
PELAGIUS HELD THE SAME OPINIONS AS COELESTIUS ON THE SUBJECT OF ORIGINAL
SIN.

    I see, however, that it may be most justly demanded of me, that I do
not defer my promised demonstration, that he actually entertains the
same views as Coelestius. In the first book of his more recent work,
written in defence of free will (which work he mentions in the letter he
despatched to Rome), he says: "Everything good, and everything evil, on
account of which we are either laudable or blameworthy, is not born with
us but done by us: for we are born not fully developed, but with a
capacity for either conduct; and we are procreated as without virtue, so
also without vice; and previous to the action of our own proper will,
that alone Is in man which God has formed." Now you perceive that in
these words of Pelagius, the dogma of both these men is contained, that
infants are born without the contagion of any sin from Adam. It is
therefore not astonishing that Coelestius refused to condemn such as say
that Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the human race; and that
infants are at their birth in the same state in which Adam was before
the transgression. But it is very much to be wondered at, that Pelagius
had the effrontery to anathematize these opinions. For if, as he
alleges, "evil is not born with us, and we are procreated without fault,
and the only thing in man previous to the action of his own will is what
God has formed," then of course the sin of Adam did only injure himself,
inasmuch as it did not pass on to his offspring. For there is not any
sin which is not an evil; or a sin that is not a fault; or else sin was
created by God. But he says: "Evil is not born with us, and we are
procreated without fault; and the only thing in men at their birth is
what God has formed." Now, since by this language he supposes it to be
most true, that, according to the well-known sentence of his: "Adam's
sin was injurious to himself alone, and not to the human race," why did
Pelagius condemn this, if it were not for the purpose of deceiving his
catholic judges? By parity of reasoning, it may also be argued: "If evil
is not born with us, and if we are procreated without fault, and if the
only thing found in man at the time of his birth is what God has
formed," it follows beyond a doubt that "infants at their birth are in
the same condition that Adam was before the transgression," in whom no
evil or fault was inherent, and in whom that alone existed which God had
formed. And yet Pelagius pronounced anathema on all those persons "who
hold now, or have at any time held, that newborn babes are placed by
their birth in the same state that Adam was in before the
transgression," --in other words, are without any evil, without any
fault, having that only which God had formed. Now, why again did
Pelagius condemn this tenet also, if it were not for the purpose of
deceiving the catholic Synod, and saving himself from the condemnation
of an heretical innovator?

CHAP. 15 [XIV.] --PELAGIUS BY HIS MENDACITY AND DECEPTION STOLE HIS
ACQUITTAL FROM THE SYNOD IN PALESTINE.

    For my own part, however, I, as you are quite aware, and as I also
stated in the book which I addressed to our venerable and aged Aurelius
on the proceedings in Palestine, really felt glad that Pelagius in that
answer of his had exhausted the whole of this question.[1] To me,
indeed, he seemed most plainly to have acknowledged that there is
original sin in infants, by the anathema which he pronounced against
those persons who supposed that by the sin of Adam only himself, and not
the human race, was injured, and who entertained the opinion that
infants are in the same state in which the first man was before the
transgression. When, however, I had read his four books (from the first
of which I copied the words which I have just now quoted), and
discovered that he was still cherishing thoughts which were opposed to
the catholic faith touching infants, I felt all the greater surprise at
a mendacity which he so unblushingly maintained in a synod of the
Church, and on so great a question. For if he had already written these
books, how did he profess to anathematize those who had ever entertained
the opinions alluded to? If he purposed, however, afterwards to publish
such a work, how could he anathematize those who at the time were
holding the opinions? Unless, to be sure, by some ridiculous subterfuge
he meant to say that the objects of his anathema were such persons as
had in some previous time held, or were then holding, these opinions;
but that in respect of the future--that is, as regarded those persons
who were about to take up with such views -- he felt that it would be
impossible for him to prejudge either himself or other people, and that
therefore he was guilty of no lie when he was afterwards detected in the
maintenance of similar errors. This plea, however, he does not advance,
not only because it is a ridiculous one, but because it cannot possibly
be true; because in these very books of his he both argues against the
transmission of sin from Adam to infants, and glories in the proceedings
of the Synod in Palestine, where he was supposed to have sincerely
anathematized such as hold the opinions in dispute, and where he, in
fact, stole his acquittal by practising deceit.

CHAP. 16 [XV.]--PELAGIUS' FRAUDULENT AND CRAFTY EXCUSES.

    For what is the significance to the matter with which we now have to
do of his answers to his followers, when he tells them that "the reason
why he condemned the points which were objected against him, is because
he himself maintains that primal sin was injurious not only to the first
man, but to the whole human race, not by transmission, but by example;"
in other words, not because those who have been propagated from him have
derived any fault from him, but because all who afterwards have sinned,
have imitated him who committed the first sin? Or when he says that "the
reason why infants are not in the same state in which Adam was before
the transgression, is because they are not yet able to receive the
commandment, whereas he was able; and because they do not yet make use
of that choice of a rational will which he certainly made use of, since
otherwise no commandment would have been given to him"? How does such an
exposition as this of the points alleged against him justify him in
thinking that he rightly condemned the propositions, "Adam's sin injured
only himself, and not the whole race of man;" and "infants at their
birth are in the self-same state in which Adam was before he sinned;"
and that by the said condemnation he is not guilty of deceit in holding
such opinions as are found in his subsequent writings, how that "infants
are born without any evil or fault, and that there is nothing in them
but what God has formed," -- no wound, in short, inflicted by an enemy?

CHAP. 17.-- HOW PELAGIUS DECEIVED HIS JUDGES.

    Now, is it by making such statements as these, meeting objections
which are urged in one sense with explanations which are meant in
another,  that he designs to prove to us that he did not deceive those
who sat in judgment on him? Then he utterly fails in his purpose. In
proportion to the craftiness of his explanations, was the stealthiness
with which he deceived them. For, just because they were catholic
bishops, when they heard the man pouring out anathemas upon those who
maintained that "Adam's sin was injurious to none but himself, and not
to the human race," they understood him to assert nothing but what the
catholic Church has been accustomed to declare, on the ground of which
it truly baptizes infants for the remission of sins--not, indeed, sins
which they have committed by imitation owing to the example of the first
sinner, but sins which they have contracted by their very birth, owing
to the corruption of their origin. When, again, they heard him
anathematizing those who assert that "infants at their birth are in the
same state in which Adam was before the transgression," they supposed
him to refer to none others than those persons who "think that infants
have derived no sin from Adam, and that they are accordingly in that
state that he was in before his sin." For, of course, no other objection
would be brought against him than that on which the question turned.
When, therefore, he so explains the objection as to say that infants are
not in the same state that Adam was in before he sinned, simply because
they have not yet arrived at the same firmness of mind or body, not
because of any propagated fault that has passed on to them, he must be
answered thus: "When the objections were laid against you for
condemnation, the catholic bishops did not understand them in this
sense; therefore, when you condemned them, they believed that you were a
catholic. That, accordingly, which they supposed you to maintain,
deserved to be released from censure; but that which you really
maintained was worthy of condemnation. It was not you, then, that were
acquitted, who held tenets which ought to be condemned; but that opinion
was freed from censure which you ought to have held and maintained. You
could only be supposed to be acquitted by having been believed to
entertain opinions worthy to be praised; for your judges could not
suppose that you were concealing opinions which merited condemnation.
Rightly have you been adjudged an accomplice of Coelestius, in whose
opinions you prove yourself to be a sharer. And though you kept your
books shut during your trial, you published them to the world after it
was over."

CHAP. 18 [XVII.]--THE CONDEMNATION OF PELAGIUS.

    This being the case, you of course feel that episcopal councils, and
the Apostolic See, and the whole Roman Church, and the Roman Empire
itself,[1] which by God's gracious favour has become Christian, has been
most righteously moved against the authors of this wicked error, until
they repent and escape from the snares of the devil. For who can tell
whether God may not give them repentance to discover, and acknowledge,
and even proclaim His truth,[2] and to condemn their own damnable error?
But whatever may be the bent of their own will, we cannot doubt that the
merciful kindness of the Lord has sought the good of many persons who
followed them, for no other reason than because they saw them associated
in communion with the catholic Church.

CHAP. 19.--PELAGIUS' ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE APOSTOLIC SEE; HE INVERTS
THE BEARINGS OF THE CONTROVERSY.

    But I would have you carefully observe the way in which Pelagius
endeavoured by deception to overreach even the judgment of the bishop of
the Apostolic See on this very question of the baptism of infants. He
sent a letter to Rome to Pope Innocent of blessed memory; and when it
found him not in the flesh, it was handed to the holy Pope Zosimus, and
by him directed to us. In this letter he complains of being "defamed by
certain persons for refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and
promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ's redemption."
The objections, however, are not urged against them in the manner he has
stated. For they neither deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, nor
do they promise the kingdom of heaven to any irrespective of the
redemption of Christ. As regards, therefore, his complaint of being
defamed by sundry persons, he has set it forth in such terms as to be
able to give a ready answer to the alleged charge against him, without
injury to his own dogma. [XVIII.] The real objection against them is,
that they refuse to confess that unbaptized infants are liable to the
condemnation of the first man, and that original sin has been
transmitted to them and requires to be purged by regeneration; their
contention being that infants must be baptized solely for being admitted
into the kingdom of heaven, as if they could only have eternal death
apart from the kingdom of heaven, who cannot have eternal life without
partaking of the Lord's body and blood. This, I would have you know, is
the real objection to them respecting the baptism of infants; and not as
he has represented it, for the purpose of enabling himself to save his
own dogmas while answering what is actually a proposition of his own,
under colour of meeting an objection.

 CHAP. 20.--PELAGIUS PROVIDES A REFUGE FOR HIS FALSEHOOD IN AMBIGUOUS
SUBTERFUGES.

    And then observe how he makes his answer, how he provides in the
obscure mazes of his double sense retreats for his false doctrine,
quenching the truth in his dark mist of error; so that even we, on our
first perusal of his words, almost rejoiced at their propriety and
correctness. But the fuller discussions in his books, in which he is
generally forced, in spite of all his efforts at concealment, to explain
his meaning, have made even his better statements suspicious to us, lest
on a closer inspection of them we should detect them to be ambiguous.
For, after saying that "he had never heard even an impious heretic say
this" (namely, what he set forth as the objection) "about infants," he
goes on to ask: "Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as
not only to attempt to make such an affirmation, but even to be able to
lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so
impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by
forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?"

CHAP. 21 [XIX.]--PELAGIUS AVOIDS THE QUESTION AS TO WHY BAPTISM IS
NECESSARY FOR INFANTS.

    Now it is to no purpose that he says all this. He does not clear
himself thereby. Not even they have ever denied the impossibility of
infants entering the kingdom of heaven without baptism. But this is not
the question; what we are discussing concerns the obliteration 1 of
original sin in infants. Let him clear himself on this point, since he
refuses to acknowledge that there is anything in infants which the layer
of regeneration has to cleanse. On this account we ought carefully to
consider what he has afterwards to say. After adducing, then, the
passage of the Gospel which declares that "whosoever is not born again
of water and the Spirit cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven"[2] (on
which matter, as we have said, they raise no question), he goes on at
once to ask: "Who indeed is so impious as to have the heart to refuse
the common redemption of the human race to an infant of any age
whatever?" But this is ambiguous language  for what redemption does he
mean? Is it from evil to good? or from good to better? Now even
Coelestius, at Carthage,[3] allowed a redemption for infants in his
book; although, at the same time, he would not, admit the transmission
of sin to them from Adam.

CHAP. 22 [XX.]--ANOTHER INSTANCE OF PELAGIUS' AMBIGUITY.

    Then, again, observe what he subjoins to the last remark: "Can any
one," says he, "forbid a second birth to an eternal and certain life, to
him who has been born to this present uncertain life?" In other words:
"Who is so impious as to forbid his being born again to the life which
is sure and eternal, who has been born to this life of uncertainty?"
When we first read these words, we supposed that by the phrase
"uncertain life" he meant to designate this present temporal life;
although it appeared to us that he ought rather to have called it
"mortal" than "uncertain," because it is brought to a close by certain
death. But for all this, we thought that he had only shown a preference
for calling this mortal life an uncertain one, because of the general
view which men take that there is undoubtedly not a moment in our lives
when we are free from this uncertainty. And so it happened that our
anxiety about him was allayed to some extent by the following
consideration, which rose almost to a proof, notwithstanding the fact of
his unwillingness openly to confess that infants incur eternal death who
depart this life without the sacrament of baptism. We argued: "If, as he
seems to admit, eternal life can only accrue to them who have been
baptized, it follows of course that they who die unbaptized incur
everlasting death. This destiny, however, cannot by any means justly
befall those who never in this life committed any sins of their own,
unless on account of original sin."

CHAP. 23 [XXI.]--WHAT HE MEANS BY OUR BIRTH TO AN "UNCERTAIN" LIFE.

    Certain brethren, however, afterwards failed not to remind us that
Pelagius possibly expressed himself in this way, because on this
question he is represented as having his answer ready for all inquirers,
to this effect: "As for infants who die unbaptized, I know indeed
whither they go not; yet whither they go, I know not;" that is, I know
they do not go into the kingdom of heaven. But as to whither they go, he
was (and for the matter of that, still is[4]) in the habit of saying
that he knew not, because he dared not say that those went to eternal
death, who he was persuaded had never committed sin in this life, and
whom he would not admit to have inherited original sin. Consequently
those very words of his which were forwarded to Rome to secure his
absolute acquittal, are so steeped in ambiguity that they afford a
shelter for their doctrine, out of which may sally forth an heretical
sense to entrap the unwary straggler; for when no one is at hand who can
give the answer, any solitary man may find himself weak.

CHAP. 24.--PELAGIUS' LONG RESIDENCE AT ROME.

    The truth indeed is, that in the book of his faith which he sent to
Rome with this very letter[1] to the before-mentioned Pope Innocent, to
whom also he had written the letter, he only the more evidently exposed
himself by his efforts at concealment. He says:[2] "We hold one baptism,
which we say ought to be administered in the same sacramental words in
the case of infants as in the case of adults." He did not, however, 
say, "in the same sacrament" (although if he had so said, there would
still have been ambiguity), but "in the same sacramental words,"--as if
remission of sins in infants were declared by the sound of the words,
and not wrought by the effect of the acts. For the time, indeed, he
seemed to say what was agreeable with the catholic faith; but he had it
not in his power permanently to deceive that see. Subsequent to the
rescript of the African Council, into which province this pestilent
doctrine had stealthily made its way--without, however, spreading widely
or sinking deeply--other opinions also of this man were by the industry
of some faithful brethren discovered and brought to light at Rome, where
he had dwelt for a very long while, and had already engaged in sundry
discourses and controversies. In order to procure the condemnation of
these opinions, Pope Zosimus, as you may read, annexed them to his
letter, which he wrote for publication throughout the catholic world.
Among these statements, Pelagius, pretending to expound the Apostle
Paul's Epistle to the Romans, argues in these words: "If Adam's sin
injured those who have not sinned, then also Christ's righteousness
profits those who do not believe." He says other things, too, of the
same purport; but they have all been refuted and answered by me with the
Lord's help in the books which I wrote, On the Baptism of Infants.[3]
But he had not the courage to make those objectionable statements in his
own person in the fore-mentioned so-called exposition. This particular
one, however, having been enunciated in a place where he was so well
known, his words and their meaning could not be disguised. In those
books, from the first of which I have already before quoted,[4] he
treats this point without any suppression of his views. With all the
energy of which he is capable, he most plainly asserts that human nature
in infants cannot in any wise be supposed to be corrupted by
propagation; and by claiming salvation for them as their due, he does
despite to the Saviour.

           CHAP. 25 [XXII.]--THE CONDEMNATION OF PELA-

                      GIUS AND COELESTIUS.

    These things, then, being as I have stated them, it is now evident
that there has arisen a deadly heresy, which, with the Lord's help, the
Church by this time guards against more directly--now that those two
men, Pelagius and Coelestius, have been either offered repentance, or on
their refusal been wholly condemned. They are reported, or perhaps
actually proved, to be the authors of this perversion; at all events, if
not the authors (as having learnt it from others), they are yet its
boasted abettors and teachers, through whose agency the heresy has
advanced and grown to a wider extent. This boast, too, is made even in
their own statements and writings, and in unmistakeable signs of
reality, as well as in the fame which arises and grows out of all these
circumstances. What, therefore, remains to be done? Must not every
catholic, with all the energies wherewith the Lord endows him, confute
this pestilential doctrine, and oppose it with all vigilance; so that
whenever we contend for the truth, compelled to answer, but not fond of
the contest, the untaught may be instructed, and that thus the Church
may be benefited by that which the enemy devised for her destruction; in
accordance with that word of the apostle's, "There must be heresies,
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you"?[5]

CHAP. 26 [XXIII.]--THE PELAGIANS MAINTAIN THAT RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT
ORIGINAL SIN DOES NOT ENDANGER THE FAITH.

    Therefore, after the full discussion with which we have been able to
rebut in writing this error of theirs, which is so inimical to the grace
of God bestowed on small and great through our Lord Jesus Christ, it is
now our duty to examine and explode that assertion of theirs, which in
their desire to avoid the odious imputation of heresy they astutely
advance, to the effect that "calling this subject into question produces
no danger to the faith,"--in order that they may appear, forsooth, if
they are convicted of having deviated from it, to have erred not
criminally, but only, as it were, courteously.[6] This, accordingly, is
the language which Coelestius used in the ecclesiastical process at
Carthage:[7]  "As touching the transmission of sin," he said, "I have
already said that I have heard many persons of acknowledged position in
the catholic Church deny it, and on the other hand many affirm it; it
may fairly, indeed, be deemed a matter for inquiry, but not a heresy. I
have always maintained that infants require baptism, and ought to be
baptized. What else does he want?" He said this, as if he wanted to
intimate that only then could he be deemed chargeable with heresy, if he
were to assert that they ought not to be baptized. As the case stood,
however, inasmuch as he acknowledged that they ought to be baptized, he
thought that he had not erred [criminally], and therefore ought not to
be adjudged a heretic, even though he maintained the reason of their
baptism to be other than the truth holds, or the faith claims as its
own. On the same principle, in the book which he sent to Rome, he first
explained his belief, so far as it suited his pleasure, from the Trinity
of the One Godhead down to the kind of resurrection of the dead that is
to be; on all which points, however, no one had ever questioned him, or
been questioned by him. And when his discourse reached the question
which was under consideration, he said: "If, indeed, any questions have
arisen beyond the compass of the faith, on which there might be perhaps
dissension on the part of a great many persons, in no case have I
pretended to pronounce a decision on any dogma, as if I possessed a
definitive authority in the matter myself; but whatever I have derived
from the fountain of the prophets and the apostles, I have presented for
approbation to the judgment of your apostolic office; so that if any
error has crept in among us, human as we are, through our ignorance, it
may be corrected by your sentence."[1] You of course clearly see that in
this action of his he used all this deprecatory preamble in order that,
if he had been discovered to have erred at all, he might seem to have
erred not on a matter of faith, but on questionable points outside the
faith; wherein, however necessary it may be to correct the error, it is
not corrected as a heresy; wherein also the person who undergoes the
correction is declared indeed to be in error, but for all that is not
adjudged a heretic.

CHAP. 27  [XXIII.]--ON QUESTIONS OUTSIDE THE FAITH--WHAT THEY ARE, AND
INSTANCES OF THE SAME.

    But he is greatly mistaken in this opinion. The questions which he
supposes to be outside the faith are of a very different character from
those in which, without any detriment to the faith whereby we are
Christians, there exists either an ignorance of the real fact, and a
consequent suspension of any fixed opinion, or else a conjectural view
of the case, which, owing to the infirmity of human thought, issues in
conceptions at variance with truth: as when a question arises about the
description and locality of that Paradise where God placed man whom He
formed out of the ground, without any disturbance, however, of the
Christian belief that there undoubtedly is such a Paradise; or as when
it is asked where Elijah is at the present moment, and where
Enoch--whether in this Paradise or in some other place, although we
doubt not of their existing still in the same bodies in which they were
born; or as when one inquires whether it was in the body or out of the
body that the apostle was caught up to the third heaven,--an inquiry,
however, which betokens great lack of modesty on the part of those who
would fain know what he who is the subject of the mystery itself
expressly declares his ignorance of,[2] without impairing his own belief
of the fact; or as when the question is started, how many are those
heavens, to the "third" of which he tells us that he was caught up; or
whether the elements of this visible world are four or more; what it is
which causes those eclipses of the sun or the moon which astronomers are
in the habit of foretelling for certain appointed seasons; why, again,
men of ancient times lived to the age which Holy Scripture assigns to
them; and whether the period of their puberty, when they begat their
first son, was postponed to an older age, proportioned to their longer
life; or where Methuselah could possibly have lived, since he was not in
the Ark, inasmuch as (according to the chronological notes of most
copies of the Scripture, both Greek and Latin) he is found to have
survived the deluge; or whether we must follow the order of the fewer
copies--and they happen to be extremely few--which so arrange the years
as to show that he died before the deluge. Now who does not feel, amidst
the various and innumerable questions of this sort, which relate either
to God's most hidden operations or to most obscure passages of the
Scriptures, and which it is difficult to embrace and define in any
certain way, that ignorance may on many points be compatible with sound
Christian faith, and that occasionally erroneous opinion may be
entertained without any room for the imputation of heretical doctrine?

CHAP. 28 [XXIV.]--THE HERESY OF PELAGIUS AND COELESTIUS AIMS AT THE VERY
FOUNDATIONS OF OUR FAITH.

    This is, however, in the matter of the two men by one of whom we are
sold under sin,[3] by the other redeemed from sins--by the one have been
precipitated into death, by the other are liberated unto life; the
former of whom has ruined us in himself, by doing his own will instead
of His who created him; the latter has saved us in Himself, by not doing
His own will, but the will of Him who sent Him:[1] and it is in what
concerns these two men that the Christian faith properly consists. For
"there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus;"[2] since "there is none other name under heaven given to men,
whereby we must be saved;"[3] and "in Him hath God defined unto all men
their faith, in that He hath raised Him from the dead."[4] Now without
this faith, that is to say, without a belief in the one Mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus; without faith, I say, in His
resurrection by which God has given assurance to all men and which no
man could of course truly believe were it not for His incarnation and
death; without faith, therefore, in the incarnation and death and
resurrection of Christ, the Christian verity unhesitatingly declares
that the ancient saints could not possibly have been cleansed from sin
so as to have become holy, and justified by the grace of God. And this
is true both of the saints who are mentioned in Holy Scripture, and of
those also who are not indeed mentioned therein, but must yet be
supposed to have existed,--either before the deluge, or in the interval
between that event and the giving of the law, or in the period of the
law itself,--not merely among the children of Israel, as the prophets,
but even outside that nation, as for instance Job. For it was by the
self-same faith. In the one Mediator that the hearts of these,  too,
were cleansed, and there also was "shed abroad in them the love of God
by the Holy Ghost,"[5]  "who bloweth where He listeth,"[6] not following
men's merits, but even producing these very merits Himself. For the
grace of God will in no wise exist unless it be wholly free.

CHAP. 29.--THE RIGHTEOUS MEN WHO LIVED IN THE TIME OF THE LAW WERE FOR
ALL THAT NOT UNDER THE LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE. THE GRACE OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT HIDDEN UNDER THE OLD.

    Death indeed reigned from Adam until Moses,[7] because it was not
possible even for the law given through Moses to overcome it: it was not
given, in fact, as something able to give life;[8] but as something that
ought to show those that were dead and for whom grace was needed to give
them life, that they were not only prostrated under the propagation and
domination of sin, but also convicted by the additional guilt of
breaking the law itself: not in order that any one might perish who in
the mercy of God understood this even in that early age; but that,
destined though he was to punishment, owing to the dominion of death,
and manifested, too, as guilty through his own violation of the law, he
might seek God's help, and so where sin abounded, grace might much more
abound,[9] even the grace which alone delivers from the body of this
death.[10] [XXV.] Yet, notwithstanding this, although not even the law
which Moses gave was able to liberate any man from the dominion of
death, there were even then, too, at the time of the law, men of God who
were not living under the terror and conviction and punishment of the
law, but under the delight and healing and liberation of grace. Some
there were who said, "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me;"[11] and, "There is no rest in my bones, by reason of my
sins;"[12] and, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right
spirit in my inward parts;"[13] and, "Stablish me with Thy directing
Spirit;"[14] and, "Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me."[15] There were
some, again, who said: "I believed, therefore have I spoken."[16] For
they too were cleansed with the self-same faith with which we ourselves
are. Whence the apostle also says: "We having the same spirit of faith,
according as it is written, I believe, and therefore have I spoken; we
also believe, and therefore speak."[17] Out of very faith was it said,
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His
name Emmanuel,"[18] "which is, being interpreted, God with us."[19] Out
of very faith too was it said concerning Him: "As a bridegroom He cometh
out of His chamber; as a giant did He exult to run His course. His going
forth is from the extremity of heaven, and His circuit runs to the other
end of heaven; and no one is hidden from His heat."[20] Out of very
faith, again, was it said to Him: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou
hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, Thy God,
hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."[21] By
the self-same Spirit of faith were all these things foreseen by them as
to happen, whereby they are believed by us as having happened. They,
indeed, who were able in faithful love to foretell these things to us
were not themselves partakers of them. The Apostle Peter says, "Why
tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither
our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."[22] Now
on what principle does he make this statement, if it be not because even
they were saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the
law of Moses, from which comes not the cure, but only the knowledge of
sin?[1] Now, however, the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.[2] If,
therefore, it is now manifested, it even then existed, but it was
hidden. This concealment was symbolized by the veil of the temple. When
Christ was dying, this veil was rent asunder,[3] to signify the full
revelation of Him. Even of old, therefore there existed amongst the
people of God this grace of the one Mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus; but like the rain in the fleece which God sets apart
for His inheritance,[4] not of debt, but of His own will, it was
latently present, but is now patently visible amongst all nations as its
"floor," the fleece being dry,--in other Words, the Jewish people having
become reprobate.[5]

CHAP. 30 [XXVI]--PELAGIUS AND COELESTIUSDENY THAT THE ANCIENT  SAINTS
WERE  SAVED BY CHRIST.

    We must not therefore divide the times, as Pelagius and his
disciples do, who say that men first lived righteously by nature, then
under the law, thirdly under grace,--by nature meaning all the long time
from Adam before the giving of the law. "For then," say they, "the
Creator was known by the guidance of reason; and the rule of living
rightly was carried written in the hearts of men, not in the law of the
letter, but of nature. But men's manners became corrupt; and then," they
say, "when nature now tarnished began to be insufficient, the law was
added to it whereby as by a moon the original lustre was restored to
nature after its blush was impaired. But after the habit of sinning had
too much prevailed among men, and the law was unequal to the task of
curing it, Christ came; and the Physician Himself, through His own self,
and not through His disciples, brought relief to the malady at its most
desperate development."

CHAP. 31.--CHRIST'S INCARNATION WAS OF AVAIL TO THE FATHERS, EVEN THOUGH
IT HAD NOT YET HAPPENED.

    By disputation of this sort, they attempt to exclude the ancient
saints from the grace of the Mediator, as if the man Christ Jesus were
not the Mediator between God and those men; on the ground that, not
having yet taken flesh of the Virgin's womb, He was not yet man at the
time when those righteous men lived. If this, however, were true, in
vain would the apostle say: "By man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive." [6] For inasmuch as those ancient saints,
according to the vain conceits of these men, found their nature
self-sufficient, and required not the man Christ to be their Mediator to
reconcile them to God, so neither shall they be made alive in Him, to
whose body they are shown not to belong as members, according to the
statement that it was on man's account that He became man. If, however,
as the Truth says through His apostles, even as all die in Adam, even so
shall all be made alive in Christ; forasmuch as the resurrection of the
dead comes through the one man, even as death comes through the other
man; what Christian man can be bold enough to doubt that even those
righteous men who pleased God in the more remote periods of the human
race are destined to attain to the resurrection of eternal life, and not
eternal death, because they shall be made alive in Christ? that they are
made alive in Christ, because they belong to the body of Christ? that
they belong to the body of Christ, because Christ is the head even to
them?[7] and that Christ is the head even to them, because there is but
one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus? But this He
could not have been to them, unless through His grace they had believed
in His resurrection. And how could they have done this, if they had been
ignorant that He was to come in the flesh, and if they had not by this
faith lived justly and piously? Now, if the incarnation of Christ could
be of no concern to them, on the ground that it had not yet come about,
it must follow that Christ's judgment can be of no concern to us,
because it has not yet taken place. But if we shall stand at the right
hand of Christ through our faith in His judgment, which has not yet
transpired, but is to come to pass, it follows that those ancient saints
are members of Christ through their faith in His resurrection, which had
not in their day happened, but which was one day to come to pass.

CHAP. 32 [XXVII.]--HE SHOWS BY THE EXAMPLE OF ABRAHAM THAT THE ANCIENT
SAINTS BELIEVED IN THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST.

    For it must not be supposed that those saints of old only profited
by Christ's divinity, which was ever existent, and not also by the
revelation of His humanity, which had not yet come to pass. What the
Lord Jesus says, "Abraham desired to see my day, and he saw it, and was
glad,"[8] meaning by the phrase his day to understand his time, affords
of course a clear testimony that Abraham was fully imbued with belief in
His incarnation. It is in respect of this that He has a "time;" for His
divinity exceeds all time, for it was by it that all times were created.
If, however, any one supposes that the phrase in question must be
understood of that eternal "day" which is limited by no morrow, and
preceded by no yesterday,--in a word, of the very eternity in which He
is co-eternal with the Father,--how would Abraham really desire this,
unless he was aware that there was to be a future mortality belonging to
Him whose eternity he wished for ? Or, perhaps, some one would confine
the meaning of the phrase so far as to say, that nothing else is meant
in the Lord's saying, "He desired to see my day," than "He desired to
see me," who am the never-ending Day, or the unfailing Light, as when we
mention the life of the Son, concerning which it is said in the Gospel
"So hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself."[1] Here the life
is nothing less than Himself. So we understand the Son Himself to be the
life, when He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; "[2] of whom
also it was said "He is the true God, and eternal life."[3] Supposing,
then, that Abraham desired to see this equal divinity of the Son's with
the Father, without any precognition of His coming in the flesh--as
certain philosophers sought Him, who knew nothing of His flesh--can that
other act of Abraham, when he orders his servant to place his hand under
his thigh, and to swear by the God of heaven,[4] be rightly understood
by any one otherwise than as showing that Abraham well knew that the
flesh in which the God of heaven was to come was the offspring of that
very thigh ?[5]

           CHAP. 33 [XVIII.]--HOW CHRIST IS OUR MEDI-

                              ATOR.

    Of this flesh and blood Melchizedek also, when he blessed Abram
himself,6 gave the testimony which is very well known to Christian
believers, so that long afterwards it was said to Christ in the Psalms:
"Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek."[7] This
was not then an accomplished fact, but was still future; yet that faith
of the fathers, which is the self-same faith as our own, used to chant
it. Now, to all who find death in Adam, Christ is of this avail, that He
is the Mediator for life. He is, however, not a Mediator, because He is
equal with the Father; for in this respect He is Himself as far distant
from us as the Father; and how can there be any medium where the
distance is the very same? Therefore the apostle does not say, "There is
one Mediator between God and men, even Jesus Christ;" but his words are,
"The MAN Christ Jesus." [8] He is the Mediator, then, in that He is
man,--inferior to the Father, by so much as He is nearer to ourselves,
and superior to us, by so much as He is nearer to the Father. This is
more openly expressed thus: "He is inferior to the Father, because in
the form of a servant;"[9] superior to us, because without spot of sin.

            CHAP. 34 [XXIX.] --NO MAN EVER SAVED SAVE

                           BY CHRIST.

    Now, whoever maintains that human nature at any period required not
the second Adam for its physician, because it was not corrupted in the
first Adam, is convicted as an enemy to the grace of God; not in a
question where doubt or error might be compatible with soundness of
belief, but in that very rule of faith which makes us Christians. How
happens it, then, that the human nature, which first existed, is praised
by these men as being so far less tainted with evil manners? How is it
that they overlook the fact that men were even then sunk in so many
intolerable sins, that, with the exception of one man of God and his
wife, and three sons and their wives, the whole world was in God's just
judgment destroyed by the flood, even as the little land of Sodom was
afterwards with fire? [10] From the moment, then, when "by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all
men, in whom all sinned,"[11] the entire mass of our nature was ruined
beyond doubt, and fell into the possession of its destroyer. And from
him no one--no, not one--has been delivered, or is being delivered, or
ever will be delivered, except by the grace of the Redeemer.

CHAP. 35 [XXX.]--WHY THE CIRCUMCISION OF INFANTS WAS ENJOINED UNDER PAIN
OF SO GREAT A PUNISHMENT.

    The Scripture does not inform us whether before Abraham's time
righteous men or their children were marked by any bodily or visible
sign.12 Abraham himself, indeed, received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness of faith.[13] And he received it with this
accompanying injunction: All the male infants of his household were from
that very time to be circumcised, while fresh from their mother's womb,
on the eighth day from their birth;[14] so that even they who were not
yet able with the heart to believe unto righteousness, should
nevertheless receive the seal of the righteousness of faith. And this
command was imposed with so fearful a sanction, that God said: "That
soul shall be cut off from his people, whose flesh of his foreskin is
not circumcised on the eighth day."1 If inquiry be made into the justice
of so terrible a penalty, will not the entire argument of these men
about free will, and the laudable soundness and purity of nature,
however cleverly maintained, fall to pieces, struck down and fractured
to atoms? For, pray tell me, what evil has an infant committed of his
own will, that, for the negligence of another in not circumcising him,
he himself must be condemned, and with so severe a condemnation, that
soul must be cut off from his people? It was not of any temporal death
that this fear was inflicted, since of righteous persons, when they
died, it used rather to be said, "And he was gathered unto his
people;"[2] or, "He was gathered to his fathers:"[3] for no attempt to
separate a man from his people is long formidable to him, when his own
people is itself the people of God.

CHAP. 36 [XXXI]--THE PLATONISTS' OPINION ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL
PREVIOUS TO THE BODY REJECTED.

    What, then, is the purport of so severe a condemnation, when no
wilful sin has been committed? For it is not as certain Platonists have
thought, because every such infant is thus requited in his soul for what
it did of its own wilfulness previous to the present life, as having
possessed previous to its present bodily state a free choice of living
either well or ill; since the Apostle Paul says most plainly, that
before they were born they did neither good nor evil.4 On what account,
therefore, is an infant rightly punished with such ruin, if it be not
because he belongs to the mass of perdition, and is properly regarded as
born of Adam, condemned under the bond of the ancient debt unless he has
been released from the bond, not according to debt, but according to
grace? And what grace but God's, through our Lord Jesus Christ? Now
there was a forecast of His coming undoubtedly contained not only in
other sacred institutions[5] of the ancient Jews, but also in their
circumcision of the foreskin. For the eighth day, in the recurrence of
weeks, became the Lord's day, on which the Lord arose from the dead; and
Christ was the rock[6] whence was formed the stony blade for the
circumcision;[7] and the flesh of the foreskin was the body of sin.

           CHAP. 37 [XXXII.]--IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS

                          CALLED "SIN."

    There was a change of the sacramental ordinances made after the
coming of Him whose advent they prefigured; but there was no change in
the Mediator's help, who, even previous to His coming in the flesh, all
along delivered the ancient members of His body by their faith in His
incarnation; and in respect of ourselves too, though we were dead in
sins and in the uncircumcision of our flesh, we are quickened  together
in Christ, in whom we are circumcised with the circumcision not made
with the hand,[8] but such as was prefigured by the old manual
circumcision, that the body of sin might be done away[9] which was born
with us from Adam. The propagation of a condemned origin condemns us,
unless we are cleansed by the likeness of sinful flesh, in which He was
sent without sin, who nevertheless concerning sin condemned sin, having
been made sin for us.10 Accordingly the apostle says: "We beseech you in
Christ's stead, be ye reconciled unto God. For He hath made Him to be
sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of
God in Him."[11] God, therefore, to whom we are reconciled, has made Him
to be sin for us,--that is to say, a sacrifice by which our sins may be
remitted; for by sins are designated the sacrifices for sins. And indeed
He was sacrificed for our sins, the only one among men who had no sins,
even as in those early times one was sought for among the flocks to
prefigure the Faultless One who was to come to heal our offences. On
whatever day, therefore, an infant may be baptized after his birth, he
is as if circumcised on the eighth day; inasmuch as he is circumcised in
Him who rose again the third day indeed after He was crucified, but the
eighth according to the weeks. He is circumcised for the putting off of
the body of sin; in other words, that the grace of spiritual
regeneration may do away with the debt which the contagion of carnal
generation contracted. "For no one is pure from uncleanness" (what
uncleanness, pray, but that of sin?), "not even the infant, whose life
is but that of a single day upon the earth."[12]

            CHAP. 38 [XXXIII.]--ORIGINAL SIN DOES NOT

                      RENDER MARRIAGE EVIL.

    But they argue thus, saying: "Is not, then, marriage an evil, and
the man that is produced by marriage not God's work?" As if the good of
the married life were that disease of concupiscence with which they who
know not God love their wives--a course which the apostle forbids;[13]
and not rather that conjugal chastity, by which carnal lust is reduced
to the good purposes of the appointed procreation of children. Or as if,
forsooth, a man could possibly be anything but God's work, not only when
born in wedlock, but even if he be produced in fornication or adultery.
In the present inquiry, however, when the question is not for what a
Creator is necessary, but for what a Saviour, we have not to consider
what good there is in the procreation of nature, but what evil there is
in sin, whereby our nature has been certainly corrupted. No doubt the
two are generated simultaneously--both nature and nature's corruption;
one of which is good, the other evil. The one comes to us from the
bounty of the Creator, the other is contracted from the condemnation of
our origin; the one has its cause in the good-will of the Supreme God,
the other in the depraved will of the first man; the one exhibits God as
the maker of the creature, the other exhibits God as the punisher of
disobedience: in short, the very same Christ was the maker of man for
the creation of the one, and was made[1] man for the healing of the
other.

            CHAP. 39 [XXXIV.]--THREE THINGS GOOD AND

                     LAUDABLE IN MATRIMONY.

    Marriage, therefore, is a good in all the things which are proper to
the married state. And these are three: it is the ordained means of
procreation, it is the guarantee[2] of chastity, it is the bond of
union.[3] In respect of its ordination for generation the Scripture
says, " I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children,
guide the house;''4 as regards its guaranteeing chastity, it is said of
it, "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and
likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the
wife;"[5] and considered as the bond of union: "What God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder."[6] Touching these points, we do not
forget that we have treated at sufficient length, with whatever ability
the Lord has given us, in other works of ours, which are not unknown to
you.[7] In relation to them all the Scripture has this general praise:
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled."[8] For, inasmuch
as the wedded state is good, insomuch does it produce a very large
amount of good in respect of the evil of concupiscence; for it is not
lust, but reason, which makes a good use of concupiscence. Now lust lies
in that law of the "disobedient" members which the apostle notes as
"warring against the law of the mind;"[9] whereas reason lies in that
law of the wedded state which makes good use of concupiscence. If,
however, it were impossible for any good to arise out of evil, God could
not create man out of the embraces of adultery. As, therefore, the
damnable evil of adultery, whenever man is born in it, is not chargeable
on God, who certainly amidst man's evil work actually produces a good
work; so, likewise, all which causes shame in that rebellion of the
members which brought the accusing blush on those who after their sin
covered these members with the fig-tree leaves,[10] is not laid to the
charge of marriage, by virtue of which the conjugal embrace is not only
allowable, but is even useful and honourable; but it is imputable to the
sin of that disobedience which was followed by the penalty of man's
finding his own members emulating against himself that very disobedience
which he had practised against God. Then, abashed at their action, since
they moved no more at the bidding of his rational will, but at their own
arbitrary choice as it were, instigated by lust, he devised the covering
which should conceal such of them as he judged to be worthy of shame.
For man, as the handiwork of God, deserved not confusion of face; nor
were the members which it seemed fit to the Creator to form and appoint
by any means designed to bring the blush to the creature. Accordingly,
that simple nudity was displeasing neither to God nor to man: there was
nothing to be ashamed of, because nothing at first accrued which
deserved punishment.

CHAP. 40 [XXXV.]--MARRIAGE EXISTED BEFORE SIN  WAS COMMITTED.    HOW
GOD'S BLESSING OPERATED IN OUR FIRST PARENTS.

    There was, however, undoubtedly marriage, even when sin had no prior
existence; and for no other reason was it that woman, and not a second
man, was created as a help for the man. Moreover, those words of God,
"Be fruitful and multiply,"[11] are not prophetic of sins to be
condemned, but a benediction upon the fertility of marriage. For by
these ineffable words of His, I mean by the divine methods which are
inherent in the truth of His wisdom by which all things were made, God
endowed the primeval pair with their seminal power. Suppose, however,
that nature had not been dishonoured by sin, God forbid that we should
think that marriages in Paradise must have been such, that in them the
procreative members would be excited by the mere ardour of lust, and not
by the command of the will for producing offspring,--as the foot is for
walking, the hand for labour, and the tongue for speech. Nor, as now
happens, would the chastity of virginity be corrupted to the conception
of offspring by the force of a turbid heat, but it would rather be
submissive to the power of the gentlest love; and thus there would be no
pain, no blood-effusion of the concumbent virgin, as there would also be
no groan of the parturient mother. This, however, men refuse to believe,
because it has not been verified in the actual condition of our mortal
state. Nature, having been vitiated by sin, has never experienced an
instance of that primeval purity. But we speak to faithful men, who have
learnt to believe the inspired Scriptures, even though no examples are
adduced of actual reality. For how could I now possibly prove that a man
was made of the dust, without any parents, and a wife formed for him out
of his own side?[1] And yet faith takes on trust what the eye no longer
discovers.

CHAP. 41 [XXXVI.]--LUST AND TRAVAIL COME FROM SIN. WHENCE OUR MEMBERS
BECAME A CAUSE OF SHAME.

    Granted, therefore, that we have no means of showing both that the
nuptial acts of that primeval marriage were quietly discharged,
undisturbed by lustful passion, and that the motion of the organs of
generation, like that of any other members of the body, was not
instigated by the ardour of lust, but directed by the choice of the will
(which would have continued such with marriage had not the disgrace of
sin intervened); still, from all that is stated in the sacred Scriptures
on divine authority, we have reasonable grounds for believing that such
was the original condition of wedded life. Although, it is true, I am
not told that the nuptial embrace was unattended with prurient desire;
as also I do not find it on record that parturition was unaccompanied
with groans and pain, or that actual birth led not to future death; yet,
at the same time, if I follow the verity of the Holy Scriptures, the
travail of the mother and the death of the human offspring would never
have supervened if sin had not preceded. Nor would that have happened
which abashed the man and woman when they covered their loins; because
in the same sacred records it is expressly written that the sin was
first committed, and then immediately followed this hiding of their
shame.[2] For unless some indelicacy of motion had announced to their
eyes--which were of course not closed, though not open to this point,
that is, not attentive--that those particular members should be
corrected, they would not have perceived anything on their own persons,
which God had entirely made worthy of all praise, that called for either
shame or concealment. If, indeed, the sin had not first occurred which
they had dared to commit in their disobedience, there would not have
followed the disgrace which their shame would fain conceal.

CHAP. 42 [XXXVII.]--THE EVIL OF LUST OUGHT NOT TO BE ASCRIBED TO
MARRIAGE. THE THREE GOOD RESULTS OF THE NUPTIAL ORDINANCE: OFFSPRING,
CHASTITY, AND THE SACRAMENTAL UNION.

    It is then manifest that must not be laid to the account of
marriage, even in the absence of which, marriage would still have
existed. The good of marriage is not taken away by the evil, although
the evil is by marriage turned to a good use. Such, however, is the
present condition of mortal men, that the connubial intercourse and lust
are at the same time in action; and on this account it happens, that as
the lust is blamed, so also the nuptial commerce, however lawful and
honourable, is thought to be reprehensible by those persons who either
are unwilling or unable to draw the distinction between them. They are,
moreover, inattentive to that good of the nuptial state which is the
glory of matrimony; I mean offspring, chastity, and the pledge.[3] The
evil, however, at which even marriage blushes for shame is not the fault
of marriage, but of the lust of the flesh. Yet because without this evil
it is impossible to effect the good purpose of marriage, even the
procreation of children, whenever this process is approached, secrecy is
sought, witnesses removed, and even the presence of the very children
which happen to be born of the process is avoided as soon as they reach
the age of observation. Thus it comes to pass that marriage is permitted
to effect all that is lawful in its state, only it must not forget to
conceal all that is improper. Hence it follows that infants, although
incapable of sinning, are yet not born without the contagion of
sin,--not, indeed, because of what is lawful, but on account of that
which is unseemly: for from what is lawful nature is born; from what is
unseemly, sin. Of the nature so born, God is the Author, who created
man, and who united male and female under tile nuptial law; but of the
sin the author is the subtlety of the devil who deceives, and the will
of the man who consents.

CHAP. 43 [XXXVIII.]-- HUMAN OFFSPRING, EVEN PREVIOUS TO BIRTH, UNDER
CONDEMNATION AT THE VERY ROOT. USES OF MATRIMONY UNDERTAKEN FOR MERE
PLEASURE NOT WITHOUT VENIAL FAULT.

    Where God did nothing else than by a just sentence to condemn the
man who wilfully sins, together with his stock; there also, as a matter
of course, whatsoever was even not yet born is justly condemned in its
sinful root. In this condemned stock carnal generation holds every man;
and from it nothing but spiritual regeneration liberates him. In the
case, therefore, of regenerate par- ents, if they continue in the same
state of grace, it will undoubtedly work no injurious consequence, by
reason of the remission of sins which has been bestowed upon them,
unless they make a perverse use of it,--not alone all kinds of lawless
corruptions, but even in the marriage state itself, whenever husband and
wife toil at procreation, not from the desire of natural propagation of
their species, but are mere slaves to the gratification of their lust
out of very wantonness. As for the permission which the apostle gives to
husbands and wives, "not to defraud one another, except with consent for
a time, that they may have leisure for prayer," 1 he concedes it by way
of indulgent allowance, and not as a command; but this very form of the
concession evidently implies some degree of fault. The connubial
embrace, however, which marriage-contracts point to as intended for the
procreation of children, considered in itself simply, and without any
reference to fornication, is good and right; because, although it is by
reason of this body of death (which is unrenewed as yet by the
resurrection) impracticable without a certain amount of bestial motion,
which puts human nature to the blush, yet the embrace is not after all a
sin in itself, when reason applies the concupiscence to a good end, and
is not overmastered to evil.

CHAP. 44 [XXXIX.]--EVEN THE CHILDREN OF THE REGENERATE BORN IN SIN. THE
EFFECT OF BAPTISM.

    This concupiscence of the flesh would be prejudicial,[*] just in so
far as it is present in us,[*] if the remission of sins were not so
beneficial[*] that while it is present in men, both as born and  as born
again, it may in the former be prejudicial  as well as present, but in
the latter present simply but never prejudicial. In the unregenerate  it
is prejudicial to such an extent indeed, that, unless they are born
again, no advantage can accrue to them from being born of regenerate
parents. The fault of our nature remains in our offspring so deeply
impressed as to make it  guilty, even when the guilt of the self-same
fault  has been washed away in the parent by the remission of sins--
until every defect which ends  in sin by the consent of the human will
is consumed and done away in the last regeneration.  This will be
identical with that renovation of the very flesh itself which is
promised in its future resurrection, when we shall not only commit no
sins, but be even free from those corrupt desires which lead us to sin
by yielding consent to them. To this blessed consummation advances are
even now made by us, through the grace of that holy layer which we have
put within our reach. The same regeneration which now renews our spirit,
so that all our past sins are remitted, will by and by also operate, as
might be expected, to the renewal to eternal life of that very flesh, by
the resurrection of which to an incorruptible state the incentives of
all sins will be purged out of our nature. But this salvation is as yet
only accomplished in hope: it is not realized in fact; it is not in
present possession, but it is looked forward to with patience. [XL.] And
thus there is a whole and perfect cleansing, in the self-same baptismal
layer, not only of all the sins remitted now in our baptism, which make
us guilty owing to the consent we yield to wrong desires, and to the
sinful acts in which they issue; but of these said wrong desires also,
which, if not consented to by us, would contract no guilt of sin, and
which, though not in this present life removed, will yet have no
existence in the life beyond.

CHAP. 45.--MAN'S DELIVERANCE SUITED TO THE CHARACTER OF HIS CAPTIVITY.

    The guilt, therefore, of that corruption of which we are speaking
will remain in the carnal offspring of the regenerate, until in them
also it be washed away in the layer of regeneration. A regenerate man
does not regenerate, but generates, sons according to the flesh; and
thus he transmits to his posterity, not the condition of the
regenerated, but only of the generated. Therefore, be a man guilty of
unbelief, or a perfect believer, he does not in either case beget
faithful children, but sinners; in the same way that the seeds, not only
of a wild olive, but also of a cultivated one, produce not cultivated
olives, but wild ones. So, likewise, his first birth holds a man in that
bondage from which nothing but his second birth delivers him. The devil
holds him, Christ liberates him: Eve's deceiver holds him, Mary's Son
frees him: he holds him, who approached the man through the woman; He
frees him, who was born of a woman that never approached a man: he holds
him, who injected into the woman the cause of lust; He liberates him,
who without any lust was conceived in the woman. The former was able to
hold all men in his grasp through one; nor does any deliver them out of
his power but One, whom he was unable to grasp. The very sacraments
indeed of the Church, which she [2] administers with due ceremony,
according to the authority of very ancient tradition (so that these men,
notwithstanding their opinion that the sacraments are imitatively rather
than really used in the case of infants, still do not venture to reject
them with open disapproval),--the very sacraments, I say, of the holy
Church show plainly enough that infants, even when fresh from the womb,
are delivered from the bondage of the devil through the grace of Christ.
For, to say nothing of the fact that they are baptized for the remission
of sins by no fallacious, but by a true and faithful mystery, there is
previously wrought on them the exorcism and the exsufflation of the
hostile power, which they profess to renounce by the mouth of those who
bring them to baptism. Now, by all these consecrated and evident signs
of hidden realities, they are shown to pass from their worst oppressor
to their most excellent Redeemer, who, by taking on Himself our
infirmity in our behalf, has bound the strong man, that He may spoil his
goods;[1] seeing that the weakness of God is stronger, not only than
men, but also than angels. While, therefore, God delivers small as well
as great, He shows in both instances that the apostle spoke under the
direction of the Truth. For it is not merely adults, but little babes
too whom He rescues from the power of darkness, in order to transfer
them to the kingdom of God's dear Son.2

CHAP. 46.--DIFFICULTY OF BELIEVING ORIGINAL SIN. MAN'S VICE IS A BEAST'S
NATURE.

    No one should feel surprise, and ask: "Why does God's goodness
create anything for the devil's malignity to take possession of?" The
truth is, God's gift is bestowed on the seminal elements of His creature
with the same bounty wherewith "He maketh His sun to rise on the evil
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."[3] It
is with so large a bounty that God has blessed the very seeds, and by
blessing has constituted them. Nor has this blessing been eliminated out
of our excellent nature by a fault which puts us under condemnation.
Owing, indeed, to God's justice, who punishes, this fatal flaw has so
far prevailed, that men are born with the fault of original sin; but yet
its influence has not extended so far as to stop the birth of men. Just
so does it happen in persons of adult age: whatever sins they commit, do
not eliminate his manhood from man; nay, God's work continues still
good, however evil be the deeds of the impious. For although "man being
placed in honour abideth not; and being without understanding, is
compared with the beasts, and is like them," 4 yet the resemblance is
not so absolute that he becomes a beast. There is a comparison, no
doubt, between the two; but it is not by reason of nature, but through
vice--not vice in the beast, but in nature. For so excellent is a man in
comparison with a beast, that man's vice is beast's nature; still man's
nature is never on this account changed into beast's nature. God,
therefore, condemns man because of the fault wherewithal his nature is
disgraced, and not because of his nature, which is not destroyed in
consequence of its fault. Heaven forbid that we should think beasts are
obnoxious to the sentence of condemnation! It is only proper that they
should be free from our misery, inasmuch as they cannot partake of our
blessedness. What, then, is there surprising or unjust in man's being
subjected to an impure spirit--not on account of nature, but on account
of that impurity of his which he has contracted in the stain of his
birth, and which proceeds, not from the divine work, but from the will
of man;--since also the impure spirit itself is a good thing considered
as spirit, but evil in that it is impure? For the one is of God, and is
His work, while the other emanates from man's own will. The stronger
nature, therefore, that is, the angelic one, keeps the lower, or human,
nature in subjection, by reason of the association of vice with the
latter. Accordingly the Mediator, who was stronger than the angels,
became weak for man's sake.5 So that the pride of the Destroyer is
destroyed by the humility of the Redeemer; and he who makes his boast
over the sons of men of his angelic strength, is vanquished by the Son
of God in the human weakness which He assumed.

CHAP. 47 [XLI.]--SENTENCES FROM AMBROSE IN FAVOUR OF ORIGINAL SIN.

    And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we
think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before
in our treatise On Grace,[6]--adduce in evidence against the injurious
talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose
faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers
of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away
with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote,
Concerning the Resurrection, he says: "I fell in Adam, in Adam was I
expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless
He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of
sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ."[7]
Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: "We men are all of
us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David
says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me.'[8] Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;'[9]
even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced
not by being born, and which by dying He crucified, that in our flesh
there might be justification through grace, where previously there was
impurity through sin.''(1) The same holy man also, in his Exposition
Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: "Therefore as man He was tried in all
things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of
the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one
but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled
fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their
bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free
from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.''(2)
Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: "It was
no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's
womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into
her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of
woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly
corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He
repelled it by His heavenly majesty."(3)

            CHAP. 48.--PELAGIUS RIGHTLY CONDEMNED AND

                   REALLY OPPOSED BY AMBROSE.

    These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by
Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he
himself declares that "we are procreated, as without virtue, so without
vice." (4) What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and
renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose
in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic
bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in
accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with
his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the
catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith,
since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and
for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him. I
know full well with what insatiable avidity you s read whatever is
written for edification and in confirmation of the faith; but yet,
notwithstanding its utility as contributing to such an end, I must at
last bring this treatise to a conclusion.

 ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER ON THE FOLLOWING

TREATISE.

    ON revising these two Books, which he addressed to the Count
Valerius, Augustin placed them immediately after his reply to the
discourse of the Arians, which was affixed to the Proceedings with
Emeritus.(1) Now these proceedings are stated to have taken place on the
20th of September, in the year of our Lord 418.(2) There can be no
doubt, then, that these subjoined books--or, at any rate, the former of
them--were written either at the close of the year 418, or in the
beginning of the year 419. For, concerning this first book, Augustin
says himself: "This book of mine, however, which he [Julianus] says he
answered in four books, I wrote after the condemnation of Pelagius and
Coelestius. This," he adds, "I have deemed it right to mention, because
he declares that my words had been used by the enemies of the truth to
bring it into odium. Let no one, therefore, suppose that it was owing to
this book of mine that condemnation had been passed on the new heretics
who are enemies of the grace of Christ.''(3) From these words one may
see at once that this first book was published about the same time as
the condemnation of the Pelagians in the year 418.

    Soon after its publication it began to be assailed by the Pelagians,
who observed that its perusal was producing in the minds of the
catholics much odium against their heresy. One of them, Julianus,(4)
influenced with a warm desire of furthering the heretical movement,
attacked the first book of Augustin's treatise in four books of his own.
Out of these, sundry extracts were culled by some interested person, and
forwarded to Count Valerius. Valerius despatched them from Ravenna to
Rome, to Alypius,(5) in order that he, on returning to Africa, might
hand them to Augustin for the purpose of an early refutation, together
with a letter in which Valerius thanked Augustin for the previous work
which he also mentioned. Augustin saw at once that these extracts had
been taken out of the work of Julianus; and, although he preferred
reserving his answer to the selections till he had received the entire
work from which they were culled, he still thought that he was bound to
avoid all delay in satisfying the Count Valerius. Without loss of time,
therefore, he drew up in answer his second book, with the same title as
before, On Marriage and Concupiscence, which, as we think, must be
assigned to the year 420, since the holy doctor wrote it immediately
after the expression of thanks for the first book; for it is clearly
improbable that Valerius should have waited two years or more to make
the acknowledgment of his gratitude.

    Moreover, the Valerius whom Augustin dignifies with the title of
Illustrious as well as Count, was much employed in public life--not, to
be sure, in the forum, but in the field; and from this circumstance we
find it difficult to accede to the opinion that supposes him to have
been the same person with the Valerius who was Count of the Private
Estate in the year 425, Consul in 432, and lastly Master of the Offices
under Theodosius the younger in the year 434. These appointments,
indeed, had no connection with military service, nor had the prefects of
Theodosius anything in common with those of Honorius.

 A LETTER(1) ADDRESSED TO THE COUNT VALERIUS,

     ON AUGUSTIN'S FORWARDING TO HIM WHAT HE CALLS HIS FIRST

              BOOK "ON MARRIAGE AND CONCUPISCENCE."

TO THE ILLUSTRIOUS AND DESERVEDLY EMINENT LORD AND HIS MOST
DEARLYBELOVED SON IN THE LOVE OF CHRIST, VALERIUS, AUGUSTIN SENDS
GREETINGIN THE LORD.

    1. WHILE I was chafing at the long disappointment of receiving no
acknowledgments from your Highness of the many letters which I had
written to you, I all at once received three letters from your
Grace,--one by the hand of my fellow bishop Vindemialis, which was not
meant for me only, and two, soon afterwards, through my brother
presbyter Firmus. This holy man, who is bound to me, as you may have
ascertained from his own lips, by the ties of a most intimate love, had
much conversation with me about your excellence, and gave me undoubted
proofs of his complete knowledge of your character "in the bowels of
Christ;''(2) by these means he had sight, not only of the letters of
which the fore-mentioned bishop and he himself had been the bearers, but
also of those which we expressed our disappointment at not having
received. Now his information respecting you was all the more pleasant
to us, inasmuch as he gave me to understand, what it was out of your
power to do, that you would not, even at my earnest request for an
answer, become the extoller of your own praises, contrary to the
permission of Holy Scripture.(3) But I ought myself to hesitate to write
to you in this strain, lest I should incur the suspicion of flattering
you, my illustrious and deservedly eminent lord and dearly beloved son
in the love of Christ.

    2. Now, as to your praises in Christ, or rather Christ's praises in
you, see what delight and joy it was to me to hear of them from him, who
could neither deceive me because of his fidelity to me, nor be ignorant
of them by reason of his friendship with you. But other testimony, which
though inferior in amount and certainty has still reached my ear from
divers quarters, assures me how sound and catholic is your faith; how
devout your, hope of the future; how great your love to God and the
brethren; how humble your mind amid the highest honours, as you do not
trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, and art rich in good
works;(4) how your house is a rest and comfort of the saints, and a
terror to evil-doers; how great is your care that no man lay snares for
Christ's members (either among His old enemies or those of more recent
days), although he use Christ's name as a cloak for his wiles; and at
the same time, though you give no quarter to the error of these enemies,
how provident you are to secure their salvation. This and the like, we
frequently hear, as I have already said, even from others; but at the
present moment we have, by means of the above-mentioned brother,
received a fuller and more trustworthy knowledge.

    3. Touching, however, the subject of conjugal purity, that we might
be able to bestow our commendation and love upon you for it, could we
possibly listen to the information of any one but some bosom friend of
your own, who had no mere superficial acquaintance with you, but knew
your innermost life? Concerning, therefore, this excellent gift of God
to you, I am delighted to converse with you with more frankness and at
greater length. I am quite sure that I shall not prove burdensome to
you, even if I send you a prolix treatise, the perusal of which will
only ensure a longer converse between us. For this have I discovered,
that amidst your manifold and weighty cares you pursue your reading with
ease and pleasure; and that you take great delight in any little
performances of ours, even if they are addressed to other persons,
whenever they have chanced to fall into your hands. Whatever, therefore,
is addressed to yourself, in which I can speak to you as it were
personally, you will deign both to notice with greater attention, and to
receive with a higher pleasure. From the perusal, then, of this letter,
turn to the book which I send with it. It will in its very commencement,
in a more convenient manner, intimate to your Reverence the reason, both
why it has been written, and why it has been submitted specially to your
consideration.

 ON MARRIAGE AND CONCUPISCENCE.

                          IN TWO BOOKS,

                 ADDRESSED TO THE COUNT VALERIUS

 BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO; WRITTEN IN 419 AND 420,

                           BOOK I.(1)

WHEREIN HE EXPOUNDS THE PECULIAR AND NATURAL BLESSINGS OF MARRIAGE. HE
SHOWS THAT AMONG THESE BLESSINGS MUST NOT BE RECKONED FLESHLY
CONCUPISCENCE; INSOMUCH AS THIS IS WHOLLY EVIL, SUCH AS DOES NOT PROCEED
FROM THE VERY NATURE OF MARRIAGE, BUT IS AN ACCIDENT THEREOF ARISING
FROM ORIGINAL SIN. THIS EVIL, NOTWITHSTANDING, IS RIGHTLY EMPLOYED BY
MARRIAGE FOR THE PROCREATION OF CHILDREN. BUT, AS THE RESULT OF THIS
CONCUPISCENCE, IT COMES TO PASS THAT, EVEN FROM THE LAWFUL MARRIAGE OF
THE CHILDREN OF GOD, MEN ARE NOT BORN CHILDREN OF GOD, BUT OF THE WORLD,
AND ARE BOUND WITH THE CHAIN OF SIN, ALTHOUGH THEIR PARENTS HAVE BEEN
LIBERATED THEREFROM BY GRACE; AND ARE LED CAPTIVE BY THE DEVIL, IF THEY
BE NOT IN LIKE MANNER RESCUED BY THE SELF-SAME GRACE OF CHRIST. HE
EXPLAINS HOW IT IS THAT CONCUPISCENCE REMAINS IN THE BAPTIZED IN ACT
THOUGH NOT IN GUILT. HE TEACHES, THAT BY THE SANCTITY OF BAPTISM, NOT
MERELY THIS ORIGINAL GUILT, BUT ALL OTHER SINS OF MEN WHATEVER, ARE
TAKEN AWAY. HE LASTLY QUOTES THE AUTHORITY OF AMBROSE TO SHOW THAT THE
EVIL OF CONCUPISCENCE MUST BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE GOOD OF MARRIAGE.

            CHAP. I.--CONCERNING THE ARGUMENT OF THIS

                            TREATISE.

    OUR new heretics, my dearest son Valerius, who maintain that infants
born in the flesh have no need of that medicine of Christ whereby sins
are healed, are constantly affirming, in their excessive hatred of us,
that we condemn marriage and that divine procedure by which God creates
human brings by means of men and women, inasmuch as we assert that they
who are born of such a union contract that original sin of which the
apostle says, "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for in him alI sinned;"(2) and because
we do not deny, that of whatever kind of parents they are born, they are
still under the devil's dominion, unless they be born again in Christ,
and by His grace be removed from the power of darkness and translated
into His kingdom,(3) who willed not to be born from the same union of
the two sexes. Because, then, we affirm this doctrine, which is
contained in the oldest and unvarying rule of the catholic faith, these
propounders of the novel and perverse dogma, who assert that there is no
sin in infants to be washed away in the layer of regeneration,(1) in
their unbelief or ignorance calumniate us, as if we condemned marriage,
and as if we asserted to be the devil's work what is God's own work--the
human being which is born of marriage. Nor do they reflect that the good
of marriage is no more impeachable on account of the original evil which
is derived therefrom, than the evil of adultery and fornication is
excusable on account of the natural good which is still have existed
even if no man had sinned, since the procreation of children in the body
that belonged to that life would have been effected without that malady
which in "the body of this death"(2) cannot be separated from the
process of procreation.

            CHAP. 2. [II.]--WHY THIS TREATISE WAS AD-

                      DRESSED TO VALERIUS.

    Now there are three very special reasons, which I will briefly
indicate, why I wished to write to you particularly on this subject. One
is, because by the gift of Christ you are a strict observer of conjugal
chastity. Another is, because by your great care and diligence you have
effectually withstood those profane novelties which we are they had
committed to writing had found its way into your hands; and although in
your robust faith you could despise such an attempt, it is still a good
thing for us also to know how to bring aid to our faith by defending it.
For the Apostle Peter instructs us to be "ready always to give an answer
to every one that asketh us a reason of the faith and hope that is in
us;"(3) and the Apostle Paul says, "Let your speech be always with
grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every
man."(4) These are the motives which chiefly impel me to hold such
converse with you in this volume, as he Lord shall enable me. I have
never liked, indeed, to intrude the perusal of any of my humble labours
on any eminent person, who is like yourself conspicuous to all from the
elevation of his office, without his own request,--especially when he is
not blessed with the enjoyment of a dignified retirement, but is still
occupied in the public duties of a soldier's profession; this has always
seemed to me to savour more impertinence than of respectful esteem. If,
then, I have incurred censure of this kind, while acting on the reasons
which I have now mentioned, I crave the favour of your forgiveness, and
kindly regard to the following arguments.

CHAP. 3 [III.]--CONJUGAL CHASTITY THE GIFT OF GOD.

    That chastity in the married state is God's gift, is shown by the
most blessed Paul, when, speaking on this very subject, he says: "But I
would that all men were even as I myself: but every man hath his proper
gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."(5) Observe,
he tells us that this gift is from God; and although he classes it brow
that continence in which he would have alI men to be like himself, he
still describes it as a gift of God. Whence we understand that, when
these precepts are given to us in order that we should do them, nothing
else is stated than that there ought to be within us our own will also
for receiving and having them. When, therefore, these are shown to be
gifts of God, it is meant that they must be sought from Him if they are
not already possessed; and if they are possessed, thanks must be given
to Him for the possession; moreover, that our own wills have but small
avail for seeking, obtaining, and holding fast these gifts, unless they
be assisted by God's grace.

CHAP. 4.--A DIFFICULTY AS REGARDS THE CHASTITY OF UNBELIEVERS. NONE BUT
A BELIEVER IS TRULY A CHASTE MAN.(6)

    What, then, have we to say when conjugal chastity is discovered even
in some unbelievers? Must it be said that they sin, in that they make a
bad use of a gift of God, in not restoring it to the worship of Him from
whom they received it? Or must these endowment, perchance, be not
regarded as gifts of God at all, when they are not believers who
exercise them; according to the apostle's sentiment, when he says,
"Whatsoever Is not of faith is sin?"(7) But who would dare to say that a
gift of God is sin? For the soul and the body, and all the natural
endowments which are implanted in the soul and the body, even in the
persons of sinful men, are still gifts of God; for it is God who made
them, and not they themselves. When it is said, "Whatsoever is not of
faith is sin," only those things are meant which men themselves do. When
men, therefore, do without faith those things which seem to appertain to
conjugal chastity, they do them either to please men, whether themselves
or others, or to avoid incurring such troubles as are incidental to
human nature in those things which they corruptly desire, or to pay
service to devils. Sins are not really resigned, but some sins are
overpowered by other sins. God forbid, then, that a man be truly called
chaste who observes connubial fidelity to his wife from any other motive
than devotion to the true God.

CHAP. 5 [IV.]--THE NATURAL GOOD OF MARRIAGE. ALL SOCIETY NATURALLY
REPUDIATES A FRAUDULENT COMPANION. WHAT IS TRUE CONJUGAL PURITY? NO TRUE
VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY EXCEPT IN DEVOTION TO TRUE FAITH.

    The union, then, of male and female for the purpose of procreation
is the natural good of marriage. But he makes a bad use of this good who
uses it bestially, so that his intention is on the gratification of
lust, intend of the desire of offspring. Nevertheless, in sundry animals
unendowed with reason, as, for instance, in most birds, there is both
preserved a certain kind of confederation of pairs, and a social
combination of skill in nest-building; and their mutual division of the
periods for cherishing their eggs and their alternation in the labor of
feeding their young, give them the appearance of so acting, when they
mate, as to be intent rather on securing the continuance of their kind
than on gratifying lust. Of these two, the one is the likeness of man in
a brute; the other, the likeness of the brute in man. With respect,
however, to what I ascribed to the nature of marriage, that the male and
the female are united together as associates for procreation, and
consequently do not defraud each other (forasmuch as every associated
state has a natural abhorrence of a fraudulent companion), although even
men without faith possess this palpable blessing of nature, yet, since
they use it not in faith, they only turn it to evil and sin. In like
manner, therefore, the marriage of believers converts to the use of
righteousness that carnal concupiscence by which "the flesh lusteth
against the Spirit."(1) For they entertain the firm purpose of
generating offspring to be regenerated--that the children who are born
of them as "children of the world" may be born again and become "sons of
God." Wherefore all parents who do not beget children with this
intention, this will this purpose, of transferring them from bring
members of the first man into being members of Christ, but boast as
unbelieving parents over unbelieving children,--however circumspect they
be in their cohabitation, studiously limiting it to the begetting of
children,--really have no conjugal chastity in themselves. For inasmuch
as chastity is a virtue, hating unchastity as its contrary vice, and as
all the virtues (even those whose operation is by means of the body)
have their seat in the soul, how can the body be in any true sense said
to be chaste, when the soul itself is committing fornication against the
true God? Now such fornication the holy psalmist censures when he says:
"For, lo, they that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou hast destroyed
all them that go a whoring from Thee."(2) There is, then, no true
chastity, whether conjugal, or vidual, or virginal, except that which
devotes itself to true faith. For though consecrated virginity is
rightly preferred to marriage, yet what Christian in his sober mind
would not prefer catholic Christian women who have been even more than
once married, to not only vestals, but also to heretical virgins? So
great is the avail of faith, of which the apostle says, "Whatsoever is
not of faith is sin;"(3) and of which it is written in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, "Without faith it is impossible to please God."(4)

CHAP. 6 [v.]--THE CENSURING OF LUST IS NOT A CONDEMNATION OF MARRIAGE;
WHENCE COMES SHAME IN THE HUMAN BODY. ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT CREATED
BLIND; MEANING OF THEIR "EYES BEING OPENED."

    Now, this being the real state of the question, they undoubtedly err
who suppose that, when fleshly lust is censured, marriage is condemned;
as if the malady of concupiscence was the outcome of marriage and not of
sin. Were not those first spouses, whose nuptials God blessed with the
words, "Be fruitful and multiply,"(5) naked, and yet not ashamed? Why,
then, did shame arise out of their members after sin, except because an
indecent motion arose from them, which, if men had not sinned, would
certainly never have existed in marriage? Or was it, forsooth, as some
hold(who give little heed to what they read), that human beings were,
like  dogs, at first created blind; and--absurder still --obtained
sight, not as dogs do, by growing, but by sinning? Far be it from us to
entertain such an opinion. But they gather that opinion of theirs from
reading: "She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto
her husband with her, and he did eat: and the eyes of them both were
opened, and they knew that they were naked."(6) This accounts for the
opinion of unintelligent persons, that the eyes of the first man and
woman were previously closed, because Holy Scripture testifies that they
were then opened. Well, then, were Hagar's eyes, the handmaid of Sarah,
previously shut, when, with her thirsty and sobbing child, she opened
her eyes(1) and saw the wall? Or did those two disciples, after the
Lord's resurrection, walk in the way with Him with their eyes shut,
since the evangelist says of them that" in the breaking of bread their
eyes were opened, and they knew Him"?(2) What, therefore, is written
concerning the first man and woman, that "the eyes of them both were
opened,"(3) we ought to understand as that they gave attention to
perceiving and recognising the new state which had befallen their body.
Now that their eyes were opened, their body appeared to them naked, and
they knew it. If this were not the meaning, how, when the beast of the
field and the fowls of the air were brought unto them,(4) could Adam
have given them names if his eyes were shut? He could not have done this
without distinguishing them; and he could not distinguish them without
seeing them. How, too, could the woman herself have been beheld so
clearly by him when he said, "This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of
my flesh"? (5) If, indeed, any one shall be so determined on cavilling
as to insist that Adam might have acquired a discernment of these
objects, not by sight but by touch, what explanation will he have to
give of the passage wherein we are told how the woman "saw that the
tree," from which she was about to pluck the forbidden fruit, "was
pleasant for the eyes to behold"?(6) No; "they were both naked, and were
not ashamed,"(7) not because they had no eyesight, but because they
perceived no reason to be ashamed in their members, which had all along
been seen by them. For it is not said: They were beth naked, and knew it
not; but "they were not ashamed." Because, indeed, nothing had
previously happened which was not lawful, so nothing had ensued which
could cause them shame.

CHAP. 7 [VI.]--MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE JUSTLY REQUITED IN THE REBELLION OF
HIS OWN FLESH; THE BLUSH OF SHAME FOR THE DISOBEDIENT MEMBERS OF THE
BODY.

    When the first man transgressed the law of God, he began to have
another law in his members which was repugnant to the law of his mind,
and he felt the evil of his own disobedience when he experienced in the
disobedience of his flesh a most righteous retribution recoiling on
himself. Such, then, was "the opening of his eyes" which the serpent had
promised him in his temptation (8)--the knowledge, in fact, of something
which he had better been ignorant of. Then, indeed, did man perceive
within himself what he had done; then did he distinguish evil from
good,--not by avoiding it, but by enduring it. For it certainly was not
just that obedience should be rendered by his servant, that is, his
body, to him, who had not obeyed his own Lord. Well, then, how
significant is the fact that the eyes, and lips, and tongue, and hands,
and feet, and the bending of back, and neck, and sides, are all placed
within our power--to be applied to such operations as are suitable to
them, when we have a body free from impediments and in a sound state of
health; but when it must come to man's great function of the procreation
of children the members which were expressly created for this purpose
will not obey the direction of the will, but lust has to be waited for
to set these members in motion, as if it had legal right over them, and
sometimes it refuses to act when the mind wills, while often it acts
against its will! Must not this bring the blush of shame over the
freedom of the human will, that by its contempt of God, its own
Commander, it has lost all proper command for itself over its own
members? Now, wherein could be found a more fitting demonstration of the
just depravation of human nature by reason of its disobedience, than in
the disobedience of those parts whence nature herself derives
subsistence by succession? For it is by an especial propriety that those
parts of the body are designated as natural. This, then, was the reason
why the first human pair, on experiencing in the flesh that motion which
was indecent because disobedient, and on feeling the shame of their
nakedness, covered these offending members with fig-leaves;(3) in order
that, at the very least, by the will of the ashamed offenders, a veil
might be thrown over that which was put into motion without the will of
those who wished it: and since shame arose from what indecently pleased,
decency might be attained by concealment.

CHAP. 8 [VII.]--THE EVIL OF LUST DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE GOOD OF
MARRIAGE.

    Forasmuch, then, as the good of marriage could not be lost by the
addition of this evil, some imprudent persons suppose that this is not
an added evil, but something which appertains to the original good. A
distinction, however, occurs not only to subtle reason, but even to the
most ordinary natural judgment, which was both apparent in the case of
the first man and woman, and also holds good still in the case of
married persons to-day. What they afterward effected in
propagation,--that is the good of marriage; but what they first veiled
through shame,--that is the evil of concupiscence, which everywhere
shuns sight, and in its shame seeks privacy. Since, therefore, marriage
effects some good even out of that evil, it has whereof to glory; but
since the good cannot be effected without the evil, it has reason for
feeling shame. The case may be illustrated by the example of a lame man.
Suppose him to attain to some good object by limping after it, then, on
the one hand, the attainment itself is not evil because of the evil of
the man's lameness; nor, on the other hand, is the lameness good because
of the goodness of the attainment. So, on the same principle, we ought
not to condemn marriage because of the evil of lust; nor must we praise
lust because of the good of marriage.

CHAP. 9 [VIII.]--THIS DISEASE OF CONCUPISCENCE IN MARRIAGE IS NOT TO BE
A MATTER OF WILL, BUT OF NECESSITY; WHAT OUGHT TO BE THE WILL OF
BELIEVERS IN THE USE OF MATRIMONY; WHO IS TO BE REGARDED AS USING, AND
NOT SUCCUMBING TO, THE EVIL OF CONCUPISCENCE; HOW THE HOLY FATHERS OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT FORMERLY USED WIVES.

    This disease of concupiscence is what the apostle refers to, when,
speaking to married believers, he says: "This is the will of God, even
your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every
one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and
honour; not in the disease of desire, even as the Gentiles which know
not God."[1] The married believer, therefore, must not only not use
another man's vessel, which is what they do who lust after others'
wives; but he must know that even his own vessel is not to be possessed
in the disease of carnal concupiscence. And this counsel is not to be
understood as if the apostle prohibited conjugal--that is to say, lawful
and honourable --cohabitation; but so as that that cohabitation (which
would have no adjunct of unwholesome lust, were it not that man's
perfect freedom of choice had become by preceding sin so disabled that
it has this fatal adjunct) should not be a matter of will, but of
necessity, without which, nevertheless, it would be impossible to attain
to the fruition of the will itself in the procreation of children. And
this wish is not in the marriages of believers determined by the purpose
of having such children born as shall pass through life in this present
world, but such as shall be born again in Christ, and remain in Him for
evermore. Now if this result should come about, the reward of a full
felicity will spring from marriage; but if such result be not realized,
there will yet ensue to the married pair the peace of their good will.
Whosoever possesses his vessel (that is, his wife) with this intention
of heart, certainly does not possess her in the "disease of desire," as
the Gentiles which know not God, but in sanctification and honour, as
believers who hope in God. A man turns to use the evil of concupiscence,
and is not overcome by it, when he bridles and restrains its rage, as it
works in inordinate and indecorous motions; and never relaxes his hold
upon it except when intent on offspring, and then controls and applies
it to the carnal generation of children to be spiritually regenerated,
not to the subjection of the spirit to the flesh in a sordid servitude.
That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to
whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased Him,"[2] thus used their
wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted
to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where
the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire
of varying gratification.

CHAP. 10 [IX.]--WHY IT WAS SOMETIMES PERMITTED THAT A MAN SHOULD HAVE
SEVERAL WIVES, YET NO WOMAN WAS EVER ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE
HUSBAND. NATURE PREFERS SINGLENESS IN HER DOMINATIONS.

Now, if to the God of our fathers, who is likewise our God, such a
plurality of wives had not been displeasing for the purpose that lust
might have a fuller range of indulgence; then, on such a supposition,
the holy women also ought each to have rendered service to several
husbands. But if any woman had so acted, what feeling but that of a
disgraceful concupiscence could impel her to have more husbands, seeing
that by such licence she could not have more children? That the good
purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one
wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by
the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine
Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking their beginning
therefrom, and of its affording to them a more honourable precedent. In
the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain
good men were united a plurality of good wives,--many to each; and from
this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for
dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for
fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have
dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one. Nor can it
be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men
should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this
principle in view that the apostle says, "The head of the woman is the
man;"[3] and, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands."[4] So
also the Apostle Peter writes: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him
lord."[1] Now, although the fact of the matter is, that while nature
loves singleness in her dominations, but we may see plurality existing
more readily in the subordinate portion of our race; yet for all that,
it was at no time lawful for one man to have a plurality of wives,
except for the purpose of a greater number of children springing from
him. Wherefore, if one woman cohabits with several men inasmuch as no
increase of offspring accrues to her therefrom, but only a more frequent
gratification of lust, she cannot possibly be a wife, but only a harlot.

CHAP. 11 [X.]--THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE; THE
WORLD'S LAW ABOUT DIVORCE DIFFERENT FROM THE GOSPEL'S.

    It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of
offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain
sacramental bond[2] in marriage which is recommended to believers in
wedlock. Accordingly it is en-joined by the apostle: "Husbands, love
your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church."[3] Of this bond the
substance[4] undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are
joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they
live; and that it should be unlawful for one consort to be parted from
the other, except for the cause of fornication.[5] For this is preserved
in the case of Christ and the Church; so that, as a living one with a
living one, there is no divorce, no separation for ever. And so complete
is the observance of this bond in the city of our God, in His holy
mountain[6]--that is to say, in the Church of Christ--by all married
believers, who are undoubtedly members of Christ, that, although women
marry, and men take wives, for the purpose of procreating children, it
is never permitted one to put away even an unfruitful wife for the sake
of having another to bear children. And whosoever does this is held to
be guilty of adultery by the law of the gospel; though not by this
world's rule, which allows a divorce between the parties, without even
the allegation of guilt, and the contraction of other nuptial
engagements,--a concession which, the Lord tells us, even the holy Moses
extended to the people of Israel, because of the hardness of their
hearts.[7] The same condemnation applies to the woman, if she is married
to another man. So enduring, indeed, are the rights of marriage between
those who have contracted them, as long as they both live, that even
they are looked on as man and wife still, who have separated from one
another, rather than they between whom a new connection has been formed.
For by this new connection they would not be guilty of adultery, if the
previous matrimonial relation did not still continue. If the husband
die, with whom a true marriage was made, a true marriage is now possible
by a connection which would before have been adultery. Thus between the
conjugal pair, as long as they live, the nuptial bond has a permanent
obligation, and can be cancelled neither by separation nor by union with
another. But this permanence avails, in such cases, only for injury from
the sin, not for a bond of the covenant. In like manner the soul of an
apostate, which renounces as it were its marriage union with Christ,
does not, even though it has cast its faith away, lose the sacrament of
its faith, which it received in the laver of regeneration. It would
undoubtedly be given back to him if he were to return, although he lost
it on his departure from Christ. He retains, however, the sacrament
after his apostasy, to the aggravation of his punishment, not for
meriting the reward.

CHAP. 12 [XI.]--MARRIAGE DOES NOT CANCEL A MUTUAL VOW OF CONTINENCE;
THERE WAS TRUE WEDLOCK BETWEEN MARY AND JOSEPH; IN WHAT WAY JOSEPH WAS
THE FATHER OF CHRIST.

    But God forbid that the nuptial bond should be regarded as broken
between those who have by mutual consent agreed to observe a perpetual
abstinence from the use of carnal concupiscence. Nay, it will be only a
firmer one, whereby they have exchanged pledges together, which will
have to be kept by an especial endearment and concord,--not by the
voluptuous links of bodies, but by the voluntary affections of souls.
For it was not deceitfully that the angel said to Joseph: "Fear not to
take unto thee Mary thy wife."[8] She is called his wife because of her
first troth of betrothal, although he had had no carnal knowledge of
her, nor was destined to have. The designation of wife was neither
destroyed nor made untrue, where there never had been, nor was meant to
be, any carnal connection. That virgin wife was rather a holier and more
wonderful joy to her husband because of her very pregnancy without man,
with disparity as to the child that was born, without disparity in the
faith they cherished. And because of this conjugal fidelity they are
both deservedly called "parents"[9] of Christ (not only she as His
mother, but he as His father, as being her husband), both having been
such in mind and purpose, though not in the flesh. But while the one was
His father in purpose only, and the other His mother in the flesh also,
they were both of them, for all that, only the parents of His humility,
not of His sublimity; of His weakness, not of His divinity. For the
Gospel does not lie, in which one reads, "Both His father and His mother
marvelled at those things which were spoken about Him;"[1] and in
another passage, "Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year;"[2] and
again a little afterwards, "His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast Thou
thus dealt with us? Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee
sorrowing."[3] In order, however, that He might show them that He had a
Father besides them, who begat Him without a mother, He said to them in
answer: "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about
my Father's business?"[4] Furthermore, lest He should be thought to have
repudiated them as His parents by what He had just said, the evangelist
at once added: "And they understood not the saying which He spake unto
them; and He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject
unto them."[5] Subject to whom but His parents? And who was the subject
but Jesus Christ, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God"?[6] And wherefore subject to them,  who were far
beneath the form of God, except that "He emptied Himself, and took upon
Him the form of a servant,"[7]--the form in which His parents lived?
Now, since she bore Him without his engendering, they could not surely
have both been His parents, of that form of a servant, if they had not
been conjugally united, though without carnal connection. Accordingly
the genealogical series (although both parents of Christ are mentioned
together in the succession)[8] had to be extended, as it is in fact,[9]
down rather to Joseph's name, that no wrong might be done, in the case
of this marriage, to the male, and indeed the stronger sex, while at the
same time there was nothing detrimental to truth, since Joseph, no less
than Mary, was of the seed of David,[10] of whom it was foretold that
Christ should come.

CHAP. 13.--IN THE MARRIAGE OF MARY AND JOSEPH THERE WERE ALL THE
BLESSINGS OF THE WEDDED STATE; ALL THAT IS BORN OF CONCUBINAGE IS SINFUL
FLESH.

    The entire good, therefore, of the nuptial institution was effected
in the case of these parents of Christ: there was offspring, there was
faithfulness, there was the bond.[11] As offspring, we recognise the
Lord Jesus Himself; the fidelity, in that there was no adultery; the
bond,[11] because there was no divorce. [XII.] Only there was no nuptial
cohabitation; because He who was to be without sin, and was sent not in
sinful flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh,[12] could not
possibly have been made in sinful flesh itself without that shameful
lust of the flesh which comes from sin, and without which He willed to
be born, in order that He might teach us, that every one who is born of
sexual intercourse is in fact sinful flesh, since that alone which was
not born of such intercourse was not sinful flesh. Nevertheless conjugal
intercourse is not in itself sin, when it is had with the intention of
producing children; because the mind's good-will leads the ensuing
bodily pleasure, instead of following its lead; and the human choice is
not distracted by the yoke of sin pressing upon it, inasmuch as the blow
of the sin is rightly brought back to the purposes of procreation. This
blow has a certain prurient activity which plays the king in the foul
indulgences of adultery, and fornication, and lasciviousness, and
uncleanness; whilst in the indispensable duties of the marriage state,
it exhibits the docility of the slave. In the one case it is condemned
as the shameless effrontery of so violent a master; in the other, it
gets modest praise as the honest service of so submissive an attendant.
This lust, then, is not in itself the good of the nuptial institution;
but it is obscenity in sinful men, a necessity in procreant parents, the
fire of lascivious indulgences, the shame of nuptial pleasures.
Wherefore, then, may not persons remain man and wife when they cease by
mutual consent from cohabitation; seeing that Joseph and Mary continued
such, though they never even began to cohabit?

CHAP. 14 [XIII.]--BEFORE CHRIST IT WAS A TIME FOR MARRYING; SINCE CHRIST
IT HAS BEEN A TIME FOR CONTINENCE.

    Now this propagation of children which among the ancient saints was
a most bounden duty for the purpose of begetting and preserving a people
for God, amongst whom the prophecy of Christ's coming must needs have
had precedence over everything, now has no longer the same necessity.
For from among all nations the way is open for an abundant offspring to
receive spiritual regeneration, from whatever quarter they derive their
natural birth. So that we may acknowledge that the scripture which says
there is "a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing,"[13]
is to be distributed in its clauses to the periods before Christ and
since. The former was the time to embrace, the latter to refrain from
embracing.

            CHAP. 15.--THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE ON

                          THIS SUBJECT.

    Accordingly the apostle also, speaking apparently with this passage
in view, declares: "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had them
not; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice,
as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed
not; and they that use this world, as though they used it not: for the
fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without
solicitude."[1] This entire passage (that I may express my view on this
subject in the shape of a brief exposition of the apostle's words) I
think must be understood as follows: "This I say, brethren, the time is
short." No longer is God's people to be propagated by carnal generation;
but, henceforth, it is to be gathered out by spiritual regeneration. "It
remaineth, therefore, that they that have wives" be not subject to
carnal concupiscence; "and they that weep," under the sadness of present
evil, should rejoice in the hope of future blessing; "and they that
rejoice," over any temporary advantage, should fear the eternal
judgment; "and they that buy," should so hold their possessions as not
to cleave to them by overmuch love; "and they that use this world"
should reflect that it is passing away, and does not remain. "For the
fashion of this world passeth away: but," he says, "I would have you to
be without solicitude,"--in other words: I would have you lift up your
heart, that it may dwell among those things which do not pass away. He
then goes on to say: "He that is unmarried careth for the things that
belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married
careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his
wife."[2] And thus to some extent he explains what he had already said:
"Let them that have wives be as  though they had none." For they who
have wives in such a way as to care for the things of the Lord, how they
may please the Lord, without having any care for the things of the world
in order to please their wives, are, in fact, just as if they had no
wives. And this is effected with greater ease when the wives, too, are
of such a disposition, because they please their husbands not merely
because they are rich, because they are high in rank, noble in race, and
amiable in natural temper, but because they are believers, because they
are religious, because they are chaste, because they are good men.

CHAP. 16 [XIV.]--A CERTAIN DEGREE OF INTEMPERANCE IS TO BE TOLERATED IN
THE CASE OF MARRIED PERSONS; THE USE OF MATRIMONY FOR THE MERE PLEASURE
OF LUST IS NOT WITHOUT SIN, BUT BECAUSE OF THE NUPTIAL RELATION THE SIN
IS VENIAL.

    But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy,
so the others are to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable
sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil,
even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their
object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as
to be within range of forgiveness, though not prescribed by way of
commandment:[3] and the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the
other, lest Satan should tempt them by reason of their incontinence.[4]
For thus says the Scripture: "Let the husband render unto the wife her
due:[5] and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not
power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband
hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the
other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure
for prayer;[6] and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not
for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission,[7] and not of
commandment."[8] Now in a case where permission[7] must be given, it
cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin.
Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating
children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is
not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible,[7]
but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may
require one from the other the due of the flesh-- and that not from a
wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This
gratification  incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of
marriage, but receives permission[7] on account of marriage. This,
therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its
own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially
appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the
demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the
child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage.

CHAP. 17 [XV.]--WHAT IS SINLESS IN THE USE OF MATRIMONY? WHAT IS
ATTENDEDWITH VENIAL SIN, AND WHAT WITH MORTAL?

    It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse
only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another
thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the
spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of
offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no
attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil
appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of
spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony,
but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct.
Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their
children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and
retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of
cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin
which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the
light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes,
indeed, this lustful cruelty, or; if you please, cruel lust, resorts to
such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness;
or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some
means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather
perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the
womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike
are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their
character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but
by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly
declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or
the man the wife's adulterer.

CHAP. 18 [XVI.]--CONTINENCE BETTER THAN MARRIAGE; BUT MARRIAGE BETTER
THAN FORNICATION.

    Forasmuch, then, as marriage cannot be such as that of the primitive
men might have been, if sin had not preceded; it may yet be like that of
the holy fathers of the olden time, in such wise that the carnal
concupiscence which causes shame (which did not exist in paradise
previous to the fall, and after that event was not allowed to remain
there), although necessarily forming a part of the body of this death,
is not subservient to it, but only submits its function, when forced
thereto, for the sole purpose of assisting in the procreation of
children; otherwise, since the present time (as we have already[1] said)
is the period for abstaining from the nuptial embrace, and therefore
makes no necessary demand on the exercise of the said function, seeing
that all nations now contribute so abundantly to the production of an
offspring which shall receive spiritual birth, there is the greater room
for the blessing of an excellent continence. "He that is able to receive
it, let him receive it."[2] He, however, who cannot receive it, "even if
he marry, sinneth not;"[3] and if a woman have not the gift of
continence, let her also marry[4] "It is good, indeed, for a man not to
touch a woman."[5] But since "all men cannot receive this saying, save
they to whom it is given,"[6] it remains that "to avoid fornication,
every man ought to have his own wife, and every woman her own
husband."[7] And thus the  weakness of incontinence is hindered from
falling into the ruin of profligacy by the honourable estate of
matrimony. Now that which the apostle says of women, "I will therefore
that the younger women marry," [8] is also applicable to males: I will
that the younger men take wives; that so it may appertain to both sexes
alike "to bear children, to be" fathers and "mothers of families, to
give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."[8]

            CHAP. 19  [XVII.]--BLESSING OF MATRIMONY.

    In matrimony, however, let these nuptial blessings be the objects of
our love--offspring, fidelity, the sacramental bond.[9] Offspring, not
that it be born only, but born again; for it is born to punishment
unless it be born again to life. Fidelity, not such as even unbelievers
observe one towards the other, in their ardent love of the flesh. For
what husband, however impious himself, likes an adulterous wife? Or what
wife, however impious she be, likes an adulterous husband? This is
indeed a natural good in marriage, though a carnal one. But a member of
Christ ought to be afraid of adultery, not on account of himself, but of
his spouse.: and ought to hope to receive from Christ the reward of that
fidelity which he shows to his spouse. The sacramental bond, again,
which is lost neither by divorce nor by adultery, should be guarded by
husband and wife with concord and chastity. For it alone is that which
even an unfruitful marriage retains by the law of piety, now that all
that hope of fruitfulness is lost for the purpose of which the couple
married. Let these nuptial blessings be praised in marriage by him who
wishes to extol the nuptial institution. Carnal concupiscence, however,
must not be ascribed to marriage: it is only to be tolerated in
marriage. It is not a good which comes out of the essence of marriage,
but an evil which is the accident of original sin.

CHAP. 20 [XVIII]--WHY CHILDREN OF WRATH ARE BORN OF HOLY MATRIMONY.

    This is the reason, indeed, why of even the just and lawful
marriages of the children of God are born, not children of God, but
children of the world; because also those who generate, if they are
already regenerate, beget children not as children of God, but as still
children of the world. "The children of this world," says our Lord,
beget and are begotten."[1] From the fact, therefore, that we are still
children of this world, our outer man is in a state of corruption; and
on this account our offspring are born as children of the present world;
nor do they become sons of God, except they be regenerated.[2] Yet
inasmuch as we are children of God, our inner man is renewed from day to
day.[3] And yet even our outer man has been sanctified through the layer
of regeneration, and has received the hope of future incorruption, on
which account it is justly designated as "the temple of God." "Your
bodies," says the apostle, "are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which is
in you, and which ye have of God; and ye are not your own, for ye are
bought with a great price: therefore glorify and carry God in your
body."[4] The whole of this statement is made in reference to our
present sanctification, but especially in consequence of that hope of
which he says in another passage, "We ourselves also, which have the
first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves,
waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."[5] If,
then, the redemption of our body is expected, as the apostle declares,
it follows, that being an expectation, it is as yet a matter of hope,
and not of actual possession. Accordingly the apostle adds: "For 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."[6] Not, therefore, by that which we are
waiting for, but by that which we are now enduring, are the children of
our flesh born. God forbid that a man who possesses faith should, when
he hears the apostle bid men "love their wives,"[7] love that carnal
concupiscence in his wife which he ought not to love even in himself; as
he may know, if he listens to the words of another apostle: "Love not
the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the
world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is, in the
world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of
life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth
away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth
for ever, even as also God abideth for ever."[8]

CHAP. 21 [XIX.]--THUS SINNERS ARE BORN OF RIGHTEOUS PARENTS, EVEN AS
WILD OLIVES SPRING FROM THE OLIVE.

    That, therefore, which is born of the lust of the flesh is really
born of the world, and not of God; but it is born of God, when it is
born again of water and of the Spirit. The guilt of this concupiscence,
regeneration alone remits, even as natural generation contracts it.
What, then, is generated must be regenerated, in order that likewise
since it cannot be otherwise, what has been contracted may be remitted.
It is, no doubt, very wonderful that what has been remitted in the
parent should still be contracted in the offspring; but nevertheless
such is the case. That this mysterious verity, which unbelievers neither
see nor believe, might get some palpable evidence in its support, God in
His providence has secured in the example of certain trees. For why
should we not suppose that for this very purpose the wild olive springs
from the olive? Is it not indeed credible that, in a thing which has
been created for the use of mankind, the Creator provided and appointed
what should afford an instructive example, applicable to the human race?
It is a wonderful thing, then, how those who have been themselves
delivered by grace from the bondage of sin, should still beget those who
are tied and bound by the self-same chain, and who require the same
process of loosening? Yes; and we admit the wonderful fact. But that the
embryo of wild olive trees should latently exist in the germs of true
olives, who would deem credible, if it were not proved true by
experiment and observation? In the same manner, therefore, as a wild
olive grows out of the seed of the wild olive, and from the seed of the
true olive springs also nothing but a wild olive, notwithstanding the
very great difference there is between the wild olive and the olive; so
what is born in the flesh, either of a sinner or of a just man, is in
both instances a sinner, notwithstanding the vast distinction which
exists between the sinner and the righteous man. He that is begotten is
no sinner as yet in act, and is still new from his birth; but in guilt
he is old. Human from the Creator, he is a captive of the destroyer, and
needs a redeemer. The difficulty, however, is how a state of captivity
can possibly befall the offspring, when the parents have been themselves
previously redeemed from it. Now it is no easy matter to unravel this 
intricate point, or to explain it in a set discourse;  therefore
unbelievers refuse to accept it as true; just as if in that other point
about the wild olive and the olive, which we gave in illustration, any
reason could be easily found, or explanation clearly given, why the
self-same shoot should sprout out of so dissimilar a stock. The truth,
however, of this can be discovered by any one who is willing to make the
experiment. Let it then serve for a good example for suggesting belief
of what admits not of ocular demonstration.

CHAP. 22 [XX.]--EVEN INFANTS, WHEN UNBAPTIZED, ARE IN THE POWER OF THE
DEVIL; EXORCISM IN THE CASE OF INFANTS, AND RENUNCIATION OF THE DEVIL.

    Now the Christian faith unfalteringly declares, what our new
heretics have begun to deny, both that they who are cleansed in the
layer of regeneration are redeemed from the power of the devil, and that
those who have not yet been redeemed by such regeneration are still
captive in the power of the devil, even if they be infant children of
the redeemed, unless they be themselves redeemed by the self-same grace
of Christ. For we cannot doubt that that blessing of God applies to
every stage of human life, which the apostle describes when he says
concerning Him: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and
hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son."[1] From this power
of darkness, therefore, of which the devil is the prince,--in other
words, from the power of the devil and his angels,--infants are
delivered when they are baptized; and whosoever denies this, is
convicted by the truth of the Church's very sacraments, which no
heretical novelty in the Church of Christ is permitted to destroy or
change, so long as the Divine Head rules and helps the entire body which
He owns--small as well as great. It is true, then, and in no way false,
that the devil's power is exorcised in infants, and that they renounce
him by the hearts and mouths of those who bring them to baptism, being
unable, to do so by their own; in order that they may be delivered from
the power of darkness, and be translated into the kingdom of their Lord.
What is that, therefore, within them which keeps them in the power of
the devil until they are delivered from it by Christ's sacrament of
baptism? What is it, I ask, but sin? Nothing else, indeed, has the devil
found which enables him to put under his own control that nature of man
which the good Creator made good. But infants have committed no sin of
their own since they have been alive. Only original sin, therefore,
remains, whereby they are made captive under the devil's power, until
they are redeemed therefrom by the layer of regeneration and the blood
of Christ, and pass into their Redeemer's kingdom,--the power of their
enthraller being frustrated, and power being given them to become "sons
of God" instead of children of this world.[2]

CHAP. 23 [XXI.]--SIN HAS NOT ARISEN  OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF MARRIAGE;
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY A GREAT ONE IN THE CASE OF CHRIST AND THE
CHURCH--A VERY SMALL ONE IN THE CASE OF A MAN AND HIS WIFE.

    If now we interrogate, so to speak, those goods of marriage to which
we have often referred,[3] and inquire how it is that sin could possibly
have been propagated from them to infants, we shall get this answer from
the first of them--the work of procreation of offspring: "My happiness
would in paradise have been greater if sin had not been committed. For
to me belongs that blessing of almighty God: 'Be fruitful, and
multiply.[4] For accomplishing this good work, divers members were
created suited to leach sex; these members were, of course, in existence
before sin, but they were not objects  of shame." This will be the
answer of the second good--the fidelity of chastity: "If sin had not
been committed, what in paradise could have been more secure than
myself, when there was no lust of my own to spur me, none of another to
tempt me?" And then this will be the answer of the sacramental bond of
marriage,--the third good: "Of me was that word spoken in paradise
before the entrance of sin: 'A man shall leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall become one
flesh.'"[5] This the apostle applies to the case of Christ and of the
Church, and calls it then "a great sacrament."[6] What, then, in Christ
and in the Church is great, in the instances of each married pair it is
but very small, but even then it is the sacrament of an inseparable
union. What now is there in these three blessings of marriage out of
which the bond of sin could pass over to posterity? Absolutely nothing.
And in these blessings it is certain that the goodness of matrimony, is
entirely comprised; and even now good wedlock consists of these same
blessings.

CHAP. 24.--LUST AND SHAME COME FROM SIN; THE LAW OF SIN; THE
SHAMELESSNESS OF THE CYNICS.

    But if, in like manner, the question be asked of the concupiscence
of the flesh, how it is that acts now bring shame which once were free
from shame, will not her answer be, that she only began to have
existence in men's members after sin? [XXII.] And, therefore, that the
apostle designated her influence as "the law of sin,"(7) inasmuch as she
subjugated man to herself when he was unwilling to remain subject to his
God; and that it was she who made the first married pair ashamed at that
moment when they covered their loins; even as all are still ashamed, and
seek out secret retreats for cohabitation, and dare not have even the
children, whom they have themselves thus begotten, to be witnesses of
what they do. It was against this modesty of natural shame that the
Cynic philosophers, in the error of their astonishing shamelessness,
struggled so hard: they thought that the intercourse indeed of husband
and wife, since it was lawful and honourable, should therefore be done
in public. Such barefaced obscenity deserved to receive the name of
dogs; and so they went by the title of "Cynics."(1)

CHAP. 25 [XXIII.]--CONCUPISCENCE IN THE REGENERATE WITHOUT CONSENT IS
NOT SIN; IN WHAT SENSE CONCUPISCENCE IS CALLED SIN.

    Now this concupiscence, this law of sin which dwells in our members,
to which the law of righteousness forbids allegiance, saying in the
words of the apostle, "Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal
body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither yield ye your
members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:"[2]--this
concupiscence, I say, which is cleansed only by the sacrament of
regeneration, does undoubtedly, by means of natural birth, pass on the
bond of sin to a man's posterity, unless they are themselves loosed from
it by regeneration. In the case, however, of the regenerate,
concupiscence is not itself sin any longer, whenever they do not consent
to it for illicit works, and when the members are not applied by the
presiding mind to perpetrate such deeds. So that, if what is enjoined in
one passage, "Thou shalt not covet,"[3] is not kept, that at any rate is
observed which is commanded in another place, "Thou shalt not go after
thy concupiscences."[4] Inasmuch, however, as by a certain manner of
speech it is called sin, since it arose from sin, and, when it has the
upper hand, produces sin, the guilt of it prevails in the natural man;
but this guilt, by Christ's grace through the remission of all sins, is
not suffered to prevail in the regenerate man, if he does not yield
obedience to it whenever it urges him to the commission of evil. As
arising from sin, it is, I say, called sin, although in the regenerate
it is not actually sin; and it has this designation applied to it, just
as speech which the tongue produces is itself called "tongue;" and just
as the word "hand" is used in the sense of writing, which the hand
produces. In the same way concupiscence is called sin, as producing sin
when it conquers the will: so to cold and frost the epithet "sluggish"
is given; not as arising from, but as productive of, sluggishness;
benumbing us, in fact.

CHAP. 26.--WHATEVER IS BORN THROUGH CONCUPISCENCE IS NOT UNDESERVEDLY IN
SUBJECTION TO THE DEVIL BY REASON OF SIN; THE DEVIL DESERVES HEAVIER 
PUNISHMENT THAN MEN.

    This wound which the devil has inflicted on the human race compels
everything which has its birth in consequence of it to be under the
devil's power, as if he were rightly plucking fruit off his own tree.
Not as if man's nature, which is only of God, came from him, but sin
alone, which is not of God. For it is not on its own account that man's
nature is under condemnation, because it is the work of God, and
therefore laudable; but on account of that condemnable corruption by
which it has been vitiated. Now it is by reason of this condemnation
that it is in subjection to the devil, who is also in the same damnable
state. For the devil is himself an unclean spirit: good, indeed, so far
as he is a spirit, but evil as being unclean; for by nature he is a
spirit, by the corruption thereof an unclean one. Of these two, the one
is of God, the other of himself. His hold over men, therefore, whether
of an advanced age or in infancy, is not because they are human, but
because they are polluted. He, then, who feels surprise that God's
creature is a subject of the devil, should cease from such feeling. For
one creature of God is in subjection to another creature of God, the
less to the greater, a human being to an angelic one; and this is not
owing to nature, but to a corruption of nature: polluted is the
sovereign, polluted also the subject. All this is the fruit of that
ancient stock of pollution which he has planted in man; himself being
destined to suffer a heavier punishment at the last judgment, as being
the more polluted; but at the same time even they who will have to bear
a less heavy burden in that condemnation are subjects of him as the
prince and author of sin, for there will be no other cause of
condemnation than sin.

CHAP. 27 [XXIV.]--THROUGH LUST ORIGINAL SIN IS TRANSMITTED; VENIAL SINS
IN MARRIED PERSONS; CONCUPISCENCE OF THE FLESH, THE

 DAUGHTER AND MOTHER OF SIN.

    Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty who are born, not of the
good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence, which,
indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to
feel shame. Marriage is itself "honourable in all"[5] the goods which
properly appertain to it; but even when it has its "bed undefiled" (not
only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also
by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any
prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure,
which are venial sins in man and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the
actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and
honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be
able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of
lust. Now, this ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does
somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved
simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself not to be the
servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of
a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited,
not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on
this very account it produces shame. This is the carnal concupiscence,
which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no
case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it
were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds,
it becomes also the mother of many sins. Now from this concupiscence
whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin,
unless, indeed, it be born again in Him whom the Virgin conceived
without this concupiscence. Wherefore, when He vouchsafed to be born in
the flesh, He alone was born without sin.

CHAP. 28 [XXV.]--CONCUPISCENCE REMAINS AFTER BAPTISM, JUST AS LANGUOR
DOES AFTER RECOVERY FROM DISEASE; CONCUPISCENCE IS DIMINISHED IN PERSONS
OF ADVANCING YEARS, AND INCREASED IN THE INCONTINENT.

    If the question arises, how this concupiscence of the flesh remains
in the regenerate, in whose case has been effected a remission of all
sins whatever; seeing that human semination takes place by its means,
even when the carnal offspring of even a baptized parent is born: or, at
all events, if it may be in the case of a baptized parent concupiscence
and not be sin, why should this same concupiscence be sin in the
offspring?--the answer to be given is this: Carnal concupiscence is
remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence,
but so that it is not to be imputed for sin. Although its guilt is now
taken away, it still remains until our entire infirmity be healed by the
advancing renewal of our inner man, day by day, when at last our outward
man shall be clothed with incorruption.[1] It does not remain, however,
substantially, as a body, or a spirit; but it is nothing more than a
certain affection of an evil quality, such as languor, for instance.
There is not, to be sure, anything remaining which may be remitted
whenever, as the Scripture says, "the Lord forgiveth all our
iniquities.''[2] But until that happens which immediately follows in the
same passage, "Who healeth all thine infirmities, who redeemeth thy life
from corruption,"[3] there remains this concupiscence of the flesh in
the body of this death. Now we are admonished not to obey its sinful
desires to do evil: "Let not sin reign in your mortal body."[4] Still
this concupiscence is daily lessened in persons of continence and
increasing years, and most of all when old age makes a near approach.
The man, however, who yields to it a wicked service, receives such great
energies that, even when all his members are now failing through age,
and those especial parts of his body are unable to be applied to their
proper function, he does not ever cease to revel in a still increasing
rage of disgraceful and shameless desire.

CHAP. 29 [XXVI.]--HOW CONCUPISCENCE REMAINS IN THE BAPTIZED IN ACT, WHEN
IT HAS PASSED AWAY AS TO ITS GUILT.

    In the case, then, of those persons who are born again in Christ,
when they receive an entire remission of all their sins, it is of course
necessary that the guilt also of the still indwelling concupiscence
should be remitted, in order that (as I said) it should not be imputed
to them for sin. For even as in the case of those sins which cannot be
themselves permanent, since they pass away as soon as they are
committed, the guilt yet is permanent, and (if not remitted) will remain
for evermore; so, when the concupiscence is remitted, the guilt of it
also is taken away. For not to have sin means this, not to be deemed
guilty of sin. If a man have (for example) committed adultery, though he
do not repeat the sin, he is held to be guilty of adultery until the
indulgence in guilt be itself remitted. He has the sin, therefore,
remaining, although the particular act of his sin no longer exists,
since it has passed away along with the time when it was committed. For
if to desist from sinning were the same thing as not to have sins, it
would be sufficient if Scripture were content to give us the simple
warning, "My son, hast thou sinned? Do so no more."[5] This, however,
does not suffice, for it goes on to say, "Ask forgiveness for thy former
sins."[5] Sins remain, therefore, if they are not forgiven. But how do
they remain if they are passed away? Only thus, they have passed away in
their act, but they are permanent in their guilt. Contrariwise, then,
may it happen that a thing may remain in act, but pass away in guilt.

CHAP. 30 [XXVII.]--THE EVIL DESIRES OF CONCUPISCENCE; WE OUGHT TO WISH
THAT THEY MAY NOT BE.

    For the concupiscence of the flesh is in some sort active, even when
it does not exhibit either an assent of the heart, where its seat of
empire is, or those members whereby, as its weapons, it fulfils what it
is bent on. But what in this action does it effect, unless it be its
evil and shameful desires? For if these were good and lawful, the
apostle would not forbid obedience to them, saying, "Let not sin
therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts
thereof."[1]  He does not say, that ye should have the lusts thereof,
but "that ye should obey the lusts thereof;" in order that (as these
desires are greater or less in different individuals, according as each
shall have progressed in the renewal of the inner man) we may maintain
the fight of holiness and chastity, for the purpose of withholding
obedience to these lusts. Nevertheless, our wish ought to be nothing
less than the nonexistence of these very desires, even if the
accomplishment of such a wish be not possible in the body of this death.
This is the reason why the same apostle, in another passage, addressing
us as if in his own person, gives us this instruction: "For what I
would," says he, "that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."[2] In a
word, "I covet."[3] For he was unwilling to do this, that he might be
perfect on every side. "If, then, I do that which I would not," he goes
on to say, "I consent unto the law that it is good."[4] Because the law,
too, wills not that which I also would not. For it wills not that I
should have concupiscence, for it says, "Thou shall not covet;"[3] and I
am no less unwilling to cherish so evil a desire. In this, therefore,
there is complete accord between the will of the law and my own will.
But because he was unwilling to covet,[3] and yet did covet,[3] and for
all that did not by any means obey this concupiscence so as to yield
assent to it, he immediately adds these words: "Now, then, it is no more
I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."[5]

CHAP. 31 [XXVIII.] -- WHO IS THE MAN THAT CAN SAY, "IT IS NO MORE I THAT
DO IT

    A man, however, is much deceived if, while consenting to the lust of
his flesh, and then both resolving in his mind to do its desires and
setting about it, he supposes that he has still a right to say, "It is
not I that do it," even if he hates and loathes himself for assenting to
evil desires. The two things are simultaneous in his case: he hates the
thing himself because he knows that it is evil; and yet he does it,
because he is bent on doing it. Now if, in addition to all this, he
proceeds to do what the Scripture forbids him, when it says," Neither
yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,"[6]
and completes with a bodily act what he was bent on doing in his mind;
and says, "It is not I that do the thing, but sin that dwelleth in
me,"[5] because he feels displeased with himself for resolving on and
accomplishing the deed,--he so greatly errs as not to know his own self.
For, whereas he is altogether himself, his mind determining and his body
executing his own purpose, he yet supposes that he is himself no longer!
[XXIX.] That man, therefore, alone speaks the truth when he says, "It is
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me," who only feels the
concupiscence, and neither resolves on doing it with the consent of his
heart, nor accomplishes it with the ministry of his body.

             CHAP. 32.--WHEN GOOD WILL BE PERFECTLY

                              DONE.

    The apostle then adds these words: "For I know that in me (that is,
in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but
how to perfect that which is good I find not."[7] Now this is said,
because a good thing is not then perfected, when there is an absence of
evil desires, as evil is perfected when evil desires are obeyed. But
when they are present, but are not obeyed, neither evil is performed,
since obedience is not yielded to them; nor good, because of their
inoperative presence. There is rather an intermediate condition of
things: good is effected in some degree, because the evil concupiscence
has gained no assent to itself; and in some degree there is a remnant of
evil, because the concupiscence is present. This accounts for the
apostle's precise words. He does not say, To do good is not present to
him, but "how to perfect it." For the truth is, one does a good deal of
good when he does what  the Scripture enjoins, "Go not after thy
lusts;"[8] yet he falls short of perfection, in that he fails to keep
the great commandment, "Thou shalt not covet."[9] The law said, "Thou
shalt not covet," in order that, when we find ourselves lying in this
diseased state, we might seek the medicine of Grace, and by that
commandment know both in what direction our endeavours should aim as we
advance in our present mortal condition, and to what a height it is
possible to reach in the future immortality. For unless perfection could
somewhere be attained, this commandment would never have been given to
us.

 CHAP. 33 [XXX.]--TRUE FREEDOM COMES WITH WILLING DELIGHT IN GOD'S LAW.

    The apostle then repeats his former statement, the more fully to
recommend its purport: "For the good," says he, "that I would, I do not:
but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now, if I do that I would
not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Then
follows this: "I find then the law, when I would act to be good to me;
for evil is present with me."[1] In other words, I find that the law is
a good to me, when I wish to do what the law would have me do; inasmuch
as it is not with the law itself (which says, "Thou shalt not covet")
that evil is present; no, it is with myself that the evil is present,
which I would not do, because I have the concupiscence even in my
willingness. "For," he adds, "I delight in the law of God after the
inward man; but I see another law in my members warring against the law
of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in
my members."[2] This delight with the law of God[3] after the inward
man, comes to us from the mighty grace of God; for thereby is our inward
man renewed day by day,[4] because it is thereby that progress is made
by us with perseverance. In it there is not the fear that has torment,
but the love that cheers and gratifies. We are truly free there, where
we have no unwilling joy.

CHAP. 34.--HOw CONCUPISCENCE MADE A CAPTIVE OF THE APOSTLE; WHAT THE LAW
OF SIN WAS TO THE APOSTLE.

    Then, indeed, this statement, "I see another law in my members
warring against the law of my mind," refers to that very concupiscence
which we are now speaking of--the law of sin in our sinful flesh. But
when he said, "And bringing me into captivity to the law of sin," that
is, to its own self, "which is in my members," he either meant "bringing
me into captivity," in the sense of endeavouring to make me captive,
that is, urging me to approve and accomplish evil desire; or rather (and
this opens no controversy), in the sense of leading me captive according
to the flesh, and, if this is not possessed by the carnal concupiscence
which he calls the law of sin, no unlawful desire--such as our mind
ought not to obey--would,  of course, be there to excite and disturb.
The fact, however, that the apostle does not say, Bringing my flesh into
captivity, but "Bringing me into captivity," leads us to look out for
some other meaning for the phrase, and to understand the term "bringing
me into captivity" as if he had said, endeavouring to make me captive.
But why, after all, might he not say, "Bringing me into captivity," and
at the same time mean us to understand his flesh? Was it not spoken by
one concerning Jesus, when His flesh was not found in the sepulchre:
"They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid
Him"?[5] Was Mary's then an improper question, because she said, "My
Lord," and not "My Lord's body" or "flesh"?

           CHAP. 35 [XXXI.]--THE FLESH, CARNAL AFFEC-

                              TION.

    But we have in the apostle's own language, a little before, a
sufficiently clear proof that he might have meant his flesh when he
said," Bringing me into captivity." For after declaring, "I know that in
me dwelleth no good thing," he at once added an explanatory sentence to
this effect, "That is, in my flesh.''[6] It is then the flesh, in which
there dwells nothing good, that is brought into captivity to the law of
sin. Now he designates that as the flesh wherein lies a certain morbid
carnal affection, not the mere conformation of our bodily fabric whose
members are not to be used as weapons for sin--that is, for that very
concupiscence which holds this flesh of ours captive. So far, indeed, as
concerns this actual bodily substance and nature of ours, it is already
God's temple in all faithful men, whether living in marriage or in
continence. If, however, absolutely nothing of our flesh were in
captivity, not even to the devil, because there has accrued to it the
remission of sin, that sin be not imputed to it (and this is properly
designated the law of sin); yet if under this law of sin, that is, under
its own concupiscence, our flesh were not to some degree held captive,
how could that be true which the apostle states, when he speaks of our
"waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body"?[7] In so
far, then, as there is now this waiting for the redemption of our body,
there is also in some degree still existing something in us which is a
captive to the law of sin. Accordingly he exclaims, "O wretched man that
I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of
God, through Jesus Christ our Lord."[8] What are we to understand by
such language, but that our body, which is undergoing corruption, weighs
heavily on our soul? When, therefore, this very body of ours shall be
restored to us in an incorrupt state, there shall be a full liberation
from the body of this death; but there will be no such deliverance for
them who shall rise again to condemnation. To the body of this death
then is understood to be owing the circumstance that there is in our
members another law which wars against the law of the mind, so long as
the flesh lusts against the spirit--without, however, subjugating the
mind, inasmuch as on its side, too, the spirit has a concupiscence
contrary to the flesh.[1] Thus, although the actual law of sin partly
holds the flesh in captivity (whence comes its resistance to the law of
the mind), still it has not an absolute empire in our body,
notwithstanding its mortal state, since it refuses obedience to its
desires,[2] For in the case of hostile  armies between whom there is an
earnest conflict, even the side which is inferior in the fight  usually
holds a something which it has captured; and although in some such way
there is somewhat in our flesh which is kept under the law of sin, yet
it has before it the hope of redemption: and then there will remain not
a particle of this corrupt concupiscence; but our flesh, healed of that
diseased plague, and wholly clad in immortality, shall live for evermore
in eternal blessedness.

CHAP. 36.--EVEN NOW WHILE WE STILL HAVE CONCUPISCENCE WE MAY BE SAFE IN
CHRIST.

    But the apostle pursues the subject, and says, "So then with the
mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of
sin;"[3] which must be thus understood: "With my mind I serve the law of
God," by refusing my consent to the law of sin; "with my flesh,
however," I serve "the law of sin," by having the desires of sin, from
which I am not yet entirely freed, although I yield them no assent. Then
let us observe carefully what he has said after all the above: "There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."[4]
Even now, says he, when the law in my members keeps up its warfare
against the law of my mind, and retains in captivity somewhat in the
body of this death, there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus. And listen why: "For the law of the spirit of life in Christ
Jesus," says he, "hath made me free from the law of sin and death."[5]
How made me free, except by abolishing its sentence of guilt by the
remission of all my sins; so that, though it still remains, only daily
lessening more and more, it is nevertheless not imputed to me as sin?

CHAP. 37 [XXXII.]--THE LAW OF SIN WITH ITS GUILT IN UNBAPTIZED INFANTS.
BY ADAM'S SIN THE HUMAN RACE HAS BECOME A "WILD OLIVE TREE."

    Until, then, this remission of sins takes place in the offspring,
they have within them the law of sin in such manner, that it is really
imputed to them as sin; in other words, with that law there is attaching
to them its sentence of guilt, which holds them debtors to eternal
condemnation. For what a parent transmits to his carnal offspring is the
condition of his own carnal birth, not that of his spiritual new birth.
For, that he was born in the flesh, although no hindrance after the
remission of his guilt to his fruit, still remains hidden, as it were,
in the seed of the olive, even though, because of the remission of his
sins, it in no respect injures the oil--that is, in plain language, his
life which he lives, "righteous by faith,"[6] after Christ, whose very
name comes from the oil, that is, from the anointing.[7] That, however,
which in the case of a regenerate parent, as in the seed of the pure
olive, is covered without any guilt, which has been remitted, is still
no doubt retained in the case of his offspring, which is yet
unregenerate, as in the wild olive, with all its guilt, until here also
it be remitted by the self-same grace. When Adam sinned, he was changed
from that pure olive, which had no such corrupt seed whence should
spring the bitter issue of the wild olive, into a wild olive tree; and,
inasmuch as his sin  was so great, that by it his nature became
commensurately changed for the worse, he converted the entire race of
man into a wild olive stock. The effect of this change we see
illustrated, as has been said above, in the instance of these very
trees. Whenever God's grace converts a sapling into a good olive, so
that the fault of the first birth (that original sin which had been
derived and contracted from the concupiscence of the flesh) is remitted,
covered, and not imputed, there is still inherent in it that nature from
which is born a wild olive, unless it, too, by the same grace, is by the
second birth changed into a good olive.

CHAP. 38 [XXXIII.]--TO BAPTISM MUST BE REFERRED ALL REMISSION OF SINS,
AND THE COMPLETE HEALING OF THE RESURRECTION. DAILY CLEANSING.

    Blessed, therefore, is the olive tree "whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered;" blessed is it "to which the Lord
hath not imputed sin.''[8] But this, which has received the remission,
the covering, and the acquittal, even up to the complete change into an
eternal immortality, still retains a secret force which furnishes seed
for a wild and bitter olive tree, unless the same tillage of God prunes
it also, by remission, covering, and acquittal. There will, however, be
left no corruption at all in even carnal seed, when the same
regeneration, which is now effected through the sacred layer, purges and
heals all man's evil to the very end. By its means the very same flesh,
through which the carnal mind was formed, shall become spiritual,--no
longer having that carnal lust which resists the law of the mind, no
longer emitting carnal seed. For in this sense must be understood that
which the apostle whom we have so often quoted says elsewhere: "Christ
loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and
cleanse it by the washing of water by the word that He might present it
to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing."[1] It must, I say, be understood as implying, that by this layer
of regeneration and word of sanctification all the evils of regenerate
men of whatever kind are cleansed and healed,--not the sins only which
are all now remitted in baptism, but those also which after baptism are
committed by human ignorance and frailty; not, indeed, that baptism is
to be repeated as often as sin is repeated, but that by its one only
ministration it comes to pass that pardon is secured to the faithful of
all their sins both before and after their regeneration. For of what use
would repentance be, either before baptism, if baptism did not follow;
or after it, if it did not precede? Nay, in the Lord's Prayer itself,
which is our daily cleansing, of what avail or advantage would it be for
that petition to be uttered, "Forgive us our debts,"[2] unless it be by
such as have been baptized? And in like manner, how great soever be the
liberality and kindness of a man's arms, what, I ask, would they profit
him towards the remission of his sins if he had not been baptized? In
short, on whom but on the baptized shall be bestowed the very felicities
of the kingdom of heaven; where the Church shall have no spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing; where there shall be nothing blameworthy,
nothing unreal; where there shall be not only no guilt for sin, but no
concupiscence to excite it?

CHAP. 39 [XXXIV.]--BY THE HOLINESS OF BAPTISM, NOT SINS ONLY, BUT ALL
EVILS WHATSOEVER, HAVE TO BE REMOVED. THE CHURCH IS NOT YET FREE FROM
ALL STAIN.

    And thus not only all the sins, but all the ills of men of what kind
soever, are in course of removal by the holiness of that Christian layer
whereby Christ cleanses His Church, that He may present it to Himself,
not in this world, but in that which is to come, as not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing. Now there are some who maintain that such is
the Church even now, and yet they are in it. Well then, since they
confess that they have some sins themselves, if they say the truth in
this (and, of course, they do, as they are not free from sins), then the
Church has "a spot" in them; whilst if they tell an untruth in their
confession (as speaking from a double heart), then the Church has in
them "a wrinkle." If, however, they assert that it is themselves, and
not the Church, which has all this, they then as good as acknowledge
that they are not its members, nor belong to its body, so that they are
even condemned by their own confession.

CHAP. 40 [XXXV.]--REFUTATION OF THE PELAGIANS BY THE AUTHORITY OF ST.
AMBROSE, WHOM THEY QUOTE TO SHOW THAT THE DESIRE OF THE FLESH IS A
NATURAL GOOD.

    In respect, however, to this concupiscence of the flesh, we have
striven in this lengthy discussion to distinguish it accurately from the
goods of marriage. This we have done on account of our modern heretics,
who cavil whenever concupiscence is censured, as if it involved a
censure of marriage. Their object is to praise concupiscence as a
natural good, that so they may defend their own baneful dogma, which
asserts that those who are born by its means do not contract original
sin. Now the blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan, by whose priestly office
I received the washing of regeneration, briefly spoke on this matter,
when, expounding the prophet Isaiah, he gathered from him the nativity
of Christ in the flesh: "Thus," says the bishop, "He was both tempted in
all points as a man,[3] and in the likeness of man He bare all things;
but inasmuch as He was born of the Spirit, He kept Himself from sin. For
every man is a liar; and there is none without sin but God alone. It
has, therefore, been ever firmly maintained, that it is clear that no
man from husband  and wife, that is to say, by means of that conjunction
of their persons, is free from sin. He who is free from sin is also free
from conception of this kind." Well now, what is it which St. Ambrose
has here condemned in the true doctrine of this deliverance?--is it the
goodness of marriage, or not rather the worthless opinion of these
heretics, although they had not then come upon the stage? I have thought
it worth while to adduce this testimony, because Pelagius mentions
Ambrose with such commendation as to say: "The blessed Bishop Ambrose,
in whose writings more than anywhere else the Roman faith is clearly
stated, has flourished like a beautiful flower among the Latin writers.
His fidelity and extremely pure perception of the sense of Scripture no
opponent even has ever ventured to impugn." [4] I hope he may regret
having entertained opinions opposed to Ambrose, but not that he has
bestowed this praise on that holy man.

    Here, then, you have my book, which, owing to its tedious length and
difficult subject, it has been as troublesome for me to compose as for
you to read, in those little snatches of time in which you have been
able (or at least, as I suppose, have been able) to find yourself at
leisure. Although it has been indeed drawn up with considerable labour
amidst my ecclesiastical duties, as God has vouchsafed to give me His
help, I should hardly have intruded it on your notice, with all your
public cares, if I had not been informed by a godly man, who has an
intimate knowledge of you, that you take such pleasure in reading as to
lie awake by the hour, night after night, spending the precious time in
your favourite pursuit.

 BOOK II.[1]

AUGUSTIN, IN THIS LATTER BOOK, REFUTES SUNDRY SENTENCES WHICH HAD BEEN
CULLED BY SOME UNKNOWN AUTHOR FROM THE FIRST OF FOUR BOOKS THAT JULIANUS
HAD PUBLISHED IN OPPOSITION TO THE FORMER BOOK OF HIS TREATISE "ON
MARRIAGE AND CONCUPISCENCE;"WHICH SENTENCES HAD BEEN FORWARDED TO HIM AT
THE INSTANCE OF THE COUNT VALERIUS. HE VINDICATES THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
OF ORIGINAL SIN FROM HIS OPPONENT'S CAVILS AND SUBTLETIES, AND
PARTICULARLY SHOWS HOW DIVERSE IT IS FROM THE INFAMOUS HERESY OF THE
MANICHEANS.

              CHAP. 1 [I.]--INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

    I CANNOT tell you, dearly loved and honoured son Valerius, how great
is the pleasure which my heart receives when I hear of your warm and
earnest interest in the testimony of the word of God against the
heretics; and this, too, amidst your military duties and the cares which
devolve on you in the eminent position you so justly occupy, and the
pressing functions, moreover, of your political life. After reading the
letter of your Eminence, in which you acknowledge the book which I
dedicated to you, I was roused to write this also; for you request me to
attend to the statement, which my brother and fellow-bishop Alypius is
commissioned to make to me, about the discussion which is being raised
by the heretics over sundry passages of my book. Not only have I
received this information from the narrative of my said brother, but I
have also read the extracts which he produced, and which you had
yourself forwarded to Rome, after his departure from Ravenna. On
discovering the boastful language of our adversaries, as I could easily
do in these extracts, I determined, with  the help of the Lord, to reply
to their taunts with all the truthfulness and scriptural authority that
I could command.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--IN THIS AND THE FOUR NEXT CHAPTERS HE ADDUCES THE GARBLED
EXTRACTS HE HAS TO CONSIDER.

    The paper which I now answer starts with this title: "Headings out
of a book written by Augustin, in reply to which I have culled a few
passages out of books." I perceive from this that the person who
forwarded these written papers to your Excellency wanted to make his
extracts out of the books he does not name, with a view, so far as I can
judge, to getting a quicker answer, in order that he might not delay
your urgency. Now, after considering what books they were which he
meant, I suppose that it must have been those which Julianus mentioned
in the Epistle he sent to Rome,[2] a copy of which found its way to me
at the same time. For he there says: "They go so far as to allege that
marriage, now in dispute, was not instituted by God,--a declaration
which may be read in a work of Augustin's, to which I have lately
replied in a treatise of four books." These are the books, as I believe,
from which the extracts were taken. It would, then, have been perhaps
the better course if I had set myself deliberately to disprove and
refute that entire work of his,[3] which he spread out into four
volumes. But I was most unwilling to delay my answer, even as you
yourself lost no time in forwarding to me the written statements which I
was requested to reply to.

	CHAP. 3.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

    The words which he has quoted and endeavoured to refute out of my
book, which I sent to you, and with which you are very well acquainted,
are the following: "They are constantly affirming, in their excessive
hatred of us, that we condemn marriage and that divine procedure by
which God creates human beings by means of men and women, inasmuch as we
maintain that they who are born of such a union contract original sin,
and do not deny that, of whatever parents they are born, they are still
under the devil's dominion unless they be born again in Christ."[1] Now,
in quoting these words of mine, he took care to omit the testimony of
the apostle, which I adduced by the weighty significance of which he
felt himself too hard pressed. For, after saying that men at their birth
contract original sin, I at once introduced the apostle's words: "By one
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed
upon all men, for in him all men sinned."[2] Well, as I have already
mentioned, he omitted this passage of the apostle, and then closed up
the other remarks of mine which have been now quoted. For he knew too
well how acceptable to the hearts and consciences of all faithful
catholics are these words of the apostle, which I had adopted, but which
he omitted,--words which are so direct and so clear, that these
new-fangled heretics use every effort in their dark and tortuous glosses
to obscure and deprave their force.

                  CHAP. 4.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

    But he has added other words of mine, where I have said: "Nor do
they reflect that the good of marriage is no more impeachable by reason
of the original evil which is derived therefrom, than the evil of
adultery and fornication can be excused by reason of the natural good
which is born of them. For as sin is the work of the devil, whether
derived from this source or from that; so is man, whether born of this
or that, the work of God." Here, too, he has left out some words, in
which he was afraid of catholic ears. For to come to the words here
quoted, it had previously been said by us: "Because, then, we affirm
this doctrine, which is contained in the oldest and unvarying rule of
the catholic faith, these propounders of novel and perverse dogmas, who
deny that there is in infants any sin to be washed away in the layer of
regeneration, in their unbelief or ignorance calumniate us as if we
condemned marriage, and as if we asserted to be the devil's work what is
God's own 'work, to wit, the human being which is born of marriage." [3]
All this passage he has passed over, and merely quoted the words which
follow it, as given above. Now, in the omitted words he was afraid of
the clause which suits all hearts in the catholic Church and appeals to
the very faith which has been firmly established and transmitted from
ancient times with unfaltering voice and excites their hostility most
strongly against us. The clause is this: "They deny that there is in
infants any sin to be washed away in the layer of regeneration." For all
persons run to church with their infants for no other reason in the
world than that the original sin which is contracted in them by their
first and natural birth may be cleansed by the regeneration of their
second birth.

                  CHAP. 5.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

    He then returns[4] to our words, which were quoted before: "We
maintain that they who are born of such a union contract original sin;
and we do not deny that, of whatever parents they are born, they are
still under the devil's dominion unless they be born again in Christ."
Why he should again refer to these words of ours I cannot tell; he had
already cited them a little before. He then proceeds to quote what we
said of Christ: "Who willed not to be born from the same union of the
two sexes." But here again he quietly ignored the words which I  placed
just previous to these words; my entire sentence being this: "That by
His grace they may be removed from the power of darkness, and 
translated into the kingdom of Him who willed  not to be born from the
same union of the two sexes." Observe, I pray you, what my words were
which he shunned, in the temper of one who is thoroughly opposed to that
grace of God which comes through our "Lord Jesus Christ." He knows well
enough that it is the height of improbity and impiety to exclude infants
from their interest in the apostle's words, where he said of God the
Father: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of His dear son."[5] This, no doubt, is
the reason why he preferred to omit rather than quote these words.

                  CHAP. 6.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

    He has next adduced that passage of ours, wherein we said: "For
there would have been none of this shame-producing concupiscence, which
is impudently praised by impudent men, if man had not previously sinned;
while as to marriage, it would still have existed, even if no man had
sinned: for the procreation of children would have been effected without
this disease." Up to this point he cited my words; but he shrank from
adding what comes next--"in the body of that chaste life, although
without it this cannot be done in 'the body of this death.'" He would
not complete my sentence, but mutilated it somewhat, because he dreaded
the apostle's exclamation, of which my words gave him a reminder: "O
wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord."[6] For the body
of this death existed not in paradise before sin; therefore did we say,
"In the body of that chaste life," which was the life of paradise, "the
procreation of children could have been effected without the disease,
without which now in the body of this death it cannot be done." The
apostle, however, before arriving at that mention of man's misery and
God's grace which we have just quoted, had first 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." Then it is
that he exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from
the body of this death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our
Lord." In the body of this death, therefore, such as it was in paradise
before sin, there certainly was not "another law in our members warring
against the law of our mind" -which now, even when we are unwilling, and
withhold consent, and use not our members to fulfil that which it
desires, still dwells in these members, and harasses our resisting and
repugnant mind. And this conflict in itself, although not involving
condemnation, because it does not consummate sin, is nevertheless
"wretched," inasmuch as it has no peace. I think, then, that I have
shown you clearly enough that this man had a special object as well as
method in quoting my words: he adduced them for refutation in such
manner as in some instances to interrupt the context of my sentences by
removing what stood between them, and in other instances to curtail them
by withdrawing their concluding words; and his reason for doing all this
I think I have sufficiently explained.

CHAP. 7 [III.]--AUGUSTIN ADDUCES A PASSAGE SELECTED FROM THE PREFACE OF
JULIANUS. (SEE "THE UNFINISHED WORK," i. 73.)

    Let us now look at those words of ours which he adduced just as it
suited him, and to which he would oppose his own. For they are followed
by his words; moreover, as the person insinuated who sent you the paper
of extracts, he copied something out of a preface, which was no doubt
the preface of the books from which he selected a few passages. The
paragraph thus copied stands as follows: "The teachers of our day, most
holy brother, [1] who are the instigators of the disgraceful faction
which is now overheated with its zeal, are determined on compassing the
injury and discredit of the men with whose sacred fervour they are set
on fire, by nothing less than the ruin of the whole Church; little
thinking how much honour they have conferred on those whose renown they
have shown to be only capable of being destroyed along with the catholic
religion.  For, if one should say, either that there is free will in
man, or that God is the Creator of those that are born,[2] he is at once
set down as a Coelestian and a Pelagian. To avoid being called heretics,
they turn Manicheans; and  so, whilst shirking a pretended infamy, they
incur a real reproach; just like the animals, which in hunting they
surround with dyed feathers, in order to scare and drive them into their
nets;[3] the poor brutes are not gifted with reason, and so they are
thrust all together by a vain panic into a real destruction."[4]

              CHAP 8.--AUGUSTIN REFUTES THE PASSAGE

                         ADDUCED ABOVE.

    Well, now, whoever you are that have said all this, what you say is
by no means true; by no means, I repeat; you are much deceived, or you
aim at deceiving others. We do not deny free will; but, even as the
Truth declares, "if the Son shall make you free, then shall ye be free
indeed." [5] It is yourselves who invidiously deny this Liberator, since
you ascribe a vain liberty to yourselves in your captivity. Captives you
are; for "of whom a man is overcome," as the Scripture says, "of the
same is he brought in bondage;"[6] and no one except by the grace of the
great Liberator is loosed from the chain of this bondage, from which no
man living is free. For "by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all have
sinned."[7] Thus, then, God is the Creator of those that are born in
such wise that all pass from the one into condemnation, who have not the
One Liberator by regeneration. For He is described as "the Potter,
forming out of the same lump one vessel unto honour in His mercy, and
another unto dishonour[8] in judgment." And so runs the Church's
canticle "mercy and judgment."[9] You are therefore only misleading
yourself and others when you say, "If one should affirm, either that
there is free will in man, or that God is the Creator of those that are
born, he is at once set down as a Coelestian and a Pelagian; "[10] for
the catholic faith says these things. If, however, any one says that
there is a free will in man for worshipping God aright, without His
assistance; and whosoever says that God is the Creator of those that are
born in such wise as to deny that infants have any need of one to redeem
them from the power of the devil: that is the man who is set down as a
disciple of Coelestius and Pelagius. Therefore that men have within them
a free will, and that God is the Creator of those that are born, are
propositions which we both allow. You are not Coelestians and Pelagians
for merely saying this. But what you do really say is this, that any man
whatever has freedom enough of will for doing good without God's help,
and that infants undergo no such change as being "delivered from the
power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God;"[1] and
because you say so, you are Coelestians and Pelagians. Why, then, do you
hide under the covering of a common dogma for deceit, concealing your
own especial delinquency which has gained for you a party-name; and why,
to terrify the ignorant with a shocking term, do you say of us, "To
avoid being called heretics, they turn Manicheans?"

CHAP. 9.--THE CATHOLICS MAINTAIN THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN, AND THUS
ARE FAR FROM BEING MANICHEANS.

    Listen, then, for a little while, and observe what is involved in
this question. Catholics say that human nature was created good by the
good God as Creator; but that, having been corrupted by sin, it needs
the physician Christ. The Manicheans affirm, that human nature was not
created by God good, and corrupted by sin; but that man was formed by
the prince of eternal darkness of a mixture of two natures which had
ever existed--one good and the other evil. The Pelagians and Coelestians
say that human nature was created good by the good God; but that it is
still so sound and healthy in infants at their birth, that they have no
need at that age of Christ's medicine. Recognise, then, your name in
your dogma; and cease from intruding upon the catholics, who refute you,
a name and a dogma which belong to others. For truth rejects both
parties--the Manicheans and yourselves. To the Manicheans it says: "Have
ye not read that He which made man at the beginning, made them male and
female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder."[2] Now Christ shows, in
this passage, that God is both the Creator of man, and the uniter in
marriage of husband and wife; whereas the Manicheans deny both these
propositions. To you, however, He says: "The Son of man is come to seek
and to save that which is lost."[3] But you, admirable Christians as you
are, answer Christ: "If you came to seek and to save that which was
lost, then you did not come for infants; for they were not lost, but are
born in a state of salvation: go to older men; we give you a rule from
your own words: 'They that be whole need not a physician, but they that
are sick.'"[4] Now, as it happens, the Manichean, who says that man has
evil mixed in his nature, must wish his good soul at any rate to be
saved by Christ; whereas you contend that there is in infants nothing to
be sired by Christ, since they are already safe.[5] And thus the
Manichean besets human nature with his detestable censure, and you with
your cruel praise. For whosoever shall believe your laudation, will
never bring their babes to the Saviour. Entertaining such impious views
as these, of what use is it that you fearlessly face that which is
enacted for you[6] in order to induce salutary fear and to treat you as
a human being, and not as that poor animal of yours which was surrounded
with the coloured feathers to be driven into the hunting toils? Need was
that you should hold the truth, and, on account of zeal for it, have no
fear; but, as things are, you evade fear in such wise that, if you
feared, you would rather run away from the net of the malignant one than
run into it. The reason why your catholic mother alarms you is, because
she fears for both you and others from you; and if by the help of her
sons who possess any authority in the State she acts with a view to make
you afraid, she does so, not from cruelty, but from love. You, however;
are a very brave man; and you deem it the coward's part to be afraid of
men. Well then, fear God; and do not try with such obstinacy to subvert
the ancient foundations of the catholic faith. Although I could even
wish that spirited temper of yours would entertain some little fear of
human authority, at least in the present case. I could wish, I say, that
it would rather tremble through cowardice than perish through audacity.

CHAP. 10 [IV.]--IN WHAT MANNER THE ADVERSARY'S CAVILS MUST BE REFUTED.

    Let us now look at the rest of what he has joined together in his
selections. But what should be my course of proceeding? Ought I to set
forth every passage of his for the purpose of answering it, or, omitting
everything which the catholic faith contains, as not in dispute between
us, only handle and confute those statements in which he strays away
from the beaten path of truth, and endeavours to graft on catholic stems
the poisonous shoots of his Pelagian heresy? This is, no doubt, the
easier course. But I suppose I must not lose sight of a possible
contingency, that any one, after reading my book, without perusing all
that has been alleged by him, may think that I was unwilling to bring
forward the passages on which his allegations depend, and by which are
shown to be truly deduced the statements which I am controverting as
false. I should be glad, therefore, if the reader will without exception
kindly observe and consider the two classes of contributions which occur
in this little work of ours--that is to say, all that he has alleged,
and the answers which on my side I give him.

             CHAP. II.--THE DEVIL THE AUTHOR, NOT OF

                    NATURE, BUT ONLY OF SIN.

    Now, the man who forwarded to your Love the paper in question has
introduced the contents thereof with this title: "In opposition to those
persons who condemn matrimony, and ascribe its fruits to the devil."
This, then, is not in opposition to us, who neither condemn matrimony,
which we even commend in its order with a just commendation, nor ascribe
its fruits to the devil. For the fruits of matrimony are men which are
orderly engendered from it, and not the sins which accompany their
birth. Human beings are not under the devil's dominion because they are
human beings, in which respect they are the fruits of matrimony; but
because they are sinful, in which resides the transmission of their
sins. For the devil is the author of sin, not of nature.

          	CHAP. 12.--EVE'S NAME MEANS LIFE, AND IS A GREAT SACRAMENT OF
THE CHURCH.

    Now, observe the rest of the passage in which he thinks he finds, to
our prejudice, what is consonant with the above-quoted title. "God,"
says he, "who had framed Adam out of the dust of the ground, formed Eve
out of his rib,[1] and said, She shall be called Life, because she is
the mother of all who live." Well now, it is not so written. But what
matters that to us? For it constantly happens that our memory fails in
verbal accuracy, while the sense is still maintained. Nor was it God,
but her husband, who gave Eve her name, which should signify Life; for
thus it is written: "And Adam called his wife's name Life, because she
is the mother of all living." [2] But very likely he might have
understood the Scripture as testifying that God gave Eve this name
through Adam, as His prophet. For in that she was called Life, and the
mother of all living, there lies a great sacrament of the Church, of
which it would detain us long to speak, and which is unnecessary to our
present undertaking. The very same thing which the apostle says, "This
is a great sacrament: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church," was
also spoken by Adam when he said, "For this cause shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they twain
shall be one flesh."[3] The Lord Jesus, however, in the Gospel mentions
God as having said this of Eve; and the reason, no doubt, is, that God
declared through the man what the man, in fact, uttered as a prophecy.
Now, observe what follows in the paper of extracts: "By that primitive
name," says he, "He showed for what labour the woman had been provided;
and He said accordingly, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth.'" [4] Now, who amongst ourselves denies that the woman was
provided for the work of child-bearing by the Lord God, the beneficent
Creator of all good? See further what he goes on to say: "God,
therefore, who created them male and female,[5] furnished them with
members suitable for procreation, and ordained that bodies should be
produced from bodies; and yet is security for their capacity for
effecting the work, executing all that exists with that power which He
used in creation."[6] Well, even this we acknowledge to be catholic
doctrine, as we also do with regard to the passage which he immediately
subjoins: "If, then, offspring comes only through sex, and sex only
through the body, and the body through God, who can hesitate to allow
that fecundity is rightly attributed to God?"

CHAP. 13.--THE PELAGIAN ARGUMENT TO SHOW THAT THE DEVIL HAS NO RIGHTS IN
THE FRUITS OF MARRIAGE.

    After these true and catholic statements, which are, moreover,
really contained in the Holy Scriptures, although they are not adduced
by him in a catholic spirit, with the earnestness of a catholic mind, he
loses no time in introducing to us the heresy of Pelagius and
Coelestius, for which purpose he wrote, indeed, his previous remarks.
Mark carefully the following words: 'You now who say, 'We do not deny
that they, are still, of whatever parents born, under the devil's power,
unless they be born again in Christ,' show us what the devil can
recognise as his own in the sexes, by reason of which he can (to use
your phrase) rightly claim as his property the fruit which they produce.
Is it the difference of the sexes? But this is inherent in the bodies
which God made. Is it their union? But this union is justified in the
privilege of the primeval blessing no less than institution. For it is
the voice of God that says, 'A man shall leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they two shall be one
flesh.'[7] It is again the voice of God which says, 'Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth.'[4] Or is it, perchance, their
fertility? But this is the very reason why matrimony was instituted."

 CHAP. 14 [V.]--CONCUPISCENCE ALONE, IN MAR-

                      RIAGE, IS NOT OF GOD.

    You see the terms of his question to us: what the devil can find in
the sexes to call his own, by reason of which they should be in his
power, who are born of parents of whatsoever kind, unless they be born
again in Christ; he asks us, moreover, whether it is the difference in
the sexes which we ascribe to the devil, or their union, or their very
fruitfulness. We answer, then, nothing of these qualities, inasmuch as
the difference of sex belongs to "the vessels" of the parents; while the
union of the two pertains to the procreation of children; and their
fruitfulness to the blessing pronounced on the marriage institution. But
all these things are of God; yet amongst them he was unwilling to name
that "lust of the flesh, which is not of the Father, but is of the
world;"[1] and "of this world" the devil is said to be "the prince."[2]
Now, the devil found no carnal concupiscence in the Lord, because the
Lord did not come as a man to men by its means. Accordingly, He says
Himself: "The prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in
me"[2]--nothing, that is, of sin; neither that which is derived from
birth, nor that which is added during life. Among all the natural goods
of procreation which he mentioned, he was, I repeat, unwilling to name
this particular fact of concupiscence, over which even marriage blushes,
which glories in all these before-mentioned goods. For why is the
especial work of parents withdrawn and hidden even from the eyes of
their children, except that it is impossible for them to be occupied in
laudable procreation without shameful lust? Because of this it was that
even they were ashamed who first covered their nakedness.[3] These
portions of their person were not suggestive of shame before, but
deserved to be commended and praised as the work of God. They put on
their covering when they felt their shame, and they felt their shame
when, after their own disobedience to their Maker, they felt their
members disobedient to themselves. Our quoter of extracts likewise felt
ashamed of this concupiscence. For he mentioned the difference of the
sexes; he mentioned also their union, and he mentioned their fertility;
but this last concomitant of lust he blushed to mention. And no wonder
if mere talkers are ashamed of that which we see parents themselves, so
interested in their function, blush to think of.

CHAP. 15.--MAN, BY BIRTH, IS PLACED UNDER THE DOMINION OF THE DEVIL
THROUGH SIN; WE WERE ALL ONE IN ADAM WHEN HE SINNED.

    He then proceeds to ask: "Why, then, are they in the devil's power
whom God created?" And he finds an answer to his own question apparently
from a phrase of mine. "Because of sin," says he, "not because of
nature." Then framing his answer in reference to mine, he says: "But as
there cannot be offspring without the sexes, so there cannot be sin
without the will." Yes, indeed, such is the truth. For even as "by one
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so also has death
passed through to all men, for in him all have sinned."[4] By the evil
will of that one man all sinned in him, since all were that one man,
from whom, therefore, they individually derived original sin. "For you
allege," says he, "that the reason why they are in the devil's power is
because they are born of the union of the two sexes." I plainly aver
that it is by reason of transgression that they are in the devil's
power, and that their participation, moreover, of this transgression is
due to the circumstance that they are born of the said union of the
sexes, which cannot even accomplish its own honourable function without
the incident of shameful lust. This has also, in fact, been said by
Ambrose, of most blessed memory, bishop of the church in Milan, when he
gives as the reason why Christ's birth in the flesh was free from all
sinful fault, that His conception was not the result of a union of the
two sexes; whereas there is not one among human beings conceived in such
union who is without sin. These are his precise words: "On that account,
and being man, He was tried by every sort of temptation, and in the
likeness of man He bore them all; inasmuch, however, as He was born of
the Spirit, He abstained from all sin. For every man is a liar, and none
is without sin, but God only. It has accordingly," adds he, "been
constantly observed, that clearly no one who is born of a man and a
woman, that  is to say, through the union of their bodies, is free from
sin; for whoever is free from sin is free also from conception of this
kind."[5] Well now, will you dare, ye disciples of Pelagius and
Coelestius, to call this man a Manichean? as the heretic Jovinian did,
when the holy bishop maintained the permanent virginity of the blessed
Mary even after child-bearing, in opposition to this man's impiety. If,
however, you do not dare to call him a Manichean, why do you call us
Manicheans when we defend the catholic  faith in the self-same cause and
with the self same opinions? But if you will taunt that most faithful
man with having entertained Manichean error in this matter, there is no
help for it, you must enjoy your taunts as best you may, and so fill up
Jovinian's measure more fully; as for ourselves, we can patiently endure
along with such a man of God your taunts and jibes. And yet your
heresiarch Pelagius commends Ambrose's faith and extreme purity in the
knowledge of the Scriptures so greatly, as to declare that not even an
enemy could venture to find fault with him. Observe, then, to what
length you have gone, and refrain from following any further in the
audacious steps of Jovinian. And vet that man, although by his excessive
commendation of marriage he put it on a par with holy virginity, never
denied the necessity of Christ to save those who are born of marriage
even fresh from their mother's womb, and to redeem them from the power
of the devil. This, however, you deny; and because we oppose you in
defence of those who cannot yet speak for themselves, and in defence of
the very  foundations of the catholic faith, you taunt us, with being
Manicheans. But let us now see what comes next.

CHAP. 16 [VI.]--IT IS NOT OF US, BUT OUR SINS, THAT THE DEVIL IS THE
AUTHOR.

    He puts to us, then, another question, saying, "Whom, then, do you
confess to be the author of infants? The true God?" I answer:[1] "Yes;
the true God." He then remarks, "But He did not make evil;" and again
asks, "Whether we confess the devil to be the creator of infants?" Then
again he answers, "But he did not create human nature." He then closes
the subject, as it were, with this inference: "Since union is evil, and
the condition of our bodies is degraded, therefore you ascribe our
bodies to an evil creator." My answer to this is, I do not ascribe to an
evil creator our bodies, but our sins; by reason of which it came to
pass that, whereas in our bodies, that is to say, in what God has made,
all was honourable and well-pleasing, there yet accrued in the
intercourse of male and female what caused shame, so that their union
was not such as might have been in the body of that unimpaired life, but
such as we see with a blush in the body of this death. "But  God," says
he, "has divided in sex what He  would unite in operation. So that from
Him  comes the union of bodies, from whom first came the creation of
bodies." We have already furnished an answer to this statement, when we
said  that these bodies are of God. But as regards the disobedience of
the members of these bodies, this comes through the lust of the flesh 
which "is not of the Father."[2] He goes on to say, that "it is
impossible for evil fruits to spring from so many good things, such as
bodies, sexes, and their unions; or that human beings should be made by
God for the purpose of their being, by lawful right, as you maintain,
held in possession by the devil." Now it has been already affirmed, that
they are not thus held because they are men, which designation belongs
to their nature, of which the devil is not the author; but because they
are sinners, which designation is the result of that fault of nature of
which the devil is the author.

CHAP. 17 [VII.]--THE PELAGIANS ARE NOT ASHAMED TO EULOGIZE
CONCUPISCENCE, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ASHAMED TO MENTION ITS NAME.

    But among so many names of good things, such as bodies, sexes,
unions, he never once mentions the lust or concupiscence of the flesh.
He is silent, because he is ashamed; and yet with a strange
shamelessness of shame (if the expression may be used), he is not
ashamed to praise what he is ashamed to mention. Now just observe how he
prefers to point to his object by circumlocution rather than by direct
mention of it. "After that the man," says he, "by natural appetite knew
his wife." See again, he refused to say, He knew his wife by carnal
concupiscence; but he used the phrase, "by natural appetite," by which
it is open to us to understand that holy and honourable will which wills
the procreation of children, and not that lust, of which even he is so
much ashamed, forsooth, that he prefers to use ambiguous language to us,
to expressing his mind in unmistakeable words. "Now what is the meaning
of his phrase--"by natural appetite"? Is not both the wish to be saved
and the wish to beget, nourish, and educate children, natural appetite?
and is it not likewise of reason, and not of lust? Since, however, we
can ascertain his intention, we are pretty sure that he meant by these
words to indicate the lust of the organs of generation. Do not the words
in question appear to yon to be the fig-leaves, under cover of which is
hidden nothing else but that which he feels ashamed of? For just as they
of old sewed the leaves together[3] as a girdle of concealment, so has
this man woven a web of circumlocution to hide his meaning. Let him
weave out his statement: "But when the man knew his wife by natural
appetite, the divine Scripture says, Eve conceived, and bare a son, and
called his name Cain. But what," he adds, "does Adam say? Let us hear: I
have obtained a man from God. So that it is evident that he was God's
work, and the divine Scripture testifies to his having been received
from God."[4] Well, who can entertain a doubt on this point? Who can
deny this statement, especially if he be a catholic Christian? A man is
God's work; but carnal concupiscence (without which, if sin had not
preceded, man would have been begotten by means of the organs of
generation, not less obedient than the other members to a quiet and
normal will) is not of the Father, but is of the world.[1]

                 CHAP. 18.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

    But now, I pray you, look a little more attentively, and observe how
he contrives to find a name wherewith to cover again what he blushes to
unfold. "For," says he, "Adam begot him by the power of his members, not
by diversity of merits." Now I confess I do not understand what he meant
by the latter clause, not by diversity of merits; but when he said, "by
the power of his members," I believe he wished to express what he is
ashamed to say openly and clearly. He preferred to use the phrase, "by
the power of his members," rather than say, "by the lust of the flesh."
Plainly --even if the thought did not occur to him--he intimated a
something which has an evident application to the subject. For what is
more powerful than a man's members, when they are not in due submission
to a man's will? Even if they be restrained by temperance or continence,
their use and control are not in any man's power. Adam, then, begat his
sons by what our author calls "the power of his members," over which,
before he begat them, he blushed, after his sin. If, however, he had
never sinned, he would not have begotten them by the power, but in the
obedience, of his members. For he would himself have had the power to
rule them as subjects to his will, if he, too, by the same will had only
submitted himself as a subject to a more powerful One.

CHAP. 19 [VIII.]--THE PELAGIANS MISUNDERSTAND "SEED" IN SCRIPTURE.

    He goes on to say: "After a while the divine Scripture says again,
'Adam knew Eve his wife; and she bare a son, and he called his name
Seth: saying, The Lord hath raised me up another seed instead of Abel,
whom Cain slew.'" He then adds: "The Divinity is said to have raised up
the seed itself; as a proof that the sexual union was His appointment."
This person did not understand what the Scripture records; for he
supposed that the reason why it is said, The Lord hath raised me up
another seed instead of Abel, was none other than that God might be
supposed to have excited in him a desire for sexual intercourse, by
means whereof seed might be raised for being poured into the woman's
womb. He was perfectly unaware that what the Scripture has said is not
"Has raised me up seed" in the sense he uses, but only as meaning" Has
given me a son." Indeed, Adam did not use the words in question after
his sexual intercourse, when he emitted his seed, but after his wife's
confinement, in which he received his son by the gift of God. For what
gratification is there (except perhaps for lascivious persons, and those
who, as the apostle says with prohibition, "possess their vessel in the
lust of concupiscence"[2] ) in the mere shedding of seed as the ultimate
pleasure of sexual union, unless it is followed by the true and proper
fruit of marriage--conception and birth?

       	CHAP. 20.--ORIGINAL SIN IS DERIVED FROM THE FAULTY CONDITION OF
HUMAN SEED.

    This, however, I would not say, as implying at all that we must look
for some other creator than the supreme and true God, of either human
seed or of man himself who comes from the seed; but as meaning, that the
seed would have issued from the human being by the quiet and normal
obedience of his members to his will's command, if sin had not preceded.
The question now before us does not concern the nature of human seed,
but its corruption. Now the nature has God for its author; it is from
its corruption that original sin is derived. If, indeed, the seed had
itself no corruption, what means that passage in the Book of Wisdom,
"Not being ignorant that they were a naughty generation, and that their
malice was inbred, and that their cogitation would never be changed; for
their seed was accursed from the beginning"?[3] Now whatever may be the
particular application of these words, they are spoken of mankind. How,
then, is the malice of every man inbred, and his seed cursed from the
beginning, unless it be in respect of the fact, that "by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for in him all have sinned"?[4] But where is the man whose "evil
cogitation can never be changed," unless because it cannot be effected
by himself, but only by divine grace; without the assistance of which,
what are human beings, but that which the Apostle Peter says of them,
when he describes them as "natural brute beasts made to be taken and
destroyed"?[5] Accordingly, the Apostle Paul, in a certain passage,
having both conditions in view,--even the wrath of God with which we are
born, and the grace whereby  we are delivered,--says: "Among whom also
we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh,
fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature
the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy,
for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in
sins, hath quickened us together with Christ; by whose grace we are
saved."[6] What, then, is man's "natural malice," and "the seed cursed
from the beginning;" and what are "the natural brute beasts made to be
taken and destroyed," and what the "by nature children of wrath"? Was
this the condition of the nature which was formed in Adam? God forbid!
Inasmuch as his pure nature, however, was corrupted in him, it has run
on in this condition by natural descent through all, and still is
running; so that there is no deliverance for it from this ruin, except
by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

CHAP. 21 [IX.]--IT IS THE GOOD GOD THAT  GIVES FRUITFULNESS,AND THE
DEVIL THAT  CORRUPTS THE FRUIT.

    What, therefore, is this man's meaning, in the next passage, wherein
he says concerning Noah and his sons, that "they were blessed, even as
Adam and Eve were; for God said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply,
and have dominion over the earth'"?(1) To these words of the Almighty he
added some of his own, saying "Now that pleasure, which you would have
seem diabolical, was resorted to in the case of the above-mentioned
married pairs; and it continued to exist, both in the goodness of its
institution and in the blessing attached to it. For there can be no
doubt that the following words were addressed to Noah and his sons in
reference to their bodily connection with their wives, which had become
by this time unalterably fixed by use: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth.'" It is unnecessary for us to employ many words in
repeating our former argument. The point here in question is the
corruption in our nature, whereby its goodness has been depraved, of
which corruption the devil is the author. That goodness of nature, as it
is in itself, the author of which is God, is not the question we have to
consider. Now God has never withdrawn from corrupted and depraved nature
His own mercy and goodness, so as to deprive man of fruitfulness,
vivacity, and health, as well as the very substance of his mind and
body, his senses also and reason, as well as food, and nourishment, and
growth. He, moreover, "maketh His sun to arise on the evil and on the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;"(2) and all that
is good in human nature is from the good God, even in the case of those
men who will not be delivered from evil.

            CHAP. 22.--SHALL WE BE ASHAMED OF WHAT WE

                    DO, OR OF WHAT GOD DOES?

    It is, however, of pleasure that this man spoke in his passage,
because pleasure can be even honourable: of carnal concupiscence, or
lust, which produces shame, he made no mention. In some subsequent
words, however, he uncovered his susceptibility of shame; and he was
unable to dissemble what nature herself has prescribed so forcibly.
"There is also," says he, "that statement: 'Therefore shall a man leave
his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they
twain shall be one flesh.'" Then after these words of God, he goes on to
offer some of his own, saying: "That he might express faith in works,
the prophet approached very near to a perilling of modesty." What a
confession! How clear and extorted from him by the force of truth! The
prophet, it would seem, to express faith in works, almost imperilled 
modesty, when he said, "They twain shall become one flesh;" wishing it
to be understood of the sexual union of the male and the female Let the
cause be alleged, why the prophet, in expressing the works of God,
should approach so near an imperilling of modesty? Is it then the case
that the works of man ought not to produce shame, but must be gloried in
at all events, and that the works of God must produce shame? Is it, that
in setting forth and expressing the works of God the prophet's love or
labour receives no honour, but his modesty is imperilled? What, then,
was it possible for God to do, which it would be a shame for His prophet
to describe? And, what is a weightier question still, could a man be
ashamed of any work which not man, but God, has made in man? whereas
workmen in all cases strive, with all the labour and diligence in their
power, to avoid shame in the works of their own hands. The truth,
however, is, that we are ashamed of that very thing which made those
primitive human beings ashamed, when they covered their loins. That is
the penalty of sin; that is the plague and mark of sin; that is the
temptation and very fuel of sin; that is the law in our members warring
against the law of our mind; that is the rebellion against our own
selves, proceeding from our very selves, which by a most righteous
retribution is rendered us by our disobedient members. It is this which
makes us ashamed, and justly ashamed. If it were not so, what could be
more ungrateful, more irreligious in us, if in our members we were to
suffer confusion of face, not for our own fault or penalty, but because
of the works of God ?

CHAP. 23 [X.]--THE PELAGIANS AFFIRM THAT GOD IN THE CASE OF ABRAHAM AND
SARAH AROUSED CONCUPISCENCE AS A GIFT FROM HEAVEN.

    He has much also to say, though to no purpose, concerning Abraham
and Sarah, how they received a son according to the promise; and at last
he mentions the word concupiscence. But he does not add the usual
phrase, "of the flesh," because this is the very thing which causes the
shame. Whereas, on account of concupiscence there is sometimes a call
for boasting, inasmuch as there is a concupiscence of the spirit against
the flesh,(1) and a concupiscence of wisdom.(2) Accordingly, he says:
"Now you have certainly defined as naturally evil this concupiscence
which is indispensable for fecundity; whence comes it, therefore, that
it is aroused in aged men by the gift of Heaven? Make it clear then, if
you can, that belongs to the devil's work, which you see is conferred by
God as a gift." He says this, just as if concupiscence of the flesh had
been previously wanting in them, and as if God had bestowed it upon
them. No doubt it was inherent in this body of death; that fecundity,
however, was wanting of which God is the author; and this was actually
given whensoever God willed to confer the gift. Be it, however, far from
us to affirm, what he thought we meant to say, that Isaac was begotten
without the heat of sexual union.

CHAP. 24 [XI.]--WHAT COVENANT OF GOD THE NEW-BORN BABE BREAKS. WHAT WAS
THE VALUE OF CIRCUMCISION.

    But let him inform us how it was that his(3) soul would be cut off
from his people if he had not been circumcised on the eighth day. How
could he have so sinned, how so offended God, as to be punished for the
neglect of others towards him with so severe a sentence, had there been
no original sin in the case? For thus ran the commandment of God
concerning the circumcision of infants: "The uncircumcised man-child,
whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, his
soul shall be cut off from his people; because he hath broken my
covenant."(4) Let him tell us, if he can, how that child broke God's
covenant,--an innocent babe, so far as he was personally concerned, of
eight days' age; and yet there is by no means any falsehood uttered here
by God or Holy Scripture. The fact is, the covenant of God which he then
broke was not this which commanded circumcision, but that which forbade
the tree; when "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for in him all have sinned."(5) And in
his case the expiation of this was signified by the circumcision of the
eighth day, that is, by the sacrament of the Mediator who was to be
incarnate. For it was through this same faith in Christ, who was to come
in the flesh, and was to die for us, and on the third day (which coming
after the seventh or Sabbath day, was to be the eighth) to rise again,
that even holy men were saved of old. For "He was delivered for our
offences, and raised again for our justification."(6) Ever since
circumcision was instituted amongst the people of God, which was at that
time the sign of the righteousness of faith, it availed also to signify
the cleansing even in infants of the original and primitive sin, just as
baptism in like manner from the time of its institution began to be of
avail for the renewal of man. Not that there was no justification by
faith before circumcision; for even when he was still in uncircumcision,
Abraham was himself justified by faith, being the father of those
nations which should also imitate his faith.(7) In former times,
however, the sacramental mystery of justification by faith lay concealed
in every mode. Still it was the self-same faith in the Mediator which
saved the saints of old, both small and great--not the old covenant,
"which gendereth to bondage;"(8) not the law, which was not so given as
to be able to give life;(9) but the grace of God through Jesus Christ
our Lord.(10) For as we believe that Christ has come in the flesh, so
they believed that He was to come; as, again, we believe that He has
died, so they believed that He would die; and as we believe that He has
risen from the dead, so they believed that He would rise again; whilst
both we and they believe alike, that He will hereafter come to judge the
quick and the dead. Let not this man, then, throw any hindrance in the
way of its salvation upon human nature, by setting up a bad defence of
its merits; because we are all born under sin, and are delivered
therefrom by the only One who was born without sin.

          CHAP. 25 [XII.]--AUGUSTIN NOT THE DEVISER OF

                          ORIGINAL SIN.

    "This sexual connection of bodies," he says, "together with the
ardour, with the pleasure, with the emission of seed, was made by God,
and is praiseworthy on its own account, and is therefore to be approved;
it, moreover, became sometimes even a great gift to pious men." He
distinctly and severally repeated the phrases, "with ardour," "with
pleasure," "with emission of seed." He did not, however, venture to say,
"with lust." Why is this, if it be not that he is ashamed to name what
he does not blush to praise? A gift, indeed, for pious men is the
prosperous propagation of children; but not that shame-producing
excitement of the members, which our nature would not feel were it in a
sound state, although corrupted nature now experiences it. On this
account, indeed, it is that he who is born of it requires to be born
again, in order that he may be a member of Christ; and that he of whom
he is born, even though he be already born again, wants to be freed from
that which exists in this body of death by reason of the law of sin. Now
since this is the case, how is it he goes on to say, "You must,
therefore, of necessity confess that the original sin which you had
devised is done away with"? It was not I who devised the original sin,
which the catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it,
are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are
in the devil's power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in
Christ.

         CHAP. 26 [XIII.]--THE CHILD IN NO SENSE FORMED

                        BY CONCUPISCENCE.

    But as he was speaking of Abraham and Sarah, he goes on to say: "If,
indeed, you were to affirm that the natural use was strong in them, and
there was no offspring, my answer will be: Whom the Creator promised,
the Creator also gave; the child which is born is not the work of
cohabitation, but of God. He, indeed, who made the first man of the
dust, fashions all men Out of seed. As, therefore, the dust of the
earth, which was taken as the material, was not the author of man; so
likewise that power of sexual pleasure which forms and commingles the
seminal elements does not complete the entire process of man's making,
but rather presents to God, out of the treasures of nature, material
with which He vouchsafes to make the human being." Now the whole of this
statement of his, except where he says, that the seminal elements are
formed and commingled by sexual pleasure, would be correctly expressed
by him were he only earnest in making it to defend the catholic sense.
To us, however, who are fully aware what he strives to make out of it,
he speaks indeed correctly in a perverse manner. The exceptional
statement to the general truth, which I do not deny belongs to this
passage, is untrue for this reason, because the pleasure in question of
carnal concupiscence does not form the seminal elements. These are
already in the body, and are formed by the same true God who created the
body itself. They do not receive their existence from the libidinous
pleasure, but are excited and emitted in company with it. Whether,
indeed, such pleasure accompanies the commingling of the seminal
elements of the two sexes in the womb, is a question which perhaps women
may be able to determine from their inmost feelings; but it is improper
for us to push an idle curiosity so far. That concupiscence, however,
which we have to be ashamed of, and the shame of which has given to our
secret members their shameful designation, pudenda, had no existence in
the body during its life in paradise before the entrance of sin; but it
began to exist "in the body of this death" after sin, the rebellion of
the members retaliating man's own disobedience. Without this
concupiscence it was quite possible to effect the function of the wedded
pair in the procreation of children: just as many a laborious work is
accomplished by the compliant operation of our other limbs, without any
lascivious heat; for they are simply moved by the direction of the will,
not excited by the ardour of concupiscence.

CHAP. 27.--THE PELAGIANS ARGUE THAT GOD SOMETIMES CLOSES THE WOMB IN
ANGER, AND OPENS IT WHEN APPEASED.

    Carefully consider the rest of his remarks: "This likewise," says
he, "is confirmed by the apostle's authority. For when the blessed Paul
spoke of the resurrection of the dead, he said, "Thou fool, that which
thou sowest is not quickened.'(1) And afterwards, 'But God giveth it a
body as it pleaseth Him, and to every seed its own body.' If, therefore,
God," says he, "has assigned to human seed, as to every thing else, its
own proper body, which no wise or pious man will deny, how will you
prove that any person is born guilty? Do, I beg of you, reflect  with
what a noose this assertion of natural sin is  choked. But come," he
says, "deal more gently with yourself, I pray you. Believe me, God made
even you: it must, however, be confessed, that a serious error has
infected you. For what profaner opinion can be broached than that either
God did not make man, or else that He made him for the devil; or, at any
rate, that the devil framed God's image, that is, man,--which clearly is
a statement not more absurd than impious? Is then," says he, "God so
poor in resources, so lacking in all sense of propriety, as not to have
had aught which He could confer on holy men as their reward, except what
the devil, after making them his dupes, might infuse into them for their
vitiation?(2) Would you like to know, however, that even in the case of
those who are no saints, God can be proved to have bestowed this power
of procreation of children? When Abraham, struck with fear among a
foreign nation, said that Sarah, his wife, was his sister, it is said
that Abimelech, the king of the country, abducted her for a night's
enjoyment of her. But God, who had the holy woman's honour in His
keeping, appeared to Abimelech in his sleep, and restrained the royal
audacity; threatening him with death if he went to the length of
violating the wife. Then Abimelech said: 'Wilt thou, O Lord, slay an
innocent and righteous nation? Did they not tell me that they were
brother and sister? Therefore Abimelech arose early in the morning, and
took a thousand pieces of silver, and sheep, and oxen, and men-servants,
and women-servants, and gave them to Abraham, and sent away his wife
untouched. But Abraham prayed unto God for Abimelech; and God healed
Abimelech, and his wife, and his maid-servants.'"(1) Now why he narrated
all this at so great a length, you may find in these few words which he
added: "God," he says, "at the prayer of Abraham, restored their potency
of generation, which had been taken away from the wombs of even the
meanest servants; because God had closed up every womb in the house of
Abimelech? Consider now," says he, "whether that ought to be called a
natural evil which sometimes God when angry takes away, and when
appeased restores. He," says he, "makes the children both of the pious
and of the ungodly, inasmuch as the circumstance of their being parents
appertains to that nature which rejoices in God as its Author, whilst
the fact of their impiety belongs to the depravity of their desires, and
this comes to every person whatever as the consequence of free will."

CHAP. 28 [XIV.]--AUGUSTIN'S ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT. ITS DEALING WITH
SCRIPTURE.

    Now to this lengthy statement of his we have to say in answer, that,
in the passages which he has quoted from the sacred writings, there is
nothing said about that shameful lust, which we say did not exist in the
body of our first parents in their blessedness, when they were naked and
were not ashamed.(3) The first passage from the apostle was spoken of
the seeds of corn, which first die in order to be quickened. For some
reason or other, he was unwilling to complete the verse for his
quotation. All he adduces from it is: "Thou fool, that which thou sowest
is not quickened;" but the apostle adds, "except it die."(4) This
writer, however, so far as I can judge, wished this passage, which
treats only of corn seeds, to be understood of human seed, by such as
read it without either understanding the Holy Scriptures or recollecting
them. Indeed, he not merely curtailed this particular sentence, by
omitting the clause, "except it die," but he omitted the following
words, in which the apostle explained of what seeds he was speaking; for
the apostle adds: "And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body
which shall be, but the bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some
other grain."(5) This he omitted, and closed up his context with what
the apostle then writes: "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased
Him, and to every seed its own body;" just as if the apostle spoke of
man in cohabitation when he said, "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is
not quickened," with a view to our understanding of human seed, that it
is quickened by God, not by man in cohabitation begetting children. For
he had previously said: "Sexual pleasure does not complete the entire
process of man's making, but rather presents to God, out of the
treasures of nature, material with which He vouchsafes to make the human
being."(6) He then added the quotation, as if the apostle affirmed as
follows: Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened,--quickened,
that is, by thyself; but God forms the human being out of thy seed. As
if the apostle had not said the intermediate words, which this writer
chose to pass over; and as if the apostle's aim was to speak of human
seed thus: "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened; but God
giveth to the seed a body such as pleaseth Him, and to every seed its
own body." Indeed, after the apostle's words, he introduces remarks of
his own to this effect: "If, therefore, God has assigned to human seed,
as to everything else, its own proper body, which no wise or pious man
will deny; "quite as if the apostle in the passage in question spoke of
human seed.

CHAP. 29.--THE SAME CONTINUED. AUGUSTIN ALSO ASSERTS THAT GOD FORMS MAN
AT BIRTH.

    Though I have given special attention to the  point, I have failed
to discover what assistance he could obtain from this deceitful use of
Scripture, except that he wanted to produce the apostle as a witness,
and by him to prove, what we also assert, that God forms man of human
seed. And inasmuch as no passage directly occurred to him, he
deceitfully manipulated this  particular one; fearing no doubt that, if
the  apostle should chance to seem to have spoken of corn seeds, and not
of human, in this passage, we should have suggested to us at once by
such procedure of his, how to refute him: not indeed as the pure-minded
advocate of a chastened will, but as the impudent proclaimer of a
profligate voluptuousness. But from the very seeds, forsooth, which the
farmers sow in their fields he can be refuted. For why can we not
suppose that God could have granted to man in his happy state in
paradise, the same course with regard to his own seed which we see
granted to the seeds of corn, in such wise that the former might be sown
without any shameful lust, the members of generation simply obeying the
inclination of the will; just as the latter is sown without any shameful
lust, the hands of the husbandman merely moving in obedience to his
will? There being, indeed, this difference, that the desire of begetting
children in the parent is a nobler one than that which characterizes the
farmer, of filling his barns. Then, again, why might not the almighty
Creator, with His incontaminable ubiquity, and his power of creating
from human seed just what it pleased Him, have operated in women, with
respect to what He even now makes, in the self-same manner as He
operates in the ground with corn seeds according to His will, making
blessed mothers conceive without lustful passion, and bring forth
children without parturient pains, inasmuch as there was not (in that
state of happiness, and in the body which was not as yet the body of
this death, but rather of that life) in woman when receiving seed
anything to produce shame, as there was nothing when giving birth to
offspring to cause pain? Whoever refuses to believe this, or is
unwilling to have it supposed that, while men previous to any sin lived
in that happy state of paradise, such a condition as that which we have
sketched could not have been permitted in God's will and kindness, must
be regarded as the lover of shameful pleasure, rather than the encomiast
of desirable fecundity.

            CHAP. 30 [XV.]--THE CASE OF ABIMELECH AND

                       HIS HOUSE EXAMINED.

    Then, again, as to the passage which he has adduced from the
inspired history concerning Abimelech, and God's choosing to close up
every womb in his household that the women should not bear children, and
afterwards opening them that they might become fruitful, what is all
this to the point? What has it to do with that shameful concupiscence
which is now the question in dispute? Did God, then, deprive those women
of this feeling, and give it to them again just when He liked? The
punishment however, was that they were unable to bear children, and the
blessing that they were able to bear them, after the manner of this
corruptible flesh. For God would not confer such a blessing upon this
body of death, as only that body of life in paradise could have had
before sin entered; that is, the process of conceiving without the
prurience of lust, and of bearing children without excruciating pain.
But why should we not suppose, since, indeed, Scripture says that every
womb was closed, that this took place with something of pain, so that
the women were unable to bear cohabitation, and that God inflicted this
pain in His wrath, and  removed it in His mercy? For if lust was to be
taken away as an impediment to begetting offspring, it ought to have
been taken away from the men, not from the women. For a woman might
perform her share in cohabitation by her will, even if the lust ceased
by which she is stimulated, provided it were not absent from the man for
exciting him; unless, perhaps (as Scripture informs us that even
Abimelech himself was healed), he would tell us that virile
concupiscence was restored to him. If, however, it were true that he had
lost this, what necessity was there that he should be warned by God to
hold no connection with Abraham's wife? The truth is, Abimelech is said
to have been healed, because his household was cured of the affliction
which smote it.

CHAP. 31 [XVI.]--WHY GOD PROCEEDS TO CREATE HUMAN BEINGS, WHO HE KNOWS
WILL BE BORN IN SIN.

    Let us now look at those three clauses of his, than which three, he
says, nothing more profane could possibly be uttered: "Either God did
not make man, or else He made him for the devil; or, at any rate, the
devil framed God's image, that is, man." Now, the first and the last of
these sentences, even he himself must allow, if he be not reckless and
perverse, were never uttered by us. The dispute is confined to that
which he puts second between the other two. In respect of this, he is so
far mistaken as to suppose that we had said that God made man for the
devil; as if, in the case of human beings whom God creates of human
parents, His care and purpose and provision were, that by means of His
workmanship the devil should have as slaves those whom he is unable to
make for himself. God forbid that any sort of pious belief, however
childish, should ever entertain such a sentiment as this! Of His own
goodness God has made man  --the first without sin, all others under
sin--for the purposes of His own profound thoughts. For just as He knew
full well what to do with reference to the malice of the devil himself,
and what He does is just and good, however unjust and evil he is, about
whom He takes His measures; and just as He was not unwilling to create
him because He foresaw that he would be evil; so in regard to the entire
human race, though not a man of it is born without the taint of sin, He
who is supremely good Himself is always working out good, making some
men, as it were, "vessels of mercy," whom grace distinguishes from those
who are "vessels of wrath;" whilst He makes others, as it were, "vessels
of wrath," that He may make known the riches of His glory towards the
vessels of mercy.(1) Let, then, this objector go and contest the point
against the apostle, whose words I use; nay, against the very Potter,
whom the apostle forbids us answering again, in the well-known words:
"Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God! Shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the
potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour?"(1) Well now, will this man contend
that the vessels of wrath are not under the dominion of the devil? or
else, because they are under this dominion, are they made by another
creator than He who makes the vessels of mercy? Or does He make them of
other material, and not out of the self-same lump? Here, then, he may
object, and say: "Therefore God makes these vessels for the devil." As
if God knew not how to make such a use of even these for the furtherance
of His own good and righteous works, as He makes of the very devil
himself.

CHAP. 32 [XVII.]--GOD NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE EVIL IN THOSE WHOM HE
CREATES.

    Then, does God feed the children of perdition, the goats on His left
hand,(2) for the devil and nourish and clothe them for the devil
"because He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth
rain upon the just and the unjust"?(3) He creates, then, the evil just
in the same way as He feeds and nourishes the evil; because what He
bestows on them by creating them appertains to the goodness of nature;
and the growth which He gives them by food and nourishment, He bestows
on them, of course, as a kindly help, not to their evil character, but
to that same good nature which He in His goodness created. For in as far
as they are human beings--this is a good of that nature whose author and
maker is God; but in as far as they are born with sin and so destined to
perdition unless they are born again, they belong to the seed which was
cursed from the beginning,(4) by the fault of the primitive
disobedience. This fault, however, is turned to good account by the
Maker of even the vessels of wrath, that He may make known the riches of
His glory on the vessels of mercy:(5) and that no one may attribute to
any merits of his own, pertaining as he does to the self-same mass, his
deliverance through grace; but "he that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord."(6)

CHAP. 33 [XVIII.]--THOUGH GOD MAKES US, WE PERISH UNLESS HE RE-MAKES US
IN CHRIST.

    From this most true and firmly-established principle of the
apostolic and catholic faith the writer before us departs in company
with the Pelagians. He will not have it that men are born under the
dominion of the devil, lest infants be carried to Christ to be delivered
from the power of darkness, and to be translated into His kingdom.(7)
Thus he becomes the accuser of the Church which is spread over the
world; into this Church everywhere infants, when to be baptized, are
first exorcised, for no other reason than that the prince of this world
may be cast out(8) of them. For by him must they be necessarily
possessed, as vessels of wrath, since they are born of Adam, unless they
be born again in Christ, and transferred through grace as vessels of
mercy into His kingdom. In his attack, however, upon this most
firmly-established truth, he would avoid the appearance of an assault
upon the entire Church of Christ. Accordingly, he limits his appeal to
me alone, and in the tone of reproof and admonition he says: "But God
made even you, though it must be confessed that a serious error has
infected you." Well now, I thankfully acknowl-edge that God did make
even me; and still I must have perished with the vessels of wrath, if He
had only made me of Adam, and had hot re-made me in Christ. Possessed,
however, as this man is with the heresy of Pelagius, he does not believe
this: if, indeed, he persists in so great an error to the very end, then
not he, but catholics, will be able to see the character and extent of
the error which has not simply infected, but absolutely destroyed(9)
him.

CHAP. 34 [XIX.]--THE PELAGIANS ARGUE THAT COHABITATION RIGHTLY USED IS A
GOOD, AND WHAT IS BORN FROM IT IS GOOD.

    I request your attention now to the following words. He says, "That
children, however, who are conceived in wedlock are by nature good, we
may learn from the apostle's words, when he speaks of men who, leaving
the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust, men with men working
together that which is disgraceful.(10) Here," says he, "the apostle
shows the use of the woman to be both natural and, in its way, laudable;
the abuse consisting in the exercise  of one's own will in opposition to
the decent use of the institution. Deservedly then," says he, "in those
who make a right use thereof, concupiscence is commended in its kind and
mode; whilst the excess of it, in which abandoned persons indulge, is
punished. Indeed, at the very time when God punished the abuse in Sodom
with His judgment of fire, He invigorated the generative powers of
Abraham and Sarah, which had become impotent through old age.(11) If,
therefore," he goes on to say, "you think that fault must be found with
the strength of the generative organs, because the Sodomites were
steeped in sin thereby, you will have also to censure such created
things as bread and wine, since Holy Scripture informs us that they
sinned also in the abuse of these gifts. For the Lord, by the mouth of
His prophet Ezekiel, says: 'These, moreover, were the sins of thy sister
Sodom; in their pride, she and her children overflowed in fulness of
bread and abundance of wine; and they helped not the hand of the poor
and needy.' (1) Choose, therefore," says he, "which alternative you
would rather have: either impute to the work of God the sexual
connection of human bodies, or account such created things as bread and
wine to be equally evil. But if you should prefer this latter
conclusion, you prove yourself to be a Manichean. The truth, however, is
this: he who observes moderation in natural concupiscence uses a good
thing well; but he who does not observe moderation, abuses a good thing.
What means your statement, then," (2) he asks, "when you say that 'the
good of marriage is no more impeachable on account of the original sin
which is derived herefrom, than the evil of adultery and fornication can
be excused because of the natural good which is born of them'? In these
words," says he, "you conceded what you had denied, and what you had
conceded you nullified; and you aim at nothing so much as to be
unintelligible. Show me any bodily marriage without sexual connection.
Else impose some one name on this operation, and designate the conjugal
union as either a good or an evil. You answer, no doubt, that you have
already defined marriages to be good. Well then, if marriage is
good,--if the human being is the good fruit of marriage; if this fruit,
being God's work, cannot be evil, born as it is by good agency out of
good,--where is the original evil which has been set aside by so many
prior admissions?"

CHAP. 35 [XX.]--HE ANSWERS THE ARGUMENTS OF JULIANUS. WHAT IS THE
NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN?  WHAT IS THE UNNATURAL USE?

    My answer to this challenge is, that not only the children of
wedlock, but also those of adultery, are a good work in so far as they
are the work of God, by whom they are created: but as  concerns original
sin, they are all born under condemnation of the first Adam; not only
those who are born in adultery, but likewise such as are born in
wedlock, unless they be regenerated in the second Adam, which is Christ.
As to what the apostle says of the wicked, that "leaving the natural use
of the woman, the men burned in their lust one toward another: men with
men working that which is unseemly;" (3) he did not speak of the
conjugal use, but the "natural use," wishing us to understand how it
comes to pass that by means of the members created for the purpose the
two sexes can combine for generation. Thus it follows, that even when a
man unites with a harlot to use these members, the use is a natural one.
It is not,  however, commendable, but rather culpable. But as regards
any part of the body which is not  meant for generative purposes, should
a man use even his own wife in it, it is against nature and flagitious.
Indeed, the same apostle had previously (4) said concerning women: "Even
their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature;" and then concerning men he added, that they worked that which
is  unseemly by leaving the natural use of the woman. Therefore, by the
phrase in question, "the natural use," it is not meant to praise
conjugal connection; but thereby are denoted those flagitious deeds
which are more unclean and criminal than even men's use of women, which,
even if unlawful, is nevertheless natural.

CHAP. 36 [XXI.]--GOD MADE NATURE GOOD: THE SAVIOUR RESTORES IT WHEN
CORRUPTED.

    Now we do not reprehend bread and wine because some men are
luxurious and drunkards, any more than we disapprove of gold because of
the greedy and avaricious. Wherefore on the same principle we do not
censure the honourable connection between husband and wife, because of
the shame-causing lust of bodies. For the former would have been quite
possible before any antecedent commission of sin, and by it the united
pair would not have been made to blush; whereas the latter arose after
the perpetration of sin, and they were obliged to hide it, from very
shame. (5) Accordingly, in all united pairs ever since, however well and
lawfully they have used this evil, there has been a permanent necessity
of avoiding the sight of man in any work of this kind, and thus
acknowledging what caused inevitable shame, though a good thing would
certainly cause no man to be ashamed. In this way we have two distinct
facts insensibly introduced to our notice: the good of that laudable
union of the sexes for the purpose of generating children; and the evil
of that shameful lust, in consequence of which the offspring must be
regenerated in order to escape condemnation. The man, therefore, who,
though with the Just which causes shame, joins in lawful cohabitation,
turns an evil to good account; whereas he who joins in an unlawful
cohabitation uses an evil badly; for that is more correctly called evil
than good, at which both bad and good alike blush. We do better to
believe him who has said, "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh,
dwelleth no good thing," (6) rather than him who calls that good, by
which he is so conformed that he admits it to be evil; but if he feels
no shame, he adds the worse evil of impudence. Rightly then did we
declare that "the good of marriage is no more impeachable because of the
original sin which is derived therefrom, than the evil of adultery and
fornication can be excused, because of the natural good which is born of
them:" since the human nature which is born, whether of wedlock or of
adultery, is the work of God. Now if this nature were an evil, it ought
not to have been born; if it had not evil, it would not have to be
regenerated: and (that I may combine the two cases in one and the same
predicate) if human nature were an evil thing, it would not have to be
saved; if it had not in it any evil, it would not have to be saved. He,
therefore, who contends that nature is not good, says that the Maker of
the creature is not good; whilst he who will have it, that nature has no
evil in it, deprives it in its corrupted condition of a merciful
Saviour. From this, then, it follows, that in the birth of human beings
neither fornication is to be excused on account of the good which is
formed out of it by the good Creator, nor is marriage to be impeached by
reason of the evil which has to be healed in it by the merciful Saviour.

CHAP. 37 [XXII.]--IF THERE IS NO MARRIAGE WITHOUT COHABITATION, SO THERE
IS NO COHABITATION WITHOUT SHAME.

    "Show me," he says, "any bodily marriage without sexual connection."
I do not show him any bodily marriage without sexual connection; but
then, neither does he show me any case of sexual connection which is
without shame. In paradise, however, if sin had not preceded, there
would not have been, indeed, generation without union of the sexes, but
this union would certainly have been without shame; for in the sexual
union there would have been a quiet acquiescence of the members, not a
lust of the flesh productive of shame. Matrimony, therefore, is a good,
in which the human being is born after orderly conception; the fruit,
too, of matrimony is good, as being the very human being which is thus
born; sin, however, is an evil with which every man is born. Now it was
God who trade and still makes man; but "by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him
all sinned." (1)

CHAP. 38 [XXIII.]--JOVINIAN USED FORMERLY TO CALL CATHOLICS MANICHEANS;
THE ARIANS ALSO USED TO CALL CATHOLICS SABELLIANS.

    "By your new mode of controversy," says he, "you both profess to be
a catholic and patronize Manichaeus, inasmuch as you designate matrimony
both as a great good and a great evil." Now he is utterly ignorant of
what he says, or pretends to be ignorant. Or else he does not understand
what we say, or does not wish it to be understood. But if he does not
understand, he is impeded by the pre-occupation of error; or if he does
not wish our meaning to be understood, then obstinacy is the fault with
which he defends his error. Jovinian, too, who endeavoured a few years
ago to found a new heresy, used to declare that the catholics patronized
the Manicheans, because in opposition to him they preferred holy
virginity to marriage. But this man is sure to reply, that he does not
agree with Jovinian in his indifference about marriage and virginity. I
do not myself say that this is their opinion; still these new heretics
must allow, by the fact of Jovinian's playing off the Manicheans upon
the catholics, that the expedient is not a novel one. We then declare
that marriage is a good, not an evil. But just as the Arians charge us
with being Sabellians, although we do not say that the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same, as the Sabellians hold;
but affirm that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one and
the same nature, as the catholics believe: so do the Pelagians cast the
Manicheans in our teeth, although we do not declare marriage to be an
evil, as the Manicheans pretend, but affirm that evil accrued to the
first man and woman, that is to say, to the first married pair, and from
them passed on to all men, as the catholics hold. As, however, the
Arians, while avoiding the Sabel-lians, fall into worse company, because
they have had the audacity to divide not the Persons of the Trinity, but
the natures; so the Pelagians, in their efforts to escape from the
pestilent error of the Manicheans, by taking the opposite extreme, are
convicted of entertaining worse sentiments than the Manicheans
themselves touching the fruit of matrimony, inasmuch as they believe
that infants stand in no need of Christ as their Physician.

CHAP. 39 [XXIV.]--MAN BORN OF WHATEVER PARENTAGE IS SINFUL AND CAPABLE
OF REDEMPTION.

    He then says: "You conclude that a human being, if born of
fornication; is not guilty; and if born in wedlock, is not innocent.
Your assertion, therefore, amounts to this, that natural good may
possibly subsist from adulterous connections, while original sin is
actually derived from marriage." Well now, he here attempts, but in vain
before an intelligent reader, to give a wrong turn to words which are
correct enough. Far be it from us to say, that a human being, if born in
fornication, is not guilty. But we do affirm, that a human being,
whether he be born in wedlock or in fornication, is in some respect
good, because of the Author of nature, God; we add, however, that he
derives some evil by reason of original sin. Our statement, therefore,
"that natural good can subsist even from adulterous parentage, but that
original sin is derived even from marriage," does not amount to what he
endeavours to make of it, that one born in adultery is not guilty, nor
innocent when born in wedlock; but that one who is generated in either
condition is guilty, because of original sin; and that the offspring of
either state may be freed by regeneration, because of the good of
nature.

CHAP. 40 [XXV.]--AUGUSTIN DECLINES THE DILEMMA OFFERED HIM.

    "One of these propositions," says he, "is true, the other false." My
reply is as brief as the allegation: Both are really true, neither is
false.  "It is true," he goes on to say, "that the sin of adultery
cannot be excused by reason of the man who is born of it; inasmuch as
the sin which adulterers commit, pertains to corruption of the  will;
but the offspring which they produce tends to the praise of fecundity.
If one were to sow  wheat which had been stolen, the crop which  springs
up is none the worse. Of course," says he, "I blame the thief, but I
praise the corn. So I pronounce him innocent who is born of the generous
fruitfulness of the seed; even as the apostle puts it: 'God giveth it a
body, as it pleases Him; and to every seed its own body;' (1) but, at
the same time, I condemn the flagitious man who has committed his
adulterous sin in his perverse use of the divine appointment."

CHAP. 41 [XXVI.]--THE PELAGIANS ARGUE THAT ORIGINAL SIN CANNOT COME
THROUGH MARRIAGE IF MARRIAGE IS GOOD.

    After this he proceeds with the following words: "Certainly if evil
is contracted from marriage, it may be blamed, nay, cannot be excused;
and you place under the devil's power its work and fruit, because
everything which is the cause of evil is itself without good. The human
being, however, who is born of wedlock owes his origin not to the
reproaches of wedlock, but to its seminal elements: the cause of these,
however, lies in the condition of bodies; and whosoever makes a bad use
of these bodies, deals a blow at the good desert thereof, not at their
nature. It is therefore clear," argues he, "that the good is not the
cause of the evil. If, therefore," he continues, "original evil is
derived even from marriage, the cause of the evil is the compact of
marriage; and that must needs be evil by which and from which the evil
fruit has made its appearance; even as the Lord says in the Gospel: 'A
tree is known by its fruits.' (2) How then," he asks, "do you think
yourself worthy of attention, when you say that marriage is good, and
yet declare that nothing but evil proceeds from it?  It is evident,
then, that marriages are guilty, since original sin is deduced from
them; and they are indefensible, too, unless their fruit be proved
innocent. But they are defended, and pronounced good; therefore their
fruit is proved to be innocent."

CHAP. 42.--THE PELAGIANS TRY TO GET RID OF ORIGINAL SIN BY THEIR PRAISE
OF GOD'S WORKS; MARRIAGE, IN ITS NATURE AND BY ITS INSTITUTION, IS NOT
THE CAUSE OF SIN.

    I have an answer ready for all this; but before I give it, I wish
the reader carefully to notice, that the result of the opinions of these
persons is, that no Saviour is necessary for infants, whom they deem to
be entirely without any sins to be saved from. This vast perversion of
the truth, so hostile to God's great grace, which is given through our
Lord Jesus Christ, who "came to seek and to save what was lost," (3)
tries to insinuate its way into the hearts of the unintelligent by
eulogizing the works of God; that is, by its eulogy of human nature, of
human seed, of marriage, of sexual intercourse, of the fruits of
matrimony--which are all of them good things. I will not say that he
adds the praise of lust; because he too is ashamed even to name it, so
that it is something else, and not it, which he seems to praise. By this
method of his, not distinguishing between the evils which have accrued
to nature and the goodness of nature's very self, he does not, indeed,
show it to be sound (because that is untrue), but he does not permit its
diseased condition to be healed. And, therefore, that first proposition
of ours, to the effect that the good thing, even the human being, which
is born of adultery, does not excuse the sin of adulterous connection,
he allows to be true; and this point, which occasions no question to
arise between us, he even defends and strengthens (as he well may) by
his similitude of the thief who sows the seed which he stole, and out of
which there arises a really good harvest. Our other proposition,
however, that "the good of marriage cannot be blamed for the original
sin which is derived from it," he will not admit to be true; if, indeed,
he assented to it, he would not be a Pelagian heretic, but a catholic
Christian. "Certainly," says he, "if evil arises from marriage, it may
be blamed, nay, cannot be excused; and you place its work and fruit
under the devil's power, because everything which is the cause of evil
is itself without good." And in addition to this, he contrived other
arguments to show that good could not possibly be the cause of evil; and
from this he drew the inference, that marriage, which is a good, is not
the cause of evil; and that consequently from it no man could be born in
a sinful state, and having need of a Saviour: just as if we said that
marriage is the cause of sin, though it is true that the human being
which is born in wedlock is not born without sin. Marriage was
instituted not for the purpose of sinning, but of producing children.
Accordingly the Lord's blessing on the married state ran thus: "Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (1) The sin, however,
which is derived to children from marriage does not belong to marriage,
but to the evil which accrues to the human agents, from whose union
marriage comes into being. The truth is, both the evil of shameful lust
can exist without marriage, and marriage might have been without it. It
appertains, however, to the condition of the body (not of that life,
but) of this death, that marriage cannot exist without it though it may
exist without marriage. Of course that lust of the flesh which causes
shame has existence out of the married state, whenever it urges men to
the commission of adultery, chambering and uncleanness, so utterly
hostile to the purity of marriage; or again, when it does not commit any
of these things, because the human agent gives no permission or assent
to their commission, but still rises and is set in motion and creates
disturbance, and (especially in dreams) effects the likeness of its own
veritable work, and reaches the end of its own emotion. Well, now, this
is an evil which is not even in the married state actually an evil of
marriage; but it has this apparatus all ready in the body of this death,
even against its own will, which is indispensable no doubt for the
accomplishment of that which it does will. The evil in question,
therefore, does not accrue to marriage from its own institution, which
was blessed; but entirely from the circumstance that sin entered into
the world by one man, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for in him all sinned. (2)

CHAP. 43.--THE GOOD TREE IN THE GOSPEL THAT CANNOT BRING FORTH EVIL
FRUIT, DOES NOT MEAN MARRIAGE.

    What, then, does he mean by saying, "A tree is known by its fruits,"
on the ground of our reading that the Lord spake thus in the Gospel? 
Was, then, the Lord speaking of this question in these words, and not
rather of men's two wills, the good and the evil, calling one of these
the good tree, and the other the corrupt tree, inasmuch as good works
spring out of a good will, and evil ones out of an evil will--the
converse being impossible, good works out of an evil will, and evil ones
out of a good will?  If, however, we were to suppose marriage to be the
good tree, according to the Gospel simile which he has mentioned, then,
of course, we must on the other hand assume fornication to be the
corrupt tree. Wherefore, if a human being is said to be the fruit of
marriage, in the sense of the good fruit of a good tree, then
undoubtedly a human being could never have been born in fornication.
"For a corrupt tree bringeth not forth good fruit." (3) Once more, if he
were to say that not adultery must be supposed to occupy the place of
the tree, but rather human nature, of which man is born, then in this
way not even marriage can stand for the tree, but only the human nature
of which man is born. His simile, therefore, taken from the Gospel
avails him nothing in elucidating this question, because marriage is not
the cause of the sin which is transmitted in the natural birth, and
atoned for in the new birth; but the voluntary transgression of the
first man is the cause of original sin. "You repeat," says he, "your
allegation, 'Just as sin, from whatever source it is derived to infants,
is the work of the devil, so man, howsoever he be born, is the work of
God.'" Yes, I said this, and most truly too; and if this man were not a
Pelagian, but a catholic, he too would have nothing else to avow in the
catholic faith.

CHAP. 44 [XXVII.]--THE PELAGIANS ARGUE THAT IF SIN COMES BY BIRTH, ALL
MARRIED PEOPLE DESERVE CONDEMNATION.

    What, then, is his object when he inquires of us, "By what means sin
may be found in an infant, through the will, or through marriage, or
through its parents"? He speaks, indeed, in such a way as if he had an
answer to all these questions, and as if by clearing all of sin together
he would have nothing remain in the infant whence sin could be found. I
beg your attention to his very words: "Through what," says he, "is sin
found in an infant? Through the will?  But there has never been one in
him? Through marriage? But this appertains to the parents' work, of whom
you had previously declared that in this action they had not sinned;
though it appears from your subsequent words that you did not make this
concession truly. Marriage, therefore," he says, "must be condemned,
since it furnished the cause of the evil. Yet marriage only indicates
the work of personal agents. The parents, therefore, who by their coming
together afforded occasion for the sin, are properly deserving of the
condemnation. It does not then admit of doubt," says he, "any longer, if
we are to follow your opinion, that married persons are handed over to
eternal punishment, it being by their means brought about that the devil
has come to exercise dominion over men. And what becomes of what you
just before had said, that man was the work of God? Because if through
their birth it happens that evil is in men, and through the evil that
the devil has power over men, so in fact you declare the devil to be the
author of men, from whom comes their origin at birth. If, however, you
believe that man is made by God, and that husband and wife are innocent,
see how impossible is your standpoint, that original sin is derived from
them."

CHAP. 45.--ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT: THE APOSTLE SAYS WE ALL SINNED IN
ONE.

    Now, there is an answer for him to all these questions given by the
apostle, who censures neither the infant's will, which is not yet
matured in him for sinning, nor marriage, which, as such, has not only
its institution, but its blessing also, from God; nor parents, so far as
they are parents, who are united together properly and lawfully for the
procreation of children; but he says, "By one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for in him all
have sinned." (1) Now, if these persons would only receive this
statement with catholic hearts and ears, they would not have rebellious
feelings against the grace and faith of Christ, nor would they vainly
endeavour to convert to their own particular and heretical sense these
very clear and manifest words of the apostle, when they assert that the
purport of the passage is to this effect: that Adam was the first to
sin, and that any one who wished afterwards to commit sin found an
example for sinning in him; so that sin, you must know, did not pass
from this one upon all men by birth, but by the imitation of this one.
Whereas it is certain that if the apostle meant this imitation to be
here understood, he would have said that sin had entered into the world
and passed upon all men, not by one man, but rather by the devil. For of
the devil it is written: "They that are on his side do imitate him." (2)
He used the phrase "by one man," from whom the generation of men, of
course, had its beginning, in order to show us that original sin had
passed upon all men by generation.

CHAP. 46.--THE REIGN OF DEATH, WHAT IT IS; THE FIGURE OF THE FUTURE
ADAM; HOW ALL MEN ARE JUSTIFIED THROUGH CHRIST.

    But what else is meant even by the apostle's subsequent words? For
after he had said the above, he added, "For until the law sin was in the
world," (3) as much as to say that not even the law was able to take
away sin. "But sin," adds he, "was not imputed when there was no law."
(3) It existed then, but was not imputed, for it was not set forth so
that it might be imputed. It is on the same principle, indeed, that he
says in another passage: "By the law is the knowledge of sin." (4)
"Nevertheless," says he, "death reigned from Adam to Moses;" (5) that
is, as he had already expressed it, "until the law." Not that there was
no sin after Moses, but because even the law, which was given by Moses,
was unable to deprive death of its power, which, of course, reigns only
by sin. Its reign, too, is such as to plunge mortal man even into that
second death which is to endure for evermore. "Death reigned," but over
whom? "Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come." (5) Of whom
that was to come, if not Christ? And in what sort a figure, except in
the way of contrariety? which he elsewhere briefly expresses: "As in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (6) The one
condition was in one, even as the other condition was in the other; this
is the figure. But this figure is not conformable in every respect;
accordingly the apostle, following up the same idea, added, "But not as
the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one
many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which
is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." (7) But why "hath
it much more abounded," except it be that all who are delivered through
Christ suffer temporal death on Adam's account, but have everlasting
life in store for the sake of Christ Himself? "And not as it was by one
that sinned," says he, "so is the gift: for the judgment was from one to
condemnation, but the free gift is from many offences unto
justification." (7) "By one" what, but offence?  since it is added, "the
free gift is from many offences." Let these objectors tell us how it can
be "by one offence unto condemnation," unless it be that even the one
original sin which has passed over unto all men is sufficient for
condemnation? Whereas the free gift delivers from many offences to
justification, because it not only cancels the one offence, which is
derived from the primal sin, but all others also which are added in
every individual man by the motion of his own will. "For if by one man's
offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of
grace and righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ.
Therefore, by the offence of one upon all men to condemnation; so by the
righteousness of one upon all men unto justification of life." (1) Let
them after this persist in  their vain imaginations, and maintain that
one man did not hand on sin by propagation, but only set the example of
committing it. How is it, then, that by one's offence judgment comes on
all men to condemnation, and not rather by each man's own numerous sins,
unless it be that even if there were but that one sin, it is sufficient,
without the addition of any more, to lead to condemnation,--as, indeed,
it does lead all who die in infancy who are born of Adam, without being
born again in Christ? Why, then, does he, when he refuses to hear the
apostle, ask us for an answer to his question, "By what means may sin be
discovered in an infant,--through the will, or through marriage, or
through its parents?" Let him listen in silence, and hear by what means
sin may be discovered in an infant. "By the offence of one," says the
apostle, "upon all men to condemnation." He said, moreover, all to
condemnation through Adam, and all to justification through Christ: not,
of course, that Christ removes to life all those who die in Adam; but he
said "all" and "all," because, as without Adam no one goes to death, so
without Christ no man to life. Just as we say of a teacher of letters,
when he is alone in a town: This man teaches all their learning; not
because all the inhabitants take lessons, but because no man who learns
at all is taught by any but him. Indeed, the apostle afterwards
designates as many those whom he had previously described as all,
meaning the self-same persons by the two different terms. "For," says
he, "as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (2)

CHAP. 47.--THE SCRIPTURES REPEATEDLY TEACH US THAT ALL SIN IN ONE.

    Still let him ply his question: "By what means may sin be discovered
in an infant?" He may find an answer in the inspired pages: "By one  man
sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon
all men, for in him all sinned." "Through the offence of one many are
dead." "The judgment was from one to condemnation." "By one man's
offence  death reigned by one." "By the offence of one,  Judgment came
upon all men to condemnation."  "By one man's disobedience many were
made sinners." (3) Behold, then, "by what means sins may be discovered
in an infant." Let him now believe in original sin; let him permit
infants to come to Christ, that they may be saved. [XXVIII.]  What means
this passage of his: "He sins not who is born; he sins not who begat
him; He sins not who created him. Amidst these intrenchments of
innocence, therefore, what are the breaches through which you pretend
that sin entered?" Why does he search for a hidden chink when he has an
open door? "By one man," says the apostle; "through the offence of one,"
says the apostle; "By one man's disobedience," says the apostle. What
does he want more? What does he require plainer? What does he expect to
be more impressively repeated?

CHAP. 48.--ORIGINAL SIN AROSE FROM ADAM'S DEPRAVED WILL. WHENCE THE
CORRUPT WILL SPRANG.

    "If," says he, "sin comes from the will, it is an evil will that
causes sin; if it comes from nature, then nature is evil." I at once
answer, Sin does come from the will. Perhaps he wants to know, whether
original sin also? I answer, most certainly original sin also. Because
it, too, was engendered from the will of the first man; so that it both
existed in him, and passed on to all. As for what he next proposes, "If
it comes from nature, then nature is evil," I request him to answer, if
he can, to this effect: As it is manifest that all evil works spring
from a corrupt will, like the fruits of a corrupt tree; so let him say
whence arose the corrupt will itself--the corrupt tree which yields the
corrupt fruits. If from an angel, what was the angel, but the good work
of God?  If from man, what was even he, but the good work of God? Nay,
inasmuch as the corrupt will arose in the angel from an angel, and in
man from man, what were both these, previous to the evil arising within
them, but the good work of God, with a good and laudable nature? Behold,
then, evil arises out of good; nor was there any other source, indeed,
whence it could arise, but out of good. I call that will bad which no
evil has preceded; no evil works, of course, since they only proceed
from an evil will, as from a corrupt tree. Nevertheless, that the evil
will arose out of good, could not be, because that good was made by the
good God, but because it was created out of nothing--not out of God.
What, therefore, becomes of his argument, "If nature is the work of God,
it will never do for the work of the devil to permeate the work of God"?
Did not the work of the devil, I ask, arise in a work of God, when it
first arose in that angel who became the devil? Well, then, if evil,
which was absolutely nowhere previously, could arise in a work of God,
why could not evil, which had by this time found an existence somewhere,
pervade the work of God; especially when the apostle uses the very
expression in the passage, "And so death passed upon all men"? (1) Can
it be that men are not the work of God? Sin, therefore, has passed upon
all men--in other words, the devil's work has penetrated the work of
God; or putting the same meaning in another shape, The work done by a
work of God has pervaded God's work. And this is the reason why God
alone has an unchangeable and almighty goodness: even before any evil
came into existence He made all things good; and out of all the evils
which have arisen in the good things which He has made, He works through
all for good.

CHAP. 49 [XXIX.]--IN INFANTS NATURE IS OF GOD, AND THE CORRUPTION OF
NATURE OF THE DEVIL.

    "In a single man rightly is the intention blamed and the origin
praised; because there must be two things to admit of contraries: in an
infant, however, there is but one thing, nature only; because will has
no existence in his case. Now this one thing," says he, "is ascribable
either to God or to the devil. If nature," he goes on to observe, "is of
God, there cannot be original evil in it. If of the devil, there will be
nothing on the ground of which man may be vindicated for the work of
God. So that he is completely a Manichean who maintains original sin."
Let him hear rather what is true in opposition to all this. In a single
man the will is to be blamed, and his nature to be praised; because
there should be two things for the application of contraries. Still,
even in an infant, it is not the case that there is but one thing only,
that is, the nature in which man was created by the good God; for he has
also that corruption, which has passed upon all men by one, as the
apostle wisely says, and not as the folly of Pelagius, or Coelestius, or
any of their disciples would represent the matter. Of these two things,
then, which we have said exist in an infant, one is ascribed to God, the
other to the devil. From the fact, however, that (owing to one of the
two, even the corruption) both are subjected to the power of the devil,
there really ensues no incongruity; because this happens not from the
power of the devil himself, but of God. In fact, corruption is subjected
to corruption, nature to nature, because the two are even in the devil;
so that whenever those who are beloved and elect are "delivered from the
power of darkness" (2) to which they are justly exposed, it is clear
enough how great a gift is bestowed on the justified and good by the
good God, who brings good even out of evil.

CHAP. 50.--THE RISE AND ORIGIN OF EVIL. THE EXORCISM AND EXSUFFLATION OF
INFANTS, A PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN RITE.

    As to the passage, which he seemed to himself to indite in a pious
vein, as it were, "If nature is of God, there cannot be original sin in
it," would not another person seem even to him to give a still more
pious turn to it, thus: "If nature is of God, there cannot arise any sin
in it?" And yet this is not true. The Manicheans, indeed, meant to
assert this, and they endeavoured to steep in all sorts of evil the very
nature of God itself, and not His creature, made out of nothing. For
evil arose in nothing else than what was good--not, however, the supreme
and unchangeable good which is God's nature, but that which was made out
of nothing by the wisdom of God. This, then, is the reason why man is
claimed for a divine work; for he would not be man unless he were made
by the operation of God. But evil would not exist in infants, if evil
had not been committed by the wilfulness of the first man, and original
sin derived from a nature thus corrupted. It is not true, then, as he
puts it, "He is completely a Manichean who maintains original sin;" but
rather,  he is completely a Pelagian who does not believe in original
sin. For it is not simply from the time when the pestilent opinions of
Manichaeus began to grow that in the Church of God infants about to be
baptized were for the first time exorcised with exsufflation,--which
ceremonial was intended to show that they were not removed into the
kingdom of Christ without first being delivered from the power of
darkness; (2) nor is it in the books of Manichaeus that we read how "the
Son of man come to seek and to save that which was lost," (3) or how "by
one man sin entered into the world," (1) with those other similar
passages which we have quoted above; or how God "visits the sins of the
fathers upon the children;" (4) or how it is written in the Psalm, "I
was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" (5) or
again, how "man was made like unto vanity: his days pass away like a
shadow;" (6) or again, "behold, Thou hast made my days old, and my
existence as nothing before Thee; nay, every man living is altogether
vanity;" (7) or how the apostle says, "every creature was made subject
to vanity;" (8) or how it is written in the book of Ecclesiastes,
"vanity of vanities; all is vanity: what profit hath a man of all his
labour which he taketh under the sun?" (9) and in the book of
Ecclesiasticus, "a heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam from the day that
they go out of their mother's womb to the day that they return to the
mother of all things;" (10) or how again the apostle writes, "in Adam
all die;" (11) or how holy Job says, when speaking about his own sins,
"for man that is born of a woman is short-lived and full of wrath: as
the flower of grass, so does he fall; and he departs like a shadow, nor
shall he stay. Hast Thou not taken account even of him, and caused him
to enter into judgment in Thy sight? For who shall be pure from
uncleanness? Not even one, even if his life should be but of one day
upon the earth." (1) Now when he speaks of uncleanness here, the mere
perusal of the passage is enough to show that he meant sin to be
under-stood. It is plain from the words, of what he is speaking. The
same phrase and sense occur in the prophet Zechariah, in the place where
"the filthy garments" are removed from off the high priest, and it is
said to him, "I have taken away thy sins." (2) Well now, I rather think
that all these passages, and others of like import, which point to the
fact that man is born in sin and under the curse, are not to be read
among the dark recesses of the Manicheans, but in the sunshine of
catholic truth.

CHAP. 51.--TO CALL THOSE THAT TEACH ORIGINAL SIN MANICHEANS IS TO ACCUSE
AMBROSE, CYPRIAN, AND THE WHOLE CHURCH.

    What, moreover, shall I say of those commentators on the divine
Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic Church? They have never
tried to pervert these testimonies to an alien sense, because they were
firmly established in our most ancient and solid faith, and were never
moved aside by the novelty of error. Were I to wish to collect these
together, and to make use of their testimony, the task would both be too
long, and I should probably seem to have bestowed less preference than I
ought on canonical authorities, (3) from which one must never deviate. I
will merely mention the most blessed Ambrose, to whom (as I have already
observed  (4)) Pelagius accorded so signal a testimony of his integrity
in the faith. This Ambrose, however, maintained that there was nothing
else in infants, which required the healing grace of Christ, than
original sin. (5) But in respect of Cyprian, with his all-glorious
crown, (6) will any one say of him, that he either was, or ever could by
any possibility have been, a Manichean, when he suffered before the
pestilent heresy had made its appearance in the Roman world? And yet, in
his book on the baptism of infants, he so vigorously maintains original
sin as to declare, that even before the eighth day, if necessary, the
infant ought to be baptized, lest his soul should be lost; and he wished
it to be understood, that the infant could the more readily attain to
the indulgence of baptism, inasmuch as it is not so much his own sins,
but the sins of another, which are remitted to him. Well, then, let this
writer dare to call these Manicheans; let him, moreover, under this
scandalous imputation asperse that most ancient tradition of the Church,
whereby infants are, as I have said, exorcised with exsufflation, for
the purpose of being translated into the kingdom of Christ, after they
are delivered from the power of darkness--that is to say, of the devil
and his angels. As for ourselves, indeed, we are more ready to be
associated with these men, and with the Church of Christ, so firmly
rooted in this ancient faith, in suffering any amount of curse and
contumely, than with the Pelagians, to be covered with the flattery of
public praise.

           CHAP. 52 [XXX.]--SIN WAS THE ORIGIN OF ALL

                     SHAMEFUL CONCUPISCENCE.

    "Do you," he asks, "repeat your affirmation, 'There would be no
concupiscence if man had not first sinned; marriage, however, would have
existed, even if no one had sinned'?" I never said, "There would be no
concupiscence," because there is a concupiscence of the spirit, which
craves wisdom. (7) My words were, "There would be no shameful
concupiscence." (8) Let my words be re-perused, even those which he has
cited, that it may be clearly seen how dishonestly they are handled by
him. However, let him call it by any name he likes. What I said would
not have existed unless man had previously sinned, was that which made
them ashamed in paradise when they covered their loins, and which every
one will allow would not have been felt, had not the sin of disobedience
first occurred. Now he who wishes to understand what they felt, ought to
consider what it was they covered. For of the fig-leaves they made
themselves "aprons," not clothes; and these aprons or kilts are called
perizwmata in Greek. Now all know well enough what it is
which these peri-zomata cover, which some Latin writers explain by the
word campestria. Who is ignorant of what persons wore this kilt, and
what parts of the body such a dress concealed; even the same which the
Roman youths used to cover when they practised naked in the campus, from
which circumstance the name cam-pester was given to the apron. (9)

CHAP. 53 [XXXI.]--CONCUPISCENCE NEED NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FOR
FRUITFULNESS.

    He says: "Therefore that marriage which might have been without
concupiscence, without bodily motion, without necessity for sexual
organs--to use your own statement--is pronounced by you to be laudable;
whereas such marriages as are now enacted are, according to your
decision, the invention of the devil. Those, therefore, whose
institution was possible in your dreams, you deliberately assert to be
good, while those which Holy Scripture intends, when it says, 'Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife, and they shall be one flesh,' (1) you pronounce to be diabolical
evils, worthy, in short, to be called a pest, not matrimony." It is not
to be wondered at, that these Pelagian opponents of mine try to twist my
words to any meaning they wish them to bear, when it has been their
custom to do the same thing with the Holy Scriptures, and not simply in
obscure passages, but where their testimony is clear and plain: a
custom, indeed, which is followed by all other heretics. Now who could
make such an assertion, as that it was possible for marriages to be
"without bodily motion, without necessity for sexual organs"? For God
made the sexes; because, as it is written, "He created them male and
female." (2) But how could it possibly happen, that they who were to be
united together, and by the very union were to beget children, were not
to move their bodies, when, of course, there can be no bodily contact of
one person with another if bodily motion be not resorted to? The
question before us, then, is not about the motion of bodies, without
which there could not be sexual intercourse; but about the shameful
motion of the organs of generation, which certainly could be absent, and
yet the fructifying connection be still not wanting, if the organs of
generation were not obedient to lust, but simply to the will, like the
other members of the body. Is it not even now the case, in "the body of
this death," that a command is given to the foot, the arm, the finger,
the lip, or the tongue, and they are instantly set in motion at this
intimation of our  will? And (to take a still more wonderful case)  even
the liquid contained in the urinary vessels obeys the command to flow
from us at our pleasure, and when we are not pressed with its overflow;
while the vessels, also, which contain  the liquid, discharge without
difficulty, if they  are in a healthy state, the office assigned them 
by our will of propelling, pressing out, and ejecting their contents.
With how much greater ease and quietness, then, if the generative organs
of our body were compliant, would natural motion ensue, and human
conception be effected; except in the instance of those persons who
violate natural order, and by a righteous retribution are punished with
the intractability of these members and organs! This punishment is felt
by the chaste and pure, who, without doubt, would rather beget children
by mere natural desire than by voluptuous pruriency; while unchaste
persons, who are impelled by this diseased passion, and bestow their
love upon harlots as well as wives, are excited by a still heavier
mental remorse in consequence of this carnal chastisement.

CHAP. 54 [XXXII.]--HOW MARRIAGE IS NOW DIFFERENT SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF
SIN.

    God forbid that we should say, what this man pretends we say, "Such
marriages as are now enacted are the invention of the devil." Why,  they
are absolutely the same marriages as God made at the very first. For
this blessing of His, which He appointed for the procreation of mankind,
He has not taken away even from men under condemnation, any more than He
has deprived them of their senses and bodily limbs, which are no doubt
His gifts, although they are condemned to die by an already incurred
retribution. This, I say, is the marriage whereof it was said (only
excepting the great sacrament of Christ and the Church, which the
institution prefigured): "For this cause shall a man leave his father
and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be
one flesh." (1) For this, no doubt, was said before sin; and if no one
had sinned, it might have been done without shameful lust. And now,
although it is not done without that, in the body of this death, there
is that nevertheless which does not cease to be done so that a man may
cleave to his wife, and they twain be one flesh. When, therefore, it is
alleged that marriage is now one thing, but might have been another had
no one sinned, this is not predicated of its nature, but of a certain
quality which has undergone a change for the worse. Just as a man is
said to be different, though he is actually the same individual, when he
has changed his manner of life either for the better or the worse; for
as a righteous man he is one thing, and as a sinful man another, though
the man himself be really the same individual. In like manner, marriage
without shameful lust is one thing, and marriage with shameful lust is
another. When, however, a woman is lawfully united to her husband in
accordance with the true constitution of wedlock, and fidelity to what
is due to the flesh is kept free from the sin of adultery, and so
children are lawfully begotten, it is actually the very same marriage
which God instituted at first, although by his primeval inducement to
sin, the devil inflicted a heavy wound, not, indeed, on marriage itself,
but on man and woman by whom marriage is made, by his prevailing on them
to disobey God,--a sin which is requited in the course of the divine
judgment by the reciprocal disobedience of man's own members. United in
this matrimonial state, although they were ashamed of their nakedness,
still they were not by any means able altogether to lose the blessedness
of marriage which God appointed.

CHAP. 55 [XXXIII.]--LUST IS A DISEASE; THEWORD "PASSION" IN THE
ECCLESIASTICAL SENSE.

    He then passes on from those who are united in marriage to those who
are born of it. It is in relation to these that we have to encounter the
most laborious discussions with the new heretics in connection with our
subject. Impelled by some hidden instinct from God, he makes avowals
which go far to untie the whole knot. For in his desire to raise greater
odium against us, because we had said that infants are born in sin even
of lawful wedlock, he makes the following observation: "You assert that
they, indeed, who have not been ever born might possibly have been good;
those, however, who have peopled the world, and for whom Christ died,
you decide to be the work of the devil, born in a disordered state, and
guilty from the beginning. Therefore," he continues, "I have shown that
you are doing nothing else than denying that God is the Creator of the
men who actually exist." I beg to say, that I declare none but God to be
the Creator of all men, however true it be that all are born in sin, and
must perish unless born again. It was, indeed, the sinful corruption
which had been sown in them by the devil's persuasion that became the
means of their being born in sin; not the created nature of which men
are composed. Shameful lust, however, could not excite our members,
except at our own will, if it were not a disease. Nor would even the
lawful and honourable cohabiting of husband and wife raise a blush, with
avoidance of any eye and desire of secrecy, if there were not a diseased
condition about it. Moreover, the apostle would not prohibit the
possession of wives in this disease, did l not disease exist in it. The
phrase in the Greek text, en paqei
epiqumias, is by some rendered in Latin, in morbo
desiderii vel concupiscentiae, in the disease of desire or of
concupiscence; by others, however, in passione concupiscentiae, in the
passion of concupiscence; or however it is found otherwise in different
copies: at any rate, the Latin equivalent passio (passion), especially
in the ecclesiastical use, is usually understood as a term of censure.

CHAP. 56.--THE PELAGIANS ALLOW THAT CHRIST DIED EVEN FOR INFANTS;
JULIANUS SLAYS HIMSELF WITH HIS OWN SWORD.

    But whatever opinion he may entertain about the shame-causing
concupiscence of the flesh, I must request your attention to what he has
said respecting infants (and it is in their behalf that we labour), as
to their being supposed to need a Saviour, if they are not to die
without salvation. I repeat his words once more: "You assert," says he
to me, "that they, indeed, who have not been ever born might possibly
have been good; those, however, who have peopled the world, and for whom
Christ died, you decide to be the work of the devil, born in a
disordered state, and guilty from the very beginning." Would that he
only solved the entire controversy as he unties the knot of this
question! For will he pretend to say that he merely spoke of adults in
this passage? Why, the subject in hand is about infants, about human
beings at their birth; and it is about these that he raises odium
against us, because they are defined by us as guilty from the very
first, because we declare them to be guilty, since Christ died for them.
And why did Christ die for them if they are not guilty? It is entirely
from them, yes, from them, we shall find the reason, wherefore he
thought odium should be raised against me. He asks: "How are infants
guilty, for whom Christ died?" We answer: Nay, how are infants not
guilty, since Christ died for them? This dispute wants a judge to
determine it. Let Christ be the Judge, and let Him tell us what is the
object which has profited by His death? "This is my blood," He says,
"which shall be shed (1) for many for the remission of sins." (2) Let
the apostle, too, be His assessor in the judgment; since even in the
apostle it is Christ Himself that speaks. Speaking of God the Father, he
exclaims: "He who spared. not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us
all!" (3) I suppose that he describes Christ as so delivered up for us
all, that infants in this matter are not separated from ourselves. But
what need is there to dwell on this point, out of which even he no
longer raises a contest? For the truth is, he not only confesses that
Christ died even for infants, but he also reproves us out of this
admission, because we say that these same infants are guilty for whom
Christ died. Now, then, let the apostle, who says that Christ was
delivered up for us all, also tell us why Christ was delivered up for
us. "He was delivered," says he, "for our offences, and rose again for
our justification." (4) If, therefore, as even this man both confesses
and professes, both admits and objects, infants, too, are included
amongst those for whom Christ was delivered up; and if it was for our
sins that Christ was delivered up, even infants, of course, must have
original sins, for whom Christ was delivered up; He must have something
in them to heal, who (as Himself affirms) is not needed as a Physician
by the whole, but by the sick; (5) He must have a reason for saving
them, seeing that He came into the world, as the Apostle Paul says, "to
save sinners;" (1) He must have something in them to remit, who
testifies that He shed His blood "for the remission of sins;" (2) He
must have good reason for seeking them out, who "came," as He says, "to
seek and to save that which was lost;" (3) the Son of man must find in
them something to destroy, who came for the express purpose, as the
Apostle John says, "that He might destroy the works of the devil." (4)
Now to this salvation of infants He must be an enemy, who asserts their
innocence, in such a way as to deny them the medicine which is required
by the hurt and wounded.

             CHAP. 57 [XXXIV.]--THE GREAT SIN OF THE

                           FIRST MAN.

    Now observe what follows, as he goes on to say: "If, before sin, God
created a source from which men should be born, but the devil a source
from which parents were disturbed, then beyond a doubt holiness must be
ascribed to those that are born, and guilt to those that produce. Since,
however, this would be a most manifest condemnation of marriage; remove,
I pray you, this view from the midst of the churches, and really believe
that all things were made by Jesus Christ, and that without Him nothing
was made." (5) He so speaks here, as if he would make us say, that there
is a something in man's substance which was created by the devil. The
devil persuaded evil as a sin; he did not create it as a nature. No
doubt he persuaded nature for man is nature; and therefore by his
persuasion he corrupted it. He who wounds a limb does not, of course,
create it, but he injures it. (6) Those wounds, indeed, which are
inflicted on the body produce lameness in a limb, or difficulty of
motion; but they do not affect the virtue whereby a man becomes
righteous: that wound, however, which has the name of sin, wounds the
very life, which was being righteously lived. This wound was at that
fatal moment of the fall inflicted by the devil to a vastly wider and
deeper extent than are the sins which are known amongst men. Whence it
came to pass, that our nature having then and there been deteriorated by
that great sin of the first man, not only was made a sinner, but also
generates sinners; and yet the very weakness, under which the virtue of
a holy life has drooped and died, is not really nature, but corruption;
precisely as a bad state of health is not a bodily substance or nature,
but disorder; very often, indeed, if not always, the ailing character of
parents is in a certain way implanted, and reappears in the bodies of
their children.

CHAP. 58.--ADAM'S SIN IS DERIVED FROM HIM TO EVERY ONE WHO IS BORN EVEN
OF REGENERATE PARENTS; THE EXAMPLE OF THE OLIVE TREE AND THE WILD OLIVE.

    But this sin, which changed man for the worse in paradise, because
it is far greater than we can form any judgment of, is contracted by
every one at his birth, and is remitted only in the regenerate; and this
derangement is such as to be derived even from parents who have been
regenerated, and in whom the sin is remitted and covered, to the
condemnation of the children born of them, unless these, who were bound
by their first and carnal birth, are absolved by their second and
spiritual birth. Of this wonderful fact the Creator has produced a
wonderful example in the cases of the olive and the wild olive trees, in
which, from the seed not only of the wild olive, but even of the good
olive, nothing but a wild olive springs. Wherefore, although even in
persons whose natural birth is followed by regeneration through grace,
there exists this carnal concupiscence which contends against the law of
the mind, yet, seeing that it is remitted in the remission of sins, it
is no longer accounted to them as sin, nor is it in any degree hurtful,
unless consent is yielded to its motions for unlawful deeds. Their
offspring, however, being begotten not of spiritual concupiscence, but
of carnal, like a wild olive of our race from the good olive, derives
guilt from them by natural birth to such a degree that it cannot be
liberated from that pest except by being born again. How is it, then,
that this man affirms that we ascribe holiness to those who are born,
and guilt to their parents? when the truth rather shows that even if
there has been holiness in the parents, original sin is inherent in
their children, which is abolished in them only if they are born again.

CHAP. 59 [XXXV.]--THE PELAGIANS CAN HARDLY VENTURE TO PLACE
CONCUPISCENCE IN PARADISE BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF SIN.

    This being the case, let him think what he pleases about this
concupiscence of the flesh and about the lust which lords it over the
unchaste, has to be mastered by the chaste, and yet is to be blushed at
both by the chaste and the unchaste; for I see plainly he is much
pleased with it. Let him not hesitate to praise what he is ashamed to
name; let him call it (as he has in fact called it) the vigour of the
members, and let him not be afraid of the honor of chaste ears; let him
designate it the power of the members, and let him not care about the
impudence. Let him say, if his blushes permit him, that if no one had
sinned, this vigour must have flourished like a flower in paradise; nor
would there have been any need to cover that which would have been so
moved that no one should have felt ashamed; rather, with a wife
provided, it would have been ever exercised and never repressed, lest so
great a pleasure should ever be denied to so vast a happiness. Far be it
from being thought that such blessedness could in such a spot fail to
have what it wished, or ever experience in mind or body what it
disliked. And so, should the motion of lust precede men's will, then the
will would immediately follow it. The wife, who ought certainly never to
be absent in this happy state of things, would be urged on by it,
whether about to conceive or already pregnant; and, either a child would
be begotten, or a natural and laudable pleasure would be gratified,--for
perish all seed rather than disappoint the appetite of so good a
concupiscence. Only be sure that the united pair do not apply themselves
to that use of each other which is contrary to nature, then (with so
modest a reservation) let them use, as often as they would have delight,
their organs of generation, created for the purpose. But what if this
very use, which is contrary to nature, should peradventure give them
delight; what if the aforesaid laudable lust should hanker even after
such delight; I wonder whether they should pursue it because it was
sweet, or loathe it because it was base? If they should pursue it to
gratification, what becomes of all thought about honour? If they should
loathe it, where is the peaceful composure of so good a happiness? But
at this point perchance his blushes will awake, and he will say that so
great is the tranquillity of this happy state, and so entire the
orderliness which may have existed in this state of things, that carnal
concupiscence never preceded these persons' will: only whenever they
themselves wished, would it then arise; and only then would they
entertain the wish, when them was need for begetting children; and the
result would be, that no seed would ever be emitted to no purpose, nor
would any embrace ever ensue which would not be followed by conception
and birth; the flesh would obey the will, and concupiscence would vie
with it in subserviency. Well, if he says all this of the imagined happy
state, he must at least be pretty sure that what he describes does not
now exist among men. And even if he will not concede that lust is a
corrupt condition, let him at least allow that through the disobedience
of the man and woman in the happy state the very concupiscence of their
flesh was corrupted, so that what would once be excited obediently and
orderly is now moved disobediently and inordinately, and that to such a
degree that it is not obedient to the will of even chaste-minded
husbands and wives, so that it is excited when it is not wanted; and
whenever it is necessary, it never, indeed, follows their will, but
sometimes too hurriedly, at other times too tardily, exerts its own
movements. Such, then, is the rebellion of this concupiscence which the
primitive pair received for their own disobedience, and transfused by
natural descent to us. It certainly was not at their bidding, but in
utter disorder, that it was excited, when they I covered their members,
which at first were worthy to be gloried in, but had then become a
ground of shame.

CHAP. 60.--LET NOT THE PELAGIANS INDULGE THEMSELVES IN A CRUEL DEFENCE
OF INFANTS.

    As I said, however, let him entertain what views he likes of this
lust; let him proclaim it as he pleases, praise it as much as he chooses
(and he pleases much, as several of his extracts show), that the
Pelagians may gratify themselves, if not with its uses, at all events
with its praises, as many of them as fail to enjoy the limitation of
continence enjoined in wedlock. Only let him spare the infants, so as
not to praise their condition uselessly, and defend them cruelly.  Let
him not declare them to be safe; let him suffer them to come, not,
indeed, to Pelagius for eulogy, but to Christ for salvation. For, that
this book may be now brought to a termination, since the dissertation of
this man is ended, which was written on the short paper you sent me, I
will close with his last words: "Really believe that all things were
made by Jesus Christ, and that without Him nothing was made." (1) Let
him grant that Jesus is Jesus even to infants; and as he confesses that
all things were made by Him, in that He is God the Word, so let him
acknowledge that infants, too, are saved by Him in that He is Jesus; let
him, I say, do this if he would be a catholic Christian. For thus it is
written in the Gospel: "And they shall call His name Jesus; for He shall
save His people from their sins" (2) Jesus, because Jesus is in Latin
Salvator, "Saviour." He shall, indeed, save His people; and amongst His
people surely there are infants. "From their sins" shall He save them;
in infants, too, therefore, are there original sins, on account of which
He can be Jesus, that is, Saviour, even unto them.

 A TREATISE ON THE SOUL AND ITS ORIGIN,

             BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO;

                         IN FOUR BOOKS,

                 WRITTEN TOWARDS THE END OF 419.

                           BOOK I. (1)

                 ADDRESSED TO RENATUS, THE MONK.

ON RECEIVING FROM RENATUS THE TWO BOOKS OF VINCENTIUS VICTOR, WHO
DISAPPROVED OF AUGUSTIN'S OPINION TOUCHING THE NATURE OF THE SOUL, AND
OF HIS HESITATION IN RESPECT OF ITS ORIGIN, AUGUSTIN POINTS OUT HOW THE
YOUNG OBJECTOR, IN HIS SELF-CONCEIT IN AIMING TO DECIDE ON SO ABSTRUSE A
SUBJECT, HAD FALLEN INTO INSUFFERABLE MISTAKES. HE THEN PROCEEDS TO SHOW
THAT THOSE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE BY WHICH VICTOR THOUGHT HE COULD PROVE
THAT HUMAN SOULS ARE NOT DERIVED BY PROPAGATION, BUT ARE BREATHED BY GOD
AFRESH INTO EACH MAN AT BIRTH, ARE AMBIGUOUS, AND INADEQUATE FOR THE
CONFIRMATION OF THIS OPINION OF HIS.

CHAP. I [I.]--RENATUS HAD DONE HIM A KINDNESS BY SENDING HIM THE BOOKS
WHICH HAD BEEN ADDRESSED TO HIM.

    YOUR sincerity towards us, dearest brother Renatus, and your
brotherly kindness, and the affection of mutual love between us, we
already had clear proof of; but now you have afforded us a still clearer
proof, by sending me two books, written by a person whom I knew, indeed,
nothing of,--though he was not on that account to be despised,--called
Vincentius Victor (for in such form did I find his name placed at the
head of his work): this you did in the summer of last year; but owing to
my absence from home, it was the end of autumn before they found their
way to me. How, indeed, would you be likely with your very great
affection for me to fail either in means or inclination to bring under
my notice any writings of the kind, by whomsoever composed, if they fell
into your hands, even if they were addressed to some one else? How much
less likely, when my own name was mentioned and read--and that in a
context of gainsaying some words of mine, which I had published in
certain little treatises? Now you have done all this in the way you were
sure to act as my very sincere and beloved friend.

CHAP. 2 [II.] -- HE RECEIVES WITH A KINDLY AND PATIENT FEELING THE BOOKS
OF A YOUNG AND INEXPERIENCED MAN WHO WROTE AGAINST HIM IN A TONE OF
ARROGANCE. VINCENTIUS VICTOR CONVERTED FROM THE SECT OF THE ROGATIANS,

    I am somewhat pained, however, at being thus far less understood by
your Holiness than I should like to be; forasmuch as you supposed that I
should so receive your communication, as if you did me an injury, by
making known to me what another had done. You may see, indeed, how far
this feeling is from my mind, in that I have no complaint to make of
having suffered any wrong even from him. For, when he entertained views
different from my own, was he bound to preserve silence? It ought, no
doubt, to be even pleasant to me, that he broke silence in such a way as
to put it in our power to read what he had to say. He ought, I certainly
think, to have written simply to me, rather than to another concerning
me; but as he was unknown to me, he did not venture to intrude
personally on me in refuting my words. He thought there was no necessity
for applying to me in a matter on which he seemed to himself least of
all liable to be doubted,(1) but to be holding a perfectly well-known
and certain opinion. He moreover, acted in obedience to a friend of his
by whom he tells us he was compelled to write. And if he expressed any
sentiment during the controversy which was contumelious to me, I would
prefer supposing that he did this, not with any wish to treat me with
incivility, but from the necessity of thinking differently from me. For
in all cases where a person's animus towards one is indeterminate and
unknown, I think it better to suppose the existence of the kindlier
motive, than to find fault with an undiscovered one. Perhaps, too, he
acted from love to me, as knowing that what he had written might
possibly reach me; being at the same time unwilling that I should be in
error on such points as he especially thinks himself to be free from
error regarding. I ought, therefore, to be grateful for his kindness,
although I feel obliged to disapprove of his opinion. Accordingly, as
regards the points on which he does not entertain right views, he
appears to me to deserve gentle correction rather than severe
disapproval; more especially because, if I am rightly informed, he has
lately become a catholic--a matter in which he is to be congratulated.
For he has freed  himself from the schism and errors of the Donatists
(or rather the Rogatists) in which he was previously implicated; and if
he understands the catholic verity as he ought, we may really rejoice at
his conversion.

CHAP. 3 [III]--THE ELOQUENCE OF VINCENTIUS, ITS DANGERS AND ITS
TOLERABLENESS.

    For he has an eloquence by which he is able to explain what he
thinks. He must, therefore, be dealt with accordingly; and we must hope
that he may entertain right sentiments, and that he may not turn useless
things into objects of desire; that he may not seem to have propounded
as true whatever he may have expressed with eloquence. But in his very
outspokenness he may have much to correct, and to prune of redundant
verbiage. And this characteristic of his has actually given offence to
you, who are a person of gravity, as your own writings indicate. This
fault, however, is either easily corrected, or, if it be resorted to
with fondness by light minds, and borne with by serious ones, it is not
attended with any injury to their faith. For we have already amongst us
men who are frothy in speech, but sound in the faith. We need not then
despair that this quality even in him (it might be endurable, however,
even if it proved permanent) may be tempered and cleansed--in fact, may
be either extended or recalled to an entire and solid criterion;
especially as he is said to be young, so that diligence may supply to
him whatever defect his inexperience may possess, and ripeness of age
may digest what crude loquacity finds indigestible. The troublesome,
dangerous, and pernicious thing is, when folly is set off by the
commendation which is accorded to eloquence, and when a poisonous
draught is drunk out of a precious goblet.

CHAP. 4 [IV.]--THE ERRORS CONTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF VINCENTIUS VICTOR.
HE SAYS THAT THE SOUL COMES FROM GOD, BUT WAS NOT MADE EITHER OUT OF
NOTHING OR OUT OF ANY CREATED THING.

    I will now proceed to point out what things are chiefly to be
avoided in his contentious statement. He says that the soul was made,
indeed, by God, but that it is not a portion of God or of the nature Of
God,--which is an entirely true statement. When, however, he refuses to
allow that it is made out of nothing, and mentions no other created
thing out of which it was made; and makes God its author, in such a
sense that He must be supposed to have made it, neither out of any
non-existing things, that is, out of nothing, nor out of anything which
exists other than God, but out of His very self: he is little aware that
in the revolution of his thoughts he has come back to the position which
he thinks he has avoided, even that the soul is nothing else than the
nature of God; and consequently that there is an actual something made
out of the nature of God by the self-same God, for the making of which
the material of which He makes it is His own very self who makes it; and
that thus God's nature is changeable, and by being changed for the worse
the very nature of God Himself incurs condemnation at the hands of the
self-same God! How far all this is from being fit for your intelligent
faith to suppose, how alien it is from the heart of a catholic, and how
much to be avoided, you can readily see. For the soul is either so made
out of the breath, or God's breath is so made into it, that it was not
created out of Himself, but by Himself out of nothing. It is not,
indeed, like the case of a human being, when he breathes: he cannot form
a breath out of nothing, but he restores to the air the breath which he
inhaled out of it. We may in some such manner suppose that certain airs
surrounded the Divine Being, and that He inhaled a particle of it by
breathing, and exhaled it again by respiration, when He breathed into
man's face, and so formed for him a soul. If this were the process, it
could not have been out of His very self, but out of the circumambient
airy matter, that what He breathed forth must have arisen. Far be it,
however, from us to say, that the Almighty could not have made the
breath of life out of nothing, by which man might become a living soul;
and to crowd ourselves into such straits, as that we must either think
that something already existed other than Himself, out of which He
formed breath, or else suppose that He formed out of Himself that which
we see was made subject to change. Now, whatever is out of Himself, must
necessarily be of the self-same nature as Himself, and therefore
immutable: but the soul (as all allow) is mutable. Therefore it is not
out of Him, because it is not immutable, as He is. If, however, it was
not made of anything else, it was undoubtedly made out of nothing--but
by Himself

CHAP. 5 [V.]--ANOTHER OF VICTOR'S ERRORS, THAT THE SOUL IS CORPOREAL.

    But as regards his contention, "that the soul is not spirit, but
body," what else can he mean to make out, than that we are composed, not
of soul and body, but of two or even three bodies? For inasmuch as he
says that we consist of spirit, soul and body, and asserts that all the
three are bodies; it follows, that he supposes us  to be made up of
three bodies. How absurd this conclusion is, I think ought rather to be
demonstrated to him than to you. But this is not an intolerable error on
the part of a person who has not yet discovered that there is in
existence a something, which, though it be not corporeal, yet may wear
somewhat of the similitude of a body.

CHAP.  6  [VI.] --ANOTHER  ERROR  OUT  OF  HIS SECOND BOOK, TO THE
EFFECT, THAT THE SOUL  DESERVED TO BE POLLUTED BY THE BODY.

    But he is plainly past endurance in what he says in his second book,
when he endeavours to  solve a very difficult question on original sin,

how it belongs to body and soul, if the soul is not derived by parental
descent but is breathed afresh by God into a man. Striving to explain
this troublesome and profound point, he thus expresses his view:
"Through the flesh the soul fitly recovers its primitive condition,
which it seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh, in order that
it may begin to be regenerated by the very flesh by which it had
deserved to be polluted." You observe how this person, having been so
bold as to undertake what exceeds his powers, has fallen down such a
precipice as to say, that the soul deserved to be defiled by the body;
although he could in no wise declare whence it drew on itself this
desert, before it put on flesh. For if it first had from the flesh its
desert of sin, let him tell us (if he can) whence (previous to sin) it
derived its desert to be contaminated by the flesh. For this desert,
which projected it into sinful flesh to be polluted by it, it of course
had either from itself, or, which is much more offensive to our mind,
from God. It certainly could not, previous to its being invested with
the flesh, have received from that flesh that ill desert by reason of
which it was projected into the flesh, in order to be defiled by it.
Now, if it had the ill desert from its own self, how did it get it,
seeing that it did no sin previous to its assumption of flesh? But if it
be alleged that it had the ill desert from God, then, I ask, who could
listen to such blasphemy? Who could endure it? Who could permit it to be
alleged with impunity? For the question which arises here, remember, is
not, what was the ill desert which adjudged the soul to be condemned
after it became incarnate? but what was its ill desert prior to the
flesh, which condemned it to the investiture of the flesh, that it might
be thereby polluted ? Let him explain this to us, if he can, seeing that
he has dared to say that the soul deserved to be defiled by the flesh.

CHAP. 7 [VII.] -- VICTOR ENTANGLES HIMSELF IN AN EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT
QUESTION. GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE IS NO CAUSE OF SIN.

    In another passage, also, on proposing for explanation the very same
question in which he had entangled himself, he says, speaking in the
person of certain objectors: "Why, they ask, did God inflict upon the
soul so unjust a punishment as to be willing to relegate it into a body,
when, by reason of its association with the flesh, that begins to be
sinful which could not have been sinful?" Now, amidst the reefy sea of
such a question, it was surely his duty to beware of shipwreck; nor to
commit himself to dangers which he could not hope to escape by passing
over them, and where his only chance of safety lay in putting back again
--in a word, by repentance. He tries to free himself by means of the
foreknowledge of God, but to no purpose. For God's foreknowledge only
marks beforehand those sinners whom He purposes to heal. For if He
liberates from sin those souls which He Himself involved in sin when
innocent and pure, He then heals a wound which Himself inflicted on us,
not which He found in us. May God, however, forbid it, and may it be
altogether far from us to say, that when God cleanses the souls of
infants by the layer of regeneration, He then corrects evils which He
Himself made for them, when He commingled them, which had no sin before,
with sinful flesh, that they might be contaminated by its original sin.
As regards, however, the souls which this calumniator alleges to have
deserved pollution by the flesh, he is quite unable to tell us how it is
they deserved so vast an evil, previous to their connection with the
flesh.

CHAP. 8 [VIII.]--VICTOR'S ERRONEOUS OPINION, THAT THE SOUL DESERVED TO
BECOME SINFUL.

    Vainly supposing, then, that he was able to solve this question from
the foreknowledge of God, he keeps floundering on, and says: "If the
soul deserved to be sinful which could not have been sinful, yet neither
did it remain in sin, because, as prefigured in Christ, it was not bound
to be in sin, even as it was unable to be." Now what can he mean when he
says, "which could not have been sinful," or "was unable to be in sin,"
except, as I suppose, this, if it did not come into the flesh? For, of
course, it could not have been sinful through original sin, or have been
at all involved in original sin, except through the flesh, if it is not
derived from the parent. We see it, then, liberated from sin through
grace, but we do not see how it deserved to be involved in sin. What,
then, is the meaning of these words of his, "If the soul deserved to be
sinful, yet neither did it remain in sin"? For if I were to ask him, why
it did not remain in sin, he would very properly answer, Because the
grace of Christ delivered it therefrom. Since, then, he tells us how it
came to pass that an infant's soul was liberated from its sinfulness,
let him further tell us how it happened that it deserved to be sinful.

CHAP. 9.--VICTOR UTTERLY UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SINLESS SOUL DESERVED
TO BE MADE SINFUL.

    But what does lie mean by that, which in his introduction he says
has befallen him? For previous to proposing that question of his, and as
introducing it, he affirms: "There are other opprobrious expressions
underlying the querulous murmurings of those who rail at us; and, shaken
about as in a hurricane, we are again and again dashed amongst enormous
rocks." Now, if I were to express myself about him in this style, he
would probably be angry. The words are his; and after premising them, he
propounded his question, by way of showing us the very rocks against
which he struck and was  wrecked. For to such lengths was he carried,
and against such frightful reefs was he borne, drifted, and struck, that
his escape was a perfect impossibility without a retreat--a correction,
in short, of what he had said; since he was unable to show by what
desert the soul was made sinful; though he was not afraid to say, that
previous to any sin of its own it had deserved to become sinful. Now,
who deserves, without committing any sin, so immense a punishment as to
be conceived in the sin of another, before leaving his mother's womb,
and then to be no longer free from sin? But from this punishment the
free grace of God delivers the souls of such infants as are regenerated
in Christ, with no previous merits of their own--"otherwise grace is no
grace."(1) With regard, then, to this person, who is so vastly
intelligent, and who in the great depth of his wisdom is displeased at
our hesitation, which, if not well informed, is at all events
circumspect, let him tell us, if he can, what the merit was which
brought the soul into such a punishment, from which grace delivers it
without any merit. Let him speak, and, if he can, defend his assertion
with some show of reason. I would not, indeed, require so much of him,
if he had not himself declared that the soul deserved to become sinful.
Let him tell us what the desert was--whether good desert or evil? If
good, how could well-deserving lead to evil? If evil, whence could arise
any ill desert previous to the commission of any sin? I have also to
remark, that if there be a good desert, then the liberation of the soul
would not be of free grace, but it would be due to the previous merit,
and thus "grace would be no more grace." If there be, however, an evil
desert, then I ask what it is. Is it true that the soul has come into
the flesh; and that it would not have so come unless He in whom there is
no sin had Himself sent it? Never, therefore, except by floundering
worse and worse, will he contrive to set up this view of his, in which
he predicates of the soul that it deserved to be sinful. In the case of
those infants, too, in whose baptism original sin is washed away, he
found something to say after a fashion,--to the effect, that being
involved in the sin of another could not possibly have been detrimental
to them, predestinated as they were to eternal life in the foreknowledge
of God. This might admit of a tolerably good sense, if he had not
entangled himself in that formula of his, in which he asserts that the
soul deserved to be sinful: from this difficulty he can only extricate
himself by revoking his words, with regret at having expressed them.

 CHAP. 10 [IX.l--ANOTHER ERROR OF VICTOR'S, THAT INFANTS DYING
UNBAPTIZED MAY ATTAIN TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. ANOTHER, THAT THE
SACRIFICE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST MUST BE OFFERED FOR INFANTS WHO DIE
BEFORE THEY ARE BAPTIZED.

    But when he wished to answer with respect, however, to those infants
who are prevented by death from being first baptized in Christ, he was
so bold as to promise them not only paradise, but also the kingdom of
heaven,--finding no way else of avoiding the necessity of saying that
God condemns to eternal death innocent souls which, without any previous
desert of sin, He introduces into sinful flesh. He saw, however, to some
extent what evil he was giving utterance to, in implying that without
any grace of Christ the souls of infants are redeemed to everlasting
life and the kingdom of heaven, and that in their case original sin may
be cancelled without Christ's baptism, in which is effected the
forgiveness of sins: observing all this, and into what a depth he had
plunged in his sea of shipwreck, he says, "I am of opinion that for
them, indeed, constant oblations and sacrifices must be continually
offered up by holy priests." You may here behold another danger, out of
which he will never escape except by regret and a recall of his words.
For who can offer up the body of Christ for any except for those who are
members of Christ? Moreover, from the time when He said, "Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven;"(1) and again, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find
it; "(2) no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by
baptism in Christ, or death for Christ.(3)

CHAP. II.--MARTYRDOM FOR CHRIST SUPPLIES THE PLACE OF BAPTISM. THE FAITH
OF THE THIEF WHO WAS CRUCIFIED ALONG WITH CHRIST TAKEN AS MARTYRDOM AND
HENCE FOR BAPTISM.

    Accordingly, the thief, who was no follower of the Lord previous to
the cross, but His confessor upon the cross, from whose case a
presumption is sometimes taken, or attempted, against the sacrament of
baptism, is reckoned by St. Cyprian(4) among the martyrs who are
baptized in their own blood, as happens to many unbaptized persons in
times of hot persecution, For to the fact that he confessed the
crucified Lord so much weight is attributed and so much availing value
assigned by Him who knows how to weigh and value such evidence, as if he
had been crucified for the Lord. Then, indeed, his faith on the cross
flourished when that of the disciples failed, and that without recovery
if it had not bloomed again by the resurrection of Him before the terror
of whose death it had drooped. They despaired of Him when dying,--he
hoped when joined with Him in dying; they fled from  the author of
life,--he prayed to his companion in punishment; they grieved as for the
death of a man,--he believed that after death He was to be a king; they
forsook the sponsor of their salvation,--he honoured the companion of
His cross. There was discovered in him the full measure of a martyr, who
then believed in Christ when they fell away who were destined to be
martyrs. All this, indeed, was manifest to the eyes of the Lord, who at
once bestowed so great felicity on one who, though not baptized, was yet
washed clean in the blood, as it were, of martyrdom. But even of
ourselves, who cannot reflect with how much faith, how much hope, how
milch charity he might have undergone death for Christ when living, who
begged life of Him when dying? Besides all this, there is the
circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then
believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as
in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of
the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove,
since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his
condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may
prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own
precept be taken from this example of the thief; and let no one promise
for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of
heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and
where he pleases. For this is what the heresy of Pelagius promised them:
he neither fears damnation for infants, whom he does not regard as
having any original sin, nor does he give them the hope of the kingdom
of heaven, since they do not approach to the sacrament of baptism. As
for this man, however, although he acknowledges that infants are
involved in original sin, he yet boldly promises them, even without
baptism, the kingdom of heaven. This even the Pelagians had not the
boldness to do, though asserting infants to be absolutely without sin.
See, then, what a network of presumptuous opinion he entangles, unless
he regret having committed such views to writing.

CHAP. 12 [X.]--DINOCRATES, BROTHER OF THE MARTYR ST. PERPETUA, IS SAID
TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED FROM THE STATE OF CONDEMNATION BY THE PRAYERS OF
THE SAINT.

           Concerning Dinocrates, however, the brother of St. Perpetua,
there is no record in the canonical Scripture; nor does the saint
herself, or whoever it was that wrote the account, say that the boy, who
had died at the age of seven years, died without baptism; in his behalf
she is believed to nave had, when her martyrdom was imminent, her
prayers effectually heard that he should be removed from the penalties
of the lost to rest. Now, boys at that time of life are able both to
lie, and, saying the truth, both to confess and deny. Therefore, when
they are baptized they say the Creed, and answer in their behalf to such
questions as are proposed to them in examination. Who can tell, then,
whether that boy, after baptism, in a time of persecution was estranged
from Christ to idolatry by an impious father, and on that account
incurred mortal condemnation, from which he was only delivered for
Christ's sake, given to the prayers of his sister when she was at the
point of death?

CHAP. 13 [XI.]--THE SACRIFICE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST WILL NOT
AVAIL FOR UNBAPTIZED PERSONS, AND CAN NOT BE OFFERED FOR THE MAJORITY OF
THOSE WHO DIE UNBAPTIZED.

    But even if it be conceded to this man (what cannot by any means be
allowed with safety to the catholic faith and the rule of the Church),
that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ may be offered for
unbaptized persons of every age, as if they were to be helped by this
kind of piety on the part of their friends to reaching the kingdom of
heaven: what will he have to say to our objections respecting the
thousands of infants who are born of impious parents and never fall, by
any mercy of God or man, into the hands of pious friends, and who depart
from that wretched life of theirs at their most tender age without the
washing of regeneration? Let him tell us, if he only can, how it is that
those souls deserved to be made sinful to such a degree as, certainly
never afterwards to be delivered from sin. For if I ask him why they
deserve to be condemned if they are not baptized, he will rightly answer
me: On account of original sin. If I then inquire whence they derived
original sin, he will answer, From sinful flesh, of course. If I go on
to ask why they deserved to be condemned to a sinful flesh, seeing they
had done no evil before they came in the flesh, and to be so condemned
to undergo the contagion of the sin of another, that neither baptism
shall regenerate them, born as they are in sin, nor sacrifices expiate
them in their pollution: let him find something to reply to this For in
such circumstances and of such parents have these infants been born, or
are still being born, that it is not possible for them to be reached
with such help. Here, at any rate, all argument is lacking. Our question
is not, why souls have deserved to be condemned subsequently to their
consorting with sinful flesh? But we ask, how it is that souls have
deserved to be condemned to undergo at all this association with sinful
flesh, seeing that they have no sin previous to this association. There
is no room for him to say: "It was no detriment to them that they shared
for a season the contagion of another's sin, since in the prescience of
God redemption had been provided for them." For we are now speaking of
those to whom no redemption brings help, since they depart from the body
before they are baptized. Nor is there any propriety in his saying: "The
souls which baptism does not cleanse, the many sacrifices which are
offered up for them will cleanse. God foreknew this, and willed that
they should for a little while be implicated in the sins of another
without incurring eternal damnation, and with the hope of eternal
happiness." For we are now speaking of those whose birth among impious
persons and of impious parents could by no possibility find such
defences and helps. And even if these could be applied, they would, it
is certain, be unable to benefit any who are unbaptized; just as the
sacrifices which he has mentioned out of the book of the Maccabees could
be of no use for the sinful dead for whom they were offered, inasmuch as
they had not been circumcised.(1)

CHAP. 14.--VICTOR'S DILEMMA: HE MUST EITHER SAY ALL INFANTS ARE SAVED,
OR ELSE GOD SLAYS THE INNOCENT.

    Let him, then, find an answer, if he can, when the question is asked
of him, why it was that the soul, without any sin whatever, either
original or personal, deserved so to be condemned to undergo the
original sin of another as to be unable to be delivered from it; let him
see which he will choose of two alternatives: Either to say that even
the souls of dying infants who depart hence without the washing of
regeneration, and for whom no sacrifice of the Lord's body is offered,
are absolved from the bond of original sin--although the apostle teaches
that "from one all go into condemnation,"(2)--all, that is, of course,
to whom grace does not find its way to help, in order that by One all
might escape into redemption. Or else to say that souls which have no
sin, either their own or original, and are in every respect innocent,
simple, and pure, are punished with eternal damnation by the righteous
God when He inserts them Himself into sinful flesh without any
deliverance therefrom.

 CHAP. 15 [XII.]--GOD DOES NOT JUDGE ANY ONE FOR WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE 
DONE IF HIS LIFE HAD BEEN PROLONGED, BUT SIMPLY FOR THE DEEDS HE
ACTUALLY COMMITS.

    For my own part, indeed, I affirm that neither of the alternative
cases ought to be admitted, nor that third opinion which would have it
that souls sinned in some other state previous to the flesh, and so
deserved to be condemned to the flesh; for the apostle has most
distinctly stated that "the children being not yet born, had done
neither good nor evil."(1) So it is evident that infants can have
contracted none but original sin to require remission of sins. Nor,
again, that fourth position, that the souls of infants who will die
without baptism are by the righteous God banished and condemned to
sinful flesh, since He foreknew that they would lead evil lives if they
grew old enough for the use of free will. But this not even he has been
daring enough to affirm, though embarrassed in such perplexities. On the
contrary, he has declared, briefly indeed, yet manifestly, against this
vain opinion in these words: "God would have been unrighteous if He had
willed to judge any man yet unborn, who had done nothing whatever of his
own free will." This was his answer when treating a question in
opposition to those persons who ask why God made man, when in His
foreknowledge He knew that he would not be good? He would be judging a
man before he was born if He had been unwilling to create him because He
knew beforehand that he would not turn out good. And there can be no
doubt about it, even as this person himself thought, that the proper
course would be for the Almighty to judge a man for his works when
accomplished, not for such as might be foreseen, nor such as might be
permitted to be done some tithe or other. For if the sins which a man
would have committed if he were alive are condemned in him when dead,
even when they have not been committed, no benefit is conferred on him
when he is taken away that no wickedness might change his mind; inasmuch
as judgment will be given upon him according to the wickedness which
might have developed in him, not according to the uprightness which was
actually found in him. Nor will any man possibly be safe who dies after
baptism, because even after baptism men may, I will not say sin in some
way or other, but actually go so far as to commit apostasy. What then?
Suppose a man who has been taken away after baptism should, if he had
lived, have become an apostate, are we to think that no benefit was
conferred even upon him in that he was removed and was saved from the
misery of his mind being changed by wickedness? And are we to imagine
that he will have to be judged, by reason of God's foreknowledge, as an
apostate, and not as a faithful member of Christ? How much better, to be
sure, would it have been--if sins are punished not as they have been
committed or contemplated by the human agent, but foreknown and to
happen in the cognizance of the Almighty--if the first pair had been
cast forth from paradise previous to their fall, and so sin have been
prevented in so holy and blessed a place! What, too, is to be said about
the entire nullification of foreknowledge itself, when what is foreknown
is not to happen? How, indeed, can that be rightly called the prescience
of something to be, which in fact will not come to pass? And how are
sins punished which are none, that is to say, which are not committed
before the assumption of flesh, since life itself is not yet begun; nor
after the assumption, since death has prevented?

CHAP. 16 [XIII.]--DIFFICULTY IN THE OPINION WHICH MAINTAINS THAT SOULS
ARE NOT BY PROPAGATION.

    This means, then, of settling the point whereby the soul was sent
into the flesh until what time it should be delivered from the
flesh,--seeing that the soul of an infant, which has not grown old
enough for the will to become free, is the case supposed,--makes no
discovery of the reason why condemnation should overtake it without the
reception of baptism, except the reason of original sin. Owing to this
sin, we do not deny that the soul is righteously condemned, because for
sin God's righteous law has appointed punishment. But then we ask, why
the soul has been made to undergo this sinful state, if it is not
derived from that one primeval soul which sinned in the first father of
the human race. Wherefore, if God does not condemn the innocent,--if He
does not make guilty those whom He sees to be innocent,--and if nothing
liberates souls from either original sins or personal ones but Christ's
baptism in Christ's Church,--and if sins, before they are committed, and
much more when they have never been committed, cannot be condemned by
any righteous law: then this writer cannot adduce any of these four
cases; he must, if he can, explain, in respect to the souls of infants,
which, as they quit life without baptism, are sent into condemnation, by
what desert of theirs it is that they, without having ever sinned, are
consigned to a sinful flesh, there to find the sin which is to secure
their just condemnation. Moreover, if he shrinks from these four cases
which sound doctrine condemns,--that is to say, if he has not the
courage to maintain that souls, when they are even without sin, are made
sinful by God, or that they are freed from the original sin that is in
them without Christ's sacrament, or that they committed sin in some
other state before they were sent into the flesh, or that sins which
they never committed are condemned in them,--if, I say, he has not the
courage to tell us these things because they really do not deserve to be
mentioned but should affirm that infants do not inherit original sin,
and have no reason why they should be condemned should they depart hence
without receiving the sacrament of regeneration, he will without doubt,
to his own condemnation, run into the damnable heresy of Pelagius. To
avoid this, how much better is it for him to share my hesitation about
the soul's origin, without daring to affirm that which he cannot
comprehend by human reason nor defend by divine authority! So shall he
not be obliged to utter foolishness, whilst he is afraid to confess his
ignorance.

CHAP. 17 [XIV.]--HE SHOWS THAT THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ADDUCED BY
VICTOR DO NOT PROVE THAT SOULS ARE MADE BY GOD IN SUCH A WAY AS NOT TO
BE DERIVED BY PROPAGATION: FIRST PASSAGE.

    Here, perhaps, he may say that his opinion is backed by divine
authority, since he supposes that he proves by passages of the Holy
Scriptures that souls are not made by God by way of propagation, but
that they are by distinct acts of creation breathed afresh into each
individual. Let him prove this if he can, and I will allow that I have
learnt from him what I was trying to find out with great earnestness.
But he must go in quest of other defences, which, perhaps, he will not
find, for he has not proved his point by the passages which he has thus
far advanced. For all he has applied to the subject are to some extent
undoubtedly suitable, but they afford only doubtful demonstration to the
point which he raises respecting the soul's origin. For it is certain
that God has given to man breath and spirit, as the prophet testifies:
"Thus saith the Lord, who made the heaven, and rounded the earth, and
all that is therein; who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit
to them that walk over it."(1) This passage he wishes to be taken in his
own sense, which he is defending; so that the words, "who giveth breath
to the people," may be understood as implying that He creates souls for
people not by propagation, but by insufflation of new souls in every
case. Let him, then, boldly maintain at this rate that He does not give
us flesh, on the ground that our flesh derives its original from our
parents. In the instance, too, which the apostle adduces, "God giveth it
a body as it hath pleased Him,''(2) let him deny, if he dares, that corn
springs from corn, and grass from grass, from the seed, each after its
kind. And if he dares not deny this, how does he know in what sense it
is said, "He giveth breath to the people"?--whether by derivation from
parents, or by fresh breathing into each individual?

          CHAP. 18.--BY "BREATH" IS SIGNIFIED SOMETIMES

                        THE HOLY SPIRIT.

    How, again, does he know whether the repetition of the idea in the
sentence, "who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them
that walk over it," may not be understood of only one thing under two
expressions, and may not mean, not the life or spirit whereby human
nature lives, but the Holy Spirit? For if by the "breath" the Holy Ghost
could not be signified, the Lord would not, when He "breathed upon" His
disciples after His resurrection, have said, "Receive ye the Holy
Ghost." (3) Nor would it have been thus written in the Acts of the
Apostles, "Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as if a mighty
breath were borne in upon them; and there appeared unto them cloven
tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were
all filled with the Holy Ghost."(4) Suppose, now, that it was this which
the prophet foretold in the words, "who giveth breath unto the people
upon it;" and then, as an exposition of what he had designated "breath,"
he went on to say, "and spirit to them that walk over it." Surely this
prediction was most manifestly fulfilled when they were all filled with
the Holy Ghost. If, however, the term "people" is not yet applicable to
the one hundred and twenty persons who were then assembled together in
one place, at all events, when the number of believers amounted to four
or five thousand, who when they were baptized received the Holy
Ghost,(5) can any doubt that the recipients of the Holy Ghost were then
"the people," even "the men walking in the earth"? For that spirit which
is given to man as appertaining to his nature, whether it be given by
propagation or be inbreathed as something new to individuals (and I do
not determine which of these two modes ought to be affirmed, at least
until one of the two can be clearly ascertained beyond a doubt), is not
given to men when they "walk over the earth," but whilst they are still
shut up in their mother's womb. "He gave breath, therefore, to the
people upon the earth, and spirit to them that walk over it," when many
became believers together, and were together filled with the Holy Ghost.
And He gives Him to His people, although not to all at the same time,
but to every one in His own time, until, by departing from this life,
and by coming into it, the entire number of His people be fulfilled. In
this passage of Holy Scripture, therefore, breath is not one thing, and
spirit another thing; but there is a repetition of one and the same
idea. Just as "He that sitteth in the heavens" is not one, and "the
Lord" is not another; nor, again, is it one thing "to laugh," and
another thing "to hold in derision;" but there is only a repetition of
the same meaning in the passage where we read, "He that sitteth in the
heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."(1) So, in
precisely the same manner, in the passage, "I will give Thee the heathen
for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy
possession,"(2) it is certainly not meant that "inheritance" is one
thing, and "possession" another thing; nor that "the heathen" means one
thing, and "the uttermost parts of the earth" another; there is only a
repetition of the self-same thing. He will, indeed, discover innumerable
expressions of this sort in the sacred writings, if he will only
attentively consider what he reads.(3)

              CHAP. 19.--THE MEANING OF "BREATH" IN

                           SCRIPTURE.

    The term, however, that is used in the Greek version,
pnoh, is variously rendered in Latin: sometimes by
flatus, breath; sometimes by spiritus, spirit; sometimes by inspiratio,
inspiration. This term occurs in the Greek editions of the passage which
we are now reviewing, "Who giveth breath to the people upon it," the
word for breath being pnoh.(4) The same word is used in
the narrative where man was endued with life: "And God breathed upon his
face the breath of life."(5) Again, in the psalm the same term occurs:
"Let every thing that hath spirit praise the Lord."(6) It is the same
word also in the Book of Job: "The inspiration of the Almighty is that
which teaches." (7) The translator refused the word flatus, breath, for
adspiratio, inspiration, although he had before him the very term
pnoh, which occurs in the text of the prophet which we
are considering. We can hardly doubt, I think. that in this passage of
Job the Holy Ghost is signified. The question discussed was concerning
wisdom, whence it comes to men: "It cometh not from number of years; but
the Spirit is in mortals, and the inspiration of the Almighty is that
which teaches."[8] By this repetition of terms it may be quite
understood that he did not speak of man's own spirit in the clause, "The
Spirit is in mortals." He wanted to show whence men have wisdom,--that
it is not from their own selves; so by using a duplicate expression he
explains his idea; "The inspiration of the Almighty is that which
teaches." Similarly, in another passage of the same book, he says, "The
understanding of my lips shall meditate purity. The divine Spirit is
that which formed me, and the breath of the Almighty is that which
teacheth me."(9) Here, likewise, what he calls adspiratio, or
"inspiration," is in Greek pnoh, the same word which is
translated flatus, "breath," in the passage quoted from the prophet.
Therefore, although it is rash to deny that the passage, "Who giveth
breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it," has
reference to the soul or spirit of man,--although the Holy Ghost may
with greater credibility be understood as referred to in the passage:
yet I ask on what ground anybody can boldly determine that the prophet
meant in these words to intimate that the soul or spirit whereby our
nature possesses vitality [is not given to us by God through the process
of propagation?](10) Of course if the prophet had very plainly said,
"Who giveth soul to the people upon earth," it still would remain to be
asked whether God Himself gives it from an origin in the preceding
generation, just as He gives the body out of such prior material, and
that not only to men or cattle, but also to the seed of corn, or to any
other body whatever. just as it pleases Him; or whether He bestows it by
inbreathing as a new gift to each individual, as the first man received
it from Him?

               CHAP. 20.--OTHER WAYS OF TAKING THE

                            PASSAGE.

    There are also some persons who understand the prophet's words, "He
gave breath to the people upon it," that is to say, upon the earth, as
if the word "breath," flatus, were simply equivalent to "soul," anima;
while they construe the next clause, "and spirit to them that walk over
it," as referring to the Holy Ghost; and they suppose that the same
order is observed by the prophet that is mentioned by the apostle: "That
was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and
afterward that which is spiritual."(11) Now from this view of the
prophet's words an elegant interpretation may, no doubt, be formed
consistent with the apostle's sense. The phrase, "to them that walk over
it," is in the Latin, "calcantibus eam;" and as the literal meaning of
these words is "treading upon it," we may understand the idea of
contempt of it to be implied. For they who receive the Holy Ghost
despise earthly things in their love of heavenly things. None of these
opinions, however, is contrary to the faith, whether one regards the two
terms, breath and spirit, to pertain to human nature, or both of them to
the Holy Ghost, or one of them, breath, to the soul, and the other,
spirit, to the Holy Ghost. If, however, the soul and spirit of the human
being be the meaning here, since undoubtedly it ought to be, as the gift
of God to him, then we must timber inquire, in what way does God bestow
this gift? Is it by propagation, as He gives us our bodily limbs by this
process? Or is it bestowed on each person severally by God's
inbreathing, not by propagation, but as always a fresh creation? These
questions are not ambiguous, as this man would make them; but we wish
that they be defended by the most certain warrant of the divine
Scriptures.

             CHAP. 21.--THE SECOND PASSAGE QUOTED BY

                             VICTOR.

    On the same principle we treat the passage in which God says: "For
my Spirit shall go forth  from me; and I have created every breath."(1)
Here the former clause, "My Spirit shall go forth from me, must be taken
as referring to the Holy Ghost, of whom the Saviour similarly  says, "He
proceedeth from the Father."(2) But the other clause, "I have created
every breath," is undeniably spoken of each individual soul. Well; but
God also creates the entire body of man; and, as nobody doubts, He makes
the human body by the process of propagation: it is therefore, of
course, still open to inquiry concerning the soul (since it is evidently
God's work), whether He creates it as He does the body; by propagation,
or by inbreathing, as He made the first soul.

              CHAP. 22.--VICTOR'S THIRD QUOTATION.

    He proceeds to favour us with a third passage, in which it is
written: "Who forms the spirit of man within him."(3) As if any one
denied this! No; all our question is as to the mode of the formation.
Now let us take the eye of the body, and ask, who but God forms it? I
suppose that He forms it not externally, but in itself, and yet, most
certainly, by propagation. Since, then, He also forms "the human spirit
in him," the question still remains, whether it be derived by a fresh
insufflation in every instance, or by propagation.

                CHAP. 23.--HIS FOURTH QUOTATION.

    We have read all about the mother of the Maccabean youths, who was
really more fruitful in virtues when her children suffered than of
children when they were born; how she exhorted them to constancy,
speaking in this wise: "I cannot tell, my sons, how ye came into my
womb. For it was not I who gave you spirit and soul, nor was it I that
formed the members of every one of you; but it was God, who also made
the world, and all things that are therein; who, moreover, formed the
generation of men; and searches the action(4) of all; and who will
Himself of His great mercy restore to you your spirit and soul."(5) All
this we know; but how it supports this man's assertion we do not see.
For what Christian would deny that God gives to men soul and spirit? But
similarly, I suppose that he cannot deny that God gives to men their
tongue, and ear, and hand, and foot, and all their bodily sensations,
and the form and nature  of all their limbs. For how is he going to deny
all these to be the gifts of God, unless he forgets  that he is a
Christian? As, however, it is evident that these were made by Him, and
bestowed on  man by propagation; so also the question must arise, by
what means man's spirit and soul are formed by Him; by what efficiency
given to man--from the parents, or from nothing, or (as this man
asserts, in a sense which we must by all means guard against) from some
existing nature of the divine breath, not created out of nothing, but
out of His own self?

CHAP. 24 [XV.]--WHETHER OR NO THE SOUL IS DERIVED BY NATURAL DESCENT (EX
TRADUCE), HIS CITED PASSAGES FAIL TO SHOW.

    For asmuch, then, as the passages of Scripture which he mentions by
no means show what he endeavours to enforce (since, indeed, they express
nothing at all on the immediate question before us), what can be the
meaning of these words of his: "We firmly maintain that the soul comes
from the breath of God, not from natural generation, because it is given
from God"? As if, forsooth, the body could be given from another, than
from Him by whom it is created, "Of whom are all things, through whom
are all things, in whom are all things;"(6) not that they are of His
nature, but of His workmanship. "Nor is it from nothing," says he,
"because it comes forth from God." Whether this be so, is (we must say)
not the question to be here entertained. At the same time, we do not
hesitate to affirm, that the proposition which he advances, that the
soul comes to man neither out of descent nor out of nothing, is
certainly not true: this, I say, we affirm to be without doubt not true.
For it is one of two things: if the soul is not derived by natural
descent from the parent, it comes out of nothing. To pretend that it is
derived from God in such wise as to be a portion of His nature, is
simply sacrilegious blasphemy. But we solicit and seek up to the present
time some plain passages of Scripture bearing on the point, whether the
soul does not come by parental descent; but we do not want such passages
as he has adduced, which yield no illustration of the question now
before us.

CHAP. 25.--JUST AS THE MOTHER KNOWS NOT WHENCE COMES HER CHILD WITHIN
HER, SO WE KNOW NOT WHENCE COMES THE SOUL.

    How I wish that, on so profound a question, so long as he is
ignorant what he should say, he would imitate the mother of the
Maccabean youths! Although she knew very well that she had conceived
children of her husband, and that they had been created for her by the
Creator of all, both in body and in soul and spirit, yet she  says, "I
cannot tell, my sons, how ye came into my womb." Well now, I only wish
this man would tell us that which she was ignorant of She, of course,
knew (on the points I have mentioned) how they came into her womb as to
their bodily substance, because she could not possibly doubt that she
had conceived them by her husband. She furthermore confessed--because
this, too, she was, of course, well aware of--that it was God who gave
them their soul and spirit, and that it was He also who formed for them
their features and their limbs. What was it, then, that she was so
ignorant of? Was it not probably (what we likewise are equally unable to
determine) whether the soul and spirit, which God no doubt bestowed upon
them, was derived to them from their parents, or breathed into them
separately as it had been into the first man? But whether it was this,
or some other particular respecting the constitution of human nature, of
which she was ignorant, she frankly confessed her ignorance; and did not
venture to defend at random what she knew nothing about. Nor would this
man say to her, what he has not been ashamed to say to us: "Man being in
honour doth not understand; he is compared to the senseless cattle, and
is like unto them."(1) Behold how that woman said of her sons, "I cannot
tell how ye came into my womb," and yet she is not compared to the
senseless brutes. "I cannot tell," she said; then, as if they would
inquire of her why she was ignorant, she went on to say, "For it was not
I who gave you spirit and soul." He, therefore, who gave them that gift,
knows whence He made what He gave, whether He communicated it by
propagation, or breathed it as a fresh creation,--a point which (this
man says) I for my part know nothing of. "Nor was it I that formed the
features and members of every one of you." He, however, who formed them,
knows whether He formed them with the soul, or gave the soul to them
after they had been formed. She had no idea of the manner, this or that,
in which her sons came into her womb; only one thing was she sure of,
that He who gave her all she had would restore to her what He gave. But
this man would choose out what that woman was ignorant of, on so
profound and abstruse a fact of our nature; only he would not judge her,
if in error; nor compare her, if ignorant, to the senseless cattle.
Whatever the point was about which she was ignorant, it certainly
pertained to man's nature; and yet anybody would be blameless for such
ignorance. Wherefore, I too, on my side, say concerning my soul, I have
no certain knowledge how it came into my body; for it was not I who gave
it to myself. He who gave it to me knows whether He imparted it to me
from my father, or created it afresh for me, as He did for the first
man. But even I shall know, when He Himself shall teach me, in His own
good time. Now, how ever, I do not know; nor am I ashamed, like  him, to
confess my ignoranee of what I know  not.

          CHAP. 26 [XVI.]--THE FIFTH PASSAGE OF SCRIP-

                     TURE QUOTED BY VICTOR.

    "Learn," says he, "for, behold the apostle  teaches you." Yes,
indeed, I will learn, if the apostle teaches; since it is God alone who
teaches by the apostle. But, pray, what is it  which the apostle
teaches? "Behold," he adds, "how, when speaking to the men of Athens, he
strongly set forth this truth, saying: 'Seeing He giveth to all life and
spirit.' " Well, who thinks of denying this? "But understand," he says,
"what it is the apostle states: He giveth; not, He hath given. He refers
us to continuous and indefinite time, and does not proclaim past and
completed time. Now that which he gives without cessation, He is always
giving; just as He who gives is Himself ever existent." I have quoted
his words precisely as I found them in the second of the books which you
sent me. First, I beg you to notice to what lengths he has gone, while
endeavouring to affirm what he knows nothing about. For he has dared to
say, that God, without any cessation, and not merely in the present
time, but for ever and ever, gives souls to persons when they are born.
"He is always giving," says he, "just as He who gives is Himself ever
existent." Far be it from me to say that I do not understand what the
apostle said, for it is plain enough. But what this man says, he even
ought himself to know, is contrary to the Christian faith; and he should
be on his guard against going any further in such assertions. For, of
course, when the dead shall rise again, there will be no more persons to
be born; therefore God will bestow no longer any souls at any birth; but
those which He is now giving to men along with their bodies He will
judge. So that He is not always giving, although He is ever existent,
who at present is giving. Nor, indeed, is that at all derivable from the
apostle's expression, who giveth (not hath given), which this writer
wishes to deduce, namely, that God does not give men souls by
propagation. For souls are still given by Him, even if it be by
propagation; even as bodily endowments, such as limbs, and sensations,
and shape, and, in fact, the whole substance, are given by God Himself
to human beings, although it be by propagation that He gives them. Nor
again, because the Lord says,(1) "If God so clothes the grass of the
field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven" (not using
the preterite time, hath clothed, as when He first formed the material;
but employing the present form, clothes, which, indeed, He still is
doing), shall we on that account say, that the lilies are not produced
from the original source of their own kind. What, therefore, if the soul
and spirit of a human being in like manner is given by God Himself,
whenever it is given; and given, too, by propagation from its own kind?
Now this is a position which I neither maintain nor refute.
Nevertheless, if it must be defended or confuted, I certainly recommend
its being done by clear, and not doubtful proofs. Nor do I deserve to be
compared with senseless cattle because I avow myself to be as yet
incapable of determining the question, but rather with cautious persons,
because I do not recklessly teach what I know nothing about. But I am
not disposed on my own part to return railing for railing and compare
this man with brutes; but I warn him as a son to acknowledge that he is
really ignorant of that which he knows nothing about; nor to attempt to
teach that which he has not yet learnt, lest he should deserve to be
compared with those persons whom the apostle mentions as "desiring to be
teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof
they affirm.''(2)

CHAP.  27  [XVII.]--AUGUSTIN  DID  NOT  VENTURE TO DEFINE ANYTHING ABOUT
THE PROPAGATION OF THE SOUL.

   For whence comes it that he is so careless about the Scriptures,
which he talks of, as not to notice that when he reads of human beings
being from God, it is not merely, as he contends, in respect of their
soul and spirit, but also as regards their body? For the apostle's
statement, "We are His offspring,"(3) this man supposes must not be
referred to the body, but only to the soul and spirit. If, indeed, our
human bodies are not of God, then that is false which the Scripture
says: "For of Him are all things, through Him are all things, and in Him
are all things."(4) Again, with reference to the same apostle's
statement, "For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the
woman,"(5) let him explain to us what propagation he would choose to be
meant in the process,--that of the soul, or of the body, or of both? But
he will not allow that souls come by propagation: it remains, therefore,
that, according to him and all who deny the propagation of souls, the
apostle signified the masculine and feminine body only, when he said,
"As the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman;" the woman
having been made out of the man, in order that the man might afterwards,
by the process of birth, come out of the woman. If, therefore, the
apostle, when he said this, did not intend the soul and spirit also to
be understood, but only the bodies of the two sexes, why does he
immediately add, "But all things are of God,"(5) unless it be that
bodies also are of God? For so runs his entire statement: "As the woman
is of the man, so also is the man by the woman; but all things are of
God." Let, then, our disputant determine of what this is said. If of
men's bodies, then, of course, even bodies are of God. How comes it to
pass, therefore, that whenever this person reads in Scripture the
phrase, "of God," when man is in question, he will have the words
understood, not in reference to men's bodies, but only as concerning
their souls and spirits? But if the expression, "All things are of God,"
was spoken both of the body of the two sexes, and of their soul and
spirit, it follows that in all things the woman is of the man, for the
woman comes from the man, and the man is by the woman: but all things of
God. What "all things" are meant, except those he was speaking of,
namely, the man of whom came the woman, and the woman who was of the
man, and also the man who came by the woman? For that man came not by
woman, out of whom came the woman; but only he who afterwards was born
of man by woman, just as men are now born. Hence it follows that if the
apostle, when he said the words we have quoted from him, spoke of men's
bodies, undoubtedly the bodies of persons of both sexes are of God.
Furthermore, if he insists that nothing in man comes from God except
their souls and spirits, then, of course, the woman is of the man even
as regards her soul and spirit; so that nothing is left to those who
dispute against the propagation of souls. But if he is for dividing the
subject in such a manner as to say that the woman is of the man as
regards her body, but is of God in respect of her soul and spirit, how,
then, will that be true which the apostle says, "All things of God," if
the woman's body is of the man in such a sense that it is not of God?
Wherefore, allowing that the apostle is more likely to speak the truth
than that this person must be preferred as an authority to the apostle,
the woman is of the man, whether in regard to her body only, or in
reference to the entire whole of which human nature consists (but we
assert nothing on these points as an absolute certainty, but are still
inquiring after their truth); and the man is through the woman, whether
it be that his whole nature as man is derived to him from his father,
and is born in him through the woman, or the flesh alone; about which
points the question is still undecided. "All things, however, are of
God," and about this there is no question; and in this phrase are
included the body, soul, and spirit, both of the man and the woman. For
even if they were not born or derived from God, or emanated from Him as
portions of His nature, yet they are of God, inasmuch as whatever is
created, formed, and made by Him, has from Him the reality of its
existence.

           CHAP. 28.--A NATURAL FIGURE OF SPEECH MUST

                    NOT BE LITERALLY PRESSED.

    He goes on to remark: "But the apostle, by saying, 'And He Himself
giveth life and spirit to all,' and then by adding the words, 'And hath
made the whole race of men of one blood,'(1) has referred this soul and
spirit to the Creator in respect of their origin, and the body to
propagation." Now, certainly any one who does not wish to deny at random
the propagation of souls, before ascertaining clearly whether the
opinion is correct or not, has ground for understanding, from the
apostle's words, that he meant the expression, of one blood, to be
equivalent to of one man, by the figure of speech which understands the
whole from its part. Well, then, if it be allowable for this man to take
the whole from a part in the passage, "And man became a living soul,"(2)
as if the spirit also was understood to be implied, about which the
Scripture there said nothing, why is it not allowable to others to
attribute an equally comprehensive sense to the expression, of one
blood, so that the soul and spirit may be considered as included in it,
on the ground that the human being who is signified by the term "blood"
consists not of body alone, but also of soul and spirit? For just as the
controversialist who maintains the propagation of souls, ought not, on
the one hand, to press this man too hard, because the Scripture says
concerning the first man, "In whom all have i sinned"(3) (for the
expression is not, In whom the flesh of all has sinned, but "all," that
is, "all  men," seeing that man is not flesh only);--as, I repeat, he
ought not to be too hard pressed himself, because it happens to be
written "all men," in such a way that they might be understood simply in
respect of the flesh; so, on the other hand, he ought not to bear too
hard on those who hold the propagation of souls, on the ground of the
phrase, "The whole race of men of one blood," as if this passage proved
that flesh alone was transmitted by propagation. For if it is true, as
they(4) assert, that soul does not descend from soul, but flesh only
from flesh, then the expression, "of one blood," does not signify the
entire human being, on the principle of a part for the whole, but merely
the flesh of one person alone; while that other expression, "In whom all
have sinned," must be so understood as to indicate merely the flesh of
all men, which has been handed on from the first man, the Scripture
signifying a part by the whole. If, on the other hand, it is true that
the entire human being is propagated of each man, himself also entire,
consisting of body, soul, and spirit, then the passage, "In whom all
have sinned," must be taken in its proper literal sense; and the other
phrase, "of one blood," is used metaphorically, the whole being
signified by a part, that is to say, the whole man who consists of soul
and flesh; or rather (as this person is fond of putting it) of soul, and
spirit, and flesh. For both modes of expression the Holy Scriptures are
in the habit of employing, putting both a part for the whole and the
whole for a part. A part, for instance, implies the whole, in the place
where it is said, "Unto Thee shall all flesh come;"(5) the whole man
being understood by the term flesh. And the whole sometimes implies a
part, as when it is said that Christ was buried, whereas it was only His
flesh that was buried. Now as regards the statement which is made in the
apostle's testimony, to the effect that "He giveth life and spirit to
all," I suppose that nobody, after the foregoing discussion, will be
moved by it. No doubt "He giveth;" the fact is not in dispute; our
question is, How does He give it? By fresh inbreathing in every
instance, or by propagation? For with perfect propriety is He said to
give the substance of the flesh to the human being, though at the same
time it is not denied that He gives it by means of propagation.

         CHAP. 29 [XVIII.]--THE SIXTH PASSAGE OF SCRIP-

                     TURE QUOTED BY VICTOR.

    Let us now look at the quotation from Genesis, where the woman was
created out of the side of the man, and was brought to him, and he said:
"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Our opponent
thinks that "Adam ought to have said, 'Soul of my soul, or spirit of my
spirit,' if this, too, had been derived from him." But, in fact, they
who maintain the opinion of the propagation of souls feel that they
possess a more impregnable defence of their position in the fact that in
the Scripture narrative which informs us that God took a rib out of the
man's side and formed it into a woman, it is not added that He breathed
into her face the breath of life; for this reason, as they say, because
she had already been ensouled(1) from the man. If, indeed, she had not,
they say, the sacred Scripture would certainly not have kept us in
ignorance of the circumstance. With regard to the fact that Adam says,
"This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," (2) without
adding, Spirit or soul, from my spirit or soul, they may answer, just as
it has been already shown, that the expression, "my flesh and bone," may
be understood as indicating the whole by a part, only that the portion
that was taken out of man was not dead, but ensouled;(1) for no good
ground for denying that the Almighty was able to do all this is
furnished by the circumstance that not a human  being could be found
capable of cutting off a part of a man's flesh along with the soul. Adam
 went on, however, to say, "She shall be called woman, because she was
taken out of man."(2) Now, why does he not rather say (and thus confirm
the opinion of our opponents), "Since her flesh was taken out of man"?
As the case stands, indeed, they who hold the opposite view may well
contend, from the fact that it is written, not woman's flesh, but the
woman herself was taken out of man, that she must be considered in her
entire nature endued with soul and spirit. For although the soul is
undistinguished by sex, yet when women are mentioned it is not necessary
to regard them apart from the soul. On no other principle would they be
thus admonished with respect to self-adornment. "Not with braided hair,
or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but which (says the apostle)
becometh women professing godliness with a good conversation."(3) Now,
"godliness," of course, is an inner principle in the soul or spirit; and
yet they are called women, although the ornamentation concerns that
internal portion of their nature which has no sex.

            CHAP. 30--THE DANGER OF ARGUING FROM SI-

                             LENCE.

    Now, while the disputants are thus contending with one another in
alternate argument, I so judge between them that they must not rely on
uncertain evidence; nor make bold assertions on points of which they are
ignorant. For if the Scripture had said, "God breathed into the woman's
face the breath of life, and she became a living soul," it would not
have followed even then that the human soul is not derived by
propagation from parents, except the same statement were likewise made
concerning their son. For it might have been that whilst an
unensouled(4) member taken from the body might require to be
ensouled,(4) yet that the soul of the son might be derived from the
father, transfused by propagation through the mother. There is, however,
an absolute silence on the point; it is entirely concealed from our
view. Nothing is denied, but at the same time nothing is affirmed. And
thus, if in any place the Scripture is possibly not quite silent, the
point requires to be supported by clearer proofs. Whence it follows,
that neither they who maintain the propagation of souls receive any
assistance from the circumstance that God did not breathe into the
woman's face; nor ought they, who deny this doctrine on the ground that
Adam did not say, "This is soul of my soul," to persuade themselves to
believe what they know nothing of. For just as it bus been possible for
the Scripture to be silent on the point of the woman's having received
her soul, like the man, by the inbreathing of God, without the question
before us being solved, but, on the contrary, remaining open; so has it
been possible for the same question to remain open and unsolved,
notwithstanding the silence of Scripture, as to whether or not Adam
said, This is soul of my soul. And hence, if the soul of the first woman
comes from the man, a part signifies the whole in his exclamation, "This
is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;" inasmuch as not her
flesh alone, but the entire woman, was taken out of man. If, however, it
is not from the man, but came by God's inbreathing it into her, as at
first into the man, then the whole signifies a part in the passage, "She
was taken out of the man;" since on the supposition it was not her whole
self, but her flesh that was taken.

CHAP. 31.--THE ARGUMENT OF THE APOLLINARIANS TO PROVE THAT CHRIST WAS
WITHOUT THE HUMAN SOUL OF THIS SAME SORT.

Although, then, this question remains unsolved by these passages of
Scripture, which are certainly indecisive so far as pertains to the
point before us, yet I am quite sure of this, that those persons who
think that the soul of the first woman did not come from her husband's
soul,  on the ground of its being only said, "Flesh of my flesh," and
not, "Soul of my soul," do, in fact, argue in precisely the same manner
as the Apollinarians argue, and all such gainsayers, in opposition to
the Lord's human soul, which they deny for no other reason than because
they read in the Scripture, "The Word was made flesh."(1) For if, say
they, there was a soul in Him also, it ought to have been said, "The
Word was made man." But the reason why the great truth is stated in the
terms in question really is, that under the designation flesh, Holy
Scripture is accustomed to describe the entire human being, as in the
passage, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God."(2) For flesh
alone without the soul cannot see anything. Besides, many other passages
of the Holy Scriptures go to make it manifest, without any ambiguity,
that in the man Christ there is not only flesh, but a human--that is, a
reasonable--soul also. Whence they, who maintain the propagation of
souls might also understand that a part is put for the whole in the
passage, "Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," in such wise that the
soul, too, be understood as implied in the words, in the same manner as
we believe that the Word became flesh, not without the soul. All that is
wanted is, that they should support their opinion of the propagation of
souls on passages which are unambiguous; just as other passages of
Scripture show us that Christ possesses a human soul. On precisely the
same principle we advise the other side also, who do away with the
opinion of the propagation of souls, that they should produce certain
proofs for their assertion that souls are created by God in every fresh
case by insufflation, and that they should then maintain the position
that the saying, "This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," was
not spoken figuratively as a part for the whole, including the soul in
its signification, but in a bare literal sense of the flesh alone.

CHAP. 32 [XIX.]--THE SELF-CONTRADICTION OF VICTOR AS TO THE ORIGIN OF
THE SOUL.

    Under these circumstances, I find that this treatise of mine must
now be closed. It contains, in fact, all that seemed to me chiefly
necessary to the subject under discussion. They who peruse its contents
will know how to be on their guard against agreeing with the person
whose two books you sent me, so as not to believe with him, that souls
are produced by the breath of God in such wise as not to be made out of
nothing. The man, indeed, who supposes this, however much he may in
words deny the conclusion, does in reality affirm that souls have the
substance of God, and are His offspring, not by endowment, but by
nature. For from whomsoever a man derives the origin of his nature, from
him, in all sober earnestness, it must needs be admit ted, that he also
derives the kind of his nature. I But this author is, after all,
self-contradictory: at one time he says that "souls are the offspring 
of God,--not, indeed, by nature, but by endowment;" and at another time
he says, that "they are not made out of nothing, but derive their origin
from God." Thus he does not hesitate to refer them to the nature of God,
a position which he had previously denied.

CHAP. 33.--AUGUSTIN HAS NO OBJECTION  TO THE OPINION ABOUT THE
PROPAGATION OF SOULS BEING REFUTED, AND THAT ABOUT THEIR INSUFFLATION
BEING MAINTAINED.

    AS for the opinion, that new souls are created by inbreathing
without being propagated, we certainly do not in the least object to its
maintenance,--only let it be by persons who have succeeded in
discovering some new evidence, either in the canonical Scriptures, in
the shape of unambiguous testimony towards the solution of a most knotty
question, or else in their own reasonings, such as shall not be opposed
to catholic truth, but not by such persons as this man has shown himself
to be. Unable to find anything worth saying, and at the same time
unwilling to suspend his disputatious propensity, without measuring his
strength at all, in order to avoid saying nothing, he boldly affirmed
that "the soul deserved to be polluted by the flesh," and that "the soul
deserved to become sinful;" though previous to its incarnation he was
unable to discover any merit in it, whether good or evil. Moreover, that
"in infants departing from the body without baptism original sin may be
remitted, and that the sacrifice of Christ's body must be offered for
them," who have not been incorporated into Christ through His sacraments
in His Church, and that "they, quitting this present life without the
layer of regeneration, not only can go to rest, but can even attain to
the kingdom of heaven." He has propounded a good many other absurdities,
which it would be evidently tedious to collect together, and to consider
in this treatise. If the doctrine of the propagation of souls is false,
may its refutation not be the work of such disputants; and may the
defence of the rival principle of the insufflation of new souls in every
creative act, proceed from better hands.

 CHAP. 34.--THE MISTAKES WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED BY THOSE WHO SAY THAT
MEN'S SOULS ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THEIR PARENTS, BUT ARE AFRESH
INBREATHED BY GOD IN EVERY INSTANCE.

    All, therefore, who wish to maintain that new souls are rightly said
to be breathed into persons at their birth, and not derived from their
parents, must by all means be cautious on each of the four points which
I have already mentioned. That is to say, do not let them affirm that
souls become sinful by another's original sin; do not let them affirm
that infants who died unbaptized can possibly reach eternal life and the
kingdom of heaven by the remission of original sin in any other way
whatever; do not let thorn affirm that souls had sinned in some other
place previous to their incarnation, and that on this account they were
forcibly introduced into sinful flesh; nor let them affirm that the sins
which were not actually found in then were, because they were foreknown,
deservedly punished, although they were never permitted to reach that
life where they could be committed. Provided that they affirm none of
these points, because each of them is simply false and impious, they
may, if they can, produce any conclusive testimonies of the Holy
Scriptures on this question; and they may maintain their own opinion,
not only without any prohibition from me, but even with my approbation
and best thanks. If, however, they fail to discover any very decided
authority on the point in the divine oracles, and are obliged to
propound any one of the four opinions by reason of their failure, let
them restrain their imagination, lest they should be driven in their
difficulty to enunciate the now damnable and very recently condemned
heresy of Pelagius, to the effect that the souls of infants have not
original sin. It is, indeed, better for a man to confess his ignorance
of what he knows nothing about, than either to run into heresy which has
been already condemned, or to found some new heresy, while recklessly
daring to defend over and over again opinions which only display his
ignorance. This man has made some other absurb mistakes, indeed many, in
which he has wandered out of the beaten track of truth, without going,
however, to dangerous lengths; and I would like, if the Lord be willing,
to write even to himself something on the subject of his books; and
probably I shall point them all out to him, or a good many of them if I
should be unable to notice all.

                  CHAP. 35 [XX..]--CONCLUSION.

    As for this present treatise, which I have thought it proper to
address to no other person in preference to yourself, who have taken a
kindly and true interest both in our common faith and my character, as a
true catholic and a good friend, you will give it to be read or copied
by any persons you may be able to find interested in the subject, or may
deem worthy to be trusted. In it I have thought proper to repress and
confute the presumption of this young man, in such a way, however, as to
show that I love him, wishing him to be amended rather than condemned,
and to make such progress in the great house which is the catholic
Church, whither the divine compassion has conducted him, that he may be
therein "a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's
use, and prepared unto every good work,''(1) both by holy living and
sound teaching. But I have this further to say: if it behoves me to
bestow my love upon him, as I sincerely do, how much more ought I to
love you, my brother, whose affection towards me and whose catholic
faith I have found by the best of proofs to be cautious and sober! The
result of your loyalty has been, that you have, with a brother's real
love and duty, taken care to have the books, which displeased you, and
wherein you found my name treated in a way which ran counter to your
liking, copied out and forwarded to me. Now, I am so far from feeling
offended at this charitable act of yours, because you did it, that I
think I should have had a right, on the true claims of friendship, to
have been angry with you if you had not done it. I therefore give you my
most earnest thanks. Moreover, I have afforded a still plainer
indication of the spirit in which I have accepted your service, by
instantly composing this treatise for your consideration, as soon as I
had read those books of his.

 BOOK II.

IN THE SHAPE OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PRESBYTER PETER.

HE ADVISES PETER NOT TO INCUR THE IMPUTATION OF HAVING APPROVED OF THE
BOOKS WHICH HAD BEEN ADDRESSED TO HIM BY VICTOR ON THE ORIGIN OF THE
SOUL, BY ANY USE HE MIGHT MAKE OF THEM, NOR TO TAKE AS CATHOLIC
DOCTRINES THAT PERSON'S RASH UTTERANCES CONTRARY TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
VICTOR'S VARIOUS ERRORS, AND THOSE, TOO, OF A VERY SERIOUS CHARACTER, HE
POINTS OUT AND BRIEFLY CONFUTES; AND HE CONCLUDES WITH ADVISING PETER
HIMSELF TO TRY TO PERSUADE VICTOR TO AMEND HIS ERRORS.

    To his Lordship, my dearly beloved brother and fellow-presbyter
Peter, Augustin, bishop, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

           CHAP. 1 [I.]--DEPRAVED ELOQUENCE AN INJURI-

                       OUS ACCOMPLISHMENT.

    There have reached me the two books of Vincentius Victor, which he
addressed in writing to your Holiness; they have been forwarded to me by
our brother Renatus, a layman indeed, but a person who has a prudent and
religious care about the faith both of himself and of all he loves. On
reading these books, I saw that their author was a man of great
resources in speech, of which he had enough, and more than enough; but
that on the subjects of which he wished to teach, he was as yet
insufficiently instructed. If, however, by the gracious gift of the Lord
this qualification were also conferred upon him, he would be serviceable
to many. For he possesses in no slight degree the faculty of explaining
and beautifying what he thinks; all that is wanted is, that he should
first take care to think rightly. Depraved eloquence is a hurtful
accomplishment; for to persons of inadequate information it always
carries the appearance of truth in its readiness of speech. I know not,
indeed how you received his books; but if I am  correctly informed, you
are said, after reading them, to have been so greatly overjoyed, that
you (though an elderly man and a presbyter) kissed the face of this
youthful layman, and thanked him for having taught you what you had been
previously ignorant of. Now, in this conduct of yours I do not
disapprove of your humility; indeed, I rather commend it; for it was not
the man whom you praised, but the truth itself which deigned to speak to
you through him: only I wish you were able to point out to me what was
the truth which you received through him. I should, therefore, be glad
if you would show me, in your answer to this letter, what it was he
taught you. Be it far from me to be ashamed to learn from a presbyter,
since you did not blush to be instructed by a layman, in proclaiming and
imitating your humble conduct, if the lessons were only true in which
you received instruction.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--HE ASKS WHAT THE GREAT KNOWLEDGE IS THAT VICTOR IMPARTS.

    Therefore, brother greatly beloved, I desire to know what you
learned of him, in order that, if I have already possessed the
knowledge, I may participate in your joy; but if I happen to be
ignorant, I may be instructed by you. Did you not then understand that
there are two somethings, soul and spirit, according as it is said in
Scripture, "Thou wilt separate my soul from my spirit"?(1) And that both
of them pertain to man's nature, so that the whole man consists of
spirit, and soul, and body? Sometimes, however, these two are combined
together under the designation of soul; for instance, in the passage,
"And man became a living soul."(2) Now, in this place the spirit is
implied. Similarly in sundry passages the two are described under the
name of spirit, as when it is written, "And He bowed His head and gave
up the spirit;"(3) in which passage it is the soul that must also be
understood. And that the two are of one and the same substance? I
suppose that you already knew all this. But if you did not, then you may
as well know that you have not acquired any great knowledge, the
ignorance of which would be attended with much danger. And if there must
be any more subtle discussion on such points it would be better to carry
on the controversy with himself, whose wordy qualities we have already
discovered. The questions we might consider are: whether, when mention
is made of the soul, the spirit is also implied in the term in such a
way that the two comprise the soul, the spirit being, as it were, some
part of it,--whether, in fact (as this person seemed to think), under
the designation soul, the whole is so designated from only a part; or
else, whether the two together make up the spirit, that which is
properly called soul being a part thereof; whether again, in fact, the
whole is not called from only a part, when the term spirit is used in
such a wide sense as to comprehend the soul also, as this man supposes.
These, however, are but subtle distinctions, and ignorance about them
certainly is not attended with any great danger.

           CHAP. 3.--THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SENSES

                      OF THE BODY AND SOUL.

    Again, I wonder whether this man taught you the difference between
the bodily senses and the sensibilities of the soul; and whether you,
who were a person of considerable age and position before you took
lessons of this man, used to consider to be one and the same that
faculty by which white and black are distinguished, which sparrows even
see as well as ourselves, and that by which justice and injustice are
discriminated, which Tobit also perceived even after he lost the sight
of his eyes.(1) If you held the identity, then, of course, when you
heard or read the words, "Lighten my eyes, that I sleep not in
death,"(2) you merely thought of the eyes of the body. Or if this were
an obscure point, at all events when you recalled the words of the
apostle, "The eyes of your heart being enlightened,"(3) you must have
supposed that we possessed a heart somewhere between our forehead and
cheeks. Well, I am very far from thinking this of you, so that this
instructor of yours could not have given you such a lesson.

           CHAP. 4.--TO BELIEVE THE SOUL IS A PART OF

                        GOD IS BLASPHEMY.

    And if you happened to suppose, before receiving the instruction
from this teacher, which you are rejoicing to have received, that the
human soul is a portion of God's nature, then you were ignorant how
false and terribly dangerous this opinion was. And if you only were
taught by this person that the soul is not a portion of God, then I bid
you thank God as earnestly as you can that you were not taken away out
of the body before learning so important a lesson. For you would have
quitted life a great heretic and a terrible blasphemer. However, I never
could have believed this of you, that a man who is both a catholic and a
presbyter of no contemptible position like yourself, could by any means
have thought that the soul's nature is a portion of God. I therefore
cannot help expressing to your beloved self my fears that this man has
by some means or other taught you that which is decidedly opposed to the
faith which you were holding.

          CHAP. 5 [III.]--IN WHAT SENSE CREATED BEINGS

                         ARE OUT OF GOD.

    Now, just because I do not suppose that you, a member of the
catholic Church, ever believed the human soul to be a portion of God, or
that the soul's nature is in any degree identical with God's, I have
some apprehension lest you may have been induced to fall in with this
man's opinion, that "God did not make the soul from nothing, but that
the soul is so far out of Him as to have emanated from Him." For he has
put out such a statement as this, with his other opinions, which have
led him out of the usual track on this subject to a huge precipice. Now,
if he has taught you this, I do not want you to teach it to me; nay, I
should wish you to unlearn what you have been taught. For it is not
enough to avoid believing and saying that the soul is a part of God. We
do not even say that the Son or the Holy Ghost is a part of God,
although we affirm that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all
of one and the same nature. It is not, then, enough for us to avoid
saying that the soul is a part of God, but it is of indispensable
importance that we should say that the soul and God are not of one and
the self-same nature. This person is therefore right in declaring that
"souls are God's offspring, not by nature, but by gift;" and then, of
course, not the souls of all men, but of the faithful. But afterwards he
returned to the statement from which he had shrunk, and affirmed that
God and the soul are of the same nature--not, indeed, in so many words,
but plainly and manifestly to such a purport. For when he says that the
soul is out of God, in such a manner that God created it not out of any
other nature, nor out of nothing, but out of His own self, what would he
have us believe but the very thing which he denies, in other words, even
that the soul is of the self-same nature as God Himself is? For every
nature is either God, who has no author; or out of God, as having Him
for its Author. But the nature which has for its author God, out of whom
it comes, is either not made, or made. Now, that nature which is not
made and yet is out of Him, is either begotten by Him or proceeds from
Him. That which is begotten is His only Son, that which proceedeth is
the Holy Ghost, and this Trinity is of one and the self-same nature. For
these three are one, and each one is God, and all three together are one
God, unchangeable, eternal, without any beginning or ending of time.
That nature, on the other hand, which is made is called "creature;" God
is its Creator, even the blessed Trinity. The creature, therefore, is
said to be out of God in such wise as not to be made out of His nature.
It is predicated as out of Him, inasmuch as it has in Him the author of
its being, not so as to have been born of Him, or to have proceeded from
Him, but as having been created, moulded, and formed by Him, in some
cases, out of no other substance,--that is, absolutely out of nothing,
as, for instance, the heaven and the earth, or rather the whole material
of the universe coeval in its creation with the world--but, in some
cases, out of another nature already created and in existence, as, for
instance, man out of the dust, woman out of the man, and man out of his
parents. Still, every creature is out of God,--but out of God is its
creator either out of nothing, or out of something previously existing,
not, however, as its begetter or its producer from His own very self.

CHAP. 6.--SHALL GOD'S NATURE BE MUTABLE, SINFUL, IMPIOUS, EVEN ETERNALLY
DAMNED.

    All this, however, I am saying to a catholic: advising with him
rather than teaching him. For I do not suppose that these things are new
to you; or that they have been long heard of by you, but not believed.
This epistle of mine, you will, I am sure, so read as to recognise in
its statement your own faith also, which is by the gracious gift of the
Lord the common property of us all in the catholic Church. Since, then
(as I was saying), I am now speaking to a catholic, whence I pray you
tell me, do you suppose that the soul, I will not say your soul or my
own soul, but the soul of the first man, was given to him? If you admit
that it came from nothing, made, however, and inbreathed into him by
God, then your belief tallies with my own. If, on the contrary, you
suppose that it came out of some other created thing, which served as
the material, as it were, for the divine Artificer to make the soul out
of, just as the dust was the material of which Adam was formed, or the
rib whence Eve was made, or the waters whence the fishes and the fowls
were created, or the ground out of which the terrestrial animals were
formed: then this opinion is not catholic, nor is it true. But further,
if you think, which may God forbid, that the divine Creator made, or is
still making, human souls neither out of nothing, nor out of some other
created thing, but out of His own self, that is, out of His own nature,
then you have learnt this of your new instructor; but I cannot
congratulate you, or flatter you, on the discovery. You have wandered
along with him very far from the catholic faith. Better would it be,
though it would be untrue, yet it would be better, I say, and more
tolerable, that you should believe the soul to have been made out of
some other created substance which God had already formed, than out of
God's own un-created substance, so that what is mutable, and sinful, and
impious, and if persistent to the end in the impiety will have to suffer
eternal damnation, should not with horrible blasphemy be referred to the
nature of God! Away, brother, I beseech you, away with this, I will not
call it faith, but execrably impious error. May God avert from you, a
man of gravity and a presbyter, the misery of being seduced by a
youthful layman; and, while supposing that your opinion is the catholic
faith, of being lost from the number of the faithful. For I must not
deal with you as I might with him; nor does this tremendous error, when
yours, deserve the same indulgence as being that of this young man,
although you may have derived it from him. He has but just now found his
way to the catholic fold to get healing and safety;(1) you have a rank
among the very shepherds of that fold. But we would not that a sheep
which comes to the Lord's flock for shelter from error, should be healed
of his sores in such a way, as first to infect and destroy the shepherd
by his contagious presence.

CHAP. 7.--TO THINK THE SOUL CORPOREAL AN ERROR.

    But if you say to me, He has not taught me this; nor have I by any
means given my assent to this erroneous opinion of his, however much I
was enchanted by the sweetness of his eloquent and elegant discourse;
then I earnestly thank God. Still I cannot help asking, why, even with
kisses, as the report goes, you expressed your gratitude to him for
having taught you what you were ignorant of, previous to hearing his
discussion. Now if it be a false report which makes you to have done and
said so much, then I beg you to be kind enough to give me this
assurance, that the idle rumour may be stopped by your own written
authority. If, however, it is true that you bestowed your thanks with
such humility upon this man, I should rejoice, indeed, if he has not
taught you to believe the opinion which I have already pointed out as a
detestable one, and to be carefully avoided as such. Nor shall I find
fault [IV.] if your humble thanks to your instructor were further earned
by your having acquired from discussions with him some other true and
useful knowledge. But may I ask you what it is? Is it that the soul is
not spirit, but body? Well, I really do not think ignorance on such a
point is any great injury to Christian learning; and if you indulge in
more subtle disputes about the different kinds of bodily substance, I
think the information you obtain is more difficult than serviceable. If,
however, the Lord will that I should write to this young man himself, as
I desire to do, then perhaps your loving self(1) will know to what
extent you are not indebted to him for your instruction; although you
rejoice in what you have learnt from him. And now I request you not to
feel annoyance in writing me an answer; so that what is clearly useful
and pertinent to our indispensable faith may not by any chance turn out
to be something different.

CHAP. 8.--THE THIRST OF THE RICH MAN IN  HELL DOES NOT PROVE THE SOUL TO
BE  CORPOREAL.

    Now with regard to the point, which with perfect propriety and great
soundness of view he believes, that souls after quitting the body are
judged, before they come to that final judgment to which they must
submit when their bodies are restored to them, and are either tormented
or glorified in the very same flesh wherein they once lived here on
earth; is it, let me ask you, the case that you were really ignorant of
this? Who ever had his mind so obstinately set against the gospel as not
to hear these truths, and after hearing to believe them, in the parable
of the poor man who was carried away after death to Abraham's bosom, and
of the rich man who is set forth as suffering torment in hell?(2) But
has this man taught you how it was that the soul apart from the body
could crave from the beggar's finger a drop of water;(3) when he himself
confessed, that the soul did not require bodily aliment except for the
purpose of protecting the perishing body which encloses it from
dissolution? These are his words: "Is it," asks he, "because the soul
craves meat and drink, that we suppose material food passes into it?"
Then shortly afterwards he says: "From this circumstance it is
understood and proved, that the sustenance of meat and drink is not
wanted for the soul, but for the body: for which clothing also, in
addition to food, is provided in like manner; so that the supplying of
food seems to be necessary to that nature, which is also fitted for
wearing clothes." This opinion of his he expounds clearly enough; but he
adds some illustrative similes, and says: "Now what do we suppose the
occupier of a house does on an inspection of his dwelling? If he observe
the tenement has a shaky roof, or a nodding wall, or a weak foundation,
does he not fetch girders and build up buttresses, in order that he may
succeed in propping up by his care and diligence the fabric which
threatened to fall, so that in the dangerous plight of the residence the
peril which evidently overhung the occupier might be warded off? From
this simile," says he, "see how the soul craves for its flesh, from
which it undoubtedly conceives the craving itself." Such are the very
lucid and adequate words in which this young person has explained his
ideas: he asserts that it is not the soul, but the body, which requires
food; out of a careful regard, no doubt, of the former for the latter,
as one that occupies a dwelling-house, and by a prudent repair prevents
the downfall with which the fleshly tenement was threatened. "Well, now,
let him go on to explain to you what probable ruin this particular soul
of the rich man was so eager to prevent by propping up, seeing that it
no longer possessed a mortal body, and yet suffered thirst, and begged
for the drop of water from the poor man's finger. Here is a good knotty
question for this astute instructor of elderly men to exercise himself
on; let him inquire, and find a solution if he can: for what purpose did
that soul in hell beg the aliment of ever so small a drop of water, when
it had no ruinous tenement to support?

CHAP. 9 [V.]--HOW COULD THE INCORPOREAL GOD BREATHE OUT OF HIMSELF A
CORPOREAL SUBSTANCE?

    In that he believes God to be truly incorporeal, I congratulate him
that herein, at all events, he has kept himself uninfluenced by the
ravings of Tertullian. For he insisted, that as the soul is corporeal,
so likewise is God.(4) It is therefore specially surprising that our
author, who differs from Tertullian in this point, yet labours to
persuade us that the incorporeal God does not make the soul out of
nothing, but exhales it as a corporeal breath out of Himself. What a
wonderful learning that must be to which every age erects its attentive
ears, and which contrives to gain for its disciples men of advanced
years, and even presbyters! Let this eminent man read what he has
written, read it in public; let him invite to hear the reading
well-known persons and unknown ones, learned and unlearned. Old men,
assemble with your younger instructors; learn what you used to know
nothing about; hear now what you had never heard before. Behold,
according to the teaching of this scribe, God creates a breath, not out
of something else which exists in some way or other, and not out of that
which absolutely has no existence; but out of that which He is Himself,
perfectly incorporeal, He breathes a body so that He actually changes
His own incorporeal nature into a body, before it undergoes the change
into the body of sin. Does he say, that He does not change something out
of His own nature, when He creates breath? Then, of course, He does not
make that breath out of Himself: for He is not Himself one thing, and
His nature another thing. What is this insane man thinking of? But if he
says that God creates breath out of His own nature in such a way as to
remain absolutely entire Himself, this is not the question. The question
is, whether that which comes not of some previously created substance,
nor from nothing, but from Him, is not what He is, that is, of the same
nature and essence? Now He remains absolutely entire after the
generation of His Son; but because He begat Him of His own nature, He
did not beget a something which was different from that which He is
Himself. For, putting to one side the circumstance that the Word took on
Himself a human nature and became flesh, the Word who is the Son of God
is another but not another thing: that is, He is another person but not
a different nature. And whence does this come to pass, except from the
fact that He is not created out of something else, or out of nothing,
but was begotten out of Himself; not that He might be better than He
was, but that He might be altogether even what He is of whom He is
begotten; that is, of one and the  same nature, equal, co-eternal, in
every way like, equally unchangeable, equally invisible, equally
incorporeal, equally God; in a word, that He might be altogether what
the Father is, except that He actually is Himself the Son, and not the
Father? But if He remains Himself the same God entire and unimpaired,
but yet creates something different from Himself, and worse than
Himself, not out of nothing, nor out of some other creature, but out of
His very self; and that something emanates as a body out of  the
incorporeal God; then God forbid that a catholic should imbibe such an
opinion, for it does not flow from the divine fountain, but it is a mere
fiction of the human mind.

CHAP. 10 [VI.]--CHILDREN MAY BE FOUND OF LIKE OR OF UNLIKE DISPOSITIONS
WITH THEIR PARENTS.

    Then, again, how ineptly he labours to free the soul, which he
supposes to be corporeal, from the passions of the body, raising
questions about the soul's infancy; about the soul's emotions, when
paralysed and oppressed; about the amputation of bodily limbs, without
cutting or dividing the soul. But in dealing with such points as these,
my duty is to treat rather with him than with you; it is for him to
labour to assign a reason for all he says. In this way we shall not seem
to wish to be too importunate with an elderly man's gravity on the
subject of a young man's work. As to the similarity of disposition to
the parents which is discovered in their children, he does not dispute
its coming from the soul's seed. Accordingly, this is the opinion also
of those persons who do away with the soul's propagation; but the
opposite party who entertain this theory do not place on this the weight
of their assertion. For they observe also that children are unlike their
parents in disposition; and the reason of this, as they suppose, is,
that one and the same person very often has various dispositions
himself, unlike each other,--not, of course, that he has received
another soul, but that his life has undergone a change for the better or
for the worse. So they say that there is no impossibility in a soul's
not possessing the same disposition which he had by whom it was
propagated, seeing that the selfsame soul may have different
dispositions at different times. If, therefore, you think that you have
learnt this of him, that the soul does not come to us by natural
transmission at birth,--I only wish that you had discovered from him the
truth of the case,--I would with the greatest pleasure resign myself to
your hands to learn the whole truth. But really to learn is one thing,
and to seem to yourself to have learned is another thing. If, then, you
suppose that you have learned what you still are ignorant of, you have
evidently not learnt, but given a random credence to a pleasant hearsay.
Falsity has stolen over you in the suavity.(1) Now I do not say this
from feeling as yet any certainty as to the proposition being false,
which asserts that souls are created afresh by God's inbreathing rather
than derived from the parents at birth; for I think that this is a point
which still requires proof from those who find themselves able to teach
it. No; my reason for saying it is, that this person has discussed the
whole subject in such a way as not only not to solve the point still in
dispute, but even to indulge in statements which leave no doubt as to
their falsity. In his desire to prove things of doubtful import, he has
boldly stated things which undoubtedly merit reprobation.

CHAP. 11 [VII.]--VICTOR IMPLIES THAT THE SOUL HAD A "STATE" AND "MERIT"
BEFORE INCARNATION.

    Would you hesitate yourself to reprobate what he has said concerning
the soul? "You will not have it," he says, "that the soul contracts from
the sinful flesh the health, to which holy state you can see it in due
course pass by means of the flesh, so as to amend its state through that
by which it had lost its merit? Or is it because baptism washes the body
that what is believed to be conferred by baptism does not pass on to the
soul or spirit? It is only right, therefore, that the soul should, by
means of the flesh, repair that old condition which it had seemed to
have gradually lost through the flesh, in order that it may begin a
regenerate state by means of that whereby it had deserved to be
polluted."(1) Now, do observe how grave an error this teacher has fallen
into! He says that "the soul repairs its condition by means of the flesh
through which it had lost its merit." The soul, then, must have
possessed some state and some good merit previous to the flesh, which he
would have that it recovers through the flesh, when the flesh is
cleansed in the layer of regeneration. Therefore, previous to the flesh,
the soul had lived somewhere in a good state and merit, which state and
merit it lost when it came into the flesh. His words are, "that the soul
repairs by means of the flesh that primitive condition which it had
seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh." The soul, then,
possessed before the flesh, an ancient condition (for his term
"primitive" describes the antiquity of the state); and what could that
ancient condition have possibly been, but a blessed and laudable state?
Now, he avers that this happiness is recovered through the sacrament of
baptism, although he will not admit that the soul derives its origin
through propagation from that soul which was once manifestly happy in
paradise. How is it, then, that in another passage he says that "he
constantly affirms of the soul that it exists not by propagation, nor
comes out of nothing, nor exists by its own self, nor previous to the
body"? You see how in this place he insists that souls do exist prior to
the body somewhere or other, and that in so happy a state that the same
happiness is restored to them by means of baptism. But, as if forgetful
of his own views, he goes on to speak of its "beginning a regenerate
state by means of that," meaning the flesh, "whereby it had deserved to
be polluted." In a previous statement he had indicated some good desert
which had been lost by means of the flesh; now, however, he speaks of
some evil desert, by means of which it had happened that the soul had to
come, or be sent, into the flesh; for his words are, "By which it had
deserved to be polluted;" and if it deserved to be polluted, its merits
could not, of course, have been good. Pray let him tell us what sin it
had committed previous to its pollution by the flesh, in consequence of
which it merited such pollution by the flesh. Let him, if he can,
explain to us a matter which is utterly beyond his power, because it is
certainly far above his reach to discover what to tell us on this
subject which shall be true.

CHAP. 12 [VIII.]--HOW DID THE SOUL DESERVE TO BE INCARNATED?

    He also says some time afterwards: "The soul therefore, if it
deserved to be sinful, although it could not have been sinful, yet did
not remain in sin; because, as it was prefigured in Christ, it was bound
not to be in a sinful state, even as it was unable to be."(2) Now, my
brother, do you, I ask, really think thus? At any rate, have you formed
such an opinion, after having read and duly considered his words, and
after having reflected upon what extorted from you praise during his
reading, and the expression of your gratitude after he had ended? I pray
you, tell me what this means: "Although the soul deserved to be sinful,
which could not have been sinful." What mean his phrases, deserved and
could not? For it could not possibly have deserved its alleged fate,
unless it had been sinful; nor would it have been, unless it could have
been, sinful,--so as, by committing sin previous to any evil desert, it
might make for itself a position whence it might, under God's desertion,
advance to the commission of other sins. When he said, "which could not
have been sinful," did he mean, which would not have been able to be
sinful, unless it came in the flesh? But how did it deserve a mission at
all into a state where it could be sinful, when it could not possibly
have become capable of sinning anywhere else, unless it entered that
particular state? Let him, then, tell us how it so deserved. For if it
deserved to become capable of sinning, it must certainly have already
com, mitted some sin, in consequence of which it deserved to be sinful
again. These points, however, may perhaps appear to be obscure, or may
be tauntingly said to be of such a character, but they are really most
plain and clear. The truth is, he ought not to have said that "the soul
deserved to become sinful through the flesh," when he will never be able
to discover any desert of the soul, either good or bad, previous to its
being in the flesh.

CHAP. 13 [IX.]--VICTOR TEACHES THAT GOD THWARTS HIS OWN PREDESTINATION.

    Let us now go on to plainer matters. For while he was confined
within these great straits, as to how souls can be held bound by the
chain of original sin, when they derive not their origin from the soul
which first sinned, but the Creator breathes them afresh at every birth
into sinful flesh,--pure from all contagion and propagation of sin:--in
order that he might avoid the objection being brought against his
argument, that thus God makes them guilty by such insufflation, he first
of all had recourse to the theory drawn from God's prescience, that "He
had provided redemption for them." Infants are by the sacrament of this
redemption baptized, so that the original sin which they contracted from
the flesh is washed away, as if God were remedying His own acts for
having made these souls polluted. But afterwards, when he comes to speak
of those who receive no such assistance, but expire before they are
baptized, he says: "In this place I do not offer myself as an authority,
but I present you with an example by way of conjecture. We say, then,
that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of
infants, who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing
of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ. We
read," adds he, "it written of such, Speedily was he taken away, lest
that wickedness should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his
soul. Therefore He hasted to take him away from among the wicked, for
his soul pleased the Lord; and, being made perfect in a short time, he
fulfilled a long time."(1) Now who would disdain having such a teacher
as this? Is it the case, then, with infants, whom people usually wish to
have baptized, even hurriedly, before they die, that, if they should be
detained ever so short a time in this life, that they might be baptized,
and then at once die, wickedness would alter their understanding, and 
deceit beguile their soul; and to prevent this  happening to them, a
hasty death came to their rescue, so that they were suddenly taken away
before they were baptized? By their very baptism, then, they were
changed for the worse, and beguiled by deceit, if it was after baptism
that they were snatched away. O excellent teaching, worthy to be admired
and closely followed! But he presumed greatly on the prudence of all you
who were present at his reading, and especially on yours, to whom he
addressed this treatise and handed it after the reading, in supposing
that you would believe that the scripture he quoted was intended for the
case of unbaptized infants, although it was written of the immature ages
of all those saints whom foolish men deem to be hardly dealt with,
whenever they are suddenly removed from the present life and are not
permitted to attain to the years which people covet for themselves as a
great gift of God. What, however, is the meaning of these words of his:
"Infants predestinated for baptism, who are yet, by the failing of this
life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ," as if some
power of fortune, or fate, or anything else you please, did not permit
God to fulfil what He had fore-ordained? And how is it that He hurries
them Himself away, when they have pleased Him? Then, does He really
predestinate them to be baptized, and then Himself hinder the
accomplishment of the very thing which He has predestinated?

CHAP.  14 [X.]--VICTOR SENDS THOSE INFANTS WHO DIE UNBAPTIZED TO
PARADISE AND THE HEAVENLY MANSIONS, BUT NOT TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

    But I beg you mark how bold he is, who is displeased with hesitancy,
which prefers to be cautious rather than overknowing in a question so
profound as this: "I would be bold to say"-- such are his words--"that
they can attain to the forgiveness of their original sins, yet not so as
to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven. Just as in the case of the
thief on the cross, who confessed but was not baptized, the Lord did not
give him the kingdom of heaven, but paradise;(2) the words remaining
accordingly in full force, 'Except a man be born again of water and of
the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'(3) This
is especially true, inasmuch as the Lord acknowledges that in His
Father's house are many mansions,(4) by which are indicated the many
different merits of those who dwell in them; so that in these abodes the
unbaptized is brought to forgiveness, and the baptized to the reward
which by grace has been prepared for him." You observe how the man keeps
paradise and the mansions of the Father's house distinct from the
kingdom of heaven, so that even unbaptized persons may have an abundant
provision in places of eternal happiness. Nor does he see, when he says
all this, that he is so unwilling to distinguish the future abode of a
baptized infant from the kingdom of heaven as to have no fear in keeping
distinct therefrom the very house of God the Father, or the several
parts thereof. For the Lord Jesus did not say: In all the created
universe, or in any portion of that universe, but, "In my Father's
house, are many mansions." But in what way shall an unbaptized person
live in the house of God the Father, when he cannot possibly have God
for his Father, except he be born again? He should not be so ungrateful
to God, who has vouchsafed to deliver him from the sect of the Donatists
or Rogatists, as to aim at dividing the house of God the Father, and to
put one portion of it outside the kingdom of heaven, where the
unbaptized may be able to dwell. And on what terms does he himself
presume that he is to enter into the kingdom of heaven, when from that
kingdom he excludes the house of the King Himself, in what part soever
He pleases? From the case, however, of the thief who, when crucified at
the Lord's side, put his hope in the Lord who was crucified with him,
and from the case of Dinocrates, the brother of St. Perpetua, he argues
that even to the unbaptized may be given the remission of sins and an
abode with the blessed; as if any one unbelief in whom would be a sin,
had shown him that the thief and Dinocrates had not been baptized.
Concerning these cases, however, I have more fully explained my views in
the book which I wrote to our brother Renatus.(1) This your loving self
will be able to ascertain if you will condescend to read the book; for I
am sure our brother will not find it in his heart to refuse you, if you
ask him the loan of it.

CHAP. 15 [XI.]--VICTOR "DECIDES" THAT OBLATIONS SHOULD BE OFFERED UP FOR
THOSE WHO DIE UNBAPTIZED.

    Still he chafes with indecision, and is well-nigh suffocated in the
terrible straits of his theory; for very likely he descries with a more
sensitive eye than you, the amount of evil which he enunciates, to the
effect that original sin in infants is effaced without Christ's
sacrament of baptism. It is, indeed, for the purpose of finding an
escape to some extent, and tardily, in the Church's sacraments that he
says: "In their behalf I most certainly decide that constant oblations
and incessant sacrifices must be offered up on the part of the holy
priests." Well, then, you may take him if you like for your arbiter, if
it were not enough to have him as your instructor. Let him decide that
you must offer up the sacrifice of Christ's body even for those who have
not been incorporated into Christ. Now this is quite a novel idea, and
foreign to the Church's discipline and the rule of truth: and yet, when
daring to propound it in his books, he does not modestly say, I rather
think; he does not say, I suppose; he does not say, I am of opinion; nor
does he say, I at least would suggest, or mention;--but he says, I give
it as my decision; so that, should we be (as might be likely) offended
by the novelty or the perverseness of his opinion, we might be overawed
by the authority of his judicial determination. It is your own concern,
my brother, how to be able to bear him as your instructor in these
views. Catholic priests, however, of right feeling (and among them you
ought to take your place) could never keep quiet--God forbid it--and
hear this man pronounce his decisions, when they would wish him rather
to recover his senses, and be sorry both for having entertained such
opinions, and for having gone so far as to commit them to writing, and
chastise himself with the most wholesome discipline of repentance. "Now
it is," says he; "on this example of the Maccabees who fell in battle
that I ground the necessity of doing this When they offered stealthily
some interdicted sacrifices, and after they had fallen in the battle, we
find," says he, "that this remedial measure was at once resorted to by
the priests,--sacrifices were offered up to liberate their souls, which
had been bound by the guilt of their forbidden conduct."(2) But he says
all this, as if (according to his reading of the story) those atoning
sacrifices were offered up for uncircumcised persons, as he has decided
that these sacrifices of ours must be offered up for unbaptized persons.
For circumcision was the sacrament of that period, which prefigured the
baptism of our day.

CHAP. 16 [XII.]--VICTOR PROMISES TO THE UNBAPTIZED PARADISE AFTER THEIR
DEATH, AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AFTER THEIR RESURRECTION, ALTHOUGH HE
ADMITS THAT THIS OPPOSES CHRIST'S STATEMENT.

    But your friend, in comparison with what he has shown himself to be
further on, thus far makes mistakes which one may somewhat tolerate. He
apparently felt some disposition to relent; not, to be sure, at what he
ought to have misgivings about, namely, for having ventured to assert
that original sin is relaxed even in the case of the unbaptized, and
that remission is given to them of all their sins, so that they are
admitted into paradise, that is, to a place of great happiness, and
possess a claim to the happy mansions in our Father's house; but he
seems to have entertained some regret at having conceded to them abodes
of lesser blessedness outside the kingdom of heaven. Accordingly he goes
on to say, "Or if any one is perhaps reluctant to believe that paradise
is bestowed as a temporary and provisional gift on the soul of the thief
or of Dinocrates (for there remains for them still, in the resurrection,
the reward of the kingdom of heaven), although that principal passage
stands in the way,(3)--'Except a man be born again of water and of the
Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God.'(4)--he may yet hold
my assent as ungrudgingly given to this point; only let him magnify(5)
both the aim and the effect of the divine compassion and
fore-knowledge." These words have I copied, as I read them in his second
book. Well, now, could any one have shown on this erroneous point
greater boldness, recklessness, or presumption? He actually quotes and
calls attention to the Lord's weighty sentence, encloses it in a
statement of his own, and then says, "Although the opinion is opposed to
the 'principal passage,' 'Except a man be born again of water and of the
Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God;'" he dares then to
lift his haughty head in censure against the Prince's judgment: "He may
yet hold my assent as ungrudgingly given to this point;" and he explains
his point to be, that the souls of unbaptized persons have a claim to
paradise as a temporary gift; and in this class he mentions the dying
thief and Dinocrates, as if he were prescribing, or rather prejudging,
their destination; moreover, in the resurrection, he will have them
transferred to a better provision, even making them receive the reward
of the kingdom of heaven. "Although," says he, "this is opposed to the
sentence of the Prince." Now, do you, my brother, I pray you, seriously
consider this question: What sentence of the Prince shall that man
deserve to have passed upon him, who imposes on any person an assent of
his own which runs counter to the authority of the Prince Himself?

CHAP. 17.--DISOBEDIENT COMPASSION AND COMPASSIONATE DISOBEDIENCE
REPROBATED. MARTYRDOM IN LIEU OF BAPTISM.

The new-fangled Pelagian heretics have been most justly condemned by the
authority of catholic councils and of the Apostolic See, on i the ground
of their having dared to give to unbaptized infants a place of rest and
salvation, even apart from the kingdom of heaven. This they would not
have dared to do, if they did not deny their having original sin, and
the need of its remission by the sacrament of baptism. This man,
however, professes the catholic belief on this point, admitting that
infants are tied in the bonds of original sin, and yet he releases them
from these bonds without the layer of regeneration, and after death, in
his compassion, he admits them into paradise; while, with a still ampler
compassion, he introduces them after the resurrection even to the
kingdom of heaven. Such compassion did Saul see fit to assume when he
spared the king whom God commanded to be slain;(1) deservedly, however,
was his disobedient compassion, or (if you prefer it) his compassionate
disobedience, reprobated and condemned, that man may be on his guard
against extending mercy to his fellow-man, in opposition to the sentence
of Him by whom man was made. Truth, by the mouth of Itself incarnate,
proclaims as if in a voice of thunder: "Except a man be born again of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."(2)
And in order to except martyrs from this sentence, to whose lot it has
fallen to be slain for  the name of Christ before being washed in the
baptism of Christ, He says in another passage, "He that loseth his life
for my sake shall find it."(3) And so far from promising the abolition
of original sin to any one who has not been regenerated in the layer of
Christian faith, the apostle exclaims, "By the offence of one, judgment
came upon all men to condemnation.''(4) And as a counterbalance against
this condemnation, the Lord exhibits the help of His salvation alone,
saying, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned."(5) Now the mystery of this believing in
the case of infants is completely effected by the response of the
sureties by whom they are taken to baptism; and unless this be effected,
they all pass by the offence of one into condemnation. And yet, in
opposition to such clear declarations uttered by the Truth, forth
marches before all men a vanity which is more foolish than pitiful, and
says: Not only do infants not pass into condemnation, though no layer of
Christian faith absolves them from the chain of original sin, but they
even after death have an intermediate enjoyment of the felicities of
paradise, and after the resurrection they shall possess even the
happiness of the kingdom of heaven. Now, would this man dare to say all
this in opposition to the firmly-established catholic faith, if he had
not presumptuously undertaken to solve a question which transcends his
powers touching the origin of the soul?

CHAP. 18 [XIII.]--VICTOR'S DILEMMA AND FALL.

    For he is hemmed in within terrible straits by those who make the
natural inquiry: "Why has God visited on the soul so unjust a punishment
as to have willed to relegate it into a body of sin, since by its
consorting with the flesh that began to be sinful, which else could not
have been sinful?" For, of course, they say: "The soul could not have
been sinful, if God had not commingled it in the participation of sinful
flesh." Well, this opponent of mine was unable to discover the justice
of God's doing this, especially in consequence of the eternal damnation
of infants who die without the remission of original sin by baptism; and
his inability was equally great in finding out why the good and
righteous God both bound the souls of infants, who He foresaw would
derive no advantage from the sacrament of Christian grace, with the
chain of original sin, by sending them into the body which they derive
from Adam,--the souls themselves being free from all taint of
propagation,--and by this means also made them amenable to eternal
damnation. No less was he unwilling to admit that these very souls
likewise derived their sinful origin from that one primeval soul. And so
he preferred escaping by a miserable shipwreck of faith, rather than to
furl his sails and steady his oars, in the voyage of his controversy,
and by such prudent counsel check the fatal rashness of his course.
Worthless in his youthful eye was our aged caution; just as if this most
troublesome and perilous question of his was more in need of a torrent
of eloquence than the counsel of prudence. And this was foreseen even by
himself, but to no purpose; for, as if to set forth the points which
were objected to him by his opponents, he says: "After them other
reproachful censures are added to the querulous murmurings of those who
rail against us; and, as if tossed about in a whirlwind, we are dashed
repeatedly among huge rocks." After saying this, he propounded for
himself the very dangerous question, which we have already treated,
wherein he has wrecked the catholic faith, unless by a real repentance
he shall have repaired the faith which he had shattered. That whirlwind
and those rocks I have myself avoided,  unwilling to entrust my frail
barque to their dangers; and when writing on this subject I have
expressed myself in such a way as rather to explain the grounds of my
hesitancy, than to exhibit the rashness of presumption.(1) This little
work of mine excited his derision, when he met with it at your house,
and in utter recklessness he flung himself upon the reef: he showed more
spirit than wisdom in his conduct. To what lengths, however, that
over-confidence of his led him, I suppose that you can now yourself
perceive. But I give heartier thanks to God, since you even before this
descried it. For all the while he was refusing to check his headlong
career, when the issue of his course was still in doubt, he alighted on
his miserable enterprise, and maintained that God, in the case of
infants who died without Christian regeneration, conferred upon them
paradise at once, and ultimately the kingdom of heaven.

CHAP. 19 [XIV.]--VICTOR RELIES ON AMBIGUOUS SCRIPTURES.

    The passages of Scripture, indeed, which he has adduced in the
attempt to prove from them that God did not derive human souls by
propagation from the primitive soul, but as in that first instance that
He formed them by breathing them into each individual, are so uncertain
and ambiguous, that they can with the utmost facility  be taken in a
different sense from that which he would assign to them. This point I
have already demonstrated(2) with sufficient clearness, I think in the
book which I addressed to that friend o ours, of whom I have made
mention above The passages which he has used for his proofs inform us
that God gives, or makes, or fashion men's souls; but whence He gives
them, or o what He makes or fashions them, they tell us nothing: they
leave untouched the question whether it be by propagation from the first
soul or by insufflation, like the first soul. This writer however,
simply because he reads that God "giveth" souls?(3) "hath made" souls,
"formeth" souls, supposes that these phrases amount to a denial of the
propagation of souls; whereas, by the testimony of the same scripture,
God gives men their bodies, or makes them, or fashions ant forms them;
although no one doubts that the said bodies are given, made, and formed
by Him by seminal propagation.

CHAP. 20.--VICTOR QUOTES SCRIPTURES FOR THEIR SILENCE, AND NEGLECTS THE
BIBLICAL USAGE.

    As for the passage which affirms that "God hath made of one blood
all nations of men,"(4) and that in which Adam says, "This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,"(5) inasmuch as it is not said in
the one, "of one soul," and in the other, "soul of my soul," he supposes
that i is denied that children's souls come from their parents, or the
first woman's from her husband just as if, forsooth, had the sentence
run in the way suggested, "of one soul," instead of "of one blood,"
anything else than the whole human being could be understood, without
any denial of the propagation of the body. So likewise, if it had been
said, "soul of my soul," the flesh would not be denied, of course, which
evidently had been taken out of the man. Constantly does Holy Scripture
indicate the whole by a part, and a part by the whole. For certainly, if
in the passage which this man has quoted as his proof it had been said
that the human race had been made, not "of one blood," but "of one man,"
it could not have prejudiced the opinion of those who deny the
propagation of souls, although man is not soul alone, nor only flesh,
but both. For they would have their answer ready to this effect, that
the Scripture here might have meant to indicate a part by the whole,
that is to say, the flesh only by the entire human being. In like
manner, they who maintain the propagation of souls contend that in the
passage where it is said, "of one blood," the human being is implied by
the term "blood," on the principle of the whole being expressed by a
part. For just as the one party seems to be assisted by the expression,
"of one blood," instead of the phrase, "of one man," so the other side
evidently gets countenance from the statement being so plainly written,
"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for in him all sinned,"(1) instead of its being
said, "in whom the flesh of all sinned." Similarly, as one party seems
to receive assistance from the fact that Scripture says, "This is now
bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," on the ground that a part
covers the whole; so, again, the other side derives some advantage from
what is written in the immediate sequel of the passage, "She shall be
called woman, because she was taken out of her husband." For,  according
to their contention, the latter clause  should have run, "Because her
flesh was taken  out of her husband," if it was not true that the entire
woman, soul and all, but only her flesh, was taken out of man. The fact,
however, of the whole matter is simply this, that after hearing both
sides, anybody whose judgment is free from party prejudice sees at once
that loose quotation is unavailing in this controversy; for against one
party, which maintains the opinion of the propagation of souls, those
passages must not be adduced which mention only a part, inasmuch as the
Scripture might mean by the part to imply the whole in all such
passages; as, for instance, when we read, "The Word was made flesh,"(2)
we of course understand not the flesh only, but the entire human being;
nor against the other party, who deny this doctrine of the soul's
propagation, is it of any avail to quote those passages which do not
mention a part of the human being, but the whole; because in these the
Scripture might possibly mean to imply a part by the whole; as we
confess that Christ was buried, whereas it was only His flesh that was
laid in the sepulchre. We therefore say, that on such grounds there is
no ground on the one hand for rashly constructing, nor on the other hand
for, with equal rashness, demolishing the theory of propagation; but we
add this advice, that other passages be duly looked out, such as admit
of no ambiguity.(3)

             CHAP. 21 [XV.]--VICTOR'S PERPLEXITY AND

                            FAILURE.

    For these reasons I fail thus far to discover what this instructor
has taught you, and what grounds you have for the gratitude you have
lavished upon him. For the question remains just as it was, which
inquires about the origin of souls, whether God gives, forms, and makes
them for men by propagating them from that one soul which He breathed
into the first man, or whether it is by His own inbreathing that He does
this in every case, as He did for the first man. For that God does form,
and make, and bestow souls on men, the Christian faith does not hesitate
to aver. Now, when this person endeavoured to solve the question without
gauging his own resources, by denying the propagation of souls, and
asserting that the Creator inbreathed them into men pure from all
contagion of sin,--not out of nothing, but out of Himself,--He
dishonoured the very nature of God by opprobriously attributing
mutability to it, an imputation which was necessarily untenable. Then,
desirous of avoiding all implication which might lead to God's being
deemed unrighteous, if He ties with the bond of original sin souls which
are pure of all actual sin, although not redeemed by Christian
regeneration, he has given utterance to words and sentiments which I
only wish he had not taught you. For he has accorded to unbaptized
infants such happiness and salvation as even the Pelagian heresy could
not have ventured on doing. And yet for all this, when the question
touches the many thousands of infants who are born of the ungodly, and
die among the ungodly,--I do not mean those whom charitable persons are
unable to assist by baptism, however desirous of doing so, but those of
whose baptism nobody either has been able or shall be able to think, and
for whom no one has offered or is likely to offer the sacrifice which,
as this instructor of yours thought, ought to be offered even for those
who have not been baptized?(4) he has discovered no means of solving it.
If he were questioned concerning them, what their souls deserved that
God should involve them in sinful flesh to incur eternal damnation,
never to be washed in the laver of baptism, nor atoned for by the
sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, he will then either feel himself
at an utter loss, and so will regard our hesitation with a real, though
tardy favour; or else will determine that Christ's body must be offered
for all those infants which all the world over die without Christian
baptism (their names having been never heard of, since they are unknown
in the Church of Christ), although not incorporated into the body of
Christ.

          CHAP. 22 [XVI.]--PETER'S RESPONSIBILITY IN THE

                         CASE OF VICTOR.

    Far be it from you, my brother, that such views should be pleasant
to you, or that you should either feel pleasure in having acquired them,
or presume ever to teach them. Otherwise, even he would be a far better
man than yourself. Because at the commencement of his first book he has
prefixed the following modest and humble preface: "Though I desire to
comply with your request, I am only affording a clear proof of my
presumption." And a little further on he says,(1) "Inasmuch as I am,
indeed, by no means confident of being able to prove what I may have
advanced; and moreover I should always be anxious not to insist on any
opinion of my own, if it is found to be an improbable one; and it would
be my hearty desire, in case my own judgment is condemned, earnestly to
follow better and truer views. For as it shows evidence of the best
intention, and a laudable purpose, to permit yourself to be easily led
to truer views of a subject; so it betokens an obstinate and depraved
mind to refuse to turn quickly aside into the pathway of reason." Now,
as he said all this sincerely, and still feels as he spoke, he no doubt
entertains a very hopeful feeling about a right issue. In similar strain
he concludes his second book: "You must not think," says he, "that there
is any chance of its ever recoiling invidiously against you, that I
constitute you the judge of my words. And lest by chance the sharp eye
of some inquisitive reader may have opportunity of turning up and
encountering any possible vestiges of elemental error which may be left
behind on my illegal sheets, I beg you to tear up page after page with
unsparing hand, if need be; and after expending on me your critical
censure, punish me further, by smearing out the very ink which has given
form to my worthless words; so that, having your full opportunity, you
may prevent all ridicule, on the score either of the favourable opinion
you so strongly entertain of me, or of the inaccuracies which lurk in my
writings."

CHAP. 23 [XVII.]--WHO THEY ARE THAT ARE NOT INJURED BY READING INJURIOUS
BOOKS.

    Forasmuch, then, as he has both commenced and terminated his books
with such safeguards, and has placed on your shoulders the religious
burden of their correction and emendation, I only trust that he may find
in you all that he has asked you for, that you may "correct him
righteously in mercy, and reprove him; whilst the oil of the sinner
which anoints his head"(2) is absent from your hands and eyes,--even the
indecent compliance of the flatterer, and the deceitful leniency of the
sycophant. If, however, you decline to apply correction when you see
anything to amend, you offend against love; but if he does not appear to
you to require correction, because you think him to be right in his
opinions, then you are wise against truth. He, therefore, is a better
man (since he is only too ready to be corrected, if a true censurer be
at hand) than yourself, if either knowing him to be in error you despise
him with derision, or ignorant of his wandering course you at the same
time closely follow his error. Everything, therefore, which you find in
the books that he has addressed and forwarded to you, I beg you to
consider with sobriety and vigilance; and you will perhaps make fuller
discoveries than I have myself of statements which deserve to be
censured. And as for such of their contents as are worthy of praise and
approbation,--whatever good you have learnt therein, and by his
instruction, which perhaps you were really ignorant of before, tell us
plainly what it is, that all may know that it was for this particular
benefit that you expressed your obligations to him, and not for the
manifold statements in his books which call for their disapproval,--all,
I mean, who, like yourself, heard him read his writings, or who
afterwards read the same for themselves: lest in his ornate style they
may drink poison, as out of a choice goblet, at your instance, though
not after your own example, because they know not precisely what it is
you have drunk yourself, and what you have left untasted, and because,
from your high character, they suppose that whatever is drunk out of
this fountain would be for their health. For what else are hearing, and
reading, and copiously depositing things in the memory, than several
processes of drinking? The Lord, however, foretold concerning His
faithful followers, that even "if they should drink any deadly thing, it
should not hurt them."(3) And thus it happens that they who read with
judgment, and bestow their approbation on whatever is commendable
according to the rule of faith, and disapprove of things which ought to
be reprobated, even if they commit to their memory statements which are
declared to be worthy of disapproval, they receive no harm from the
poisonous and depraved nature of the sentences. To myself, through the
Lord's mercy, it can never become a matter of the least regret, that,
actuated by our previous love, I have given your reverend and religious
self advice and warning on these points, in whatever way you may receive
the admonition for which I have regarded you as possessing the first
claim upon me. Abundant thanks, indeed, shall I give unto Him in whose
mercy it is most salutary to put one's trust, if this letter of mine
shall either find or else make your faith both free from the depraved
and erroneous opinions which I have been able herein to point out from
this man's books, and sound in catholic integrity.

 BOOK III.

                 ADDRESSED TO VINCENTIUS VICTOR.

AUGUSTIN POINTS OUT TO VINCENTIUS VICTOR THE CORRECTIONS WHICH HE OUGHT
TO MAKE IN HIS BOOKS CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL, IF HE WISHES TO
BE A CATHOLIC. THOSE OPINIONS ALSO WHICH HAD BEEN ALREADY REFUTED IN THE
PRECEDING BOOKS ADDRESSED TO RENATUS AND PETER, AUGUSTIN BRIEFLY
CENSURES IN THIS THIRD BOOK, WHICH IS WRITTEN TO VICTOR HIMSELF:
MOREOVER, HE CLASSIFIES THEM UNDER ELEVEN HEADS OF ERROR.

CHAP. 1 [I.]--AUGUSTIN'S PURPOSE IN WRITING.

    As to that which I have thought it my duty to write to you, my
much-loved son Victor, I would have you to entertain this above all
other thoughts in your mind, if I seemed to despise you, that it was
certainly not my intention to do so. At the same time I must beg of you
not to abuse our condescension in such a way as to suppose that you
possess my approval merely because you have not my contempt. For it is
not to follow, but to correct you, that I give you my love; and since I
by no means despair of the possibility of your amendment, I do not want
you to be surprised at my inability to despise the man who has my love.
Now, since it was my bounden duty to love you before you had united with
us, in order that you might become a catholic; how much more ought I now
to love you since your union with us, to prevent your becoming a new
heretic, and that you may become so firm a catholic that no heretic may
be able to withstand you! So far as appears from the mental endowments
which God has largely bestowed upon you, you would be undoubtedly a wise
man if you only did not believe that you were one already, and begged of
Him who maketh men wise, with a pious, humble, and earnest prayer, that
you might become one, and preferred not to be led astray with error
rather than to be honoured with the flattery of those who go astray.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--WHY VICTOR ASSUMED THE NAME OF VINCENTIUS. THE NAMES OF
EVIL MEN OUGHT NEVER TO BE ASSUMED BY OTHER PERSONS.

    The first thing which caused me some anxiety about you was the title
which appeared in your books with your name; for on inquiring of those
who knew you, and were probably your associates in opinion, who
Vincentius Victor was, I found that you had been a Donatist, or rather a
Rogatist, but had lately come into communion with the catholic Church.
Now, while I was rejoicing, as one naturally does at the recovery of
those whom he sees rescued from that system of error,--and in your case
my joy was all the greater because I saw that your ability, which so
much delighted me in your writings, had not remained behind with the
enemies of truth,-- additional information was given me by your friends
which caused me sorrow amid my joy, to the effect that you wished to
have the name Vincentius prefixed to your own name, inasmuch as you
still held in affectionate regard the successor of Rogatus, who bore
this name, as a great and holy man, and that for this reason you wished
his name to become your surname. Some persons also told me that you had,
moreover, boasted about his having appeared in some sort of a vision to
you, and assisted you in composing those books the subject of which I
have discussed with you in this small work of mine, and to such an
extent as to dictate to you himself the precise topics and arguments
which you were to write about. Now, if all this be true, I no longer
wonder at your having been able to make those statements which, if you
will only lend a patient ear to my admonition, and with the attention of
a catholic duly consider and weigh those books, you will undoubtedly
come to regret having ever advanced. For he who, according to the
apostle's portrait, "transforms himself into an angel of light,"(1) has
transformed himself before you into a shape which you believe to have
been, or still to be, an angel of light. In this way, indeed, he is less
able to deceive catholics when his transformations are not into angels
of light, but into heretics; now, however, that you are a catholic, I
should be sorry for you to be beguiled by him. He will certainly feel
torture at your having learnt the truth, and so much the more in
proportion to the pleasure he formerly experienced in having persuaded
you to believe error. With a view, however, to your refraining from
loving a dead person, when the love can neither be serviceable to
yourself nor profitable to him, I advise you to consider for a moment
this one point--that he is not, of course, a just and holy man, since
you withdrew yourself from the snares of the Donatists or Rogatists on
the score of their heresy; but if you do think him to be just and holy,
you ruin yourself by holding communion with catholics. You are, indeed,
only feigning yourself a catholic if you are in mind the same as he was
on whom you bestow your love; and you are aware how terribly the
Scripture has spoken on this subject: "The Holy Spirit of discipline
will flee from the man who feigns."(1) If, however, you are sincere in
communicating with us, and do not merely pretend to be a catholic, how
is it that you still love a dead man to such a degree as to be willing
even now to boast of the name of one in whose errors you no longer
permit yourself to be held? We really do not like your having such a
surname, as if you were the monument of a dead heretic. Nor do we like
your book to have such a title as we should say was a false one if we
read it on his tomb. For we are sure Vincentius is not Victor, the
conqueror, but Victus, the conquered;--may it be, however, with fruitful
effect, even as we wish you to be conquered by the truth! And yet your
thought was an astute and skilful one, when you designated the books,
which you wish us to suppose were dictated to you by his inspiration, by
the name of Vincentius Victor; as much as to intimate that it was rather
he than you who wished to be designated by the victorious appellation,
as having been himself the conqueror of error, by revealing to you what
were to be the contents of your written treatise. But of what avail is
all this to you, my son? Be, I pray you, a true catholic, not a feigned
one, lest the Holy Spirit should flee from you, and that Vincentius be
unable to profit you at all, into whom the most malignant spirit of
error has transformed himself for the purpose of deceiving you; for it
is from that one that all these evil opinions have proceeded,
notwithstanding the artful fraud which has persuaded you to the
contrary. If this admonition shall only induce you to correct these
errors with the humility of a God-fearing man and the peaceful
submission of a catholic, they will be regarded as the mistakes of an
over-zealous young man, who is eager rather to amend them than to
persevere in them. But if he shall have by his influence prevailed on
you to contend for these opinions with obstinate perseverance, which God
forbid, it will in such a case be necessary to condemn them and their
author as heretical, as is required by the pastoral and remedial nature
of the Church's charge, to check the dire contagion before it quietly
spreads through the heedless masses, while wholesome correction is
neglected, under the name but without the reality of love.

CHAP. 3 [III.]--HE ENUMERATES THE ERRORS WHICH HE DESIRES TO HAVE
AMENDED IN THE BOOKS OF VINCENTIUS VICTOR. THE FIRST ERROR.

    If you ask me what the particular errors are, you may read what I
have written to our brethren, that servant of God Renatus, and the
presbyter Peter, to the latter of whom you yourself thought it necessary
to write the very works of which we are now treating, "in obedience," as
you allege, "to his own wish and request." Now, they will, I doubt not,
lend you my treatises for your perusal if you should like it, and even
press them upon your attention without being asked. But be that as it
may, I will not miss this present opportunity of informing you what
amendments I desire to have made in these writings of yours, as well as
in your belief. The first is, that you will have it that "The soul was
not so made by God that He made it out of nothing, but out of His own
very self."(2) Here you do not reflect what the necessary conclusion is,
that the soul must be of the nature of God; and you know very well, of
course, how impious such an opinion is. Now, to avoid such impiety as
this, you ought so to say that God is the Author of the soul as that it
was made by Him, but not of Him. For whatever is of Him (as, for
instance, His only-begotten Son) is of the self-same nature as Himself.
But, that the soul might not be of the same nature as its Creator, it
was made by Him, but not of Him. Or, then, tell me whence it is, or else
confess that it is of nothing. What do you mean by that expression of
yours, "That it is a certain particle of an exhalation from the nature
of God"? Do you mean to say, then, that the exhalations itself from the
nature of God, to which the particle in question belongs, is not of the
same nature as God is Himself? If this be your meaning, then God made
out of nothing that exhalation of which you will have the soul to be a
particle. Or, if not out of nothing, pray tell me of what God made it?
If He made it out of Himself, it follows that He is Himself (what should
never be affirmed) the material of which His own work is formed. But you
go on to say: "When however, He made the exhalation or breath out of
Himself, He remained at the same time whole and entire;" just as if the
light of a candle did not also remain entire when another candle is
lighted from it, and yet be of the same nature, and not another.

CHAP. 4 [IV.]--VICTOR'S SIMILE TO SHOW THAT GOD CAN CREATE BY BREATHING
WITHOUT IMPARTATION OF HIS SUBSTANCE.

    "But," you say, "when we inflate a bag, no portion of our nature or
quality is poured into the bag, while the very breath, by the current of
which the filled bag is extended, is emitted from us without the least
diminution of ourselves." Now, you enlarge and dwell upon these words of
yours, and inculcate the simile as necessary for our understanding how
it is that God, without any injury to His own nature, makes the soul out
of His own self, and how, when it is thus made out of Himself, it is not
what Himself is. For you ask: "Is this inflation of the bag a portion of
our own soul? Or do we create human beings when we inflate bags? Or do
we suffer any injury in anything at all when we impart our breath by
inflation on diverse things? But we suffer no injury when we transfer
breath from ourselves to anything, nor do we ever remember experiencing
any damage to ourselves from inflating a bag, the full quality and
entire quantity of our breath remaining in us notwithstanding the
process." Now, however elegant and applicable this simile seems to you,
I beg you to consider how greatly it misleads you. For you affirm that
the incorporeal God breathes out a corporeal soul,--not made out of
nothing, but out of Himself,--whereas the breath which we ourselves emit
is corporeal, although of a more subtle nature than our bodies; nor do
we exhale it out of our soul, but out of the air through internal
functions in our bodily structure. Our lungs, like a pair of bellows,
are moved by the soul (at the command of which also the other members of
the body are moved), for the purpose of inhaling and exhaling the
atmospheric air. For, besides the aliments, solid or fluid, which
constitute our meat and drink, God has surrounded us with this third
aliment of the atmosphere which we breathe; and that with so good
effect, that we can live for some time without meat and drink, but we
could not possibly subsist for a moment without this third aliment,
which the air, surrounding us on all sides, supplies us with as we
breathe and respire. And as our meat and drink have to be not only
introduced into the body, but also to be expelled by passages formed for
the purpose, to prevent injury accruing either way (from either not
entering or not quitting the body); so this third airy aliment (not
being permitted to remain within us, and thus not becoming corrupt by
delay, but being expelled as soon as it is introduced) has been
furnished, not with different, but with the self-same channels both for
its entrance and for its exit, even the mouth, or the nostrils, or both
together.

CHAP. 5.--EXAMINATION OF VICTOR'S SIMILE: DOES MAN GIVE OUT NOTHING BY
BREATHING?

    Prove now yourself what I say, for your own satisfaction in your own
case; emit breath by exhalation, and see whether you can continue long
without catching back your breath; then again catch it back by
inhalation, and see what discomfort you experience unless you again emit
it. Now, when we inflate a bag, as you prescribe, we do, in fact, the
same thing which we do to maintain life, except that in the case of the
artificial experiment our inhalation is somewhat stronger, in order that
we may emit a stronger breath, so as to fill and distend the bag by
compressing the air we blow into it, rather in the manner of a hard puff
than of the gentle process of ordinary breathing and respiration. On
what ground, then, do you say, "We suffer no injury whenever we transfer
breath from ourselves to any object, nor do we ever remember
experiencing any damage to ourselves from inflating a bag, the full
quality and entire quantity of our own breath remaining in us
notwithstanding the process"? It is very plain, my son, if ever you have
inflated a bag, that you did not carefully observe your own performance.
For you do not perceive what you lose by the act of inflation by reason
of the immediate recovery of your breath. But you can learn all this
with the greatest ease if you would simply prefer doing so to stiffly
maintaining your own statements for no other reason than because you
have made them--not inflating the bag, but inflated yourself to the
full, and inflating your hearers (whom you should rather edify and
instruct by veritable facts) with the empty prattle of your turgid
discourse. In the present case I do not send you to any other teacher
than your own self. Breathe, then, a good breath into the bag; shut your
mouth instantly, hold tight your nostrils, and in this way discover the
truth of what I say to you. For when you begin to suffer the intolerable
inconvenience which accompanies the experiment, what is it you wish to
recover by opening your mouth and releasing your nostrils? Surely there
would be nothing to recover. if your supposition  be a correct one, that
you have lost nothing whenever you breathe. Observe what a plight you
would be in, if by inhalation you did not regain what you had parted
with by your breathing outwards. See, too, what loss and injury the
insufflation would produce, were it not for the repair and reaction
caused by respiration. For unless the breath which you expend in filling
the bag should all return by the re-opened channel to discharge its
function of nourishing yourself, what, I wonder, would be left remaining
to you,--I will not say to inflate another bag, but to supply your very
means of living?

           CHAP. 6.--THE SIMILE REFORMED IN ACCORDANCE

                           WITH TRUTH.

    Well, now, you ought to have thought of all this when you were
writing, and not to have brought God before our eyes in that favourite
simile of yours, of inflated and inflateable bags, breathing forth souls
out of some other nature which was already in existence, just as we
ourselves make our breath from the air which surrounds us; or certainly
you should not, in a manner which is really as diverse from your
similitude as it is abundant in impiety, have represented God as either
producing some changeable thing without injury, indeed, to Himself, but
yet out of His own substance; or what is worse, creating it in such wise
as to be Himself the material of His own work. If, however, we are to
employ a similitude drawn from our breathing which shall suitably
illustrate this subject, the following one is more credible: Just as we,
whenever we breathe, make a breath, not out of our own nature, but,
because we are not omnipotent, out of that air that surrounds us, which
we inhale and discharge whenever we breathe and respire; and the said
breath is neither living nor sentient, although we are ourselves living
and sentient; so God can--not, indeed, out of His own nature, but (as
being so omnipotent as to be able to create whatever He wills) even out
of that which has no existence at all, that is to say, out of
nothing--make a breath that is living and sentient, but evidently
mutable, though He be Himself immutable.

CHAP. 7 [V.]--VICTOR APPARENTLY GIVES THE CREATIVE BREATH TO MAN ALSO.

    But what is the meaning of that, which you have thought proper to
add to this simile, with regard to the example of the blessed Elisha
because he raised the dead by breathing into his face?(1) Now, do you
really suppose that Elisha's breath was made the soul of the child? I
could not believe that even you could stray so far away from the truth.
If, now, that soul which was taken from the living child so as to cause
his death, was itself afterwards restored to him so as to cause his
restoration to life: where, I ask, is the pertinence of your remark when
you say "that no diminution accrued to Elisha," as if it could be
imagined that anything had been transferred from the prophet to the
child to cause his revival? But if you meant no more than that the
prophet breathed and remained entire, where was the necessity for your
saying that of Elisha, when raising the dead child, which you might with
no less propriety say of any one whatever when emitting a breath, and
reviving no one? Then, again, you spoke unadvisedly (though God forbid
that you should believe the breath of Elisha to have become the soul of
the resuscitated child!) when you intimated your meaning to be a desire
to keep separate what was first done by God from this that was done by
the prophet, in that the One breathed but once, and the other thrice.
These are your words: "Elisha breathed into the face of the deceased
child of the Shunammite, after the manner of the original creation. And
when by the prophet's breathing a divine force inspired the dead limbs,
reanimated to their original vigour, no diminution accrued to Elisha,
through whose breathing the dead body recovered its revived soul and
spirit. Only there is this difference, the Lord breathed but once into
man's face and he lived, while Elisha breathed three times into the face
of the dead and he lived again." Thus your words sound as if the number
of the breathings alone made all the difference, why we should not
believe that the prophet actually did what God did. This statement,
then, requires to be entirely revised. There was so complete a
difference between that work of God and this of Elisha, that the former
breathed the breath of life whereby man became a living soul, and the
latter breathed a breath which was not itself sentient nor endued with
life, but was figurative for the sake of some signification. The prophet
did not really cause the child to live again by giving him life, but he
procured God's doing that by giving him love.(2) As to what you allege,
that he breathed three times, either your memory, as often happens, or a
faulty reading of the text, must have misled you. Why need I enlarge?
You ought not to be seeking for examples and arguments to establish your
point, but rather to amend and change your opinion. I beg of you neither
to believe, nor to say, nor to teach "that God made the human soul not
out of nothing, but out of His own substance," if you wish to be a
catholic. existent," if you wish to be a catholic. For a time will come
when God will not give souls, although He will not therefore Himself
cease to exist. Your phrase, "is ever giving," might be understood "to
give without cessation," so long as men are born and get offspring, even
as it is said of certain men that they are "ever learning, and never
coming to the knowledge of the truth."(1) For this term "ever" is not in
this passage taken to mean "never ceasing to learn," inasmuch as they do
cease to learn when they have ceased to exist in this body, or have
begun to suffer the fiery pains of hell. You, however, did not allow
your word to be understood in this sense when you said "is ever giving,"
since you thought that it must be applied to infinite time. And even
this was a small matter; for, as if you had been asked to explain your
phrase, "ever giving," more explicitly, you went on to say, "just as He
is Himself ever existent who gives." This assertion the sound and
catholic faith utterly condemns. For be it far from us to believe that
God is ever giving souls, just as He is Himself, who gives them, ever
existent. He is Himself ever existent in such a sense as never to cease
to exist; souls, however, He will not be ever giving; but He will beyond
doubt cease to give them when the age of generation ceases, and children
are no longer born to whom they are to be given.

CHAP. 9 [VII.]--HIS THIRD ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK II. II [VII.].)

    Again, do not, I pray you, believe, say, or teach that "the soul
deservedly lost something by the flesh, although it was of good merit
previous to the flesh," if you wish to be a catholic. For the apostle
declares that "children who are not yet born, have done neither good nor
evil.''(2) How, therefore, could their soul, previous to its
participation of flesh, have had anything like good desert, if it had
not done any good thing? Will you by any chance venture to assert that
it had, previous to the flesh, lived a good life, when you cannot
actually prove to us that it even existed at all? How, then, can you
say: "You will not allow that the soul contracts health from the sinful
flesh; and to this holy state, then, you can see it in due course pass,
with the view of amending its condition, through that very flesh by
which it had lost merit"? Perhaps you are not aware that these opinions,
which attribute to the human soul a good state and a good merit previous
to the flesh, have been already condemned by the catholic Church, not
only in the case of some ancient heretics, whom I do not here mention,
but also more recently in the instance of the Priscillianists.

CHAP. 10.--HIS FOURTH ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK I. 6 [VI.] AND BOOK  II.
II [VII.].)

    Neither believe, nor say, nor teach that "the soul, by means of the
flesh, repairs its ancient condition, and is born again by the very
means through which it had deserved to be polluted," if you wish to be a
catholic. I might, indeed, dwell upon the strange discrepancy with your
own self which you have exhibited in the next  sentence, wherein you
said that the soul  through the flesh deservedly recovers its primitive
condition, which it had seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh,
in order that it may begin to be regenerated by the very flesh through
which it had deserved to be polluted." Here you--the very man who had
just before said that the soul repairs its condition through the flesh,
by reason of which it had lost its desert (where nothing but good desert
can be meant, which you will have to be recovered in the flesh, by
baptism, of course) -- said in another turn of your thought, that
through the flesh the soul had deserved to be polluted (in which
statement it is no longer the good desert, but an evil one, which must
be meant). What flagrant inconsistency! but I will pass it over, and
content myself with observing, that it is absolutely uncatholic to
believe that the soul, previous to its incarnate state, deserved either
good or evil.

CHAP. 11 [VIII.]--HIS FIFTH ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK I. 8 [VIII.] AND
BOOK II. 12 [VIII.].)

    Neither believe, nor say, nor teach, if you wish to be a catholic,
that "the soul deserved to be sinful before any sin." It is, to be sure,
an extremely bad desert to have deserved to be sinful. And, of course,
it could not possibly have incurred so bad a desert previous to any sin,
especially prior to its coming into the flesh, when it could have
possessed no merit either way, either evil or good. How, then, can you
Say: "If, therefore, the soul, which could not be sinful, deserved to be
sinful, it yet did not remain in sin, because as it was prefigured in
Christ it was bound not to be in a sinful state, even as it was unable
to be"? Now, just for a little consider what it is you say, and desist
from repeating such a statement. How did the soul deserve, and how was
it unable, to be sinful? How, I pray you tell me, did that deserve to be
sinful which never lived sinfully? How, I ask again, was that made
sinful which was not able to be sinful? Or else, if you mean your
phrase, "was unable," to imply inability apart from the flesh, how in
that case did the soul deserve to be sinful, and by reason of what
desert was it sent into the flesh, when previous to its union with the
flesh it was not able to be sinful, so as to deserve any evil at all?

CHAP. 12 [IX.]--HIS SIXTH ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK I. 10--12 [IX., X.],
AND IN BOOK II. 13, 14 [IX., X.].)

    If you wish to be a catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or
teaching that "infants which are forestalled by death before they are
baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins." For the
examples by which you are misled--that of the thief who confessed the
Lord upon the cross, or that of Dinocrates the brother of St.
Perpetua--contribute no help to you in defence of this erroneous
opinion. As for the thief, although in God's judgment he might be
reckoned among those who are purified by the confession of martyrdom,
yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of
the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which
gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord's side,(1) as he
hung on the cross next to Him, and thus have been washed with a baptism
of the most sacred kind, what if he had been baptized in prison, as in
after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? or
what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed,
he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in
that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of
public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if,
being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the
punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of
repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though
baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety
appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his
words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted
life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should
calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they
were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul.(2) If, however, we
could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the
circumstance of the Lord's saying to St. Peter, "He that is washed
needeth not save to wash his feet,"(3) what are we to think of the
others, of whom we do not read even so much as this,--Barnabas, Timothy,
Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and
innumerable others, about whose baptism God forbid that we should
entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it? As for
Dinocrates, he was a child of seven years of age; and as children who
are baptized so old as that can now recite the creed and answer for
themselves in the usual examination, I know not why he may not be
supposed after his baptism to have been recalled by his unbelieving
father to the sacrilege and profanity of heathen worship, and for this
reason to have been condemned to the pains from which he was liberated
at his sister's intercession. For in the account of him you have never
read, either that he was never a Christian, or died a catechumen. But
for the matter of that, the account itself that we have of him does not
occur in that canon of Holy Scripture whence in all questions of this
kind our proofs ought always to be drawn.

CHAP. 13 [X]--HIS SEVENTH ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK II. 13 [IX.].)

    If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or
to teach that "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be
snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been
accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined." There is in
such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in
opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties
that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is
hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man
who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion
into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case
if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction
against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: "We say that
some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants
who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this
life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ." Is it then
really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are
forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And
could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw
would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come
to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of
His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on
this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a
little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing
admonition.

CHAP. 14.--HIS EIGHTH ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK II. 13 [IX.].)

    Refuse, if you wish to be a catholic, to believe, or to say, or to
teach that "it is of infants, who are forestalled by death before they
are born again in Christ, that the Scripture says, 'Speedily was he
taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding, or
deceit beguile his soul. Therefore God hastened to take him away from
among the wicked; for his soul pleased the Lord; and being made perfect
in a short time he fulfilled long seasons.'"(1) For this passage has
nothing to do with those to whom you apply it, but rather belongs to
those who, after they have been baptized and have progressed in pious
living, are not permitted to tarry long on earth,--having been made
perfect, not with years, but with the grace of heavenly wisdom. This
error however, of yours, by which you think that this scripture was
spoken of infants who die unbaptized, does an intolerable wrong to the
holy layer itself, if an infant, who could have been "hurried away"
after baptism, has been "hurried away" before this, for this
reason:--"lest wickedness should alter his understanding, or deceit
beguile his soul." As if this "wickedness," and this "deceit which
beguiles the soul," and changes it for the worse, if it be not before
taken away, is to be believed to be in baptism itself! In a word, since
his soul had pleased God, He hastened to remove him out of the midst of
iniquity; and he tarried not for ever so little while, in order to
fulfil in him what He had predestinated; but preferred to act in
opposition to His predestined purpose, and actually hastened lest what
had pleased Him so well in the unbaptized child should be exterminated
by his baptism! As if the dying infant would perish in that, whither we
ought to run with him in our arms in order to save him from perdition.
Who, therefore, in respect of these words of the Book of Wisdom, could
believe, or say, or write, or quote them as having been written
concerning infants who die without baptism, if he only reflected upon
them with proper consideration?

CHAP. 15 [XI.]--HIS NINTH ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK II. 14 [X.].)

    If you wish to be a catholic, I pray you, neither believe, nor say,
nor teach that "there are some mansions outside the kingdom of God which
the Lord said were in His Father's house." For He does not affirm, as
you have adduced his testimony, "There are with my Father (apud Patrem
meum) many mansions;" although, if He had even expressed Himself so, the
mansions could hardly be supposed to have any other situation than in
the house of His Father; but He plainly says, "In my Father's house are
many mansions."(2) Now, who would be so reckless as to separate some
parts of God's house from the kingdom of God; so that, whilst the kings
of the earth are found reigning, not in their house only, nor only in
their own country, but far and wide, even in regions across the sea, the
King who made the heaven and the earth is  not described as reigning
even over all His own house?

CHAP. 16.--GOD RULES EVERYWHERE: AND YET THE "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN" MAY NOT
BE EVERYWHERE.

  You may, however, not improbably contend that all things, it is true,
belong to the kingdom of God, because He reigns in heaven, reigns on
earth, in the depths beneath, in paradise, in hell (for where does He
not reign, since His power is everywhere supreme?); but that the kingdom
of heaven is one thing, into which none are permitted to enter,
according to the Lord's own true and settled sentence, unless they are
washed in the layer of regeneration, while quite another thing is the
kingdom over the earth, or over any other parts of creation, in which
there may be some mansions of God's house; but these, although
appertaining to the kingdom of God, belong not to that kingdom of heaven
where God's kingdom exists with an especial excellence and blessedness;
and that it hence happens that, while no parts and mansions of God's
house can be rudely separated from the kingdom of God, yet not all the
mansions are prepared in the kingdom of heaven; and still, even in the
abodes which are not situated in the kingdom of heaven, those may live
happily, to whom, if they are even unbaptized, God has willed to assign
such habitations. They are no doubt in the kingdom of God, although (as
not having been baptized) they cannot possibly be in the kingdom of
heaven.

             CHAP. 17.--WHERE THE KINGDOM OF GOD MAY

                      BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE.

    Now, they who say this, do no doubt seem to themselves to say a good
deal, because theirs is only a slight and careless view of Scripture;
nor do they understand in what sense we use the phrase, "kingdom of
God," when we say of it in our prayers, "Thy kingdom come;"(3) for that
is called the kingdom of God, in which His whole family shall reign with
Him in happiness and for ever. Now, in respect of the power which He
possesses over all things, he is of course even now reigning. What,
therefore, do we intend when we pray that His kingdom may come unless
that we may deserve to reign with  Him? But even they will be under His
power who shall have to suffer the pains of eternal fire. Well, then, do
we mean to predicate of these unhappy beings that they too will be in
the kingdom of God? Surely it is one thing to be honoured with the gifts
and privileges of the kingdom of God, and another thing to be restrained
and punished by the laws of the same. However, that you may have a very
manifest proof that on the one hand the kingdom of heaven must not be
parcelled out to the baptized, and other portions of the kingdom of God
be given to the unbaptized, as you seem to have determined, I beg of you
to hear the Lord's own words; He does not say, "Except a man be born
again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom or
heaven;" but His words are, "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
His discourse with Nicodemus on the subject before us runs thus:
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God." Observe, He does not here say, the kingdom of
heaven, but the kingdom of God. And then, on Nicodemus asking Him in
reply, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second
time into his mother's womb and be born?" the Lord, in explanation,
repeats His former statement more plainly and openly: "Verily, verily, I
say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Observe again, He uses the same
phrase, the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of heaven.(1) It is worthy
of remark, that while He varies two expressions in explaining them the
second time (for after saying, "Except a man be born again," He
interprets that by the fuller expression, "Except a man be born of water
and the Spirit;" and in like manner He explains, "he cannot see," by the
completer phrase, "he cannot enter into"), He yet makes no variation
here; He said "the kingdom of God" the first time, and He afterwards
repeated the same phrase exactly. It is not now necessary to raise and
discuss the question, whether the kingdom of God and the kingdom of
heaven must be understood as involving different senses, or whether only
one thing is described under two designations. It is enough to find that
no one can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be washed in the
layer of regeneration. I suppose you perceive by this time how wide of
the truth it is to separate from the kingdom of God any mansions that
are placed in the house of God. And as to the idea which you have
entertained that there will be found dwelling among the various
mansions, which the Lord has told us abound in His Father's house, some
who have not been born again of water and the Spirit, I advise you, if
you will permit me, not to defer amending it, in order that you may hold
the catholic faith.

CHAP. 18 [XII.]--HIS TENTH ERROR. (SEE ABOVE IN BOOK I. 13 [XI.] AND
BOOK II. 15 [XI.].

Again, if you wish to be a catholic, I pray you, neither believe, nor
say, nor teach that "the sacrifice of Christians ought to be offered in
behalf of those who have departed out of the body without having been
baptized." Because you fail to show that the sacrifice of the Jews,
which you have quoted out of the books of the Maccabees,(2) was offered
in behalf of any who had departed this life without circumcision. In
this novel opinion of yours, which you have advanced against the
authority and teaching of the whole Church, you have used a very
arrogant mode of expression. You say, "In behalf of these, I most
certainly decide that constant oblations and incessant sacrifices must
be offered up on the part of the holy priests." Here you show, as a
layman, no submission to God's priests for instruction; nor do you
associate yourself with them (the least you could do) for inquiry; but
you put yourself before them by your proud assumption of judgment. Away,
my son, with all this pretension; men walk not so arrogantly in the Way,
which the Humble Christ taught that He Himself is.(3) No man enters
through His narrow gate with so proud a disposition as this.

CHAP. 19 [XIII.]--HIS ELEVENTH ERROR. (SEEABOVE IN BOOK I.  15 [XII.]
AND BOOK II. 16.)

    Once more, if you desire to be a catholic, do not believe, or say,
or teach that "some of those persons who have departed this life without
Christ's baptism, do not in the meantime go into the kingdom of heaven,
but into paradise; yet afterwards in the resurrection of the dead they
attain also to the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven." Even the
Pelagian heresy was not daring enough to grant them this, although it
holds that infants do not contract original sin. You, however, as a
catholic, confess that they are born in sin; and yet by some
unaccountable perverseness in the novel opinion you put forth, you
assert that they are absolved from that sin with which they were born,
and admitted into the kingdom of heaven without the baptism which saves.
Nor do you seem to be aware how much below Pelagius himself you are in
your views on this point. For he, being alarmed by that sentence of the
Lord which does not permit unbaptized persons to enter into the kingdom
of heaven, does not venture to send infants thither, although he
believes them to be free from all sin; whereas you have so little regard
for what is written, "Except a man be born again of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,"(4) that (to say
nothing of the error which induces you recklessly to sever paradise from
the kingdom of God) you do not hesitate to promise to certain persons,
whom you, as a catholic, believe to be born un- der guilt, both
absolution from this guilt and the kingdom of heaven, even when they die
without baptism. As if you could possibly be a true catholic because you
build up the doctrine of original sin against Pelagius, if you show
yourself a new heretic against the Lord, by pulling down His statement
respecting baptism. For our own part, beloved brother, we do not desire
thus to gain victories over heretics: vanquishing one error by another,
and, what is still worse, a less one by a greater. You say, "Should any
one perhaps be reluctant to allow that paradise was temporarily bestowed
in the meantime on the souls of the dying thief and of Dinocrates, while
there still remains to them the reversion of the kingdom of heaven at
the resurrection, seeing that the principal passage stands in the way of
the opinion, 'Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,' he may still hold my
ungrudging assent on this point; only let him do full honour to both the
effect and the aim[1] of the divine mercy and foreknowledge." These are
your own words, and in them you express your agreement with the man who
says that paradise is conferred on certain unbaptized for a time, in
such a sense that at the resurrection there is in store for them the
reward of the kingdom of heaven, in opposition to "that principal
passage" which has determined that none shall enter into that kingdom
who has not been born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Pelagius was
afraid to oppose himself to this "principal passage" of the Gospel, and
he did not believe that any (whom he still did not suppose to be
sinners) would enter into the kingdom of heaven unbaptized. You, on the
contrary, acknowledge that infants have original sin, and yet you
absolve them from it without the layer of regeneration, and send them
for a temporary residence in paradise, and subsequently permit them to
enter even into the kingdom of heaven.

CHAP. 20 [XIV. --AUGUSTIN CALLS ON VICTOR TO CORRECT HIS ERRORS. (SEE
ABOVE IN BOOK II. 22 [XVI.].)

    Now these errors, and such as these, with whatever others you may
perhaps be able to discover in your books on a more attentive and
leisurely perusal, I beg of you to correct, if you possess a catholic
mind; in other words, if you spoke in perfect sincerity when you said,
that you were not over-confident in yourself that what statements you
had made were all capable of proof; and that your constant aim was not
to maintain even your own opinion, if it were shown to be improbable;
and that it gave you much pleasure, if your own judgment were condemned,
to adopt and pursue better and truer sentiments. Well now, my dear
brother, show that you said this in no fallacious sense; so that the
catholic Church may rejoice in your capacity and character, as
possessing not only genius, but prudence withal, and piety, and
moderation, rather than that the madness of heresy should be kindled by
your contentious persistence in  these errors. Now you have an
opportunity of showing also how sincerely you expressed your  feelings
in the passage which immediately follows the satisfactory statement
which I have just now mentioned of yours. "For," you say, "as it is the
mark of every highest aim and laudable  purpose to transfer one's self
readily to truer views; so it shows a depraved and obstinate judgment to
refuse to return promptly to the pathway of reason." Well, then, show
yourself to be influenced by this high aim and laudable purpose, and
transfer your mind readily to truer views; and do not display a depraved
and obstinate judgment by refusing to return promptly to the pathway of
reason. For if your words were uttered in frank sincerity, if they were
not mere sound of the lips, if you really felt them in your heart, then
you cannot but abhor all delay in accomplishing the great good of
correcting yourself. It was not, indeed, much for you to allow, that it
showed a depraved and obstinate judgment to refuse to return to the
pathway of reason, unless you had added "promptly." By adding this, you
showed us how execrable is his conduct who never accomplishes the
reform; inasmuch as even he who effects it but tardily appears to you to
deserve so severe a censure, as to be fairly described as displaying a
depraved and obstinate mind. Listen, therefore, to your own admonition,
and turn to good account mainly and largely the fruitful resources of
your eloquence; that so you may promptly return to the pathway of
reason, more promptly, indeed, than when you declined therefrom, at an
unstable period of your age, when you were fortified with too little
prudence and less learning.

            CHAP. 21.--AUGUSTIN COMPLIMENTS VICTOR'S

                     TALENTS AND DILIGENCE.

    It would take me too long a time to handle and discuss fully all the
points which I wish to be amended in your books, or rather in your own
self, and to give you even a brief reason for the correction of each
particular. And yet you must not because of them despise yourself, so as
to suppose that your ability and powers of speech are to be thought
lightly of. I have discovered in you no small recollection of the sacred
Scriptures; but your erudition is less than was pro portioned to your
talent, and the labour you bestowed on them. My desire, therefore, is
that you should not, on the one hand, grow vain by attributing too much
to yourself; nor, on the other hand, become cold and indifferent by
prostration or despair. I only wish that I could read your writings in
company with yourself, and point out the necessary emendations in
conversation rather than by writing. This is a matter which could be
more easily accomplished by oral communication between ourselves than in
letters. If the entire subject were to be treated in writing, it would
require many volumes. Those chief errors, however, which I have wished
to sum up comprehensively in a definite number, I at once call your
attention to, in order that you may not postpone the correction of them,
but banish them entirely from your preaching and belief; so that the
great faculty which you possess of disputation, may, by God's grace, be
employed by you usefully for edification, not for injuring and
destroying sound and wholesome doctrine.

CHAP. 22 [XV.]--A SUMMARY RECAPITULATION OF THE ERRORS OF VICTOR.

    What these particular errors are, I have, to the best of my ability,
already explained. But I will run over them again with a brief
recapitulation. One is, "That God did not make the soul out of nothing,
but out of His own self." A second is, that "just as God who gives is
Himself ever existent, so is He ever giving souls through infinite
time." The third is, that "the soul lost some merit by the flesh, which
it had had previous to the flesh." The fourth is, that "the soul by
means of the flesh recovers its ancient condition, and is born again
through the very same flesh by which it had deserved to be polluted."
The fifth is, that "the soul deserved to be sinful, previous to any
sin." The sixth is, that "infants which are forestalled by death before
they are baptized, may yet attain to forgiveness of their original
sins." The seventh is, that "they whom the Lord has predestinated to be
baptized may be taken away from his predestination, or die before that
has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined." The
eighth is, that "it is of infants who are fore-stalled by death, before
they are born again in Christ, that the Scripture says, 'Speedily was be
taken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding,'" with the
remainder of the passage to the same effect in the Book of Wisdom. The
ninth is, that "there are outside the kingdom of God some of those
mansions which the Lord said were in His Father's house." The tenth is,
that "the sacrifice of Christians ought to be offered in behalf of those
who have departed out of the body without being baptized." The eleventh
is, that "some of those persons who have departed this life without the
baptism of Christ do not in the meanwhile go into the kingdom, but into
paradise; afterwards, however, in the resurrection of the dead, they
attain even to the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven."

             CHAP. 23.--OBSTINACY MAKES THE HERETIC.

    Well, now, as for these eleven propositions, they are extremely and
manifestly perverse and opposed to the catholic faith; so that you
should no longer hesitate to root them out and cast them away from your
mind, from your words, and froth your pen, if you are desirous that we
should rejoice not only at your having come over to our catholic altars,
but at your being really and truly a catholic. For if these dogmas of
yours are severally maintained with pertinacity, they may possibly
engender as many heresies as they number opinions. Wherefore consider, I
pray you, how dreadful it is that they should be all concentrated in one
person, when they would, if held severally by various persons, be every
one of them damnable in each holder. If, however, you would in your own
person cease to fight contentiously in their defence, nay, would turn
your arms against them by faithful words and writings, you would acquire
more praise as the censurer of your own self than if you directed any
amount of right criticism against any other person; and your amendment
of your own errors would bring you more admiration than if you had never
entertained them. May the Lord be present to your heart  and mind, and
by His Spirit pour into your soul such readiness in humility, such light
of truth, such sweetness of love, and such peaceful piety, that you may
prefer being a conqueror of your own spirit in the truth, than of any
one else who gainsays it with his errors. But I do not by any means wish
you to think, that by holding these opinions you have departed from the
catholic faith, although they are unquestionably opposed to the catholic
faith; if so be you are able, in the presence of that God whose eye
infallibly searches every man's heart, to look back on your own words as
being truly and sincerely expressed, when you said that you were not
over-confident in yourself as to the opinions you had broached, that
they were all capable of proof; and that your constant aim was not to
persist in your own sentiments, if they were shown to be improbable;
inasmuch as it was a real pleasure to you, when any judgment of yours
was condemned, to adopt and pursue better and truer thoughts. Now such a
temper as this, even in relation to what may have been said in an
uncatholic form through ignorance, is itself catholic by the very
purpose and readiness of amendment which it premeditates. With this
remark, however, I must now end this volume, where the reader may rest a
while, ready to renew his attention to what is to follow, when I begin
my next book.

 BOOK IV.

                 ADDRESSED TO VINCENTIUS VICTOR.

HE FIRST SHOWS, THAT HIS HESITATION ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGIN OF
SOULS WAS UNDESERVEDLY BLAMED, AND THAT HE WAS WRONGLY COMPARED WITH
CATTLE, BECAUSE HE HAD REFRAINED FROM ANY RASH CONCLUSIONS ON THE
SUBJECT. THEN, AGAIN, WITH REGARD TO HIS OWN UNHESITATING STATEMENT,
THAT THE SOUL WAS SPIRIT, NOT BODY, HE POINTS OUT HOW RASHLY VICTOR
DISAPPROVED OF THIS ASSERTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE WAS VAINLY EXPENDING
HIS EFFORTS TO PROVE THAT THE SOUL WAS CORPOREAL IN ITS OWN NATURE, AND
THAT THE SPIRIT IN MAN WAS DISTINCT FROM THE SOUL ITSELF.

          CHAP. 1 [I.]--THE PERSONAL CHARACTER OF THIS

                              BOOK.

    I Must now, in the sequel of my treatise, request you to hear what I
desire to say to you concerning myself--as I best can; or rather as He
shall enable me in whose hand are both ourselves and our words. For you
blamed me on two several occasions, even going so far as to mention my
name. In the beginning of your book you spoke of yourself as being
perfectly conscious of your own want of skill, and as being destitute of
the support of learning; and, when you mentioned me, bestowed on me the
complimentary phrases of  "most learned" and "most skilful." But yet,
all the while, on those subjects in which you seemed to yourself to be
perfectly acquainted with what I either confess my ignorance of, or
presume with no unbecoming liberty to have some knowledge of, you--young
as you are, and a layman too--did not hesitate to censure me, an old man
and a bishop, and a person withal whom in your own judgment you had
pronounced most learned and most skilful. Well, for my own part, I know
nothing about my great learning and skill; nay, I am very certain that I
possess no such eminent qualities; moreover, I have no doubt that it is
quite within the scope of possibility, that it may fall to the lot of
even an unskilful and unlearned man occasionally to know what a learned
and skilful person is ignorant of; and in this I plainly commend you,
that you have preferred to merely personal regard a love of truth,--for
if you have not understood the truth, yet at any rate you have thought
it such. This you have done no doubt with temerity, because you thought
you knew what you were really ignorant of; and without restraint,
because, having no respect of persons, you chose to publish abroad
whatever was in your mind. You ought therefore to understand how much
greater our care should be to recall the Lord's sheep from their errors;
since it is evidently wrong for even the sheep to conceal from the
shepherds whatever faults they have discovered in them. O that you
censured me in such things as are indeed worthy of just blame! For I
must not deny that both in my conduct and in my writings there are many
points which may be censured by a sound judge without temerity. Now, if
you would select any of these for your censure, I might be able by them
to show you how I should like you to behave in those particulars which
you judiciously and fairly condemned; moreover, I should have (as an
eider to a younger, and as one in authority to him who has to obey) an
opportunity of setting you an example under correction which should not
be more humble on my part than wholesome to both of us. With respect,
however, to the points on which you have actually censured me, they are
not such as humility obliges me to correct, but such as truth compels me
partly to acknowledge and partly to defend.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--THE POINTS WHICH VICTOR THOUGHT BLAMEWORTHY IN AUGUSTIN.

    And they are these: The first, that I did not venture to make a
definite statement touching the origin of those souls which have been
given, or are being given, to human beings, since the first man--because
I confess my ignorance of the subject; the second, because I said I was
sure the soul was spirit, not body. Under this second point, however,
you have included two grounds of censure: one, because I refused to
believe the soul to be corporeal; the other, because I affirmed it to be
spirit. For to you the  soul appears both to be body and not to be
spirit. I must therefore request your attention to my own defence
against your censure, and ask you to embrace the opportunity which my
self-defence affords you of learning what points there are in yourself
also which require your amendment. Recall, then, the words of your book
in which you first mentioned my name. "I know," you say, "many men of
very great reputation who when consulted have kept silence, or admitted
nothing clearly, but have withdrawn from their discussions everything
definite when they commence their exposition. Of such character are the
contents of sundry writings which I have read at your house by a very
learned man and renowned bishop, called Augustin. The truth is, I
suppose, they have with an overweening modesty and diffidence
investigated the mysteries of this subject, and have consumed within
themselves the judgment of their own treatises, and have professed
themselves incapable of determining anything on this point. But, I
assure you, it appears to me excessively absurd and unreasonable that a
man should be a stranger to himself; or that a person who is supposed to
have acquired the knowledge of all things, should regard himself as
unknown to his very self. For what difference is there between a man and
a brute beast, if he knows not how to discuss and determine his own
quality and nature? so that there may justly be applied to him the
statement of Scripture: 'Man, although he was in honour, understood not;
he is like the cattle, and is compared with them." For when the good and
gracious God created everything with reason and wisdom, and produced man
as a rational animal, capable of understanding, endowed with reason, and
lively with sensation,--because by His prudent arrangement He assigns
their place to all creatures which do not participate in the faculty of
reason,--what more incongruous idea could be suggested, than that God
had withheld from him the simple knowledge of himself? The wisdom of
this world, indeed, is ever aiming with much effort to attain to the
knowledge  of truth; its researches, no doubt, fall short of the aim,
from its inability to know through what  agency it is permitted that
truth should be ascertained; but yet there are some things on the nature
of the soul, near (I might even say, akin)  to the truth which it has
attempted to discern.  Under these circumstances, how unbecoming and
even shameful a thing it is, that any man of religious principle should
either have no intelligent views on this very subject, or prohibit
himself from acquiring any!"

              CHAP. 3.--HOW MUCH DO WE KNOW OF THE

                       NATURE OF THE BODY?

    Well, now, this extremely lucid and eloquent castigation which you
have inflicted on our ignorance lays you so strictly under the necessity
of knowing every possible thing which appertains to the nature of man,
that, should you unhappily be ignorant of any particular, you must (and 
remember it is not I, but you, that have made the necessity) be compared
with "the cattle." For although you appear to aim your censure at us
more especially, when you quote the passage, "Man, although he was in
honour, understood not," inasmuch as we (unlike yourself) hold an
honourable place in the Church; yet even you occupy too honourable a
rank in nature, not to be preferred above the cattle, with which
according to your own judgment you will have to be compared, if you
should happen to be ignorant  on any of the points which manifestly
appertain to your nature. For you have not merely aspersed with your
censure those who are affected with the same ignorance as I am myself
labouring under, that is to say, concerning the origin of the human soul
(although I am not indeed absolutely ignorant even on this point, for I
know that God breathed into the face of the first man, and that "man
then became a living soul,"[2]--a truth, however, which I could never
have known by myself, unless I had read of it in the Scripture); but you
asked in so many words, "What difference is there between a man and a
brute beast, if he knows not how to discuss and determine his own
quality and nature?" And you seem to have entertained your opinion so
distinctly, as to have thought that a man ought to be able to discuss
and determine the facts of his own entire quality and nature so clearly,
that nothing concerning himself should escape his observation. Now, if
this is really the truth of the matter, I must now compare you to "the
cattle," if you cannot tell me the precise number of the hairs of your
head. But if, however far we may advance in this life, you allow us to
be ignorant of sundry facts appertaining to our nature,  I then want to
know how far your concession extends, lest, perchance, it may include
the very point we are now raising, that we do not by any means know the
origin of our soul; although we know,--a thing which belongs to faith,--
beyond all doubt, that the soul is a gift to man from God, and that it
still is not of the same nature as God Himself. Do you, moreover, think
that each person's ignorance of his own nature must be exactly on the
same level as your ignorance of it? Must everybody's knowledge, too, of
the subject be equal to what you have been able to attain to? So that if
he is so unfortunate as to possess a slightly larger amount of ignorance
than yourself, you must compare him with cattle; and on the same
principle, if any one shall be ever so little wiser than yourself on
this subject, he will have the pleasure of comparing you with equal
justice to the aforesaid cattle. I must therefore request you to tell
me, to what extent you permit us to be ignorant of our nature so as to
save our distance from the formidable cattle; and I beg you besides duly
to reflect, whether he is not further removed from cattle who knows his
ignorance of any part of the subject, than he is who thinks he knows
what in fact he knows not. The entire nature of man is certainly spirit,
soul, and body; therefore, whoever would alienate the body from man's
nature, is unwise. Those medical men, however, who are called anatomists
have investigated with careful scrutiny, by dissecting processes, even
living men, so far as men have been able to retain any life in the hands
of the examiners; their researches have penetrated limbs, veins, nerves,
bones, marrow, the internal vitals; and all to discover the nature of
the body. But none of these men have ever thought of comparing us with
the cattle, because of our ignorance of their subject. But perhaps you
will say that it is those who are ignorant of the nature of the soul,
not of the body, who are to be compared with the brute beasts. Then you
ought not to have expressed yourself at starting in the way you have
done. Your words are not, "For what difference is there between a man
and cattle, if he is ignorant of the nature and quality of the soul;"
but you say, "if he knows not how to discuss and determine his own
nature and quality." Of course our quality and our nature must be taken
account of together with the body, but at the same time the
investigation of the several elements of which we are composed is
conducted in each case separately. For my own part, indeed, if I wished
to display how far it was in my power to treat scientifically and
intelligently the entire field of man's nature, I should have to fill
many volumes; not to mention how many topics there are which I must
confess my ignorance of.

CHAP. 4 [III.]--IS THE QUESTION OF BREATH ONE THAT CONCERNS THE SOUL, OR
BODY, OR WHAT?

    But to what, in  your judgment, does that which we discussed in our
former book concerning the breath of man belong?--to the nature of the
soul, seeing that it is the soul which effects it in man; or to that of
the body, since the body is moved by the soul to effect it; or to that
of this air, by whose alternation of action it is discovered to effect
it; or rather to all three, that is to say, to the soul as that which
moves  the body, and to the body which by its motion receives and emits
the breath, and also to the circumambient air which raises by its
entrance, and by its departure depresses? And yet you were evidently
ignorant of all this, learned and eloquent though you are, when you
supposed, and said, and wrote, and read in the presence of the crowd
assembled to hear your opinion, that it was out of our own nature that
we inflated a bag, and yet had no diminution of our nature at all by the
operation; although you might  most easily ascertain how we accomplish
the process, not by any tedious examination of the pages either of human
or of inspired writings, but by a simple investigation of your own
physical action, whenever you liked. This, then, being the case, how can
I trust you to teach me concerning the origin of souls,--a subject which
I confess myself to be ignorant of,--you who are actually ignorant of
what you are doing unintermittingly with your nose and mouth, and of why
you are doing it? May the Lord bring it to pass that you may be advised
by me, and accept rather than resist so manifest a truth, and one so
ready to your hand. May you also not interrogate your lungs about the
bag inflation in such a temper as to prefer inflating them in opposition
to me, rather than acquiesce in their tuition, when they answer your
inquiry with entire truth,--not by speech and altercation, but by breath
and respiration. Then I could bear with you patiently while you correct
and reproach me for my ignorance of the origin of souls; nay, I could
even warmly thank you, if, besides inflicting on me rebuke, you would
convince me with truth. For if you could teach me the truth I am
ignorant of, it would be my duty to bear with all patience any blows you
might deal against me, not in word only, but even with hand.

            CHAP. 5 [IV.]--GOD ALONE CAN TEACH WHENCE

                           SOULS COME.

    Now with respect to the question between us, I confess to your
loving self[1] I greatly desire to know one of two things if I
can,--either concerning the origin of souls, of which I am ignorant, or
whether this knowledge is within our reach so long as we are in the
present life. For what if our controversy touches the very points of
which it is enjoined to us, "Seek not out the things that are too high
for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength; but
whatever things the Lord hath commanded and taught thee, think thereupon
for evermore." [2] This, then, is what I desire to know, either from God
Himself, who knows what He creates, or even from some competently
learned man who knows what he is saying, not from a person who is
ignorant of the breath he heaves. It is not everybody who recollects his
own infancy; and do you suppose that a man is able, without divine
instruction, to know whence he began to exist in his mother's
womb,--especially if the knowledge of human nature has so completely
eluded him as to leave him ignorant, not only of what is within him, but
of that also which is i added to his nature from without? Will you, my
dearest brother, be able to teach me, or any one else, whence human
beings at their birth are ensouled,[1] when you still know not how it is
that their life is so sustained by food, that they are certain to die if
the aliment is withdrawn for a while? Or will you be able to teach me,
or any one else, whence men obtain their souls, when you are still
actually ignorant whence bags, when inflated, get the filling? My only
wish, as you are ignorant whence souls have their origin, is, that I may
on my side know whether such knowledge is attainable by me in this
present life. If this be one of the things which are too high for us,
and which we are forbidden to seek out or search into, then we have good
grounds for fearing lest we should sin, not by our ignorance of it, but
our quest after it. For we ought not to suppose that a subject, to fall
under the category of the things which are too high for us, must
appertain to the nature of God, and not to our own.

CHAP. 6 [V.]--QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE BODY ARE SUFFICIENTLY
MYSTERIOUS, AND YET NOT HIGHER THAN THOSE OF THE SOUL.

    What do you say to the statement, that amongst the works of God
there are some which it is more difficult to know than even God
Himself,--so far, indeed, as He can be an object of knowledge to us at
all? For we have learnt that God is a Trinity; but to this very day we
do not know how many kinds of animals, not even of land animals which
were able to enter Noah's ark,[2] He has created--unless by some happy
chance you have ascertained this fact. Again, in the Book of Wisdom it
is written, "For if they were able to prevail so much, that they could
know and estimate the world; how is it that they did not more easily
find out the Lord thereof?"[3] Is it because the subject before us is
within us that it is therefore not too high for us? For it must be
granted that the nature of our soul is a more internal thing than our
body. As if the soul has been no better able to explore the body itself
externally by the eyes of that body than internally by its own means.
For what is there in the inward parts of the body where the soul does
not exist? But yet, even with regard to these several inner and vital
portions of our frame, the soul has examined and searched them out by
the bodily eyes; and all that it has succeeded in learning of them it
has acquired by means of the eyes of the body; and, without doubt, all
the material substance was there, even when the soul knew not of it.
Since also our inward parts are incapable of living without the soul, it
follows that the soul has been more able to give them life than to know
them. Well, then, is the soul's body a higher object for its knowledge
than the soul's own self? And therefore if it wishes to inquire and
consider when human seed is converted into blood, when into solid flesh;
when the bones begin to harden, and when to fill with marrow; how many
kinds of veins and nerves there are; by what channels and circuits the
former serve for irrigation and the latter for ligature to the entire
body; whether the skin is to be reckoned among the nerves, and the teeth
among the bones,--for they show some difference, inasmuch as they have
no marrow; and in what respect the nails differ from both, being similar
to them in hardness, while they possess a quality in common with the
hair, in being capable of growing and being cut; what, again, is the use
of those veins wherein air, instead of blood, circulates, which they
call the arteries[4]  --if, I repeat, the soul desired to come to know
these and similar points respecting the nature of its body, ought it
then to be said to a man, "Seek not out the things that are too high for
thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength?" But, if
the inquiry be made into the soul's own origin, of which subject it
knows nothing, the matter then, forsooth, is not too high or beyond
one's strength to be capable of apprehension? And you deem it an absurd
thing, and incompatible with reason, for the soul not to know whether it
is inbreathed by God, or whether it is derived from the parents,
although it does not remember this event as soon as it is past, and
reckons it among the things which it has forgotten beyond recall,--like
infancy, and all other stages of life which followed close upon birth,
though doubtless, when they happened, they were not unaccompanied with
sensation. But yet you do not deem it absurd or unreasonable that it
should be ignorant of the body which is subject to it, and should know
nothing whatever about incidents pertaining to it which are not in the
category of things that are past, but of present facts, --as to whether
it sets the veins in motion in order to produce life in the body, but
the nerves in order to operate by the limbs of the body; and if so, why
it does not move the nerves except at its especial will, whereas it
affects the pulsations of the veins without intermission, even without
willing; from what part of the body that which they call the
hgemonikon (the authoritative part of the soul, the
reason) exercises its universal rule, whether from the heart or from the
brain, or by a distribution, the motions from the heart and the
sensations from the brain,--or from the brain, both the sensations and
voluntary motions, but from the heart, the involuntary pulsations of the
veins; and once more, if it does both of these from the brain, how is it
that it has the sensations, even without willing, while it does not move
the limbs except it wills? Inasmuch, then, as only the soul itself does
all this in the body, how is it that it knows not what it does? or
whence its power to do it? And it is no disgrace to it to be so
ignorant. Then do you suppose it to be a discredit if it knows not
whence or how it was itself made, since it certainly did not make
itself? Well,  then, none know how or whence the soul effects all its
action in the body; do you not therefore think that it, too, appertains
to those things which are said to be "too high for us, and above our
strength"?

CHAP. 7 [VI.]--WE OFTEN NEED MORE TEACHING AS TO WHAT IS MOST INTIMATELY
OURS THAN AS TO WHAT IS FURTHER FROM US.

    But I have to put to you a far wider question arising out of our
subject. Why should only a very few know why all men do what they do?
Perhaps you will tell me, Because they have learnt the art of anatomy or
experiment, which are both comprised in the physician's education, which
few obtain, while others have refused to acquire the information,
although they might, of course, if they had liked. Here, then, I say
nothing of the point why many try to acquire this information, but
cannot, because they are hindered by a slow intellect (which, however,
is a very strange fact) from learning of others what is done by their
own selves and in their own selves. But this is a very important
question which I now ask, Why I should have no need of art to know that
there is a sun in the heavens, and a moon, and other stars; but must
have the aid of art to know, on moving my finger, whence the act
begins,--from the heart, or the brain, or from both, or from neither:
why I do not require a teacher to know what is so much higher than me;
but must yet wait for  some one else to learn whence that is done by me
which is done within me? For although we are said to think in our heart,
and although we know what our thoughts are, without the knowledge of any
other person, yet we know not i in what part of the body we have the
heart itself, where we do our thinking, unless we are taught it by some
other person, who yet is ignorant of what we think. I am not unaware
that when we hear that we should love God with our whole heart, this is
not said of that portion of our flesh which lies under our ribs, but of
that power that originates our thoughts. And this is properly designated
by this name, because, as motion does not cease in the heart whence the
pulsation of the veins radiates in every direction, so in the process of
thought we do not rest in the act itself and abstain from further
pondering. But although every sensation is imparted even to the body by
the soul, how is it that we can count our external limbs, even in the
dark and with closed eyes, by the bodily sense which is called "touch,"
but we know nothing of our internal functions in the very central region
of the soul itself, where that power is present which imparts life and
animation to all else,--a mystery this which, I apprehend, no medical
men of any kind, whether empirics, or anatomists, or dogmatists, or
methodists,[1] or any man living, have any knowledge of?

               CHAP. 8.--WE HAVE NO MEMORY OF OUR

                            CREATION.

    And whosoever shall have attempted to fathom such knowledge may not
improperly have addressed to him the words we have before quoted, "Seek
not out the things that are too high for thee, neither search the things
that are above thy strength." Now it is not a question of mere altitude,
such as is beyond our stature, but it is an elevation which our
intelligence cannot reach, and a strength which our mental power cannot
cope with. And yet it is neither the heaven of heavens, nor the measure
of the stars, nor the scope of sea and land, nor the nethermost hell; it
is our own selves that we are incapable of comprehending; it is our own
selves, who, in our too great height and strength, transcend the humble
limits of our own knowledge; it is our own selves, whom we are incapable
of embracing, although we are certainly not beside ourselves. But we are
not to be compared with cattle simply because we do not perfectly
discover what we ourselves are: and yet you think that we deserve the
humiliating comparison, if we have forgotten what we were, even though
we knew it once. My soul is not now being derived from my parents, is
not now receiving insufflation from God. Whichever of these two
processes He used, He used when He created me; He is not at this moment
using it of me, or within me. It is past and gone,--not a present thing,
nor a recent one to me. I do not even know whether I was aware of it and
then forgot it; or whether I was unable, even at the time when it was
done, to feel and to know it.

CHAP. 9 [VII.]--OUR IGNORANCE OF OURSELVES ILLUSTRATED BY THE REMARKABLE
MEMORY OF ONE SIMPLICIUS.

    Observe now, while we are, while we live, while we know that we
live, while we are certain that we possess memory, understanding, and
will; who boast of ourselves as having a great knowledge of our own
nature;--observe, I say, how entirely ignorant we are of what avail to
us is our memory, or our understanding, or our will. A certain man who
from his youth has been a friend of mine, named Simplicius, is a person
of accurate and astonishing memory. I once asked him to tell me what
were the last lines but one of all the books of Virgil; he immediately
answered my question without the least hesitation, and with perfect
accuracy. I then asked him to repeat the preceding lines; he did so. And
I really believe that he could have repeated Virgil line after line
backward. For wherever I wished, I made trial whether he could do it,
and he did it. Similarly in prose, from any of Cicero's orations, which
he had learnt by heart, he would perform a similar feat at our request,
by reciting backwards as far as we wished. Upon our expressing
astonishment, he called God to witness that he had no idea of this
ability of his previous to that trial. So far, therefore, as memory is
concerned, his mind only then learnt its own power; and such discovery
would at no time be possible except by trial and experiment. Moreover,
he was of course the very same man before he tried his powers; how was
it, then, that he was ignorant of himself?

CHAP. 10.--THE FIDELITY OF MEMORY; THE UNSEARCHABLE TREASURE OF MEMORY;
THE POWERS OF A MAN'S UNDERSTANDING SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD BY NONE.

    We often assume that we shall retain a thing in our memory; and so
thinking, we do not write it down. But afterwards, when we wish to
recall it, it refuses to come to mind; and we are then sorry that we
thought it would return to memory, or that we did not secure it in
writing so as to prevent its escape; and lo, on a sudden, without our
seeking it, it occurs to us. Then does it follow that we were not
ourselves when we thought this? And that we cease to be the same thing
that we were, when we are no longer able to think it? Now how does it
happen that I know not how we are abstracted from, and denied to,
ourselves; and similarly am ignorant how we are restored and returned to
ourselves?  As if we are other persons, and elsewhere, when we seek, but
fail to find, what we deposited in

our memory; and are ourselves incapable of returning to ourselves, as if
we were situated somewhere else; but afterwards return again, on finding
ourselves out. For where do we make our quest, except in our own selves?
And what is it we search for, except our own selves? As if we were not
actually at home in our persons, but had gone somewhither. Do you not
observe, even with alarm, so deep a mystery? And what is all this but
our own nature--not what it has been, but such as it now is? And observe
how much more we seek than we comprehend. I have often believed that I
could understand a question which had been submitted to me, if I were to
bestow thought upon it. Well, I have bestowed the thought, but have not
been able to solve the question; and many a time I have not so believed,
and yet have been able to determine the point. The powers, then, of my
own understanding have not been really known to me; nor, I apprehend,
have they been to you either.

CHAP. 11.--THE APOSTLE PETER TOLD NO LIE, WHEN HE SAID HE WAS READY TO
LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR THE LORD, BUT ONLY WAS IGNORANT OF HIS WILL.

    But perhaps you despise me for confessing all this, and will in
consequence compare me with "cattle." For myself, however, I will not
cease to advise you, or (if you refuse to listen to me) at all events to
warn you, to acknowledge rather this common infirmity, in which virtue
is perfected; lest, by assuming unknown things to be known, you fail to
attain to the truth. For I suppose that there is something which even
you wish to understand, but are unable; which you would never seek to
understand, unless you hoped some day to succeed in your research. Thus
you also are ignorant of the powers of your own understanding, who
profess to know all about your own nature, and decline to follow me in
my confession of ignorance. Well, there is also the will; what am I to
say about that, where certainly free choice is ostentatiously claimed by
us? The blessed Apostle Peter, indeed, was willing to lay down his life
for the Lord. He was no doubt sincere in his willingness; nor was he
treacherous to the Lord when he made the promise. But his will was
entirely ignorant of its own powers. Therefore the great apostle, who
had discovered his Master to be the Son of God, was unknown to himself.
Thus we are quite aware respecting ourselves that we will a thing, or
"nill" it; but although our will is a good one, we are ignorant, my dear
son, unless we deceive ourselves, of its strength, of its resources, of
what temptations it may yield to, or of what it may resist.

CHAP. 12 [VIII.]--THE APOSTLE PAUL COULD KNOW THE THIRD HEAVEN AND
PARADISE, BUT NOT WHETHER HE WAS IN THE BODY OR NOT.

    See therefore how many facts of our nature, not of the past but of
the present time, and not pertaining to the body only, but also to our
inner man, we know nothing about, without deserving to be compared with
the brute beasts. And yet this is the opprobrious comparison which you
have thought me worthy of, because I have not' complete knowledge of the
past origin of my soul--although I am not wholly ignorant of it,
inasmuch as I know that it was given me by God, and yet that it is not
out of God. But when can I enumerate all the particulars relating to the
nature of our spirit and our soul of which we are ignorant? Whereas we
ought rather to utter that exclamation before God, which the Psalmist
uttered: "The knowledge of Thee is too wonderful for me; it is very
difficult, I cannot attain to it."[1] Now why did he add the words far
me, except because he conjectured how incomprehensible was the knowledge
of God for himself, inasmuch as he was unable to comprehend even his own
self? The apostle was caught up into the third heaven, and heard
unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter; and
whether this had happened to him in the body or out of the body, he
declares himself unable to say;[2] but yet he has no fear of
encountering from you comparison with the cattle. His spirit knew that
it was in the third heaven, in paradise; but knew not whether it was in
the body. The third heaven, of course, and paradise were not the Apostle
Paul himself; but his body and soul and spirit were himself. Behold,
then, the curious fact: he knew the great things--lofty and
divine--which were not himself; but that which appertained to his own
nature he was ignorant of. Who in the vast knowledge of such occult
things can help being astonished at his great ignorance of his own
existence? Who, in short, would believe it possible, if one who errs not
had not told us, that "we know not what we should pray for as we
ought"?[3] Where, then, ought our bent and purpose mainly to be--to
"reach forth to those things which are before"? And yet you compare me
to cattle, if among the things which are behind I have forgotten
anything concerning my own origin --although you hear the same apostle
say: "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."[4]

CHAP. 13 [IX.]--IN WHAT SENSE THE HOLY GHOST IS SAID TO MAKE
INTERCESSION  FOR US.

    Do you perhaps also think me ridiculous and like the irrational
beasts, because I said, "We know not what we should pray for as we
ought"? Perhaps this is not quite so intolerable. For since, in the
dictates of a sound and righteous judgment, we prefer our future to our
past; and since our prayer must have reference not to what we have been,
but what we shall be, it is of course much more injurious not to know
what we should pray for, than to be ignorant of the manner of our
origin. But recollect whose words I repeated, or read them again for
yourself, and reflect whence they come; and do not pelt me with your
reproaches, lest the stone you throw should alight on a head you would
not wish. For it is the great teacher of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul
himself, who said, "For we know not what we should pray for as we
ought."[3] And he not only taught this lesson by word, but also
illustrated it by his example. For, contrary to his own advantage and
the promotion of his own salvation, he once in his ignorance prayed that
"the thorn in the flesh might depart from him," which he said had been
given to him "lest he should be exalted above measure by the abundance
of the revelations which were given him." [5] But the Lord loved him,
and so did not do what he had requested Him to do. Nevertheless, when
the apostle said, "We know not what we should pray for as we ought," he
immediately added, "But the Spirit Himself mak-eth intercession for us
with groanings which cannot be uttered. And He that searcheth the hearts
knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession
for the saints according to the will of God "[6]--that is to say, He
makes the saints offer intercessions. He, of course, is that Spirit
"whom God hath sent into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father;" [7] and "by
whom we cry, Abba, Father;"[8] for both expressions are used by the
apostle--both that we have received the Spirit who cries, Abba, Father;
and also that it is through Him that we cry, Abba, Father. His object is
to explain by these varied statements in what sense he used the word
"crying:" he meant causing to cry; so that it is we who cry at His
instance and impulse. Let Him therefore teach me this too, whenever He
pleases, if He knows it to be expedient for me, that I should know
whence I derive my origin as regards my soul. But let me be taught by
that Spirit who searches the deep things of God; not by a man who knows
nothing of the breath which inflates a bag. However, be it far from me
to compare you with brutes because of this piece of ignorance; because
it arose not from incurable inability, but from sheer inadvertence.

CHAP. 14 [X.]--IT IS MORE EXCELLENT TO KNOW  THAT THE FLESH WILL RISE
AGAIN AND LIVE FOR EVERMORE, THAN TO LEARN WHATEVER SCIENTIFIC MEN HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO TEACH US CONCERNING ITS NATURE.

    But although the questions which arise touching the origin of souls
are "higher," no doubt, than that which treats of the source whence the
breath comes which we inhale and exhale, you yet believe that those
things are "higher" which you have learnt out of the Holy Scriptures,
from which we derive what we learn by faith; and such as are not
traceable by any human minds. Of course it is far more excellent to know
that the flesh will rise again and will live for evermore, than any
thing that scientific men have been able to discover in it by careful
examination, which the soul perceives by no outward sense, although its
presence quickens all the things of which it is ignorant. It is also far
better to know that the soul, which has been born again and renewed in
Christ, will be blessed for ever, than to discover all that we are
ignorant of touching its memory, understanding, and will. Now these
subjects, which I have designated as more excellent and as better, we
could by no means find out, unless we believed them on the testimony of
the inspired Scriptures. These Scriptures you perhaps think you so
thoroughly believe, that you do not hesitate to draw out of them a
definite theory about the origin of souls. Well, then, first of all, if
it be as you suppose, you ought never to have attributed to human nature
itself what man knows by discussion and inquiry about his own nature and
quality, but to God's gift. Now you asked: "Wherein does a man differ
from the cattle, if he is ignorant of this?" But why need we read any
thing, in order to know this, if we ought already to know it by the very
fact that we are different from cattle? For just as you do not read
anything to me for the purpose of teaching me that I am alive (my own
nature making it impossible that I should be ignorant of this fact), so
if it is an attribute of nature to know this other matter, why do you
produce passages of Scripture for me to believe concerning this subject?
Is it then only those persons who read them that differ from the cattle?
Are we not so created as to be different from brute animals, even before
we can acquire the art of reading? Pray, tell me how it is that you put
in so high a claim for our nature, that  by the very circumstance of its
differing from  cattle it already knows how to discuss and inquire into
the origin of souls; while at the same time you make it so inexpert in
this knowledge, as to be unable by human endowment to know this without
it believe the divine testimonies.

CHAP. 15 [XI.]--WE MUST NOT BE WISE ABOVE WHAT IS WRITTEN.

    But then, again, you are mistaken in this matter; for the passages
of Scripture which you chose to produce for the solution of this
question of yours, do not prove the point. For it is another thing which
they prove, without which we cannot really lead a pious life, namely,
that we have in God the giver, creator, and fashioner of our souls. But
how He does this for them, whether by inbreathing them as new, or by
deriving them from the patents, they do not tell us--except in the
instance of that one soul which He gave to the first man. Read
attentively what I have written to that servant of God, our brother
Renatus;[1] for inasmuch as I have pointed it all out to him there, it
is not necessary for me to repeat my proofs here. But you would like me
to follow your example in definiteness of theory, and so thrust myself
into such difficulties as you have surrounded yourself with. Involved in
these, you have spoken many stout words against the catholic faith; if,
however, you would faithfully and humbly bethink yourself and consider,
you would assuredly see how greatly it would have profiled you, if you
had only known how to be natural and consistent in your ignorance; and
how this advantage is still open to you, if you were even now able to
maintain such propriety. Now, since understanding so pleases you in
man's nature (for, truly enough, if our nature were without it, we
should not be different from brute beasts, so far as our souls are
concerned), understand, I beg of you, what it is that you do not
understand, lest you should understand nothing: and do not despise any
man who, in order that he may truly understand, understands that he does
not understand that which he does not understand.[2] With regard,
however, to the passage in the inspired psalm, "Man, being in honour,
understandeth not; he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like
unto them;"[3] read and understand these words, that you may rather with
a humble spirit guard against the opprobrium yourself, than arrogantly
throw it out against another person. The passage applies to those who
regard only that as a life worth living which they live in the
flesh--having no hope after death--just like "cattle;" it has no
reference to those who never deny their knowledge of what they actually
know, and always acknowledge their ignorance of what they really do not
know; who, in point of fact, are aware of their weakness, rather than
confident of their strength.

CHAP. 16.--IGNORANCE IS BETTER THAN ERROR. PREDESTINATION TO ETERNAL
LIFE, AND PREDESTINATION TO ETERNAL DEATH.

    Do not, my son, let senile timidity displease your youthful
confidence. For my own part, indeed, if I proved unequal, either under
the teaching of God or of some spiritual instructor, to the task of
understanding the subject of our present inquiry on the origin of souls,
I am more prepared to vindicate God's righteous will, that we should
remain in ignorance on this point, as on many others, than to say in my
rashness what either is so obscure that I can neither bring it home to
the intelligence of other people, nor understand it myself; or certainly
even to help the cause of the heretics who endeavour to persuade us that
the souls of infants are entirely free from guilt, on the ground,
forsooth, that such guilt would only recoil on God as its Author, for
having compelled innocent souls (for the help of which He knew
beforehand no layer of regeneration was prepared) to become sinful, by
assigning them to sinful flesh without any provision for that grace of
baptism which should prevent their incurring eternal damnation. For the
fact undoubtedly is, that numberless souls of infants pass out of the
body before they are baptized. God forbid that I should cast about for
any futile effort to dilute this stern fact, and say what you have
yourself said: "That the soul deserved to be polluted by the flesh, and
to become sinful, though it previously had no sin, by reason of which it
could be rightly said to have incurred this desert." And again: "That
even without baptism original sins may be remitted." And once more:
"That even the kingdom of heaven is at last bestowed on those who have
not been baptized." Now, if I were not afraid to utter these and similar
poisonous allegations against the faith, I should probably not be afraid
to propound some definite theory on this subject. How much better, then,
is it, that I should not separately dispute and affirm about the soul,
what I am ignorant of; but simply hold what I see the apostle has most
plainly taught us: That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who
are born of Adam[1] unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has
appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He
predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of
grace; whilst to those whom He has predestinated to eternal death, He is
also the most righteous awarder of punishment not only on account of the
sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also
because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they
add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so
that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing
my own faith.

CHAP. 17 [XII.]--A TWOFOLD QUESTION TO BE TREATED CONCERNING THE SOUL;
IS IT "BODY"? AND IS IT "SPIRIT"? WHAT BODY IS.

    And now, as far as the Lord vouchsafes to enable me, I must reply
also to that allegation of yours, in which, speaking of the soul, you
again mention my name, and say, "We do not, as the very able and learned
bishop Augustin professes, allow it to be incorporeal and also a
spirit." We have therefore, first, to discuss the question, whether the
soul is to be deemed incorporeal, as I have said; or corporeal, as you
hold. Then, secondly, whether in our Scriptures it is called a
spirit--although not the whole but its own separate part is also
properly called spirit.[2] Well, I should, to begin with,  like to know
how you define body. For if that is not "body" which does not consist of
limbs of flesh, then the earth cannot be a body, nor the sky, nor a
stone, nor water, nor the stars, nor anything of the kind. If, however,
a "body" is whatever consists of parts, whether greater or less, which
occupy greater or smaller local spaces, then all the things which I have
just mentioned are bodies; the air is a body; the visible light is a
body; and so are all the things which the apostle has in view, when he
says, "There are celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial."[3]

CHAP. 18.--THE FIRST QUESTION, WHETHER THE SOUL IS CORPOREAL; BREATH AND
WIND, NOTHING ELSE THAN AIR IN MOTION.

    Now whether the soul is such a substance, is an extremely nice and
subtle question. You, indeed, with a promptitude for which I very
greatly congratulate you, affirm that God is not a body. But then,
again, you give me some anxiety when you say, "If the soul lacks body,
so as to be (as some persons are pleased to suppose) of hollow
emptiness, of airy and futile substance." Now, from these words you seem
to believe, that everything which lacks body is of an empty substance.
Well, if this is the case, how do you dare to say that God lacks body,
without fearing the consequence that He is of an empty substance? If,
however, God has not a body, as you have just allowed; and if it be
profane to say that He is of an empty substance; then not everything
which lacks body is an empty substance. And therefore a person who
contends that the soul is incorporeal does not necessarily mean, that it
is of an empty and futile substance; for he allows that God, who is not
an empty being, is at the same time incorporeal. But observe what great
difference there is between my actual assertion, and what you suppose me
to say. I do not say that the soul is an airy substance; if I did, I
should admit that it is a body. For air is a body; as all who understand
what they say declare, whenever they speak concerning bodily substances.
But you, because I called the soul incorporeal, supposed me not only to
predicate mere emptiness of it, but, as the result of such predication,
to say that it is "an airy substance;" whereas I must have said both
that it has not corporeity, which air has, and that what is filled with
air could not be empty. And your own bag similes failed to remind you of
this. For when the bags are inflated, what is it but air that is pressed
into them? And they are so far from being empty, that by reason of their
distension they become even ponderous. But perhaps the breath seems to
you to be a different thing from air; although your very breath is
nothing else than air in motion; and what this is, can be seen from the
shaking of a fan. With respect to any hollow vessels, which you may
suppose to be empty, you may ascertain with certainty that they are
really full, by lowering them straight into the water, with the mouth
downwards. You see no water can get in, by reason of the air with which
they are filled. If, however, they are lowered either in the opposite
way, with mouth upward, or aslant, they then fill, as the water enters
at the same opening where the air passes out and escapes. This could be,
of course, more easily proved by performing the experiment, than by a
description in writing. This, however, is not the time or place for
longer delay on the subject; for whatever may be your perception of the
nature of the air, as to whether it has corporeity or not, you certainly
ought not to suppose me to have said that the soul is an aerial thing,
but absolutely incorporeal. And this even you acknowledge God to be,
whom you do not dare to describe as an empty substance, while you cannot
but admit that He has an essence which is unchangeable and almighty.
Now, why should we fear that the soul is an empty void, if it be
incorporeal, when we confess that God is incorporeal, and at the same
time deny Him to be an empty void? Thus it was within the competency of
an Incorporeal Being to create an incorporeal soul, even as the living
God made living man; although, as the unchangeable and the almighty, He
communicated not these attributes to the changeable and far inferior
creature.

CHAP. 19 [XIII.]--WHETHER THE SOUL IS A SPIRIT.

    But again, why you would have the soul to be a body, and refuse to
deem it a spirit, I cannot see. For if it is not a spirit, on the ground
that the apostle named it with distinction from the spirit, when he
said, "I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be
preserved,"[1] the same is a good reason why it is not a body, inasmuch
as he named the body, too, as distinct from it. If you affirm that the
soul is a body, although they are both distinctly named; you should
allow it to be a spirit, although these are also distinctly named.
Indeed, the soul has a much greater claim to be regarded by you as a
spirit than a body; because you acknowledge the spirit and the soul to
be of one substance, but deny the soul and the body to be of one
substance. On what principle, then, is the soul a body, when its nature
is different from that of a body; and not a spirit, although its nature
and a spirit's is one and the same? Why, according to your argument,
must you not confess that even the spirit is a body? For otherwise, if
the spirit is not a body, and the soul is a body, the soul and the
spirit are not of one and the same substance. You, however, allow them
both (although believing them to be two separate things) to have one
substance. Therefore, if the soul is a body, the spirit is a body also;
for under no other condition can they be regarded as being of one and
the same nature. On your own principles, therefore, the statement of the
apostle, who mentions, "Your spirit, and soul, and body," must imply
three bodies; yet the body, which has likewise the name of flesh, is of
a different nature. And of these three bodies, as you would call them,
of which one is of a different, and the other two of one and the same
substance, the entire human being is composed--one thing and one
existence. Now, although you assert this, yet you will not allow that
the two which are of one and the same substance, that is, the soul and
the spirit, should have the one designation of spirit; whilst the two
things which are not of one and the same substance ought, as you
suppose, to have the one name of body.

           CHAP. 20 [XIV.]--THE BODY DOES NOT RECEIVE

                          GOD'S IMAGE.

    But I pass by all this, lest the discussion between us should
degenerate into one of names rather than things. Let us, then, see
whether the inner man be the soul, or the spirit, or both. I observe,
however, that you have expressed your opinion on the point in writing,
calling the inner man the soul; for of this you spoke when you said:
"And as the substance congealed, which was incapable of comprehension,
it would produce another body within the body rounded and amassed by the
force and twirl of its own nature, and thus an inner man would begin to
appear, who, being moulded in a corporeal sheath would in its lineaments
be shaped after the likeness of its outer man." And from this you draw
the following inference: "God's breath, therefore, made the soul; yea,
that breath from God was made the soul, an image, substantial, corporeal
according to its own nature, like its own body, and conformed to its
image." After this you proceed to speak of the spirit, and say "This
soul which had its origin from the breath of God could not exist without
an innermost sense and intellect of its own; and such is the spirit." As
I, then, understand your statement, you mean the inner man to be the
soul, and the inmost one to be the spirit; as if the latter were
inferior to the soul, as this is to the body. Whence it comes to pass,
that just as the body receives another body pervading its own inner
cavity, which (as you suppose) is the soul; so in its turn must the soul
be regarded as having its interior emptiness also, where it could
receive the third body, even the spirit; and thus the whole man consists
of three, the outer, the inner, and the inmost. Now, do you not yet
perceive what great absurdities follow in your wake, when you attempt
the asseveration that the soul is corporeal? Tell me, I pray you, which
of the two is it that is to be renewed in the knowledge of God, after
the image of Him that created him? [1] The inner, or the inmost? For my
own part, indeed, I do not see that the apostle, besides the inner and
the outer man, knows anything of another man inside the inner one, that
is, of an inmost man. But you must decide which it is you would have to
be renewed after the image of God. How is he to receive this, who has
already got the image of the outer man? For if the inner man has run
throughout the limbs of the outward one, and congealed (for this is the
term you have used; as if a molten shape were formed out of soft clay,
which was thickened out of the dust), how, if this same figure which has
been impressed upon it, or rather expressed out of a body, is to retain
its place, could it be refashioned after the image of God? Is it to have
two images--God's from above, that of the body from below--as is said in
the case of money, "Heads and Tails"?[2] Will you perhaps say, that the
soul received the bodily image, and that the spirit takes God's  image,
as if the former were contiguous to the  body, and the latter to God;
and that, there fore, it is really the inmost man which is refashioned
after the image of God, and not the  inner man? Well, but this pretence
is useless. For if the inmost man is as entirely diffused through all
the members of the soul, as the inner man of the soul is through the
limbs of the body; even it has now, through the soul, received the image
of the body, as the soul moulded the same; and thus it results that it
has no means whereby to receive God's image, while the afore-mentioned
image of the body remains impressed upon it; except as in the case of
the money which I have just quoted, where there is one form on the upper
surface, and another on the lower one. These are the absurd lengths to
which you are driven, whether you will or no, when you apply to the
consideration of the soul the material ideas of bodily substances. But,
as even you yourself with perfect propriety confess, God is not a body.
How, then, could a body receive His image? "I beseech you, brother, that
you be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing
of your mind; "[3] and cherish not "the carnal mind, which is death."[4]

CHAP. 21 [XV.]--RECOGNITION AND FORM BELONG TO SOULS AS WELL AS BODIES.

    But you say: "If the soul is incorporeal, what was it that the rich
man saw in hell? He certainly recognised Lazarus; he did [not[5]] know
Abraham. Whence arose to him the knowledge of Abraham, who had died so
long before?" By using these words, I suppose that you do not think a
man can be recognised and known without his bodily form. To know
yourself, therefore, I imagine that you often stand before your
looking-glass, lest by forgetting your features you should be unable to
recognise yourself. But let me ask you, what man does anybody know more
than himself; and whose face can he see less than his own? But who could
possibly know God, whom even you do not doubt to be incorporeal, if
knowledge could not (as you suppose) accrue without bodily shape; that
is, if bodies alone can be recognised? What Christian, however, when
discussing subjects of such magnitude and difficulty, can give such
little heed to the inspired word as to say, "If the soul be incorporeal,
it must of necessity lack form"? Have you forgotten that in that word
you have read of  "a form of doctrine"? [6] Have you forgotten, too,
that it is written concerning Christ Jesus, previous to His clothing
Himself with humanity, that He was "in the form of God"?[1] How, then,
can you say, "If the soul is incorporeal, it must of necessity lack
form;" when you hear of "the form of God," whom you acknowledge to be
incorporeal; and so express yourself, as if form could not possibly
exist except in bodies?

CHAP. 22.--NAMES DO NOT IMPLY CORPOREITY.

    You also say, that "names cease to be given, when form is not
distinguished; and that, where there is no designation of persons, there
is no giving of names." Your aim is to prove that Abraham's soul was
corporeal, inasmuch as he could be addressed as "Father Abraham." Now,
we have already said, that there is form even where there is no body.
If, however, you think that where there are not bodies there is no
assigning of names, I must beg of you to count the names which occur in
this passage of Scripture, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith meekness,
temperance,"[2] and tell me whether you do not recognise the very things
of which these are the names; or whether you recognise them so as to
descry some outlines of bodies. Come, tell me, to mention only love, for
instance, what are its members, its figure, its colour? For if you are
not yourself empty-headed, these appurtenances cannot possibly be
regarded by you as an empty thing. Then you go on to say: "The look and
form must, of course, be corporeal of him whose help is implored." Well,
let men hear what you say; and let no one implore God's help, because no
one can possibly see anything corporeal in Him.

           CHAP. 23 [XVI.]--FIGURATIVE SPEECH MUST NOT

                       BE TAKEN LITERALLY.

"In short," you say, "members are in this parable ascribed to the soul,
as if it were really a body." You will have it, that "by the eye the
whole head is understood," because it is said, that "he lifted up his
eyes." Again you say, that "by tongues are meant jaws, and by finger the
hand," because it is said, "Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his
finger in water, and cool my tongue."[3] And yet to save yourself from
the inconsistency of ascribing corporeal qualities to God, you say that
"by these terms must be understood incorporeal functions and powers;"
because with the greatest propriety you insist on it, that God is not
corporeal. What is the reason, therefore, that the names of these limbs
do not argue corporeity in God, although they do in the case of the
soul? Is it that these terms must be understood literally when spoken of
the creature, and only metaphorically and figuratively when predicated
of the Creator? Then you will have to give us wings of literal bodily
substance, since it is not the Creator, but only a human creature, who
said, "If I should take my wings like a dove."[4] Moreover, if the rich
man of the parable had a bodily tongue, on the ground of his exclaiming,
"Let him cool my tongue," it would look very much as if our tongue, even
while we are in the flesh, itself possessed material hands, because it
is written, "Death and life are in the hands of the tongue."[5] I
suppose it is even to yourself self-evident, that sin is neither a
creature nor a bodily substance; why, then, has it a face? For do you
not hear the psalmist say, "There is no peace in my bones, in the face
of my sins"? [6]

CHAP. 24.--ABRAHAM'S BOSOM--WHAT IT MEANS.

    As to your supposing that "the Abraham's bosom referred to is
corporeal," and your further assertion, that "by it is meant his whole
body," I fear that you must be regarded (even in such a subject) as
trying to joke and raise a laugh, instead of acting gravely and
seriously. For you could not else be so foolish as to think that the
material bosom of one person could receive so many souls; nay, to use
your own words, "bear the bodies of as many meritorious men as the
angels carry thither, as they did Lazarus." Unless it happen to be your
opinion, that his soul alone deserved to find its way to the said bosom.
If you are not, then, in fun, and do not wish to make childish mistakes,
you must understand by "Abraham's bosom" that remote and separate abode
of rest and peace in which Abraham now is; and that what was said to
Abraham? did not merely refer to him personally, but had reference to
his appointment as the father of many nations,[8] to whom he was
presented for imitation as the first and principal example of faith;
even as God willed Himself to be called "the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob," although He is the God of an innumerable
company.

CHAP.  25 [XVII.]--THE  DISEMBODIED SOUL  MAY THINK OF ITSELF UNDER A
BODILY FORM.

    You must not, however, suppose that I say all this as if denying it
to be possible that the soul of a dead man, like a person asleep, may
think either good or evil thoughts in the similitude of his body. For,
in dreams, when we suffer anything harsh and troublesome, we are, of
course, still ourselves; and if the distress do not pass away when we
awake, we experience very great suffering. But to suppose that they are
veritable bodies in which we are hurried, or flit, about hither and
thither in dreams, is the idea of a person who has thought only
carelessly on such subjects; for it is in fact mainly by these imaginary
sights that the soul is proved to be non-corporeal; unless you choose to
call even the objects which we see so often in our dreams, besides
ourselves, bodies, such as the sky, the earth, the sea, the sun, the
moon, the stars, and rivers, mountains, trees, or animals. Whoever takes
these phantoms to be bodies, is incredibly foolish; although they are
certainly very like bodies. Of this character also are those phenomena
which are demonstrably of divine significance, whether seen in dreams or
in a trance. Who can possibly trace out or describe their origin, or the
material of which they consist? It is, beyond question, spiritual, not
corporeal. Now things of this kind, which look like bodies, but are not
really corporeal, are formed in the thoughts of persons when they are
awake, and are held in the depths of their memories, and then out of
these secret recesses, by some wonderful and ineffable process, they
come out to view in the operation of our memory, and present themselves
as if palpably before our eyes. If, therefore, the soul were a material
body, it could not possibly contain so many things and such large forms
of bodily substances in its scope of thought, and in the spaces of its
memory; for, according to your own definition, "it does not exceed this
external body in its own corporeal substance." Possessing, therefore, no
magnitude of its own, what capacity has it to hold the images of vast
bodies, spaces, and regions? What wonder is it, then, if it actually
itself appears to itself in the likeness of its own body,  even when it
appears without a body? For it  never appears to itself in dreams with
its own body; and yet in the very similitude of its own  body it runs
hither and thither through known  and unknown places, and beholds many
sad and joyous sights. I suppose, however, that you really would not,
yourself, be so bold as to maintain that there is true corporeity in
that form of limb and body which the soul seems to itself to possess in
dreams. For at that rate that will be a real mountain which it appears
to ascend; and that a material house which it seems to enter; and that a
veritable tree, with real wood and bulk, beneath which it apparently
reclines; and that actual water which it imagines itself to drink. All
the things with which it is conversant, as if they were corporeal, would
be undoubted bodies, if the soul were itself corporeal, as it ranges
about amongst them all in the likeness of a body.

CHAP. 26 [XVIII.]--ST. PERPETUA SEEMED TO HERSELF,  IN SOME DREAMS, TO
HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO A MAN, AND THEN HAVE WRESTLED WITH A CERTAIN
EGYPTIAN.

    Some notice must be taken of sundry accounts of martyrs' visions,
because you have thought proper to derive some of your evidence
therefrom. St. Perpetua, for instance, seemed to herself in dreams to be
wrestling with an Egyptian, after being changed into a man. Now, who can
doubt that it was her soul in that apparent bodily form, not her body,
which, of course, remained in her own sex as a woman, and lay on the bed
with her senses steeped in sleep, whilst her soul was struggling in the
similitude of a man's body? What have you to say to this? Was that male
likeness a veritable body, or was it no body at all, although possessing
the appearance of a body? Choose your alternative. If it was a body, why
did it not maintain its sexual integrity? For in that woman's flesh were
found no virile functions of generation, whence by any such process as
that which you call congelation could be moulded this similitude of a
man's body. We will conclude then, if you please, that, as her body was
still alive while she slept, notwithstanding the wrestling of her soul,
she remained in her own natural sex, enclosed, of course, in all her
proper limbs which belong to her in her living state, and was still in
possession of that bodily shape and the lineaments of which she had been
originally formed. She had not resigned, as she would by death, her
joints and limbs; nor had she withdrawn from the transposing power,
which arises from the operation of the power of death, any of her
members which had already received their fixed form. Whence, then, did
her soul get that virile body in which she seemed to wrestle with her
adversary? If, however, this [male likeness] was not a body, although
such a semblance of one as admitted the sensation in it of a real
struggle or a real joy, do you not by this time see, as far as may be,
that there can be in the soul a certain resemblance of a bodily
substance, while the soul is not itself a body?

             CHAP. 27.--IS THE SOUL WOUNDED WHEN THE

                        BODY IS WOUNDED?

    What, then, if some such thing is exhibited among the departed; and
souls recognise themselves among them, not, indeed, by bodies, but by
the semblances of bodies? Now, when we suffer pain, if only in our
dreams, although it is only the similitude of bodily limbs which is in
action, and not the bodily limbs themselves, still the pain is not
merely in semblance, but in reality; as is also the case in the instance
of joyous sensations. Inasmuch, however, as St. Perpetua was not yet
dead, you probably are unwilling to lay down a precise rule for yourself
from that circumstance (although it bears strongly on the question), as
to what nature you will suppose those semblances of bodies to partake
of, which we have in our dreams. If you allow them to be like bodies,
but not bodies actually, then the entire question would be settled. But
her brother Dinocrates was dead; she saw him with the wound which he
received while alive, and which caused his death. Where is the ground
for the earnest contention to which you devoted your efforts, when you
laboured to show, that when a limb is cut off, the soul must not be
supposed as suffering a like amount of loss by amputation? Observe, the
wound was inflicted on the soul of Dinocrates, expelling it by its force
from his body, when it was inhabiting that body. How, then, can your
opinion be correct, that "when the limbs of the body are cut off, the
soul withdraws itself from the stroke, and after condensation retires to
other parts, so that no portion of it is amputated with the wound
inflicted on the body," even if the person be asleep and unconscious
when the loss of limb is suffered? So great is the vigilance which you
have ascribed to the soul, that even should the stroke fall on any part
of the flesh without its knowledge, when it is absorbed in the visions
of dreams, it would instantly, and by a providential instinct, withdraw
itself, and so render it impossible for any blow, or injury, or
mutilation to be inflicted upon it. However, you may, as much as you
will, ransack your ingenuity for an answer to the natural question, how
the soul withdraws the portions of its own existence, and retreats
within itself, so that, whenever a limb of the body is cut off or
broken, it does not suffer any amputation or fracture in itself; but I
cannot help asking you to look at the case of Dinocrates, and to explain
to me why his soul did not withdraw from that part of his body which
received the moral wound, and so escape from suffering in itself what
was plainly enough seen in his face, even after his body was dead? Is
it, perchance, your good pleasure that we should suppose the phenomena
in question to be rather the semblances of bodies than the reality; so
that as that which is really no wound seems to be a wound, so that which
is no body at all wears the appearance of corporeity? If, indeed, the
soul can be wounded by those who wound the body, should we not have good
reason to fear that it can be killed also by those who kill the body?
This, however, is a fate which the Lord Himself most plainly declares it
to be impossible to happen.[1] And the soul of Dinocrates could not at
any rate have died of the blow which killed his body: its wound, too,
was only an apparent one; for not being corporeal, it was not really
wounded, as the body had been; possessing the likeness of the body, it
shared also the resemblance of its wound. Still it may be further said,
that in its unreal body the soul felt a real misery, which was signified
by the shadow of the body's wound. It was from this real misery that he
earned deliverance by the prayers of his holy sister

CHAP. 28.--18 THE SOUL DEFORMED BY THE BODY'S IMPERFECTIONS?

    Now, again, what means it that you say, "The soul acquires form from
the body, and grows and extends with the increase of the body," without
keeping in view what a monstrosity the soul of either a young man or an
old man would become if his arm had been amputated when he was an
infant? "The hand of the soul," you say, "contracts itself, so that it
is not amputated with the hand of the body, and by condensation it
shrinks into other parts of the body." At this rate the aforesaid arm of
the soul will be kept, wherever it holds its ground, as short as it was
at first when it received the form of the body, because it has lost the
form by the growth of which it might itself have increased at an equal
degree of expansion. Thus the soul of the young man or the old man who
lost his hand in his infancy advances with two hands, indeed (because
the one which shrank back escaped the amputation of the bodily limb),
but one of these was the hand of an adult, young or old, according to
the hypothesis, while the other was only an infant's hand, just as it
was when the amputation happened. Such souls, believe me, are not made
in the mould and form of the body, but they are fictitiously framed
under the deformed stamp of error. It seems to me impossible for you to
be rescued from this error, unless with God's help you fully and calmly
examine the visions of those who dream, and from these convince yourself
that some forms are not real bodies, but only the semblances of bodies.
Now, although even those Objects which we suppose to be like bodies are
of the same class,[2] yet so far as the dead are concerned, we can form
an after guess about them from persons who are asleep. For it is not in
vain that Holy Scripture describes as "asleep" those who are dead[3]
were it only because in a certain sense "sleep is akin to death."[4]

CHAP. 29 [XIX.]--DOES THE SOUL TAKE THE BODY'S CLOTHES ALSO AWAY WITH
IT?

If, indeed, the soul were body, and the form were also a corporeal
figure in which it sees itself in dreams, on the ground that it received
its expression from the body in which it is enclosed: not a human being,
if he lost a limb, would in dreams see himself bereft of the amputated
member, although actually deprived of it. On the contrary, he would
always appear to himself entire and unmutilated, from the circumstance
that no part has been cut away from the soul itself. But since persons
sometimes see themselves whole and sometimes mutilated in limb, when
this happens to be their actual plight, what else does this fact show
than that the soul, both in respect of other things seen by it in dreams
and in reference to the body, bears about, hither and thither, not their
reality, but only their resemblance? The soul's joy, however, or
sadness, its pleasure or pain, are severally real emotions, whether
experienced in actual or in apparent bodies. Have you not yourself said
(and with perfect truth): "Aliments and vestments are not wanted by the
soul, but only by the body"? Why, then, did the rich man in hell crave
for the drop of water?[1] Why did holy Samuel appear after his death (as
you have yourself noticed) clothed in his usual garments?[2] Did the one
wish to repair the ruins of the soul, as of the flesh, by the aliment of
water? Did the other quit life with his clothes on him? Now in the
former case there was a real suffering, which tormented the soul; but
not a real body, such as required food. While the latter might have
seemed to be clothed, not as being a veritable body, but a soul only,
having the semblance of a body with a dress. For although the soul
extends and contracts itself to suit the members of the body, it does
not similarly adapt itself to the clothes, so as to fit its form to
them.

           CHAP. 30.--IS CORPOREITY NECESSARY FOR REC-

                            OGNITION?

    But who is able to trace out what capacity of recognition even souls
which are not good possess after death when relieved of the corruptible
bodies, so as to be able by an inner sense to observe and recognise
either souls that are evil like themselves, or even good ones, either in
states which are actually not corporeal, but the semblances of bodies;
or else in good or evil affections of the mind, in which there occur no
lineaments whatever of bodily members? Whence arises the fact that the
rich man in the parable, though in torments, recognised "Father
Abraham," whose face and figure he had never seen, but the semblance of
whose body his soul, though incorporeal, was able to comprehend?[3] But
who could rightly say that he had known any man, except in so far as he
has had means of knowing his life and disposition, which have, of
course, neither material substance nor colours? It is in this way that
we know ourselves more certainly than any others, because our own
consciousness and disposition are all before us. This we plainly
perceive, and yet we see therein no similitude of a bodily substance.
But we do not perceive this inner quality of our nature in another man,
even if he be present before our eyes; though in his absence we
recollect his features, and recognise them, and think of them. Our own
features, however, we cannot in the same manner recollect, and
recognise, and think of; and yet with most perfect truth we say that we
are ourselves better known to ourselves than he is, so manifest is it
where lies the stronger and truer knowledge of man.

              CHAP. 31 [XX.]--MODES OF KNOWLEDGE IN

                     THE SOUL DISTINGUISHED.

    Forasmuch, then, as there is one function in the soul, by which we
perceive real bodies, which we do by the five bodily senses; another,
which enables us to discern apart from these non-corporeal likenesses of
bodies (and by this we can have a view of ourselves also, as not
otherwise than like to bodies); and a third, by which we gain a still
surer and stronger insight into objects fitted for its faculty, which
are neither corporeal nor are like bodily substances,--such as faith,
hope, charity,--things which have neither complexion, nor passion, nor
any such thing: on which of these functions ought we to dwell more
intently, and to some degree more familiarly, and where be renewed in
the knowledge of God after the image of Him who created us? Is it not on
and in that which I have now put in the third place? And here we shall
certainly experience neither sexual difference nor the semblance
thereof.

CHAP. 32.--INCONSISTENCY OF GIVING THE SOUL ALL THE PARTS OF SEX AND YET
NO SEX.

    For that form of the soul, whether masculine or feminine, which has
the distinction of members characteristic of man and woman, being no
semblance merely of body, but actual body, is either a male or a female,
whether you will or no, precisely as it appears to be a man or a woman.
But if your opinion be correct, and the soul is a body, even a living
body, then it both possesses swelling and pendent breasts, and lacks a
beard, it has a womb, and all the generative organs of a woman, yet is
not a woman after all. Will not mine, then, be a statement more
consistent with truth: the soul, indeed, has an eye and has a tongue,
has a finger, and all other members which resemble those of the body,
and yet the whole is the semblance of a body, not a body really? My
statement is open to a general test; everybody can prove it in himself,
when he brings home to his mind the image of absent friends; he can
prove it with certainty when he recalls the figures both of himself and
other persons, which have occurred to him in his dreams. On your part,
however, no example can throughout nature be produced of such a
monstrosity as you have imagined, where there is a woman's real and
living body, but not a woman's sex.

            CHAP. 33.--THE PHENIX AFTER DEATH COMING

                         TO LIFE AGAIN.

    Now, what you say about the phenix has nothing whatever to do with
the subject before us. For the phenix symbolizes the resurrection of the
body; it does not do away with the sex of souls; if indeed, as is
thought, he is born afresh after his death. I suppose, however, that you
thought your discourse would not be sufficiently plausible unless you
declaimed a good deal about the phenix, after the fashion of young
people. Now do you find in the body of your bird male organs of
generation and not a male bird; or female ones, and not a female? But, I
beg of you, reflect on what it is you say,--what theory you are trying
to construct, and to recommend for our acceptance. You say that the
soul, spread through all the limbs of the body, grew stiff by
congelation, and received the entire shape of the whole body from the
crown of the head to the soles of the feet, and from the inmost marrow
to the skin's outward surface. At this rate it must have received, in
the case of a female body, all the inner appurtenances of a woman's
body, and yet not be a woman! Why, pray, are all the members feminine in
a true living body, and yet the whole no woman? And why all be male, and
the result not a man? Who can be so presumptuous as to believe, and
profess, and teach all this?  Is it that souls never generate? Then, of
course, mules and she-mules are not male and female. Is it that souls
without bodies of flesh would be unable to cohabit? Well, but this
deprivation is shared by castrated men; and yet, although both the
process and the motion be taken from them, their sex is not
removed--some slender remnant of their male members being still left to
them. Nobody ever said that a eunuch is not a male. What now becomes of
your opinion, that the souls even of eunuchs have the generative organs
unimpaired, and that these organs will remain entire, on your principle,
in their souls, even when they are clean removed from their bodily
structure? For you say, the soul knows how to withdraw itself when that
part of the flesh begins to be cut off, so that the form which has been
removed when amputated is not lost; but although spread over it by
condensation, it retires by an extremely rapid movement, and so buries
itself within as to be kept quite safe; yet that cannot, forsooth, be a
male in the other world which carries with it thither the whole
appendage of male organs of generation, and which, if it had not even
other signs in the body, was a male by reason of those organs alone.
These opinions, my son, have no truth in them; if you will not allow
that there is sex in the soul, there cannot be a body either.

               CHAP. 34 [XXI.]--PROPHETIC VISIONS.

    Not every semblance of a body is itself a body. Fall asleep and you
will see this; but when you awake again, carefully discern what it is
you have seen. For in your dreams you will appear to yourself as if
endued with a body; but it really is not your body, but your soul; nor
is it a real body, but the semblance of a body. Your body will be lying
on the bed, but the soul walking; the tongue of your body will be
silent, but that of your soul in the dream will talk; your eyes will be
shut, but your soul will be awake; and, of course, the limbs of your
body stretched out in your bed will be alive, not dead. Consequently
that congealed form, as you regard it, of your soul is not yet
extracted, as it were, out of its sheath; and yet in it is seen the
whole and perfect semblance of your fleshly frame. Belonging to this
class of similitudes of corporeity, which are not real bodies, though
they seem to be such, are all those appearances which you read of in the
Holy Scriptures in the visions even of the prophets, without, however,
understanding them; by which are also signified the things which come to
pass in all time--present, past, and future. You make mistakes about
these, not because they are in themselves deceptive, but because you do
not accept them as they ought to be taken. For in the same apocalyptic
vision where "the souls of the martyrs" are seen,[1] there is also
beheld "a lamb as it were slain, having seven horns:"[2] there are also
horses and other animals figuratively described with all consistency;[3]
and lastly, there were the stars falling, and the earth rolled up like a
book;[4] nor does the world, in spite of all, then actually collapse. If
therefore we understand all these things wisely, although we say they
are true apparitions, yet we do not call them real bodies.

              CHAP. 35.--DO ANGELS APPEAR TO MEN IN

                          REAL BODIES?

    It would, however, require too lengthy a discourse to enter very
carefully on a discussion concerning this kind of corporeal semblances;
whether angels even, either good ones or evil ones, appear in this
manner,(1) whenever they appear in the likeness of human beings or of
any bodies whatever; or whether they possess real bodies, and show
themselves in this veritable state of corporeity; or, again, whether by
persons when dreaming, indeed, or in a trance they are perceived in
these forms--not in bodies, but in the likeness of bodies--while to
persons when awake they present real bodies which can be seen, and, if
necessary, actually touched. Such questions as these, however, I do not
deem it at all requisite to investigate and fully treat in this book. By
this time enough has been advanced respecting the soul's incorporeity.
If you would rather persist in your opinion that it is corporeal, you
must first of all define what "body" means; lest, peradventure, it may
turn out that we are agreed about the thing itself, but labouring to no
purpose about its name. The absurd conclusions, however, to which you
would be reduced if you thought of such a body in the soul, as are those
substances which are called "bodies" by all learned men,--I mean such as
occupy portions of space, smaller ones for their smaller parts, and
larger ones for their larger,--by means of the different relations of
length and breadth and thickness, I venture to think you are by this
time able intelligently to observe.

CHAP. 36  [XXII]--HE PASSES ON TO THE SECOND QUESTION ABOUT THE SOUL,
WHETHER IT IS CALLED SPIRIT.

    It now remains for me to show how it is that while the designation
spirit is rightly predicated of a part of the soul, not the whole of
it,--even as the apostle says, "Your whole spirit, and soul, and
body;"(2) or, according to the much more expressive statement in the
Book of Job,' "Thou wilt separate my soul from my spirit,"(3)--yet the
whole soul is also called by this name; although this question seems to
be much more a question of names than of things. For since it is
certainly a fact that there is a something in the soul which is properly
called "spirit," while (this being left out of question) it is also
designated with equal propriety "soul," our present contention is not
about the things themselves;(4) mainly because I on my side certainly
admit, and you on your part say the same, that that is properly called
spirit by which we reason and understand, and yet that these things are
distinguishingly designated, as the apostle says "your whole spirit, and
soul, and body." This spirit, however, the same apostle appears also to
describe as mind; as when he says, "So then with the mind I serve the
law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."(5) Now the meaning of
this is precisely what he expresses in another passage thus: "For the
flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh."(6)
What he designates mind in the former place, he must be understood to
call spirit in the latter passage. Not as you interpret the statement,
"The whole mind is meant, which consists of soul and spirit,"--a view
which I know not where you obtained. By our "mind," indeed, we usually
understand nothing but our rational and intellectual faculty; and thus,
when the apostle says, "Be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind,"(7)
what else does he mean than, Be ye renewed in your mind? "The spirit of
the mind" is, accordingly, nothing else than the mind, just as "the body
of the flesh" is nothing but the flesh; thus it is written, "In putting
off the body of the flesh,"(8) where the apostle calls the flesh "the
body of the flesh." He designates it, indeed, in another point of view
as the spirit of man, which he quite distinguishes from the mind: "If,"
says he, "I pray with the tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my mind is
unfruitful."(9) We are not now, however, speaking of that spirit which
is distinct from the mind; and this involves a question relating to
itself which is really a difficult one. For in many ways and in divers
senses the Holy Scriptures make mention of the spirit; but with respect
to that we are now speaking of, by which we exercise reason,
intelligence, and wisdom, we are both agreed that it is called (and
indeed rightly called) "spirit," in such a sense as not to include the
entire soul, but a part of it. If, however, you contend that the soul is
not the spirit, on the ground that the understanding is distinctly
called "spirit," you may as well deny that the whole seed of Jacob is
called Israel, since, apart from Judah, the same appellation was
distinctly and separately borne by the ten tribes which were then
organized in Samaria. But why need we linger any longer here on this
subject?

           CHAP. 37 [XXIII.]--WIDE AND NARROW SENSE OF

                       THE WORD  "SPIRIT."

    But now, with a view to our easier elucidation, I beg you to observe
that what is the soul is also designated spirit in the scripture which
narrates an incident in our Lord's death, thus, "He bowed His head and
gave up the spirit."(10) Now, when you hear or read these words, you
wish to understand them as if the whole were signified by a part, and
not because that which is the soul may also be called spirit. But I
shall, for the purpose of being able the more readily to prove what I
say, actually summon yourself with all promptitude and convenience as my
witness. For you have defined spirit in such terms that cattle appear
not to have a spirit, but a soul. Irrational animals are so called,
because they have not the power of intelligence and reason. Accordingly,
when you admonished man himself to know his own nature, you spoke as
follows: "Now, inasmuch as the good God has made nothing without a
purpose, He has produced man himself as a rational animal, capable of
intelligence, endowed with reason, and enlivened by sensibility, so as
to be able to distribute in a wise arrangement all things that are void
of reason." In these words of yours you have plainly asserted what is
certainly most true, that man is endowed with reason and capable of
intelligence, which, of course, animals void of reason are not. And you
have, in accordance with this view, quoted a passage of Scripture, and,
adopting its language, have compared men of no understanding to the
cattle, which, of course, have not intellect.(1) A statement the like to
which occurs in another passage of Scripture: "Be ye not as the horse or
as the mule, which have no understanding."(2) This being the case, I
want you also to observe in what terms you have defined and described
the spirit when trying to distinguish it from the soul: "This soul," you
say, "which has its origin from the breath of God, could not have
possibly been without an inner sense and intellect of its own; and this
is the spirit." A little afterwards you add: "And although the soul
animates the body, yet inasmuch as it possesses sense, and wisdom, and
vigour, there must needs be a spirit." And then somewhat further on you
say: "The soul is one thing, and the spirit--which is the soul's wisdom
and sense--is another." In these words you plainly enough indicate what
you take the spirit of man to mean; that it is even our rational
faculty, whereby the soul exercises sense and intelligence,--not,
indeed, the sensation which is felt by the bodily senses, but the
operation of that innermost sense from which arises the term sentiment.
Owing to this it is, no doubt, that we are placed above brute animals,
since these are unendowed with reason. These animals therefore have not
spirit,--that is to say, intellect and a sense of reason and
wisdom,--but only saul. For it is of these that it was spoken, "Let the
waters bring forth the creeping creatures that have a living soul;"(3)
and again, "Let the earth bring forth the living soul."(4) In order,
indeed, that you may have the fullest and clearest assurance that what
is the saul is in the usage of the Holy Scriptures also called spirit,
the soul of a brute animal has the designation of spirit. And of course
cattle have not that spirit which you, my beloved brother, have defined
as being distinct from the soul. It is therefore quite evident that the
soul of a brute animal could be rightly called "spirit" in a general
sense of the term; as we read in the Book of Ecclesiastes, "Who knoweth
the spirit of the sons of men, whether it goeth upward; and the spirit
of the beast, whether it goeth downward into the earth?"(5) In like
manner, touching the devastation of the deluge, the Scripture testifies,
"All flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,
and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,
and every man: and all things which have the spirit of life."(6) Here,
if we remove all the windings of doubtful disputation, we understand the
term spirit to be synonymous with saul in its general sense. Of so wide
a signification is this term, that even God is called "a spirit ;"(7)
and a stormy blast of the air, although it has material substance, is
called by the psalmist the "spirit" of a tempest.(8) For all these
reasons, therefore, you will no longer deny that what is the soul is
called also spirit; I have, I think, adduced enough from the pages of
Holy Scripture to secure your assent in passages where the soul Of the
very brute beast, which has no understanding, is designated spirit. If,
then, you take and wisely consider what has been advanced in our
discussion about the incorporeity of the soul, there is no further
reason why you should take offence at my having said that I was sure the
soul was not body, but spirit,--both because it is proved to be not
corporeal, and because in its general sense it is denominated spirit.

          CHAP. 38 [XXIV.]--VICTOR'S CHIEF ERRORS AGAIN

                          POINTED OUT.

    Wherefore if you take these books, which I have with a sincere and
affectionate interest written in answer to your opinions, and read them
with a reciprocal love for me; if you attend to what you have yourself
declared in the beginning of your first book, and "are anxious not to
insist on any Opinion of your own, if it be found an improbable one,"(9)
then I beseech you to beware especially of those eleven errors which I
warned you of in the preceding book of this treatise? Do not say, that
"the soul is of God in such a sense that He created it not out of no,
nor out of another, but out of His own nature ;" or that, "as God who
gives is Himself ever exintent, so is He ever giving souls through
infinite time;" or that "the soul lost some merit through the flesh,
which it had previous to the flesh;" or that "the soul by means of the
flesh repairs its ancient condition, and is born again through the very
same flesh, by which it had deserved to be polluted;" or that "the soul
deserved to be sinful even prior to sin;" or that "infants who die
without the regeneration of baptism, may yet attain to forgiveness of
their original sins;" or that" they whom the Lord has predestinated to
be baptized can be taken away from His predestination, or die before
that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty had
predetermined;" or that "it is of those who expire before they are
baptized that the Scripture says, 'Speedily was he taken away, lest
wickedness should alter his understanding,'"-- with the remainder of the
passage to the same effect; or that "there are some mansions outside the
kingdom of God, belonging to the 'many,' which the Lord said were in His
Father's house;" or that "the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ
ought to be offered in behalf of those who have departed out of the body
without being baptized;" or that "any of those persons who die without
Christ's baptism, are received for a while into paradise, and afterwards
attain even to the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven." Above all
things, beware of these opinions, my son, and, as you wish to be the
vanquisher of error, do not rejoice in the surname of "Vincentius." And
when you are ignorant on any subject, do not think that you know it; but
in order to get real knowledge, learn how to be ignorant. For we commit
a sin by affecting to be ignorant of nothing among "the secret things of
God;" by constructing random theories about unknown things, and taking
them for known; and by producing and defending errors as if they were
truth. As for my own ignorance on the question whether the souls of men
are created afresh at every birth, or are transmitted by the parents (an
ignorance which is, however, modified by my belief, which it would be
impious to falter in, that they are certainly made by the Divine
Creator, though not of His own substance), I think that your loving self
will by this time be persuaded that it either ought not to be censured
at all, or, if it ought, that it should be done by a man who is capable
by his learning of removing it altogether; and so also with respect to
my other opinions, that while souls have in them the incorporeal
semblances of bodies, they are not themselves bodies; and that, without
impairing the natural distinction between soul and spirit, the soul is
in a general sense actually designated spirit.. If, indeed, I have
unfortunately failed to persuade you, I must leave it rather to my
readers to determine whether what I have advanced ought not to have
convinced you.

                CHAP. 39.--CONCLUDING ADMONITION.

    If, as may possibly be the case, you desire to know whether there
are many other points which appear to me to require emendation in your
books, it cannot be troublesome for you to come to me,--not, indeed, as
a scholar to his master, but as a person in his prime to one full of
years, and as a strong man to a weak one. And although you ought not to
have published your books, still there is a greater and a truer glory in
a man's being censured, when he confesses with his own lips the justice
of his correction, than in being landed out of the mouth of any defender
of error. Now, while I should be unwilling to believe that all those who
listened to your reading of the afore-mentioned books, and lavished
their praises on you, had either previously held for themselves the
opinions which sound doctrine disapproves of, or were induced by you to
entertain them, I still cannot help thinking that they had the keenness
of their mind blunted by the impetuous and constant flow of your
elocution, and so were unable to bestow adequate attention on the
contents of your discourse; or else, that when they were in any case
capable of understanding what you said, it was less for any very clear
statement of the truth that they praised you than for the affluence of
your language, and the facility and resources of your mental powers. For
praise, and fame, and kindly regard are very commonly bestowed on a
young man's eloquence in anticipation of the future, though as yet it
lacks the mellowed perfection and fidelity of a fully-informed
instructor. In order, then, that you may attain to true wisdom yourself,
and that what you say may be able not only to delight, but even edify
other people, it behoves you, after removing from your mind the
dangerous applause of others, to keep conscientious watch over your own
words.

A TREATISE AGAINST TWO LETTERS OF THE PELAGIANS.

 EXTRACT FROM AUGUSTIN'S "RETRACTATIONS,"

                       Book II. Chap. 61,

                   ON THE FOLLOWING TREATISE,

"CONTRA DUAS EPISTOLAS PELAGIANORUM."

    Then follow four books which I wrote to Boniface, bishop of the
Roman Church, in opposition to two letters of the Pelagians, because
when they came into his hands he had sent them to me, finding in them a
calumnious mention of my name. This work commences on this wise: "I had
indeed known you by the praise of your renowned fame."

 CHAP. 12.--THE FOURTH CALUMNY,--THAT THE SAINTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
ARE SAID TO BE NOT FREE FROM SINS.

 "They say," says he, "that the saints in the Old Testament were not
without sins,--that is that they were not free from crimes even by
amendment, but they were seized by death in their guilt." Nay, I say
that either before the law, or in the time of the Old Testament, they
were freed from sins,--not by their own power, because "cursed is every
one that hath put his hope in man,"[1] and without any doubt those are
under this curse whom also the sacred Psalm notifies, "who trust in
their own strength;"[2] nor by the old covenant which gendereth to
bondage,[3] although it was divinely given by the grace of a sure
dispensation; nor by that law itself, holy and just and good as it was,
where it is written, "Thou shalt not covet,"[4] since it was  not given
as being able to give life, but it was added for the sake of
transgression until the seed should come to whom the promise was made;
but I say that they were freed by the blood of the Redeemer Himself, who
is the one Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus.[5] But those
enemies of the grace of God, which is given to small and great through
Jesus Christ our Lord, say that the men of God of old were of a perfect
righteousness, lest they should be supposed to have needed the
incarnation, the passion, and resurrection of Christ, by belief in whom
they were saved.

CHAP. 13 [VIII.]--THE FIFTH CALUMNY,--THAT IT IS SAID THAT PAUL AND THE
REST OF THE APOSTLES WERE POLLUTED BY LUST.

    He says, "They say that even the Apostle Paul, even all the
apostles, were always polluted by immoderate lust." What man, however
profane he may be, would dare to say this? But doubtless this man thus
misrepresents because they contend that what the apostle said, "I know
that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing, for to will is
present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not,"[6]
and other such things, he said not of himself, but that he introduced
the person of somebody else, I know not who, who was suffering these
things. Wherefore that passage in his epistle must be carefully
considered and investigated, that their error may not lurk in any
obscurity of his. Although, therefore, the apostle is here arguing
broadly, and with great and lasting conflict maintaining grace against
those who were boasting in the law, yet we do come upon a few matters
which pertain to the matter in hand. On which subject he says: "Because
by the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight.

For by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God
without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets, even the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ
unto all them that believe. For there is no difference. For all have
sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."[7] And again:
"Where is boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No; but by
the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without the works of the law."[8] And again: "For the promise that he
should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed
through the law, but by the righteousness of faith. For if they which
are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of
none effect. Because the law worketh wrath, for where no law is, there
is no transgression."[9] And in another place: "Moreover, the law
entered that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded grace did
much more abound."[10] In still another place: "For sin shall not have
dominion over you, for ye are not under law, but under grace."[11] And
again in another place: "Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that
know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man so long as he
liveth? For the woman which is under a husband is joined to her husband
by the law so long as he liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is
freed from the law of her husband."[12] And a little after: "Therefore,
my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ,
that ye should belong to another, who has risen from the dead that we
should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh the
passions of sins which are by the law did work in our members to bring
forth fruit unto death, but now we are delivered from the law of death
in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and
not in the oldness of the letter."[13] With these and such like
testimonies that teacher of the Gentiles showed with sufficient evidence
that the law could not take away sin, but rather increased it, and that
grace takes it away; since the law knew how to command, to which command
weakness gives way, while grace knows to assist, whereby love is
infused.[14] And lest any one, on account of these testimonies, should
reproach the law, and contend that it is evil, the apostle, seeing what
might occur to those who ill understand it, himself proposed to himself
the same question. "What shall we say, then?" said he. "Is the law sin?
Far from it. But I did not know sin except by the law."[15] He had
already said before, "For by the law is the knowledge of sin." It is
not, therefore, the taking away, but the knowledge of sin.

CHAP. 14.--THAT THE APOSTLE IS SPEAKING IN HIS OWN PERSON AND THAT OF
OTHERS WHO ARE  UNDER GRACE, NOT STILL UNDER LAW.

    And from this point he now begins--and, it was on account of this
that I undertook the consideration of these things--to introduce his own
person, and to speak as if about himself; where the Pelagians Will not
have it that the apostle himself is to be understood, but say that he
has transfigured another person into himself,--that is, a man placed
still under the law, not yet freed by grace. And here, indeed, they
ought at least to concede that "in the law no one is justified," as the
same apostle says elsewhere; but that the law avails for the knowledge
of sin, and for the transgression of the law itself, so that sin, being
known and increased, grace may be sought for through faith. But they do
not fear that those things should be understood concerning the apostle
which he might also say concerning his past, but they fear those things
which follow. For here he says: "I had not known lust if the law had not
said, Thou shall not covet. But the occasion being taken, sin wrought in
me by the commandment all manner of lust. For without the law sin was
dead. But I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment
came, sin revived, and I died, and the commandment which was for life
was found for me to be death. For sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Therefore the law indeed is
holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good. Was, then, that which is
good made death unto me? By no means.  But sin, that it might appear
sin, worked death to me by that which is good, that the sinner or the
sin might become by the commandment excessive."[1] All these things, as
I have said, the apostle can seem to have commemorated from his past
life: so that from what he says, "For I was alive without the law once,"
he may have wished his first age from infancy to be understood, before
the years of reason; but in that he added, "But when the commandment
came, sin revived, but I died," he would fain show himself able to
receive the commandment, but not to do [2] it, and therefore a
transgressor of the law.

CHAP.	15 [IX.]--HE SINS IN WILL WHO IS ONLY DETERRED FROM SINNING BY
FEAR.

    Nor let us be disturbed by what he wrote to the Philippians:
"Touching the righteousness which is in the law, one who is without
blame."[3] For he could be within in evil affections a transgressor of
the law, and yet fulfil the open works of the law, either by the fear of
men or of God Himself; but by terror of punishment, not by love and
delight in righteousness. For it is one thing to do good with the will
of doing good, and another thing to be so inclined by the will to do
evil, that one would actually do it if it could be allowed without
punishment. For thus assuredly he is sinning within in his will itself,
who abstains from sin not by will but by fear. And knowing himself to
have been such in these his internal affections, before the grace of God
which is through Jesus Christ our Lord, the apostle elsewhere confesses
this very plainly. For writing to the Ephesians, he says: "And you,
though ye were dead in your trespasses and sins, wherein sometime ye
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of
the power of the air, of that spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience, in whom also we all at one time had our conversation in
the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of our flesh and our affections,
and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others also: but God,
who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us even when
we were dead in sins, quickened us together with Christ, by whose grace
we are saved."[4] Again to Titus he says: "For we ourselves also were
sometime foolish and unbelieving, erring, serving various lusts and
pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and holding one another
in hatred."[5] Such was Saul when he says that he was, touching the
righteousness which is in the law, without reproach. For that he had not
pressed on in the law, and changed his character so as to be without
reproach after this hateful life, he plainly shows in what follows, when
he says that he was not changed from these evils except by the grace of
the Saviour. For adding also this very thing, here as well as to the
Ephesians, he says: "But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour
shone forth, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and
of the renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He shed on us most abundantly,
through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by His grace we
should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."[6]

CHAP. 16.--HOW SIN DIED, AND HOW IT REVIVED.

   And what he says in that passage of the Epistle to the Romans, "Sin,
that it might appear sin, wrought death to me by that which is good,"[1]
agrees with the former passages where he said, "But I had not known sin
but by the law, for I had not known lust unless the law had said, Thou
shalt not covet."[2] And previously, "By the law is the knowledge of
sin," for he said this also here, "that it might appear sin;" that we
might not understand what he had said, "For without law sin was dead,"
except in the sense as if it were not, "it lies hidden, it does not
appear, it is completely ignored, as if it were buried in I know not
what darkness of ignorance" And in that he says, "And I was alive once
without the law," what does he say except, I seemed to myself to live?
And with respect to what he added, "But when the commandment came, sin
revived," what else is it but sin shone forth, became apparent? Nor yet
does he say lived, but revived. For it had lived formerly in Paradise,
where it sufficiently appeared, admitted in opposition to the command
given; but when it is inherited by children coming into the world, it
lies concealed, as if it were dead, until its evil, resisting
righteousness, is felt by its prohibition, when one thing is commanded
and approved, another thing delights and rules: then, in some measure
sin revives in the knowledge of the man that is born, although it had
lived already for some time in the knowledge of the man as at first
made.

CHAP. 17 [X.]--"THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL, BUT I AM CARNAL," TO BE UNDERSTOOD
OF PAUL.

    But it is not so clear how what follows can be understood concerning
Paul. "For we know," says he, "that the law is spiritual, but I am
carnal."[3] He does not say, "I was," but, "I am." Was, then, the
apostle, when he wrote this, carnal? or does he say this with respect to
his body? For he was still in the body of this death, not yet made what
he speaks of elsewhere: "It is sown a natural body, it shall be raised a
spiritual body."[4] For then, of the whole of himself, that is, of both
parts of which he consists, he shall be a spiritual man, when even the
body shall be spiritual. For it is not absurd that in that life even the
flesh should be spiritual, if in this life in those who still mind
earthly things even the spirit itself may be carnal. Thus, then, he
said, "But I am carnal," because the apostle had not yet a spiritual
body, as he might say, "But I am mortal," which assuredly he could not
be understood to have said except in respect of his body, which had not
yet been clothed with immortality. Moreover, in reference to what he
added, "sold under sin,"[3] lest any one think that he was not yet
redeemed by the blood of Christ, this also may be understood in respect
of that which he says: "And we ourselves, having the first-fruits of the
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for I the
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."[5] For if in this respect
he says that he was sold under sin, that as yet his body has not been
redeemed from corruption; or that he was sold once in the first
transgression of the commandment so as to have a corruptible body which
drags down the soul;[6] what hinders the apostle here from being
understood to say about himself that which he says in such wise that it
may be understood also of himself, even if in his person he wishes not
himself alone, but all, to be received who had known themselves as
struggling, without consent, in spiritual delight with the affection of
the flesh?

CHAP. 18.--HOW THE APOSTLE SAID THAT HE DID THE EVIL THAT HE WOULD NOT.

    Or by chance do we fear what follows," For that which I do I know
not, for what  I will I do not, but what I hate that I do,"[7] lest
perhaps from these words some one should suspect that the apostle is
consenting to the evil works of the concupiscence of the flesh? But we
must consider what he adds: "But if I do that which I will not, I
consent to the law that it is good." For he says that he rather consents
to the law than to the concupiscence of the flesh. For this he calls by
the name of sin. Therefore he said that he acted and laboured not with
the desire of consenting and fulfilling, but from the impulse of lusting
itself. Hence, then, he says, "I consent to the law that it is good." I
consent because I do not will what it does not will. Afterwards he says,
"Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in
me."[8] What does he mean by "now then," but, now at length, under the
grace which has delivered the delight of my will from the consent of
lust? For, "it is not I that do it," cannot be better understood than
that he does not consent to set forth his members as instruments of
unrighteousness unto sin. For if he lusts and consents and acts, how can
he be said not to do the thing himself, even although he may grieve that
he does it, and deeply groan at being overcome?

            CHAP. 19.--WHAT IT IS TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT

                            IS GOOD.

    And now does not what follows most plainly show whence he spoke?
"For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good
thing"?[9] For if he had not explained what he said by the addition of
"that is, in my flesh," it might, perchance, be otherwise understood,
when he said, "in me." And therefore he repeats and urges the same thing
in another form: "For to will is present with me, but to perform that
which is good is not."[1] For this is to perform that which is good,
that a man should not even lust. For the good is incomplete when one
lusts, even although a man does not consent to the evil of lust. "For
the good that I would," says he, "I do not; but the evil that I would
not, that I do. Now, if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do
it, but sin that dwelleth in me."[2] This he repeated impressively, and
as it were to stir up the most slothful from slumber: "I find then that
the law," said he, "is for me wishing to do good, since evil is present
with me."[3] The law, then,  is for one who would do good, but evil is
present from lust, though he does not consent to this who says, "It is
no longer I that do it."

             CHAP. 20.--IN ME, THAT IS, IN MY FLESH.

	And he declares both more plainly in what follows: "For I delight in
the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my
members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into
captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."[4] But in that he
said, "bringing me into captivity," he can feel emotion without
consenting to it. Whence, because of those three things, two, to wit, of
which we have already argued, in that he says, "But I am carnal," and
"Sold under sin," and this third, "Bringing me into captivity in the law
of sin, which is in my members," the apostle seems to be describing a
man who is still living under the law, and is not yet under grace. But
as I have expounded the former two sayings in respect of the still
corruptible flesh, so also this latter may be understood as if he had
said, "bringing me into captivity," in the flesh, not in the mind; in
emotion, not in consent; and therefore "bringing me into captivity,"
because even in the flesh there is not an alien nature, but our own. As,
therefore, he himself expounded what he had said, "For I know that in
me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing," so also now out of
the exposition of that we ought to learn the meaning of this passage, as
if he had said, "Bringing me into captivity," that is, "my flesh," "to
the law of sin, which is in my members."

CHAP. 21 .--NO CONDEMNATION IN CHRIST JESUS.

    Then he adds the reason why he said all these things: "O wretched
man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The
grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!" And thence he concludes:
"Therefore I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the
flesh the law of sin."[5]  To wit, with the flesh, the law of sin, by
lusting; but with the mind, the law of God, by not consenting to that
lust. "For there is now no  condemnation to those who are in Christ
Jesus."[6] For he is not condemned who does not consent to the evil of
the lust of the flesh. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus has made thee free from the law of sin and death," so that, to
wit, the lust of the flesh may not appropriate to itself thy consent.
And what follows more and more demonstrates the same meaning. But
moderation must be used.

CHAP. 22.--WHY THE PASSAGE REFERRED TO MUST BE UNDERSTOOD OF A MAN
ESTABLISHED UNDER GRACE.

    And it had once appeared to me also that the apostle was in this
argument of his describing a man under the law.[7] But afterwards I was
constrained to give up the idea by those words where he says, "Now,
then, it is no more I that do it." For to this belongs what he says
subsequently also: "There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them
that are in Christ Jesus." And because I do not see how a man under the
law should say, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man;"
since this very delight in good, by which, moreover, he does not consent
to evil, not from fear of penalty, but from love of righteousness (for
this is meant by "delighting"), can only be attributed to grace.

CHAP. 23 [XI.]--WHAT IT IS TO BE DELIVERED FROM THE BODY OF THIS DEATH.

	For when he says also, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?"[8] who can deny that when the apostle said this he was still in
the body of this death? And certainly the wicked are not delivered from
this, to whom the same bodies are returned for eternal torment.
Therefore, to be delivered from the body of this death is to be healed
of all the weakness of fleshly lust, and to receive the body, not for
penalty, but for glory. With this passage also those words are
sufficiently in harmony: "Ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of
the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, the redemption, of our body." For surely we groan with that
groaning wherein we say, "O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver
me from the body of this death?" That also where he says, "For what I
do, I know not;" what else is it than: "I will not, I do not approve, I
do not consent, I do not do"? Otherwise it is con- trary to what be said
above, "By the law is the knowledge of sin," and, "I had not known sin
but by the law," and, "Sin, that it might appear sin, worked death in me
by that which is good." For how did he know sin, of which he was
ignorant, by the law? How does sin which is not known appear? Therefore
it is said, "I know not," for "I do not," because I myself commit it
with no consent of mine; in the same way in which the Lord will say to
the wicked, "I know you not,"[1] although, beyond a doubt, nothing can
be hid from Him; and as it is said, "Him who had not known sin,"[2]
which means who had not done sin, for He had not known what He
condemned.

CHAP. 24.--HE CONCLUDES THAT THE APOSTLE SPOKE IN HIS OWN PERSON, AND
THAT OF THOSE WHO ARE UNDER GRACE.

    On the careful consideration of these things, and things of the same
kind in the context of that apostolical Scripture, the apostle is
rightly understood to have signified not, indeed, himself alone in his
own person, but others also established under grace, and with him not
yet established in that perfect peace in which death shall be swallowed
up in victory.[3] And concerning this he afterwards says, "But if Christ
be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life
because of righteousness. If, then, the Spirit of Him that raised up
Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, He that raised up Jesus from the
dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth
in you."[4] Therefore, after our mortal bodies have been quickened, not
only will there be no consent to sinning, but even the lust of the flesh
itself, to which there is no consent, will not remain. And not to have
this resistance to the spirit in the mortal flesh, was possible only to
that man who came not by the flesh to men. And that the apostles,
because they were men, and carried about in the mortality of this life a
body which is corrupted and weighs down the soul,[5] were, therefore,
"always polluted with excessive lust," as that man injuriously affirms,
be it far from me to say. But I do say that although they were free from
consent to depraved lusts, they nevertheless groaned concerning the
concupiscence of the flesh, which they bridled by restraint with such
humility and piety, that they desired rather not to have it than to
subdue it.

	

CHAP. 25 [XII.]--THE SIXTH CALUMNY,--THAT AUGUSTIN ASSERtS THAT EVEN
CHRIST WAS NOT FREE FROM SINS.

    In like manner as to what he added, that I say,[6] "that Christ even
was not free from sins, but that, from the necessity of the flesh, He
spoke falsely, and was stained with other faults," he should see from
whom he heard these things, or in whose letters he read them; for that,
indeed, he perchance did not understand them, and turned them by the
deceitfulness of malice into calumnious meanings.

CHAP. 26 [XIII.] --THE SEVENTH CALUMNY,--THAT AUGUSTIN ASSERTS THAT IN
BAPTISM ALL SINS ARE NOT REMITTED.

    "They also say," says he, "that baptism does not give complete
remission of sins, nor take away crimes, but that it shaves them off, so
that the roots of all sins are retained in the evil  flesh." Who but an
unbeliever can affirm this against the Pelagians? I say, therefore, that
baptism gives remission of all sins, and takes away guilt, and does not
shave them off; and "that the roots of all sins are" not "retained in
the evil flesh, as if of shaved hair on the head, whence the sins may
grow to be cut down again." For it was I that found out that similitude,
too, for them to use for the purposes of their calumny, as if I thought
and said this.

           CHAP. 27.--IN WHAT SENSE LUST IS CALLED SIN

                       IN THE REGENERATE.

    But concerning that concupiscence of the flesh of which they speak,
I believe that they are deceived, or that they deceive; for with this
even he that is baptized must struggle with a pious mind, however
carefully he presses forward, and is led by the Spirit of God. But
although this is called sin, it is certainly so called not because it is
sin, but because it is made by sin, as a writing is said to be some
one's "hand" because the hand has written it. But they are sins which
are unlawfully done, spoken, thought, according to the lust of the
flesh, or to ignorance--things which, once done, keep their doers guilty
if they are not forgiven. And this very concupiscence of the flesh is in
such wise put away in baptism, that although it is inherited by all that
are born, it in no respect hurts those that are born anew. And yet from
these, if they carnally beget children, it is again derived; and again
it will be hurtful to those that are born, unless by the same form it is
remitted to them as born again, and remains in them in no way hindering
the future life, because its guilt, derived by generation, has been put
away by regeneration; and thus it is now no more sin, but is called so,
whether because it became what it is by sin, or because it is stirred by
the delight of sinning, although by the conquest of the delight of
righteousness consent is not given to it. Nor is it on account of this,
the guilt of which has already been taken away in the layer of
regeneration, that the baptized say in their prayer, "Forgive us our
debts, as we also forgive our debtors;"[1] but on account of sins which
are committed, whether in consentings to it, when what is right is
overcome by that which pleases, or when by ignorance evil is accepted as
if it were good. And they are committed, whether by acting, or by
speaking, or--and this is the easiest and the quickest--by thinking.
From all which things what believer ever will boast that he has his
heart pure? or who will boast that he is pure from sin?[2] Certainly
that which follows in the prayer is said on account of concupiscence:
"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." "For every
one," as it is written, "is tempted when he is drawn away of his own
concupiscence, and enticed; then, when concupiscence hath conceived, it
bringeth forth Sin."[3]

            CHAP. 28 [XIV.]--MANY WITHOUT CRIME, NONE

                          WITHOUT SIN.

    All these products of concupiscence, and the old guilt of
concupiscence itself, are put away by the washing of baptism. And
whatever that concupiscence now brings forth, if they are not those
products which are called not only sins, but even crimes, are purified
by that method of daily prayer when we say, "Forgive us our debts, as we
forgive," and by the sincerity of alms-giving. For no one is so foolish
as to say that that precept of our Lord does not refer to baptized
people: "Forgive and it shall be forgiven you, give and it shall be
given you."[4] But none could rightly be ordained a minister in the
Church if the apostle had said, "If any is without sin," where he says,
"If any is without crime;"[5] or if he had said, "Having no sin," where
he says, "Having no crime."[6] Because many baptized believers are
without crime, but I should say that no one in this life is without
sin,--however much the Pelagians are inflated, and burst asunder in
madness against me because I say this: not because there remains
anything of sin which is not remitted in baptism; but because by us who
remain in the weakness of this life such sins do not cease daily to be
committed, as are daily remitted to those who pray in faith and work in
mercy. This is the soundness of the catholic faith, which the Holy
Spirit everywhere sows,--not the vanity and presumption of spirit of
heretical pravity.

CHAP. 29 [XV.]--JULIAN OPPOSES THE FAITH OF HIS FRIENDS TO THE OPINIONS
OF CATHOLIC BELIEVERS. FIRST OF ALL, OF FREE WILL.

    Now therefore let us see, for the rest, in what way -- after
thinking that he might calumniously object against me what I believe,
and feign what I do not believe--he himself professes Iris own faith or
that of the Pelagians. "In opposition to these things," he says, "we
daily argue, and we are unwilling to yield our consent to transgressors,
because we say that free will is in all by nature, and could not perish
by the sin of Adam; which assertion is confirmed by the authority of all
Scriptures." If in any degree it is necessary to say this, you should
not say it against the grace of God,--you should not give your consent
to transgressors, but you should correct your opinion. But about this,
as much as I could, and as far as it seemed to be sufficient, I have
argued above.

                CHAP. 30.--SECONDLY, OF MARRIAGE.

    "We say," says he, "that that marriage which is now celebrated
throughout the earth was ordained by God, and that married people are
not guilty, but that fornicators and adulterers are to be condemned."
This is true and catholic doctrine; but what you want to gather from
this, to wit, that from the intercourse of male and female those who are
born derive no sin to be put away by the layer of regeneration,--this is
false and heretical.

CHAP. 31.--THIRDLY, OF CONJUGAL INTERCOURSE.

    "We say," says he, "that the sexual impulse--that is, that the
virility itself, without which there can be no intercourse--is ordained
by God." To this I reply that the sexual impulse, and, to make use of
his word, virility, without which there can be no intercourse, was so
appointed by God that there was in it nothing to be ashamed of. For it
was not fit that His creature should blush at the work of his Creator;
but by a just punishment the disobedience of the members was the
retribution to the disobedience of the first man, for which disobedience
they blushed when they covered with fig-leaves those shameful parts
which previously were not shameful.

           CHAP. 32 [XVI.]--THE APRONS WHICH ADAM AND

                            EVE WORE.

    For they did not use for themselves tunics to cover their whole
bodies after their sin, but aprons,[7] which some of the less careful of
our translators have translated as "coverings." And this indeed is true;
but "covering" is a general name, by which may be understood every kind
of clothing and veil. And ambiguity ought to be avoided, so that, as the
Greek called them perzwmata, by which only the shameful
parts of the body are covered, so also the Latin should either use the
Greek word itself, because now custom has come to use it instead of the
Latin, or, as some do, use the word aprons,[1] or, as others have better
named them, wrestling aprons.[2] Because this name is taken from that
ancient Roman custom whereby the youth covered their shameful parts when
they were exercised naked in the field; whence even at this day they are
called campestrati,[3] since they cover those members with the girdle.
Although, if those members by which sin was committed were to be covered
after the sin, men ought not indeed to have been clothed in tunics, but
to have covered their hand and mouth, because they sinned by taking and
eating. What, then, is the meaning, when the prohibited food was taken,
and the transgression of the precept had been committed, of the look
turned towards those members? What unknown novelty is felt there, and

compels itself to be noticed? And this is signified by the opening of
the eyes. For their eyes were not closed, either when Adam gave names 
to the cattle and birds, or when Eve saw the trees to be beautiful and
good; but they were made open--that is, attentive--to consider; as it is
written of Agar, the handmaid of Sarah,  that she opened her eyes and
saw a well?[4] although she certainly had not had them closed before.
As, therefore, they were so suddenly ashamed of their nakedness, which
they were daily in the habit of looking upon and were not confused, that
they could now no longer bear  those members naked, but immediately took
care to cover them; did not they--he in the open, she in the hidden
impulse--perceive those members to be disobedient to the choice of their
will, which certainly they ought to have ruled like the rest by their
voluntary command? And this they deservedly suffered, because they
themselves also were not obedient to their Lord. Therefore they blushed
that they in such wise had not manifested service to their Creator, that
they should deserve to lose dominion over those members by which
children were to be procreated.

               CHAP. 33.--THE SHAME OF NAKEDNESS.

    This kind of shame--this necessity of blushing--is certainly born
with every man, and in some measure is commanded by the very laws of
nature; so that, in this matter, even virtuous married people are
ashamed. Nor can any one go to such an extreme of evil and disgrace, as,
because he knows God to be the author of nature and the ordainer of
marriage, to have intercourse  even with his wife in any one's sight, or
not to  blush at those impulses and seek secrecy, where he can shun the
sight not only of strangers, but even of all his own relatives.
Therefore let human nature be permitted to acknowledge the evil that
happens to it by its own fault, lest it should be compelled either not
to blush at its own impulses, which is most shameless, or else to blush
at the work of its Creator, which is most ungrateful. Of this evil,
nevertheless, virtuous marriage makes good use for the sake of the
benefit of the begetting of children. But to consent to lust for the
sake of carnal pleasure alone is sin, although it may be conceded to
married people with permission.

CHAP. 34 [XVII.]--WHETHER THERE COULD BE SENSUAL APPETITE IN PARADISE
BEFORE THE FALL.

    But, while maintaining, ye Pelagians, the honourableness and
fruitfulness of marriage, determine, if nobody had sinned, what you
would wish to consider the life of those people in Paradise, and choose
one of these four things. For beyond a doubt, either as often as ever
they pleased they would have had intercourse; or they would bridle lust
when intercourse was not necessary; or lust would arise at the summons
of will, just at the time when chaste prudence would have perceived
beforehand that intercourse was necessary; or, with no lust existing at
all, as every other member served for its own work, so for its own work
the organs of generation also would obey the commands of those that
willed, without any difficulty. Of these four suppositions, choose which
you please; but I think you will reject the two former, in which lust is
either obeyed or resisted. For the first one would not be in accordance
with so great a virtue, and the second not in harmony with so great a
happiness. For be the idea far from us, that the glory of so great a
blessedness as that should either be most basely enslaved by always
following a preceding lust, or, by resisting it, should not enjoy the
most abounding peace. Away, I say, with the thought that that mind
should either be gratified by consenting to satisfy the concupiscence of
the flesh, arising not opportunely for the sake of procreation, but with
unregulated excitement, or that that quiet should find it necessary to
restrain it by refusing.

CHAP. 35.--DESIRE IN PARADISE WAS EITHER NONE AT ALL, OR IT WAS OBEDIENT
TO THE IMPULSE OF THE WILL.

    But whichever you choose of the two other alternatives, there is no
necessity for striving against you with any disputation. For even if you
should refuse to elect the fourth, in which there is the highest
tranquillity of all the obedient members without any lust, since already
the urgency of your arguments has made you hostile to it; that will
doubtless please you which I have put in the third place, that that
carnal concupiscence, whose impulse attains to the final pleasure which
much delights you, should never arise in Paradise except at the bidding
of the will when it would be necessary for procreation. If it is
agreeable to you to arrange this in Paradise, and if, by means of such a
concupiscence of the flesh which should neither anticipate, nor impede,
nor exceed the bidding of the will, it appears to you that children
could have been begotten, I have no objection. For, as far as  I am
concerned in this matter, it is enough for me that such a concupiscence
of the flesh is not now among men, as you concede there might have been
in that place of happiness. For what it now is, the sense of all men
certainly confesses, although with modesty; because it both solicits
with excessive and importunate uneasiness the chaste, even when they are
unwilling and are checking it by moderation, and frequently withdraws
itself from the willing and inflicts itself on the unwilling; so that,
by its disobedience, it testifies that it is nothing else than the
punishment of that first disobedience. Whence, reasonably, both then the
first men when they covered their nakedness, and now whoever considers
himself to be a man, every no less modest than immodest person is
confounded at it--far be it from us to say by the work of God, but--by
the penalty of the first and ancient sin. You, however, not for the sake
of religions reasoning, but for excited contention,--not on behalf of
human modesty, but for your own madness, that even the concupiscence of
the flesh itself should not be thought to be currupted, and original sin
to be derived from it,--are endeavouring by your argument to recall it
absolutely, such as it now is, into Paradise; and to contend that that
concupiscence could have been there which would either always be
followed by a disgraceful consent, or would sometimes be restrained by a
pitiable refusal. I, however, do not greatly care what it delights you
to think of it. Still, whatever of men is born by its means, if he is
not born again, without doubt he is damned; and he must be under the
dominion of the devil, if he is not delivered thence by Christ.

CHAP. 36 [XVIII.]--JULIAN'S FOURTH OBJECTION, THAT MAN IS GOD'S WORK,
AND IS NOT CONSTRAINED TO EVIL OR GOOD BY HIS POWER.

    "We maintain," says he, "that men are the work of God, and that no
one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but
that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good
work he is always assisted by God's grace, while in evil he is incited
by the suggestions of the devil." To this I answer, that men, in so far
as they are men, are the work of God; but in so far as they are sinners,
they are under the devil, unless they are plucked from thence by Him who
became the Mediator between God and man, for no other reason than
because He could not be a sinner from men. And that no one is forced by
God's power unwillingly either into evil or good, but that when God
forsakes a man, he deservedly goes to evil, and that when God assists,
without deserving he is converted to good. For a man is not good if he
is unwilling, but by the grace of God he is even assisted to the point
of being willing; because it is not vainly written, "For it is God that
worketh in you, both to will and to do for His good pleasure,"[1] and,
"The will is prepared by God."[2]

            CHAP. 37 [XIX.]--THE BEGINNING OF A GOOD

                   WILL IS THE GIFT OF GRACE.

    But you think that a man is so aided by the grace of God in a good
work, that in stirring up his will to that very good work you believe
that grace does nothing; for this your own words sufficiently declare.
For why have you not said that a man is incited by God's grace to a good
work, as you have said that he is incited to evil. by the suggestions of
the devil, but have said that in a good work he is always aided by God's
grace?--as if by his own will, and without any grace of God, he
undertook a good work, and were then divinely assisted in the work
itself, for the sake, that is to say, of the merits of his good will; so
that grace is rendered as due,--not given as not due,--and thus grace is
made no more grace.[3] But this is what, in the Palestinian judgment,
Pelagius with a deceitful heart condemned,--that the grace of God,
namely, is given according to our merits. Tell me, I beseech you, what
good, Paul, while he was as yet Saul, willed, and not rather great
evils, when breathing out slaughter he went, in horrible darkness of
mind and madness, to lay waste the Christians?[4] For what merits of a
good will did God convert him by a marvellous and sudden calling from
those evils to good things  What shall I say, when he himself cries,
"Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His
mercy He saved us"?[5] What is that  which I have already mentioned[6]
as having been  said by the Lord, "No one can come to me,"-- which is
understood as "believe on me,"--unless it were given him of my
Father"?[7] Whether is this given to him who is already willing to
believe, for the sake of the merits of a good will? or rather is the
will itself, as in the case of Saul, stirred up from above, that he may
believe, even although he is so averse from the faith as even to
persecute the believers? For how has the Lord commanded us to pray for
those who persecute us? Do we pray thus that the grace of God may be
recompensed them for the sake of their good will, and not rather that
the evil will itself may be changed into a good one? Just as we believe
that at that time the saints whom he was persecuting did not pray for
Saul in vain, that his will might be converted to the faith which he was
destroying. And indeed that his conversion was effected from above,
appeared even by a manifest miracle. But how many enemies of Christ are
at the present day suddenly drawn by God's secret grace to Christ! And
if I had not set down this word from the gospel, what things would that
man have said in this behalf concerning me, since even now he is
stirring, not against me, but against Him who cries, "No man can come to
me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him"![1] For He does not
say, "except He lead him," so that we can thus in any way understand
that his will precedes. For who is "drawn," if he was already willing?
And yet no man comes unless he is willing. Therefore he is drawn in
wondrous ways to will, by Him who knows how to work within the very
hearts of men. Not that men who are unwilling should believe, which
cannot be, but that they should be made willing from being unwilling.

CHAP. 38 [XX.]--THE POWER OF GOD'S GRACE IS PROVED.

    That this is true we do not surmise by human conjecture, but we
discern by the most evident authority of the divine Scriptures. It is
read in the books of the Chronicles: "Also in Judah, the hand of God was
made to give them one heart, to do the commandment of the king and of
the princes in the word of the Lord."[2] Also by Ezekiel the prophet the
Lord says, "I will give them another heart, and a new spirit will I give
them; and I will take away their stony heart out of their flesh, and I
will give them an heart of flesh, that they may walk in my commandments
and observe my judgments and do them."[3] And what is that which Esther
the queen prays when she says, "Give me eloquent speech in my mouth, and
enlighten my words in the sight of the lion, and turn his heart to
hatred of him that fighteth against us"?[4] How does she say such things
as these in her prayer to God, if God does not work His will in men's
hearts? But perchance the woman was foolish in praying thus. Let us see,
then, whether the desire of the petitioner was vainly sent on in
advance, and whether the result did not follow as of one who heard. Lo,
she goes in to the king. We need not say much. And because she did not
approach him in her own order, under the compulsion of her great
necessity, "he looked upon her," as it is written, "like a bull in the
impulse of his indignation. And the queen feared, and her colour was
changed through faintness, and she bowed herself upon the head of her
maid, who went before her. And God changed him, and converted his
indignation into mildness."[5] Now what need is there to relate what
follows, where the divine Scripture testifies that God fulfilled what
she had asked for by working in the heart of the king nothing other than
the will by which he commanded, and it was done as the queen had asked
of him? And now God had heard her that it should be done, who changed
the heart of the king by a most secret and efficacious power before he
had heard the address of the woman beseeching him, and moulded it from
indignation to mildness,--that is, from the will to hurt, to the will to
favour,--according to that word of the apostle, "God worketh in you to
will also." Did the men of God who wrote these things--nay, did the
Spirit of God Himself, under whose guidance such things were written by
them--assail the free will of man? Away with the notion! But He has
commended both the most righteous judgment and the most merciful aid of
the Omnipotent in all cases. For it is enough for man to know that there
is no unrighteousness with God. But how He dispenses those benefits,
making some deservedly vessels of wrath, others graciously vessels of
mercy,--who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His
counsellor? If, then, we attain to the honour of grace, let us not be
ungrateful by attributing to ourselves what we have received. "For what
have we which we have not received?"[6]

CHAP. 39 [XXI.]--JULIAN'S FIFTH OBJECTION CONCERNING THE SAINTS OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT.

    "We say," says he, "that the saints of the Old Testament, their
righteousness being perfected here, passed to eternal life,--that is,
that by the love of virtue they departed from all sins; because those
whom we read of as having committed any sin, we nevertheless know to
have amended themselves." Of whatever virtue you may declare that the
ancient righteous men were possessed, nothing saved them but the belief
in the Mediator who shed His blood for the remission of their sins. For
their own word is," I believed, and therefore I spoke."[7] Whence the
Apostle Paul also says, "And we having the same Spirit of faith,
according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we
also believe, and therefore speak."[1]  What is "the same Spirit," but
that Spirit whom these righteous men also had who said such things? The
Apostle Peter also says, "Why do ye wish to put a yoke upon the heathen,
which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? But, by the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe that we shall be saved, even
as they."[2] You who are enemies to this grace do not wish this, that
the ancients should be believed to have been saved by the same grace of
Jesus Christ; but you distribute the times according to Pelagius,[3] in
whose books this is read, and you say that before the law men were saved
by nature, then by the law, lastly by Christ, as if to men of the two
former times, that is to say, before the law and under the law, the
blood of Christ had not been necessary; making void what is said: "For
there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus."[4]

CHAP. 40 [XXII.]--THE SIXTH OBJECTION, CONCERNING THE NECESSITY OF GRACE
FOR ALL, AND CONCERNING THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS.

    They say, "We confess that the grace of Christ is necessary to all,
both to grown-up people and to infants; and we anathematize those  who
say that a child born of two baptized people ought not to be baptized."
I know in what sense you say such things as these--not according to the
Apostle Paul, but according to the heretic Pelagius;--to wit, that
baptism is necessary for infants, not for the sake of the remission of
sins, but only for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; for you give them
outside the kingdom of heaven a place of salvation and life eternal,
even if they have not been baptized. Nor do you regard what is written,
"Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he who
believeth not shall be condemned."[5] For which reason, in the Church of
the Saviour, infants believe by means of other people, even as they have
derived those sins which are remitted them in baptism from other people.
Nor do you think thus, that they cannot have life who have been without
the body and blood of Christ, although He said Himself, "Unless ye eat
my flesh and drink thy blood, ye shall have no life in you."[6] Or if
you are forced by  the words of the gospel to confess that infants
departing from the body cannot have either life or salvation unless they
have been baptized, ask  why those who are not baptized are compelled to
undergo the judgment of the second death,  by the judgment of Him who
condemns nobody undeservingly, and you will find what you do not
want,--original sin!

CHAP. 41 [XXIII.]--THE SEVENTH OBJECTION, OF THE EFFECT OF BAPTISM.

    "We condemn," says he, "those who affirm that baptism does not do
away all sins, because we know that full cleansing is conferred by these
mysteries." We also say this; but you do not say that infants are also
by those same mysteries freed from the bonds of their first birth and of
their hateful descent. On which account it behoves you, like other
heretics also, to be separated from the Church of Christ, which holds
this of old time.

           CHAP. 42 [XXIV.]--HE REBUTS THE CONCLUSION

                       OF JULIAN'S LETTER.

    But now the manner in which he concludes the letter by saying, "Let
no one therefore seduce you, nor let the wicked deny that they think
these things. But if they speak the truth, either let a hearing be
given, or let those very bishops who now disagree with me condemn what I
have above said that they hold with the Manicheans, as we condemn those
things which they declare concerning us, and a full agreement shall be
made; but if they will not, know ye that they are Manicheans, and
abstain from their company;"--this is rather to be despised than
rebuked. For which of us hesitates to pronounce an anathema against the
Manicheans, who say that from the good God neither proceed men, nor was
ordained marriage, nor was given the law, which was ministered to the
Hebrew people by Moses! But against the Pelagians also, not without
reason, we pronounce an anathema, for that they are so hostile to God's
grace, which comes through Jesus Christ our Lord, as to say that it is
given not freely, but according to our merits, and thus grace is no more
grace;[7] and place so much in free will by which man is plunged into
the abyss, as to say that by making good use of it man deserves
grace,--although no man can make good use of it except by grace, which
is not repaid according to debt, but is given freely by God's mercy. And
they so contend that infants are already saved, that they dare deny that
they are to be saved by the Saviour. And holding and disseminating these
execrable dogmas, they still over and above constantly demand a hearing,
when, as condemned, they ought to repent.

 BOOK II.

HE UNDERTAKES TO EXAMINE THE SECOND LETTER OF THE PELAGIANS, FILLED,
LIKE THE FIRST, WITH CALUMNIES AGAINST THE CATHOLICS--A LETTER THAT WAS
SENT BY THEM TO THESSALONICA IN THE NAME OF EIGHTEEN BISHOPS; AND, FIRST
OF ALL, HE SHOWS, BY THE COMPARISON OF THE HERETICAL WRITINGS WITH ONE
ANOTHER, THAT THE CATHOLICS ARE BY NO MEANS FALLING INTO THE ERRORS OF
THE MANICHEANS IN DETESTING THE DOGMAS OF THE PELAGIANS. HE REPELS THE
CALUMNY OF PREVARICATION INCURRED BY THE ROMAN CLERGY IN THE LATTER
CONDEMNATION OF PELAGIUS AND COELESTIUS BY ZOSIMUS, SHOWING THAT THE
PELAGIAN DOGMAS WERE NEVER APPROVED AT ROME, ALTHOUGH FOR SOME TIME, BY
THE CLEMENCY OF ZOSIMUS, COELESTIUS WAS MERCIFULLY DEALT WITH, WITH A
VIEW TO LEADING HIM TO THE CORRECTION OF HIS ERRORS. HE SHOWS THAT,
UNDER THE NAME OF GRACE, CATHOLICS NEITHER ASSERT A DOCTRINE OF FATE,
NOR ATTRIBUTE RESPECT OF PERSONS TO GOD; ALTHOUGH THEY TRULY SAY THAT
GOD'S GRACE IS NOT GIVEN ACCORDING TO HUMAN MERITS, AND THAT THE FIRST
DESIRE OF GOOD IS INSPIRED BY GOD; SO THAT A MAN DOES NOT AT ALL MAKE A
BEGINNING OF A CHANGE FROM BAD TO GOOD, UNLESS THE UNBOUGHT AND
GRATUITOUS MERCY OF GOD EFFECTS THAT BEGINNING IN HIM.

CHAP.I.--INTRODUCTION; THE PELAGIANS IMPEACH CATHOLICS AS MANICHEANS.

    LET me now consider a second letter, not of Julian's alone, but
common to him with several bishops, which they sent to Thessalonica; and
let me answer it, with God's help, as I best can. And lest this work of
mine become longer than the necessity of the subject itself requires,
what need is there to refute those things which do not contain the
insidious poison of their doctrine, but seem only to plead for the
acquiescence of the Eastern bishops for their assistance, or, on behalf
of the catholic faith, against the profanity, as they say, of the
Manicheans; with no other view except, a horrible heresy being presented
to them, whose adversaries they profess themselves to be, to lie hid as
the enemies of grace in praise of nature? For who at any time has
stirred any question of these matters against them? or what catholic is
displeased because they condemn those whom the apostle foretold as
departing from the faith, having their conscience seared, forbidding to
marry, abstaining from meats that they think unclean, not thinking that
all things were created by God?[1] Who at any time constrained them to
deny that every creature of God is good, and there is no substance which
the  supreme God has not made, except God Himself, who was not made by
any? It is not such things as these, which it is plain are catholic
truths, that are rebuked and condemned in them; because not alone the
catholic faith holds in detestation the Manichean impiety as exceedingly
foolish and mischievous, but also all heretics who are not Manicheans.
Whence even these Pelagians do well to utter an anathema against the
Manicheans, and to speak against their errors. But they do two evil
things, for which they themselves must also be anathematized--one, that
they impeach catholics under the name of Manicheans, the other, that
they themselves also are introducing the heresy of a new error. For they
are not therefore sound in the faith because they are not labouring
under the disease of the Manicheans. The kind of pestilence is not
always one and the same--as in the bodies, so also in the minds. As,
therefore, the physician of the body would not have pronounced a man
free from peril of death whom he might have declared free from dropsy,
if he had seen him to be sick of some other mortal disease; so truth is
not acknowledged in their case because they are not Manicheans, if they
are raving in some other kind of perversity. Wherefore what we
anathematize with them is one thing, what we anathematize in them is
another. For we hold in abhorrence with them what is rightly offensive
to them also; just as, nevertheless, we hold in abhorrence in them that
for which they themselves are rightly offensive.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--THE HERESIES OF THE MANICHEANS AND PELAGIANS ARE MUTUALLY
OPPOSED, AND ARE ALIKE REPROBATED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    The Manicheans say that the good God is not the Creator of all
natures; the Pelagians that God is not the Purifier, the Saviour, the
Deliverer of all ages among men. The catholic Church condemns both; as
well maintaining God's creation against the Manicheans, that no nature
may be denied to be framed by Him, as maintaining against the Pelagians
that in all ages human nature must be sought after as ruined. The
Manicheans rebuke the concupiscence of the flesh, not as if it were an
accidental vice, but as if it were a nature bad from eternity; the
Pelagians approve it as if it were no vice, but even a natural good. The
catholic faith condemns both, saying to the Manicheans, "It is not
nature, but it is vice;" saying to the Pelagians, "It is not of the
Father, but it is of the world ;" in order that both may allow it as an
evil sickness to be cured--the former by ceasing to believe it, as it
were, incurable, the latter by ceasing to proclaim it as laudable. The
Manicheans deny that to a good man the beginning of evil came from free
will; the Pelagians say that even a bad man has free will sufficiently
to perform the good commandment. The catholic Church condemns both,
saying to the former, "God made man upright,"' and saying to the latter,
"If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."[2] The
Manicheans say that the soul, as a particle of God, has sin by the
com-mixture of an evil nature; the Pelagians say that the soul is
upright, not indeed a particle, but a creature of God, and has not even
in this corruptible life any sin. The catholic Church condemns both,
saying to the Manicheans, "Either make the tree good and its fruit good,
or make the tree evil and its fruit evil,"[3] which would not be said to
man who cannot make his own nature, unless because sin is not nature,
but vice; and saying to the Pelagians, "If we say that we have no sin we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."[4] In these diseases,
opposed as they are to one another, the Manicheans and the Pelagians are
at issue, with dissimilar will but with similar vanity, separated by
different opinions, but close together by a perverse mind.

CHAP. 3.--HOW FAR THE MANICHEANS AND PELAGIANS ARE JOINED IN ERROR; HOW
FAR THEY ARE SEPARATED.

	Still, indeed, they alike oppose the grace of Christ, they alike make
His baptism of no account, they alike dishonour His flesh; but,
moreover, they do these things in different ways and for different
reasons. For the Manicheans assert that divine assistance is given to
the merits of a good nature, but the Pelagians, to the merits of a good
will. The former say, God owes this to the labours of His members; the
latter say, God owes this to the virtues of His servants. In both cases,
therefore, the reward is not imputed according to grace, but according
to debt. The Manicheans contend, with a profane heart, that the washing
of regeneration--that is, the water itself--is superfluous, and is of no
advantage. But the Pelagians assert that what is said in holy baptism
for the putting away of sins is of no avail to infants, as they have no
sin; and thus in the baptism of infants, as far as pertains to the
remission of sins, the Manicheans destroy the visible element, but the
Pelagians destroy even the invisible sacrament. The Manicheans dishonour
Christ's flesh by blaspheming the birth from the Virgin; but the
Pelagians by making the flesh of those to be redeemed equal to the flesh
of the Redeemer. Since Christ was born, not of course in sinful flesh,
but in the likeness of sinful flesh, while the flesh of the rest of
mankind is born sinful. The Manicheans, therefore, who absolutely
abominate all flesh, take away the manifest truth from the flesh of
Christ; but the Pelagians, who maintain that no flesh is born sinful,
take away from Christ's flesh its special and proper dignity.

               CHAP. 4.--THE TWO CONTRARY ERRORS.

    Let the Pelagians, then, cease to object to the catholics that which
they are not, but let them rather hasten to amend what they themselves
are; and let them not wish to be considered deserving of approval
because they are opposed to the hateful error of the Manicheans, but let
them acknowledge themselves to be deservedly hateful because they do not
put away their own error. For two errors may be opposed to one another,
although both are to be reprobated because both are alike opposed to the
truth. For if the Pelagians are to be loved because they hate the
Manicheans, the Manicheans should also be loved because they hate the
Pelagians. But be it far from our catholic mother to choose some to love
on the ground that they hate others, when by the warning and help of the
Lord she ought to avoid both, and should desire to heal both.

CHAP. 5 [III.]--THE CALUMNY OF THE PELAGIANS AGAINST THE CLERGY OF THE
ROMAN CHURCH.

    Moreover, they accuse the Roman clergy, writing, "That, driven by
the fear of a command, they have not blushed to be guilty of the crime
of prevarication; so that, contrary to their previous judgment, wherein
by their proceedings they had assented to the catholic dogma, they
subsequently pronounced that the nature of men is evil." Nay, but the
Pelagians had conceived, with a false hope, that the new and execrable
dogma of Pelagius or Coelestius could be made acceptable to the catholic
intelligences of certain Romans, when those crafty spirits--however
perverted by a wicked error, yet not contemptible, since they appeared
rather to be deserving of considerate correction than of easy
condemnation--were treated with somewhat more of lenity than the
stricter discipline of the Church required. For while so many and such
important ecclesiastical documents were passing and repassing between
the Apostolical See and the African bishops,[1]--and,  moreover, when
the proceedings in this matter in that see were completed, with
Coelestius present and making answer,--what sort of a letter, what
decree, is found of Pope Zosimus, of venerable memory, wherein he
prescribed that it must be believed that man is born without any taint
of original sin? Absolutely he never said this--never wrote it at all.
But since Coelestius had written this in his pamphlet, among those
matters, merely, on which he confessed that he was still in doubt and
desired to be instructed, the desire of amendment in a man of so acute
an intellect, who, if he could be put right, would assuredly be of
advantage to many, and not the falsehood of the doctrine, was approved.
And therefore his pamphlet was called catholic, because this also is the
part of a catholic disposition,--if by chance in any matters a man
thinks differently from what the truth demands, not with the greatest
accuracy to define those matters, but, if detected and demonstrated, to
reject them. For it was not to heretics, but to catholics, that the
apostle was speaking when he said, "Let us, therefore, as many as are
perfect, be thus minded; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God
shall reveal even this unto you."[2] This was thought to have been the
case in him when he replied that he consented to the letters of Pope
Innocent of blessed memory, in which all doubt about this matter was
removed. And in order that this might be made fuller and more manifest
in him, matters were delayed until letters should come from Africa, in
which province his craftiness had in some sort become more evidently
known. And afterwards these letters came to Rome containing this, that
it was not sufficient for men of more sluggish and anxious minds that he
confessed his general consent to the letters of Bishop Innocent, but
that he ought openly to anathematize the mischievous statements which he
had made in his pamphlet; lest if he did not do so, many people of
better intelligence should rather believe that in his pamphlet those
poisons of the faith had been approved by the catholic see, because it
had been affirmed by that see that that pamphlet was catholic, than that
they had been amended because of his answer that he consented to the
letters of Pope Innocent. Then, therefore, when his presence was
demanded, in order that by certain and clear answers either the craft of
the man or his correction might plainly appear and remain doubtful to no
one, he withdrew himself and refused the examination. Neither would the
delay which had already been made for the advantage of others have taken
place, if it could not be of advantage to the pertinacity and madness of
those who were excessively perverse. But if, which be far from the case,
it had so been judged in the Roman Church concerning Coelestius or
Pelagius, that those dogmas of theirs, which in themselves and with
themselves Pope Innocent had condemned, should be pronounced worthy of
approval and maintenance, the mark of prevarication would rather have to
be branded on the Roman clergy for this. But now, when the first letters
of the most blessed Pope Innocent, in reply to the letters of the
African bishops,[3] would have equally condemned this error which these
men are endeavouring to commend to us; and his successor, the holy Pope
Zosimus, would never have said, never have written, that this dogma
which these men think concerning infants is to be held; nay, would even
have bound Coelestius by a repeated sentence, when he endeavoured to
clear himself, to a consent to the above-mentioned letters of the
Apostolic See;--assuredly, whatever in the meanwhile was done more
leniently concerning Coelestius, provided the stability of the most 
ancient and robust faith were maintained, was the most merciful
persuasion of correction, not the most pernicious approval of
wickedness; and that afterwards, by the same priesthood, Coelestius and
Pelagius were condemned by repeated authority, was the proof of a
severity, for a little while intermitted, at length of necessity to be
carried out, not a denial of a previously-known truth or a new
acknowledgment of truth.

           CHAP. 6 [IV.]--WHAT WAS DONE IN THE CASE OF

                     COELESTIUS AND ZOSIMUS.

    But what need is there for us to delay longer in speaking of this
matter, when there are extant here and there proceedings and writings
drawn up, where all those things just as they were transacted may be
either learnt or recalled? For who does not see in what degree
Coelestius was bound by the interrogations of your holy predecessor and
by the answers of Coelestius, whereby he professed that he consented to
the letters of Pope Innocent, and fastened by a most wholesome chain, so
as not to dare any further to maintain that the original sin of infants
is not put away in baptism? Because these are the words of the venerable
Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council: "For
once," he said, "he bore free will; but, using his advantage
inconsiderately, and falling into the depths of apostasy, he was
overwhelmed, and found no way whereby he could rise from thence; and,
deceived for ever by his liberty, he would have lain under the
oppression of this ruin, if the advent of Christ had not subsequently
for his grace delivered him, and, by the purification of a new
regeneration, purged all past sin by the washing of His baptism."[1]
What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the
Apostolical See? To this Coelestius professed that he assented, when it
was said to him by your holy predecessor, "Do you condemn all those
things that are bandied about under your name?" and he himself replied,
"I condemn them in accordance with the judgment of your predecessor
Innocent, of blessed memory." But among other things which had been
uttered under his name, the deacon Paulinus had objected to Coelestius
that he said "that the sin of Adam was prejudicial to himself alone, and
not to the human race, and that infants newly born were in the same
condition in which Adam was before his sin."[2] Accordingly, if he would
condemn the views objected to by Paulinus with a truthful heart and
tongue, according to the judgment of the blessed Pope innocent, what
could remain to him afterwards whence he could contend that there was no
sin n infants resulting from the past transgression of the first man,
which would be purged in holy baptism by the purification of the new
regeneration? But he showed that he had answered deceitfully by the
final event, when he withdrew himself from the examination, lest he
should be compelled, according to the African rescripts, absolutely to
mention and anathematize the very words themselves concerning this
question which he wrote in his tractate.

CHAP. 7.--HE SUGGESTS A DILEMMA TO COELESTIUS.

    What was that which the same pope replied o the bishops of Numidia
concerning this very cause, because he had received letters from both
Councils, as well from the Council of Carthage as from the Council of
Mileve--does he not speak most plainly concerning infants? For these are
his words:[3] "For what your Fraternity[4] asserts that they preach,
that infants can be endowed with the rewards of eternal life even
without the grace of baptism, is excessively silly; for unless they
shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, they shall
not have life in themselves. [5] And they who maintain this as being
theirs without regeneration, appear to me to wish to destroy baptism
itself, since they proclaim that these have that which we believe is not
to be conferred on them without baptism." What does the ungrateful man
say to this, when the Apostolic See had already spared him on his
profession, as if he were corrected by its most benignant lenity? What
does he say to this? Will infants after the end of their life, even if
while they live they are not baptized in Christ, be in eternal life, or
will they not? If he should say, "They will," how then did he answer
that he had condemned what had been uttered under his name "according to
the judgment of Innocent, of blessed memory"? Lo, Pope Innocent, of
blessed memory, says that infants have not life without Christ's
baptism, and without partaking of Christ's body and blood. If he should
say, "They will not," how then, if they do not receive eternal life, are
they certainly by consequence condemned in eternal death if they derive
no original sin?

             CHAP. 8.--THE CATHOLIC FAITH CONCERNING

                            INFANTS.

    What do they say to these things who dare also to write their
mischievous impieties, and dare to send them to the Eastern bishops?
Coelestius is held to have given consent to the letters of the venerable
Innocent; the letters themselves of the prelate mentioned are read, and
he writes that infants who are not baptized cannot have life. And who
will deny that, as a consequence, they have death, if they have not
life? Whence, then, in infants, is so wretched a penalty as that, if
there is no original fault? How, then, are the Roman clergy charged with
prevarication by those forsakers of the faith and opponents of grace
under Bishop Zosimus, as if they had had any other view in the
subsequent condemnation of Coelestius and Pelagius than that which they
had in a former one under Innocent? Because, certainly, since by the
letters of the venerable Innocent concerning the abode of infants in
eternal death unless they were baptized in Christ, the antiquity of the
catholic faith shone forth, assuredly he would rather be a prevaricator
from the Roman Church who should deviate from that judgment; and since
with God's blessing this did not happen, but that judgment itself was
constantly maintained in the repeated condemnation of Coelestius and
Pelagius, let them understand that they themselves are in the position
wherein they accuse others of being, and let them hereafter be healed of
their prevarication from the faith. Because the catholic faith does not
say that the nature of man is bad in as far as he was made man at first
by the Creator; nor now is what God creates in that nature when He makes
men from men, his evil; but what he derives from that sin of the first
man.

            CHAP. 9 [V.]--HE REPLIES TO THE CALUMNIES

                        OF THE PELAGIANS.

    And now we must look to those things which they objected to us in
their letters, and briefly mentioned. And to these this is my answer. We
do not say that by the sin of Adam free will perished out of the nature
of men; but that it avails for sinning in men subjected to the devil;
while it is not of avail for good and pious living, unless the will
itself of man should be made free by God's grace, and assisted to every
good movement of action, of speech, of thought. We say that no one but
the Lord God is the maker of those who are born, and that marriage was
ordained not by the devil, but by God Himself; yet that all are born
under sin on account of the fault of propagation, and that, therefore,
all are under the devil until they are born again in Christ. Nor are we
maintaining fate under the name of grace, because we say that the grace
of God is preceded by no merits of man. If, however, it is agreeable to
any to call the will of the Almighty God by the name of fate, while we
indeed shun profane novelties of words, we have no use for contending
about words.

CHAP. 10.--WHY THE PELAGIANS FALSELY ACCUSE CATHOLICS OF MAINTAINING
FATE UNDER THE NAME OF GRACE.

    But, as I was somewhat more attentively considering for what reason
they should think it well to object this to us, that we assert fate
under the name of grace, I first of all looked into those words of
theirs which follow. For thus they have thought that this was to be
objected to us: "Under the name," say they,  "of grace, they so assert
fate as to say that unless God inspired unwilling and resisting man with
the desire of good, and that good imperfect, he would neither be able to
decline from evil nor to lay hold of good." Then a little after, where
they mention  what they maintain, I gave heed to what was said by them
about this matter. "We confess," say they, that baptism is necessary for
all ages,  and that grace, moreover, assists the good purpose of
everybody; but yet that it does not infuse the love of virtue into a
reluctant one, because there is no acceptance of persons with God."[1]
From these words of theirs, I perceived that for this reason they either
think, or wish it to be thought, that we assert fate under the name of
grace, because we say that God's grace is not given in respect of our
merits, but according to His own most merciful will, in that He said, "I
will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom
I will show mercy."[2]  Where, by way of consequence, it is added,
"Therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but
of God that showeth mercy."[3] Here any one might be equally foolish in
thinking or saying that the apostle is an assertor of fate. But here
these people sufficiently lay themselves open; for when they malign us
by saying that we maintain fate under the name of grace, because we say
that God's grace is not given on account of our merits, beyond a doubt
they confess that they themselves say that it is given on account of our
 merits; thus their blindness could not conceal  and dissimulate that
they believe and think thus, although, when this view was objected to
him, Pelagius, in the episcopal judgment of Palestine, with crafty fear
condemned it. For it was objected to him from the words of his own
disciple Coelestius, indeed, that he himself also was in the habit of
saying that God's grace is given on account of our merits. And he in
abhorrence, or in pretended abhorrence, of this, did not delay, with his
lips at least, to anathematize it;[4] but, as his later writings
indicate, and the assertion of those followers of his makes evident, he
kept it in his deceitful heart, until afterwards his boldness might put
forth in letters[5] what the cunning of a denier had then hidden for
fear. And still the Pelagian bishops do not dread, and at least are not
ashamed, to send their letters to the catholic Eastern bishops, in which
they charge us with being assertors of fate because we do not say that
even grace is given according to our merits; although Pelagius, fearing
the Eastern bishops, did not dare to say this, and so was compelled to
condemn it.

CHAP. II [VI.]--THE ACCUSATION OF FATE IS THROWN BACK UPON THE
ADVERSARIES.

    But is it true, O children of pride, enemies of God's grace, new
Pelagian heretics, that whoever says that all man's good deservings are
preceded by God's grace, and that God's grace is not given to merits,
lest it should not be grace if it is not given freely but be repaid as
due to those who deserve it, seems to you to assert fate? Do not you
yourselves also say, whatever be your purpose, that baptism is necessary
for all ages? Have you not written in this very letter of yours that
opinion concerning baptism, and that concerning grace, side by side? Why
did not baptism, which is given to infants, by that very juxtaposition
admonish you what you ought to think concerning grace? For these are
your words: "We confess that baptism is necessary for all ages, and that
grace, moreover, assists the good purpose of everybody; but yet that it
does not infuse the love of virtue into a reluctant one, because there
is no acceptance of persons with God." In all these words of yours, I
for the meanwhile say nothing of what you have said concerning grace.
But give a reason concerning baptism, why you should say that it is
necessary for all ages; say why it is necessary for infants. Assuredly
because it confers some good upon them; and that same something is
neither small nor moderate, but of great account. For although you deny
that they contract the original sin which is remitted in baptism, yet
you do not deny that in that layer of regeneration they are adopted from
the sons of men unto the sons of God; nay, you even preach this. Tell
us, then, how the infants, whoever they are, that are baptized in Christ
and have departed from the body, received so lofty a gift as this, and
with what preceding merits. If you should say that they have deserved
this by the piety of their parents, it will be replied to you, Why is
this benefit sometimes denied to the children of pious people and given
to the children of the wicked? For sometimes the offspring born from
religious people, in tender age, and thus fresh from the womb, is
forestalled by death before it can be washed in the layer of
regeneration, and the infant born of Christ's foes is baptized in 
Christ by the mercy of Christians,--the baptized mother bewails her own
little one not baptized, and the chaste virgin gathers in to be baptized
a foreign offspring, exposed by an unchaste mother. Here, certainly, the
merits of parents are wanting, and even by your own confession the
merits of the infants themselves are wanting also. For we know that you
do not believe this of the human soul, that it has lived somewhere
before it inhabited this earthly body, and has done something either of
good or of evil for which it might deserve such difference in the flesh.
What cause, then, has procured baptism for this infant, and has denied
it to that? Do they have fate because they do not have merit? or is
there in these things acceptance of persons with God? For you have said
both,--first fate, afterwards acceptance of persons,--that, since both
must be refuted, there may remain the merit which you wish to introduce
against grace. Answer, then, concerning the merits of infants, why some
should depart from their bodies baptized, others not baptized, and by
the merits of their parents neither possess nor fail of so excellent a
gift that they should become sons of God from sons of men, by no
deserving of their parents, by no deservings of their own. You are
silent, forsooth, and you find yourselves rather in the same position
which you object to us. For if when there is no merit you say that
consequently there is fate, and on this account wish the merit of man to
be understood in the grace of God, lest you should be compelled to
confess fate; see, you rather assert a fate in the baptism of infants,
since you avow that in them there is no merit. But if, in the case of
infants to be baptized, you deny that any merit at all precedes, and yet
do not concede that there is a fate, why do you cry out,--when we say
that the grace of God is therefore given freely, lest it should not be
grace, and is not repaid as if it were due to preceding merits,--that we
are assertors of fate?--not perceiving that in the justification of the
wicked, as there are no merits because it is God's grace, so that it is
not fate because it is God's grace, and so that it is not acceptance of
persons because it is God's grace.

CHAP. 12. -- WHAT IS MEANT UNDER THE NAME OF FATE.

    Because they who affirm fate contend that not only actions and
events, but, moreover, our very wills themselves depend on the position
of the stars at the time in which one is conceived or born; which
positions they call "constellations." But the grace of God stands above
not only all stars and all heavens, but, moreover, all angels. In a
word, the assertors of fate attribute both men's good and evil doings
and fortunes to fate; but God in the ill fortunes of men follows up
their merits with due retribution, while good fortunes He bestows by
undeserved grace with a merciful will; doing both the one and the other
not according to a temporal conjunction of stars, but according to the
eternal and high counsel of His severity and goodness. We see, then,
that neither belongs to fate. Here, if you answer that this very
benevolence of God, by which He follows not merits, but bestows
undeserved benefits with gratuitous bounty, should rather be called
"fate," when the apostle calls this "grace," saying, "By grace are ye
saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of
God; not of works, lest perchance any one should be lifted up,"--do you
not consider, do you not perceive that it is not by us that fate is
asserted under the name of grace, but it is rather by you that divine
grace is called by the name of fate?

 CHAP. 13 [VII.]--HE REPELS THE CALUMNY CONCERNING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
PERSONS.

    And, moreover, we rightly call it "acceptance of persons" where he
who judges, neglecting the merit of the cause concerning which he is
judging, favours the one against the other, because he finds something
in his person which is worthy of honour or of pity. But if any one have
two debtors, and he choose to remit the debt to the one, to require it
of the other, he gives to whom he will and defrauds nobody; nor is this
to be called "acceptance of persons," since there is no injustice. The
acceptance of persons may seem otherwise to those who are of small
understanding, where the lord of the vineyard gave to those labourers
who had done work therein for one hour as much as to those who had borne
the burden and heat of the day, making them equal in wages in the labour
of whom there had been such a difference. But what did he reply to those
who murmured against the goodman of the house concerning this, as it
were, acceptance of persons? "Friend," said he, "I do thee no wrong.
Hast not thou agreed with me for a denarius? Take what thine is, and go;
but I choose to give to this last as to thee. Is it not lawful to me to
do what I will? Is thine eye evil because I am good?"[1] Here, forsooth,
is the entire justice: "I choose this. To thee," he says, "I have
repaid; on him I have bestowed; nor have I taken anything away from thee
to bestow it on him; nor have I either diminished or denied what I owed
to you." "May I not do what I will? Is thine eye evil because I am
good?" As, therefore, here there is no acceptance of persons, because
one is honoured freely in such wise as that another is not defrauded of
what is due to him: so also when, according to the purpose of God, one
is called, another is not called, a gratuitous benefit is bestowed on
the one that is called, of which benefit the calling itself is the
beginning,--an evil is repaid to him that is not called, because all are
guilty, from the fact that by one man sin entered into the world. And in
that parable of the labourers, indeed, where they received one denarius
who laboured for one hour, as well as those who laboured twelve times as
long,--though assuredly these latter, according to human reasonings,
however vain, ought in proportion to the amount of their labour to have
received twelve denarii,--both were put on an equality in respect of
benefit, not some delivered and others condemned; because even those who
laboured more had it from the goodman of the house himself, both that
they were so called as to come, and that they were so fed as to have no
want. But where it is said, "Therefore, on whom He will He has mercy,
and whom He will He hardeneth,"[2] who "maketh one vessel to honour and
another to dishonour"[3] it is given indeed without deserving, and
freely, because he is of the same mass to whom it is not given;  but
evil is deservedly and of debt repaid, since  in the mass of perdition
evil is not repaid to the  evil unjustly. And to him to whom it is
repaid  it is evil, because it is his punishment; while to Him by whom
it is repaid it is good, because it  is His right to do it. Nor is there
any acceptance of persons in the case of two debtors equally guilty, if
to the one is remitted and  from the other is claimed that which is
equally  owed by both.

CHAP. 14.--HE ILLUSTRATES HIS ARGUMENT BY AN EXAMPLE.

 But that what I am saying may be made clear by the exhibition of an
example, let us suppose certain twins, born of a certain harlot, and
exposed that they might be taken up by others.  One of them has expired
without baptism; the other is baptized. What can we say was in this case
the "fate" or the "fortune,' which are here absolutely, nothing? What
"acceptance of persons," when with God there is none, even if there
could be any such thing in these cases,  seeing that they certainly had
nothing for which I the one could be preferred to the other, and no
merits of their own,--whether good, for which the one might deserve to
be baptized; or evil, for which the other might deserve to die without
baptism? Were there any merits in their parents, when the father was a
fornicator, the mother a harlot? But of whatever kind those merits were,
there were certainly not any that were different in those who died in
such different conditions, but all were common to both. If, then, 
neither fate, since no stars made them to differ; nor fortune, since no
fortuitous accidents produce these things; nor the diversity of persons

 nor of merits have done this; what remains, so far as it refers to the
baptized child, save the grace of God, which is given freely to vessels 
made unto honour; but, as it refers to the unbaptized child, the wrath
of God, which is repaid to the vessels made for dishonour in respect of
the deservings of the lump itself? But in that one which is baptized we
constrain you to confess the grace of God, and convince you that no
merit of its own preceded; but as to that one which died without
baptism, why that sacrament should have been wanting to it, which even
you confess to be needful for all ages, and what in that manner may have
been punished in him, it is for you to see who will not have it that
there is any original sin.

 CHAP. 15.--THE APOSTLE MEETS THE QUESTION BY LEAVING IT UNSOLVED.

	Since in the case of those two twins we have without a doubt one and
the same case, the difficulty of the question why the one died in one
way, and the other in another, is solved by the apostle as it were by
not solving it; for, when he had proposed something of the same kind

about two twins, seeing that it was said (not of works, since they had
not as yet done anything either of good or of evil, but of Him that

calleth), "The older shall serve the younger,"[1] and, "Jacob have I
loved, and Esau have I hated;"[1] and he had prolonged the horror of
this deep thing even to the point of saying, "Therefore hath He mercy on
whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth:"[2] he perceived at once
what the trouble was, and opposed to himself the words of a gainsayer
which he was to check by apostolical authority. For he

says, "You say, then, unto me, "Why doth He yet find fault? For who has
resisted His will?" And to him who says this he answered, "O man, who
art thou that repliest against God? Doth the thing formed say to him
that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power of
the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another
unto dishonour "(3) Then, following on, he opened up this great and
hidden secret as far as he judged it fit that it should be disclosed to
men, saying, "But if God, willing to show His wrath and to demonstrate
His power, endured in much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for
destruction, even that He might make known the riches of His glory on
the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory."(4) This is not 
only the assistance, but, moreover, the proof of God's grace--the
assistance, namely, in the  vessels of mercy, but the proof in the
vessels of wrath; for in these He shows His anger and  makes known His
power, because His goodness  is so mighty that He even uses the evil
well; and  in those He makes known the riches of His  glory on the
vessels of mercy, because what the  justice of a punisher requires from
the vessels of  wrath, the grace of the Deliverer remits to the i
vessels of mercy. Nor would the kindness  which is bestowed on some
freely appear, unless I to other equally guilty and from the same mass 
God showed what was really due to both, and  condemned them with a
righteous judgment.  "For who maketh thee to differ?"(5) says the same
apostle to a man as it were boasting concerning himself and his own
benefits. "For who maketh thee to differ" from the vessels of wrath; of
course, from the mass of perdition which has sent all by one into
damnation? "Who maketh thee to differ?" And as if he had answered, "My
faith maketh me to differ,--my purpose, my merit,"--he says, "For what
hast thou which thou hast not received? But if thou hast received it,
why dost thou boast as if thou receivedst it not?"--that is, as if that
by which thou art made to differ were of thine own. Therefore He maketh
thee to differ who bestows that whence thou art made to differ, by
removing the penalty that is due, by conferring the grace which is not
due. He maketh to differ, who, when the darkness was upon the face of
the abyss, said," Let there be light; and there was light, and
divided"--that is, made to differ--"between the light and the
darkness."(6) For when there was only darkness, He did not find what He
should make to differ; but by making the light, He made to differ; so
that it may be said to the justified wicked, "For ye were sometime
darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord."(7) And thus he who glories
must glory not in himself, but in the Lord. He makes to differ who--of
those who are not yet born, and who have not yet done any good or evil,
that His purpose, according to the election, might stand not of works,
but of Himself that calleth--said, The older shall serve the younger,
and commending that very purpose afterwards by the mouth of the prophet,
said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."(8) Because he said
"the election," and in this God does not find made by another what He
may choose, but Himself makes what He may find; just as it is written of
the remnant of Israel: "There is made a remnant by the election of
grace; but if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is
no more grace."(9) On which account you are certainly foolish who, when
the Truth declares, "Not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was
said," say that Jacob was loved on account of future works which God
foreknew that he would do, and thus contradict the apostle when he says,
"Not of works;" as if he could not have said, "Not of present, but of
future works." But he says, "Not of works," that He night commend grace;
"but if of grace, now s it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more
grace." For grace, not due, but free, precedes, that by it good works
may be done; but if good works should precede, grace should be repaid,
as it were, to works, and thus grace should be no more grace.

CHAP. 16.--THE PELAGIANS ARE REFUTED BY THE CASE OF THE TWIN INFANTS
DYING, THE ONE AFTER, AND THE OTHER WITHOUT, THE GRACE OF BAPTISM.

But that every lurking-place of your darkness may be taken away from
you, I have proposed to you the case of such twins as were not assisted
by the merits of their parents, and both died in the very beginning of
infancy, the one baptized, the other without baptism; lest you should
say that God foreknew their future works, as you say of Jacob and Esau,
in opposition to the apostle. For how did He foreknow that those things
should be, which, in those infants who were to die in infancy, He rather
foreknew as not to be, since His foreknowledge cannot be deceived? Or
what does it profit those who are taken away frown this life that
wickedness may not change their understanding, nor deceit beguile their
soul, if even the sin which has not been done, said, or thought, is thus
punished as if it had been committed? Because, if it is most absurd,
silly, and senseless, that certain men should have to be condemned for
those sins, the guilt of which they could neither derive from their
parents, as you say, nor could incur themselves, either by committing
them, or even by conceiving of them, there comes back to you that
unbaptized twin brother of the baptized one, and silently asks you for
what reason he was made to differ from his brother in respect of
happiness,--why he was punished with that infelicity, so that, while his
brother was adopted into a child of God, he himself should not receive
that sacrament which, as you confess, is necessary for every age, if,
even as there is not a fortune or a fate, or an acceptance of persons
with God, so there is no gift of grace without merits, and no original
sin. To this dumb child you absolutely submit your tongue and voice; to
this witness who says nothing,--you have nothing at all to say!

CHAP. 17 [VIII.]--EVEN THE DESIRE OF AN IMPERFECT GOOD IS A GIFT OF
GRACE, OTHERWISE GRACE WOULD BE GIVEN ACCORDING TO MERITS.

    Let us now see, as we can, the nature of this thing which they will
have to precede in man, in order that he may be regarded as worthy of
the assistance of grace, and to the merit of which in him grace is not
given as if unearned, but is rendered as due; and thus grace is no more
grace. Let us see, however, what this is. "Under the name," say they,
"of grace, they so assert fate as to say that unless God should have
inspired the desire for good, and that, imperfect good, into unwilling
and resisting man, he would neither be able to decline from evil nor to
grasp after good." I have already shown what empty things they speak
about fate and grace. Now the question which I ought to consider is
this, whether God inspires the desire of good into unwilling and
resisting man, that he may be no longer unwilling, no longer resisting,
but consenting to the good and willing the good. For those men will have
it that the desire of good in man begins from man himself; that the
merit of this beginning is, moreover, attended with the grace of
completion--if, at least, they will allow so much as even this. For
Pelagius says that what is good is "more easily" fulfilled if grace
assists.(1) By which addition--that is, by adding "more easily"--he
certainly signifies that he is of the opinion that, even if the aid of
grace should be wanting, yet good might be accomplished, although with
greater difficulty, by free will. But let me prescribe to my present
opponents what they should think in this matter, without speaking of the
author of this heresy himself. Let us allow them, with their free will,
to be free even from Pelagius himself, and rather give heed to their
words which they have written in this letter to which I am replying.

CHAP. 18.--THE DESIRE OF GOOD IS GOD'S GIFT.

    For they have thought that it was to be objected to us that we say
"that God inspires into unwilling and resisting man the desire," not of
any very great good, but "even of imperfect good." Possibly, then, they
themselves are keeping open, in some sense at least, a place for grace,
as thinking that man may have the desire of good without grace, but only
of imperfect good; while of perfect, he could not easily have the desire
with grace, but except with it they could not have it at all. Truly,
even in this way, too, they are saying that God's grace is given
according to our merits, which Pelagius, in the ecclesiastical meeting
in the East, condemned, in the fear of being condemned. For if without
God's grace the desire of good begins with ourselves, merit itself will
have begun--to which, as if of debt, comes the assistance of grace; and
thus God's grace will not be bestowed freely, but will be given
according to our merit. But that he might furnish a reply to the future
Pelagius, the Lord does not say, "Without me it is with difficulty that
you can do anything," but He says, "Without me ye can do nothing.(2)
And, that He might also furnish an answer to these future heretics, in
that very same evangelical saying He does not say, "Without me you can
perfect nothing," but "da" nothing. For if He had said "perfect," they
might say that God's aid is necessary not for beginning good, which is
of ourselves, but for perfecting it. But let them hear also the apostle.
For when the Lord says, "Without me ye can do nothing," in this one word
He comprehends both the beginning and the ending. The apostle, indeed,
as if he were an expounder of the Lord's saying, distinguished both very
clearly when he says, "Because He who hath begun a good work in you will
perfect it even to the day of Christ Jesus."(1) But in the Holy
Scriptures, in the writings of the same apostle, we find more about that
of which we are speaking. For we are now speaking of the desire of good,
and if they will have this to begin of ourselves and to be perfected by
God, let them see what they can answer to the apostle when he says, "Not
that we are sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our
sufficiency is of God."(2) "To think anything," he says,--he certainly
means, "to think anything good;" but is it less to think than to desire.
Because we think all that we desire, but we do not desire all that we
think; because sometimes also we think what we do not desire. Since,
then, it is a smaller thing to think than to desire,--for a man may
think good which he does not yet desire, and by advancing may afterwards
desire what before without desire he thought of,--how are we not
sufficient as of ourselves to that which is less, that is, to the
thinking of something good, but our sufficiency is of God; while to that
which is greater,--that is, to the desire of some good thing--without
the divine help, we are sufficient of free will? For what the apostle
says here is not, "Not that we are sufficient as of ourselves to think
that which is perfect;" but he says, "to think anything," to which
"nothing" is the contrary. And this is the meaning of what the Lord
says, "Without me ye can do nothing."

CHAP. 19 [IX.]--HE INTERPRETS THE SCRIPTURES WHICH THE PELAGIANS MAKE
ILL USE OF.

    But assuredly, as to what is written, "The preparation of the heart
is man's part, and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord,"(3) they
are misled by an imperfect understanding, so as to think that to prepare
the heart--that is, to begin good--pertains to man without the aid of
God's grace. Be it far from the children of promise thus to understand
it! As if, when they heard the Lord saving, "Without me ye can do
nothing,"(4) they would convict Him by saying, "Behold without Thee we
can prepare the heart;" or when they heard from Paul the apostle, "Not
that we are sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our
sufficiency is of God,"(2) as if they would also convict him, saying,
"Behold, we are sufficient of ourselves to prepare our heart, and thus
also to think some good thing; for who can without good thought prepare
his heart for good?" Be it far from any thus to understand the passage,
except the proud maintainers of free will and forsakers of the catholic
faith! Therefore, since it is written, "It is man's  part to prepare the
heart, and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord," it is that man
prepares his heart, not, however, without the aid of God, who so touches
the heart that man prepares the heart. But in the answer of the
tongue---that is, in that which the divine tongue answers to the
prepared heart---man has no part; but the whole is from the Lord God.

           CHAP. 20.--GOD'S AGENCY IS NEEDFUL EVEN IN

                          MAN'S DOINGS.

    For as it is said, "It is man's part to prepare his heart, and the
answer of the tongue is from the Lord;" so also is it said, "Open thy
mouth, and I will fill it."(5) For although, save by His assistance
without whom we can do nothing, we cannot open our mouth, yet we open it
by His aid and by our own agency, while the Lord fills it without our
agency. For what is to prepare the heart and to open the mouth, but to
prepare the will? And yet in the same scriptures is read, "The will is
prepared by the Lord,"(6) and, "Thou shalt open my lips, and my mouth
shall show forth Thy praise."(7) So God admonishes us to prepare our
will in what we read," It is man's part to prepare his heart;" and yet,
that man may do this, God helps him, because the will is prepared by the
Lord. And," Open thy mouth." This He so says by way of command, as that
nobody can do this unless it is done by His aid, to whom it is said,
"Thou shalt open my lips." Are any of these men so foolish as to contend
that the mouth is one thing, the lips another; and to say with
marvellous triviality that man opens his own mouth, and God opens man's
lips? And yet God restrains them from even that absurdity where He says
to Moses His servant," I will open thy mouth, and I will instruct thee
what thou oughtest to speak."(8) In that clause, therefore, where He
says, "Open thy mouth and I will fill it," it seems, as it were, that
one of them pertains to man, the other to God. But in this, where it is
said, "I will open thy mouth and will instruct thee," both belong to
God. Why is this, except that in one of these cases He co-operates with
man as the agent, in the other He does it alone?

CHAP. 21.--MAN DOES NO GOOD THING WHICH GOD DOES NOT CAUSE HIM TO DO.

    Wherefore God does many good things in man which man does not do;
but man does none which God does not cause man to do. Accordingly, there
would be no desire of good in man from the Lord if it were not a good;
but if it is a good, we have it not save from Him who is supremely and
incommunicably good. For what is the desire for good but love, of which
John the apostle speaks without any ambiguity, and says," Love is of
God"?(1) Nor is its beginning of ourselves, and its perfection of God;
but if love is of God, we have the whole of it from God. May God by all
means turn away this folly of making ourselves first in His gifts,
Himself last,--because "His mercy shall prevent me."(2) And it is He to
whom is faithfully and truthfully sung, "For Thou hast prevented him
with the blessings of sweetness."(3) And what is here more fitly
understood than that very desire of good of which we are speaking? For
good begins then to be longed for when it has begun to grow sweet. But
when good is done by the fear of penalty, not by the love of
righteousness good is not yet well done. Nor is that done in the heart
which seems to be done in the act when a man would rather not do it if
he could evade it with impunity. Therefore the "blessing of sweetness"
is God's grace, by which is caused in us that what He prescribes to us
delights us, and we desire it,--that is, we love it; in which if God
does not precede us, not only is it not perfected, but it is not even
begun, from us. For, if without Him we are able to do nothing actually,
we are able neither to begin nor to perfect,--because to begin, it is
said "His mercy shall prevent me;"(2) to finish, it is said, "His mercy
shall follow me."(4)

            CHAP. 22 [X.]--ACCORDING TO WHOSE PURPOSE

                      THE ELECT ARE CALLED.

    Why, then, is it that, in what follows, where they mention what they
themselves think, they say they confess "That grace also assists the
good purpose of every one, but that yet it does not infuse the desire of
virtue into a reluctant heart"? Because they so say this as if man of
himself, without God's assistance, has a good purpose and a desire of
virtue; and this precedent merit is worthy of being assisted by the
subsequent grace  of God. For they think, perchance, that the  apostle
thus said, "For we know that He worketh all things for good to them that
love God, to them who are called according to the purpose,"(5) so as to
wish the purpose of man to be understood, which purpose, as a good
merit, the mercy of the God that calleth might follow; being ignorant
that it is said, "Who are called according to the purpose," so that
there may be understood the purpose of God, not man, whereby those whom
He foreknew and predestinated as conformed to the image of His Son, He
elected before the foundation of the world. For not all the called are
called according to purpose, since "many are called, few are chosen."(6)
They, therefore, are called according to the purpose, who were elected
before the foundation of the world. Of this purpose of God, that also
was said which I have already mentioned concerning the twins Esau and
Jacob, "That according to the election the purpose of God might remain,
not of works, but of Him that calleth; it was said, that the elder shall
serve the younger."(7) This purpose of God is also mentioned in that
place where, writing to Timothy, he says, "Labour with the gospel
according to the power of God, who saves us and calls us with this holy
calling; not according to our works, but according to His purpose and
grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the eternal ages,
but is now made manifest by the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ."(8)
This, then, is the purpose of God, whereof it is said, "He worketh
together all things for good for those who are called according to the
purpose." But subsequent grace indeed assists man's good purpose, but
the purpose would not itself exist if grace did not precede. The desire
of man, also, which is called good, although in beginning to exist it is
aided by grace, yet does not begin without grace, but is inspired by Him
of whom the apostle says, "But thanks be to God, who has given the same
desire for you in the heart of Titus."(9) If God gives desire that every
one may have it for others, who else will give it that a man may have it
for himself?

             CHAP. 23.--NOTHING IS COMMANDED TO MAN

                   WHICH IS NOT GIVEN BY GOD.

    Since these things are so, I see that nothing is commanded to man by
the Lord in the Holy Scriptures, for the sake of trying his free will,
which is not found either to begin by His goodness, or to be asked in
order to demonstrate the aid of grace; nor does man at all begin to be
changed by the beginning of faith from evil to good, unless the unbought
and gratuitous mercy of God effects this in him. Of which one recalling
his thought, as we read in the Psalms, says, "Shall God forget to be
gracious ? or will He restrain His mercies in His anger? And I said, Now
have I begun; this change is of the right hand of the Most High."(10)
When, therefore, he had said," Now have I begun," he does not say, "This
change is of my will," but "of the right hand of the Most High." So,
therefore, let God's grace be thought of, that from the beginning of his
good changing, even to the end of his completion, he who glorieth may
glory in the Lord; because, as no one can perfect good without the Lord,
so no one can begin it without the Lord. But let this be the end of this
book, that the attention of the reader may be refreshed and strengthened
for what follows.

 BOOK III.

AUGUSTIN GOES ON TO REFUTE OTHER MATTERS WHICH ARE CALUMNIOUSLY OBJECTED
BY THE PELAGIANS IN THE SAME LETTER SENT TO THESSALONICA; AND EXPOUNDS,
IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR HERESY, WHAT THOSE WHO ARE TRULY CATHOLIC SAY
CONCERNING THE UTILITY OF THE LAW; WHAT THEY TEACH OF THE EFFECT AND
VIRTUE OF BAPTISM; WHAT OF THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS,
THE OLD AND THE NEW; WHAT CONCERNING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS AND PERFECTION OF
THE PROPHETS AND APOSTLES; WHAT OF THE APPELLATION OF SIN IN CHRIST,
WHEN HE IS SAID IN THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH CONCERNING SIN TO HAVE
CONDEMNED SIN, OR TO HAVE BECOME SIN; AND FINALLY, WHAT THEY PROFESS
CONCERNING THE FULFILMENT OF THE COMMANDMENTS IN THE FUTURE LIFE.

                    CHAP. I [I.]--STATEMENT.

    There still follow things which they calumniously object to us; they
do not yet begin to work out those things which they themselves think.
But lest the prolixity of these writings should be an offence, I have
divided those matters which they object into two Books,--the former of
which being completed, which is the Second Book of this entire work, I
am here commencing the other, and joining it as the Third to the First
and Second.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--THE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PELAGIANS CONCERNING THE USE
OF THE OLD LAW.

    They declare "that we say that the law of the Old Testament was
given not for the end that it might justify the obedient, but rather
that it might become the cause of greater sin." Certainly, they do not
understand what we say concerning the law; because we say what the
apostle says, whom they do not understand. For who can say that they are
not justified who are obedient to the law, when, unless they were
justified, they could not be obedient? But we say, that by the law is
effected that what God wills to be done is heard, but that by grace is
effected that the law is obeyed. "For not the hearers of the law," says
the apostle, "are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be
justified."(1) Therefore the law makes hearers of righteousness, grace
makes doers. "For what was impossible to the law," says the same
apostle, "in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent His 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
according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."(2) This is what we
say;--let them pray that they may one day understand it, and not dispute
so as never to understand it. For it is impossible that the law should
be fulfilled by the flesh,that is, by carnal presumption, in which the
proud, who are ignorant of the righteousness of God,--that is, which is
of God to man, that he may be righteous,--and desirous of establishing
their own righteousness,--as if by their own will, unassisted from
above, the law could be fulfilled,--are not subjected to the
righteousness of God.(3) Therefore the righteousness of the law is
fulfilled in them who walk not according to the flesh-that is, according
to man, ignorant of the righteousness of God and desirous of
establishing his own--but walk according to the Spirit. But who walks
according to the Spirit, except whosoever is led by the Spirit of God?
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of
God."(4) Therefore "the letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive."(5)
And the letter is not evil because it killeth; but it convicts the
wicked of transgression. "For the law is holy, and the commandment holy
and just and good. Was, then," says he, "that which is good made death
unto me? By no means; but sin, that it might appear sin, worked death in
me by that which is good, that it might become above measure a sinner or
a sin by the commandment."(6) This is what is the meaning of "the letter
killeth." "For the sting of death is sin, but the strength of sin is the
law;" (1)  because by the prohibition it increases the desires of sin,
and thence slays a man unless grace by coming to his assistance makes
him alive. (2)

            CHAP. 3.--SCRIPTURAL CONFIRMATION OF THE

                       CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

    This is what we say; this is that about which they object to us that
we say "that the law was so given as to be a cause of greater sin." They
do not hear the apostle saying, "For the law worketh wrath; for where no
law is, there is no transgression;"(3) and, "The law was added for the
sake of transgression until the seed should come to whom the promise was
made;"(4) and, "If there had been a law given which could have given
life, righteousness should altogether 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."(5) Hence it is that
the Old Testament, from the Mount Sinai, where the law was given,
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. "Now we," says he, "are not
children of the bondmaid but of the freewoman."(6) Therefore they are
not children of the freewoman who have accepted the law of the letter,
whereby they can be shown to be not only sinners, but moreover
transgressors; but they who have received the Spirit of grace, whereby
the law itself, holy and just and good, may be fulfilled. This is what
we say: let them attend and not contend; let them seek enlightenment and
not bring false accusations.

          CHAP. 4 [III.]--MISREPRESENTATION CONCERNING,

                     THE EFFECT OF BAPTISM.

    "They assert," say they, "that baptism, moreover, does not make men
new--that is, does not give complete remission of sins; but they contend
that they are partly made children of God and partly remain children of
the world, that is, of the devil." They deceive; they lay traps; they
shuffle; we do not say this. For we say that all men who are children of
the devil are also children of the world; but not that all children of
the world are also children of the devil. Far be it from us to say that
the holy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others of this kind,
were children of the devil when they were begetting in marriage, and
those believers who until now and still hereafter continue to beget. And
yet we cannot contradict the Lord when He says, "The children of this
world marry

and give in marriage."(7) Some, therefore, are children of this world,
and yet are not children of the devil. For although the devil is the
author and source of all sins, yet it is not every sin that makes
children of the devil; for the children of God also sin, since if they
say they have no sins they deceive themselves, and the truth is not in
them.(8) But they sin in virtue of that condition by which they are
still children of this world; but by that grace wherewith they are the
children of God they certainly sin not, because every one that is born
of God sinneth not.(9) But unbelief makes children of the devil; and
unbelief is specially called sin, as if it were the only one, if it is
not expressed what is the nature of the sin. As when the "apostle" is
spoken of, if it be not expressed what apostle, none is understood but
Paul; because he is better known by his many epistles, and he laboured
more than they all. For which reason, in what the Lord said of the Holy
Spirit," He shall convict the world of sin,"(10) He meant unbelief to be
understood; for He said this when He was explaining, "Of sin because
they believed not on me," (11) and when He says, "If I had not come and
spoken to them, they should not have sin."(12) For He meant not that
before they had no sin, but He wished to indicate that very want of
faith by which they did not believe Him even when He was present to them
and speaking to them; since they belonged to him of whom the apostle
says, "According to the prince of the power of the air, who now worketh
in the children of unbelief."(13) Therefore they in whom there is not
faith are the children of the devil, because they have not in the inner
man any reason why there should be forgiven them whatever is committed
either by human infirmity, or by ignorance, or by any evil will
whatever. But those are the children of God who certainly, if they
should "say that they have no sin, deceive themselves,  and the truth is
not in them, but immediately" (as it continues) "when they confess their
sins" (which the children of the devil do not do, or do not do according
to the faith which is peculiar to the children of God), "He is faithful
and just to forgive them their sins, and to cleanse them from all
unrighteousness."(8) And in order that what we say may be more fully
understood, let Jesus Himself be heard, who certainly was speaking to
the children of God when He said: "And 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." (14) For if these
were not the children of God, He would not say to them, "Your Father
which is in heaven." And yet He says that they are evil, and that they
know how to give good gifts to their children. Are they, then, evil in
that they are the children of God? Away with the thought! But they are
thence evil be- cause they are still the children of this world,
although now made children of God by the pledge of the Holy Spirit.

CHAP. 5.--BAPTISM PUTS AWAY ALL SINS, BUT IT DOES NOT AT ONCE HEAL ALL
INFIRMITIES.

    Baptism, therefore, washes away indeed all sins--absolutely all
sins, whether of deeds or words or thoughts, whether original or added
whether such as are committed in ignorance or allowed in knowledge; but
it does not take away the weakness which the regenerate man resists when
he fights the good fight, but to which he consents when as man he is
overtaken in any fault; on account of the former, rejoicing with
thanksgiving, but on account of the latter, groaning in the utterance of
prayers. On account of the former, saying, "What shall I render to the
Lord for all that He has given me?(1) On account of the latter, saying,
"Forgive us our debts."(2) On account of the former, saying, "I will
love Thee, O Lord, my strength."(3) On account of the latter, saying,
"Have mercy on me, O Lord; for I am weak."(4) On account of the former,
saying, "Mine eyes are ever towards the Lord; for He shall pluck my feet
out of the net."(5) On account of the latter, saying, "Mine eye is
troubled with wrath."(6) And there are innumerable passages with which
the divine writings are filled, which alternately, either in exultation
over God's benefits or in lamentation over our own evils, are uttered by
children of God by faith as long as they are still children of this
world in respect of the weakness of tiffs life; whom, nevertheless, God
distinguishes from the children of the devil, not only by the layer of
regeneration, but moreover by the righteousness of that faith which
worketh by love, because the just lives by faith. But this weakness with
which we contend, with alternating failure and progress, even to the
death of the body, and which is of great importance as to what it can
overcome in us, shall be consumed by another regeneration, of which the
Lord says, "In the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the
throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,"(7) etc.
Certainly in this passage He without doubt calls the last resurrection
the regeneration, which Paul the Apostle also calls both the adoption
and the redemption, where he says, "But even we ourselves, which have
the first-fruits of the Spirit, ourselves also groan within ourselves,
waiting for the adoption, the redemption, of our body."(8) Have we not
been regenerated, adopted, and redeemed by the holy washing? And yet
there remains a regeneration, an adoption, a redemption, which we ought
now patiently to be waiting for as to come in the end, that we may then
be in no degree any longer children of this world. Whosoever, then,
takes away from baptism that which we only receive by its means,
corrupts the faith; but whosoever attributes to it now that which we
shall receive by its means indeed, but yet hereafter, cuts off hope. For
if any one should ask of me whether we have been saved by baptism, I
shall not be able to deny it, since the apostle says, "He saved us by
the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."(9) But if
he should ask whether by the same washing He has already absolutely In
every way saved us, I shall answer: It is not so. Because the same
apostle also says, "For 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, we with patience wait for it."(10) Therefore the
salvation of man is effected in baptism, because whatever sin he has
derived from his parents is remitted, or whatever, moreover, he himself
has sinned on his own account before baptism; but his salvation will
hereafter be such that he cannot sin at all.

CHAP. 6 [IV.]--THE CALUMNY CONCERNING THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE
RIGHTEOUS MEN OF OLD.

    Now if these things are so, out of these things are rebutted those
which they subsequently object to us. For what catholic would say that
which they charge us with saying, "that the Holy Spirit was not the
assister of virtue in the old testament," unless when we so understand
"the old testament" in the manner in which the apostle spoke of it as
"gendering from Mount Sinai into bondage"? But because in it was
prefigured the new testament, the men of God who at that time understood
this according to the ordering of the times, were indeed the stewards
and bearers of the old testament, but are shown to be the heirs of the
new. Shall we deny that he belongs to the new testament who says,
"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me"?
(11) or he who says, "He hath set my feet upon a rock, and directed my
goings; and he bath put a new song in my mouth, even a hymn to our God"?
(12)  or that father of the faithful before the old testament which is
from Mount Sinai, of whom the apostle says, "Brethren, I speak after the
manner of men; yet even a man's testament, when it is confirmed, no man
disannulleth or addeth thereto. To Abraham and to his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one;
and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say," said he, "that the
testament confirmed by God, the law which was made four hundred and
thirty years after, does not weaken, so as to make the promise of none
effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise:
but God gave it to Abraham by promise."(1)

CHAP. 7.--THE NEW TESTAMENT IS MORE ANCIENT THAN THE OLD; BUT IT WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY REVEALED.

    Here, certainly, if we ask whether this testament, which, he says,
being confirmed by God was not weakened by the law, which was made four
hundred and thirty years after, is to be understood as the new or the
old one, who can hesitate to answer "the new, but hidden in the
prophetic shadows until the time should come wherein it should be
revealed in Christ"? For if we should say the old, what will that be
which genders from Mount Sinai to bondage? For there was made the law
four hundred and thirty years after, by which law he asserts that this
testament of the promise of Abraham could not be  weakened; and he will
have this which was made by Abraham to pertain rather to us, whom he
will have to be children of the freewoman, not of the bondwoman, heirs
by the promise, not by the law, when he says, "For if the inheritance be
by the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by
promise."(2) So that, because the law was made four hundred and thirty
years after, it might enter that the offence might abound;(3) since by
sin the pride of man presuming on his own righteousness is convinced of
transgression, and where sin abounded grace much more abounded? by the
faith of the now humble man failing in the law and taking refuge in
God's mercy. Therefore, when he had said, "For if the inheritance be of
the law, it is no longer of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by
promise,"(2) as if it might be said to him, "Why then was the law made
afterwards? " he added and said, "What then is the law?"(4) To which
interrogation he immediately replied, "It was added because of
transgression, until the seed should come to which the promise was
made."(4) This he says again, thus: "For if they who are of the law be
heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect:
because the law worketh wrath for where there is no law, there is no
transgression."(5) What he says in the former testimony: "For if the
inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to
Abraham by promise," this he says in the latter: "For if they who are of
the law be heirs, faith is made void; and the promise is made of none
effect;" sufficiently showing that to our faith (which certainly is of
the new testament) belongs what God gave to Abraham by promise. And what
he says in the former testimony, "What then is the law?" and answered,
"It was added for the sake of transgression," this he instantly added in
the latter testimony, "For the law worketh wrath: for where there is no
law, there is no transgression."

CHAP. 8.--ALL RIGHTEOUS MEN BEFORE AND AFTER ABRAHAM ARE CHILDREN OF THE
PROMISE AND OF GRACE.

    Whether, then, Abraham, or righteous men before him or after him,
even to Moses himself, by whom was given the testament gendering to
bondage from Mount Sinai, or the rest of the prophets after him, and the
holy men of God till John the Baptist, they are all children of the
promise and of grace according to Isaac the son of the freewoman,--not
of the law, but of the promise, heirs of God and joint-heirs with
Christ. Far be it from us to deny that righteous Noah and the righteous
men of the earlier times, and whoever from that time till the time of
Abraham could be righteous, either manifestly or hiddenly, belong to the
Jerusalem which is above, who is our mother, although they are found to
be earlier in time than Sarah, who bore the prophecy and figure of the
free mother herself. How much more evidently, then, after Abraham, to
whom that promise was declared, that he should be called the father of
many nations, must all, whoever have pleased God, be esteemed the
children of the promise! For from Abraham, and the righteous men who
followed him, the generation is not found more true, but the prophecy
more plain.

CHAP. 9.--WHO ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE OLD COVENANT.

    But those belong to the old testament, "which gendereth from Mount
Sinai to bondage," which is Agar, who, when they have received a law
which is holy and just and good, think that the letter can suffice them
for life; and do not seek the divine mercy, so as they may become doers
of the law, but, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing
to establish their own righteousness, are not subject to the
righteousness of God. Of this kind was that multitude which murmured
against God in the wilderness, and made an idol; and that multitude
which even in the very land of promise committed fornication after
strange gods. But this multitude, even in the old testament itself, was
strongly rebuked. They, moreover, whoever they were at that time who
followed after those earthly promises alone which God promises there,
and who were ignorant of that which those promises signify under the new
testament, and who kept God's commandments with the desire of gaining
and with the fear of losing those promises,--certainly did not observe
them, but only seemed to themselves to observe. For there was no faith
in them that worked by love, but earthly cupidity and carnal fear. But
he who thus fulfils the commandments beyond a doubt fulfils them
unwillingly, and then does not do them in his heart; for he would rather
not do them at all, if in respect of those things which he desires and
fears he might be allowed to neglect them with impunity. And thus, in
the will itself within him, he is guilty; and it is here that God, who
gives the command, looks. Such were the children of the earthly
Jerusalem, concerning which the apostle says, "For she is in bondage
with her children,"(1) and belongs to the old testament "which gendereth
to bondage from Mount Sinai, which is Agar." Of that same kind were they
who crucified the Lord. and continued in the same unbelief. Thence there
are still their children in the great multitude of the Jews, although
now the new testament as it was prophesied is made plain and confirmed
by the blood of Christ; and the gospel is made known from the river
where He was baptized and began His teachings, even to the ends of the
earth. And these Jews, according to the prophecies which they read, are
dispersed everywhere over all the earth, that even from their writings
may not be wanting a testimony to Christian truth.

CHAP. 10.--THE OLD LAW ALSO GIVEN BY GOD.

    And it is for this reason that God made the old testament, because
it pleased God to veil the heavenly promises in earthly promises, as if
established in reward, until the fulness of time; and to give to a
people which longed for earthly blessings, and therefore had a hard
heart, a law,  which, although spiritual, was yet written on tables of
stone. Because, with the exception of the sacraments of the old books,
which were only enjoined for the sake of their significance (although in
them also, since they are to be spiritually understood, the law is
rightly called spiritual), the other matters certainly which pertain to
piety and to good living must not be referred by any interpretation to
some significancy,(2) but are to be done absolutely as they are spoken.
Assuredly no one will doubt that that law of God was necessary not alone
for that people at that time, but also is now necessary for us for the
right ordering of our life. For if Christ took away from us that very
heavy yoke of many observances, so that we are not circumcised according
to the flesh, we do not immolate victims of the cattle, we do not rest
even from necessary works on the Sabbath, retaining the seventh in the
revolution of the days, and other things of this kind; but keep them as
spiritually understood, and, the symbolizing shadows being removed, are
watchful in the light of those things which are signified by them; shall
we therefore say, that when it is written that whoever finds another
man's property of any kind that has been lost, should return it to him
who has lost it,(3) it does not pertain to us? and many other like
things whereby people learn to live piously and uprightly? and
especially the  Decalogue itself, which is contained in those two tables
of stone, apart from the carnal observance of the Sabbath, which
signifies spiritual sanctification and rest?  For who can say that
Christians ought not to be observant to serve the one God with religious
obedience, not to worship an idol, not to take the name of the Lord in
vain, to honour one's parents, not to commit adulteries, murders,
thefts, false witness, not to covet another man's wife, or anything at
all that belongs to another man? Who is so impious as to say that he
does not keep those precepts of the law because he is a Christian, and
is established not under the law, but under grace? 

CHAP. 11.--DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CHILDREN OF THE OLD AND OF THE NEW
TESTAMENTS.

    But there is plainly this great difference, that they who are
established under the law, whom the letter killeth, do these things
either with the desire of gaining, or with the fear of losing earthly
happiness; and that thus they do not truly do them, since fleshly
desire, by which sin is rather bartered or increased, is not healed by
desire of another kind. These pertain to the old testament, which
genders to bondage; because carnal fear and desire make them servants,
gospel faith and hope and love do not make them children. But they who
are placed under grace, whom the Spirit quickens, do these things of
faith which worketh by love in the hope of good things, not carnal but
spiritual, not earthly but heavenly, not temporal but eternal;
especially believing on the Mediator, by whom they do not doubt but that
a Spirit of grace is ministered to them, so that they may do these
things well, and that they may be pardoned when they sin. These pertain
to the new testament, are the children of promise, and are regenerated
by God the Father and a free mother. Of this kind were all the righteous
men of old, and Moses himself, the minister of the old testament, the
heir of the new, --because of the faith whereby we live, of one and the
same they lived, believing the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of
Christ as future, which we believe as already accomplished,--even until
John the Baptist himself as it were a certain limit of the old
dispensation, who, signifying that the Mediator Himself would come, not
with any shadow of the future or allegorical intimation, or with any
prophetical announcement, but pointing Him out with his finger, said:
"Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who taketh away the sin of the
world."(1) As if saying, Whom many righteous men have desired to see, on
whom, as about to come, they have believed from the beginning of the
human race itself, concerning whom the promises were spoken to Abraham,
of whom Moses wrote, of whom the law and the prophets are witnesses:
"Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world." From
this John and afterwards, all those things concerning Christ began to
become past or present, which by all the righteous men of the previous
time were believed, hoped for, desired, as future. Therefore the faith
is the same as well in those who, although not yet in name, were in fact
previously Christians, as in those who not only are so but are also
called so; and in both there is the same grace by the Holy Spirit.
Whence says the apostle: "We having the same Spirit of faith, according
as it is written, I believed, therefore have I spoken; we also believe,
and therefore speak."(2)

CHAP. 12.--THE OLD TESTAMENT IS PROPERLY ONE THING--THE OLD INSTRUMENT
ANOTHER.

    Therefore, by a custom of speech already prevailing, in one way the
law and all the prophets who prophesied until John are called the "Old
Testament;" although this is more definitely called the "Old Instrument"
rather than the "Old Testament;" but this name is used in another way by
the apostolical authority, whether expressly or impliedly. For the
apostle is express when he says, "Until this day, as long as Moses is
read, remaineth the same veil in the reading of the old testament;
because it is not revealed, because it is made of no effect in
Christ."(3) For thus certainly the old testament referred to the
ministry of Moses. Moreover, he says, "That we should serve in the
newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter,"(4)
signifying that same testament under the name of the letter. In another
place also, "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament;
not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the
Spirit maketh alive."(5) And here, by the mention of the new, he
certainly meant the former to be understood as the old. But much more
evidently, although he did not say either old or new, he distinguished
the two testaments and the two sons of Abraham, the one of the
bondwoman, the other of the free, as I have above mentioned. For what
can be more express than his saying, "Tell me, ye that desire to be
under the law, have ye not heard the law? For it is written, that
Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the
freewoman was by promise. Which things are in allegory; for these are
the two testaments; the one in the Mount Sinai, gendering to bondage,
which is Agar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is associated
with Jerusalem which now is, for it is in bondage with her children. But
Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother?"(6) What is more
clear, what more certain, what more remote from all obscurity and
ambiguity to the children of the promise? And a little after, "Now we,
brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."(7) Also a little
after, "But we, brethren, are not children of the bondwoman, but of the
free,"(8) with the liberty with which Christ has made us free. Let us,
therefore, choose whether to call the righteous men of old the children
of the bondwoman or of the free. Be it far from us to say, of the
bondwoman; therefore if of the free, they pertain to the new testament
in the Holy Spirit, whom, as making alive, the apostle opposes to the
killing letter. For on what ground do they not belong to the grace of
the new testament, from whose words and looks we convict and rebut such
most frantic and ungrateful enemies of the same grace as these? 

CHAP. 13.--WHY ONE OF THE COVENANTS IS CALLED OLD, THE OTHER NEW.

    But some one will say, "In what way is that called the old which was
given by Moses four hundred and thirty years after; and that called the
new which was given so many years before to Abraham?" Let him who on
this subject is disturbed, not litigiously but earnestly, first
understand that when from its earlier time one is called "old," and from
its posterior time the other "new," it is the revelation of them that is
considered in their names, not their institution. Because the old
testament was revealed through Moses, by whom the holy and just and good
law was given, whereby should be brought about not the doing away but
the knowledge of sin,--by which the proud might be convicted who were
desirous of establishing their own righteousness, as if they had no need
of divine help, and being made guilty of the letter, might flee to the
Spirit of grace, not to be justified by their own righteousness, but by
that of God--that is, by the righteousness which was given to them of
God. For as the same apostle says, "By the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
witnessed by the law and by the prophets."(1) Because the law, by the
very fact that in it no man is justified, affords a witness to the
righteousness of God. For that in the law no man is justified before God
is manifest, because "the just by faith lives."(2) Thus, therefore,
although the law does not justify the wicked when he is convicted of
transgression, it sends to the God who justifieth, and thus affords a
testimony to the righteousness of God. Moreover, the prophets offer
testimony to God's righteousness by fore-announcing Christ, "who is made
unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption: that, as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in
the Lord."(3) But that law was kept hidden from the beginning, when
nature itself convicted wicked men, who did to others what they would
not have done to themselves. But the revelation of the new testament in
Christ was made when He was manifested in the flesh, wherein appeared
the righteousness of God -that is, the righteousness which is to men
from God. For hence he says, "But now the righteousness of God without
the law is manifested."(4) This is the reason why the former is called
the old testament, because it was revealed in the earlier time; and the
latter the new, because it was revealed in the later time. In a word, it
is because the old testament pertains to the old man, from which it is
necessary that a man should make a beginning; but the new to the new
man, by which a than ought to pass from his old state. Thus, in the
former are earthly promises, in the latter heavenly promises; because
this pertained to God's mercy, that no one should think that even
earthly felicity of any kind whatever could be conferred on anybody,
save from the Lord, who is the Creator of all things. But if God is
worshipped for the sake of that earthly happiness, the worship is that
of a slave, belonging to the children of the bondmaid; but if for the
sake of God Himself, so that in the life eternal God may be all things
in all, it is a free service belonging to the children of the freewoman,
who is our mother eternal in the heavens--who first seemed, as it were,
barren, when she had not any children manifest; but now we see what was
prophesied concerning her: "Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not;
break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for there are many
children of the desolate more than of her who has an husband,"(5) --that
is, more than of that Jerusalem, who in a certain manner is married in
the bond of the law, and is in bondage with her children. In the time,
then, of the old testament, we say that the Holy Spirit, in those who
even then were the children of promise according to Isaac, was not only
an assistant, which these men think is sufficient for their opinion, but
also a bestower of virtue; and this they deny, attributing it rather to
their free will, in contradiction to those fathers who knew how to cry
unto God with truthful piety, "I will love Thee, O Lord, my
strength."(6)

CHAP. 14 [V.]--CALUMNY CONCERNING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE PROPHETS AND
APOSTLES.

    They say, moreover, "that all the apostles or prophets are not
defined as entirely holy by us, but that we say that they were less
wicked in comparison with those that were worse; and that this is the
righteousness to which God affords His testimony, so that, as the
prophet says that Sodom was justified in comparison with the Jews, so
also we say that the saints exercised some goodness in comparison with
criminal men." Be it far from us to say such things; but either they are
not able to understand, or they are unwilling to observe, or, for the
sake of misrepresentation, they pretend that they do not know what we
say. Let them hear, therefore, either themselves, or rather those whom,
as inexperienced and unlearned persons, they are striving to deceive.
Our faith--that is, the catholic faith--distinguishes the righteous from
the unrighteous not by the law of works, but by that of faith, because
the just by faith lives. By which distinction it results that the man
who leads his life without murder, without theft, without false-witness,
without coveting other men's goods, giving due honour to his parents,
chaste even to continence from all carnal intercourse whatever, even
conjugal, most liberal in alms-giving, most patient of injuries; who not
only does not deprive another of his goods, but does not even ask again
for what has been taken away from himself; or who has even sold all his
own property and appropriated it to the poor, and possesses nothing
which belongs to him as his own;--with such a character as this,
laudable as it seems to be, if he has not a true and catholic faith in
God, must yet depart from this life to condemnation. But another, who
has good works from a right faith which worketh by love, maintains his
continency in the honesty of wedlock, although he does not, like the
other, well refrain altogether, but pays and repays the debt of carnal
connection, and has intercourse not only for the sake of offspring, but
also for the sake of pleasure, although only with his wife, which the
apostle allows to those that are married as pardonable;--does not
receive injuries with so much patience, but is raised into anger with
the desire of vengeance, although, in order that he may say, "As we also
forgive our debtors," forgives when he is asked;--possesses personal
property, giving thence indeed some alms, but not as the former so
liberally;--does not take away what belongs to another, but, although by
ecclesiastical, not by civil judgment, yet contends for his own:
certainly this man, who seems so inferior in morals to the former, on
account of the right faith which he has in God, by which he lives, and
according to which in all his wrong-doings he accuses himself, and in
all his good works praises God, giving to himself the shame, to God the
glory, and receiving from Him both forgiveness of sins and love of right
deeds,--shall be delivered for this life, and depart to be received into
the company of those who shall reign with Christ. Wherefore, if not on
account of faith? Which, although without works it saves no man (for it
is not a reprobate faith, since it worketh by love), yet by it even sins
are loosed, because the just by faith liveth; but without it, even those
things which seem good works are turned into sins: "For everything which
is not of faith is sin."(1) And it is brought about, on account of this
great difference, that although with no possibility of doubt a
persevering integrity of virginity is preferable to conjugal chastity,
yet a woman even twice married,  if she be a catholic, is preferred to a
professed virgin that is a heretic; nor is she in such wise preferred
because this one is better in God's kingdom, but because the other is
not there at all. Now the former, indeed, whom we have described as
being of better morals, if a true faith be his, surpasses the second
one, although both will be in heaven; yet if the faith be wanting to
him, he is so surpassed by him that he himself is not there at all.

CHAP. 15.--THE PERFECTION OF APOSTLES AND PROPHETS.

    Since, then, all righteous men, both the more ancient and the
apostles, lived from a right faith which is in Christ Jesus our Lord;
and had with their faith morals so holy, that although they might not be
of such perfect virtue in this life as that which should be after this
life, yet whatever of sin might creep in from human infirmity might be
constantly done away by the piety of their faith itself: it results from
this that, in comparison with the wicked whom God will condemn, it must
be said that these were" righteous," since by their pious faith they
were so far removed into the opposite of those wicked men that the
apostle cries out, "What part hath he that believeth with an
infidel?"(2) But it is plain that the Pelagians, these modern heretics,
seem to themselves to be religious lovers and praisers of the saints,
since they do not dare to say that they were of an imperfect virtue;
although that elected vessel confesses this, who, considering in what
state he still was, and that the body which is corrupted drags down the
soul, says, "Not that I have already attained or am yet perfect;
brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended."(3) And yet a little
after, he who had denied himself to be perfect says, "Let us therefore,
as many as be perfect, be thus minded,"(4) in order that he might show
that, according to the measure of this life, there is a certain
perfection, and that to that perfection this also is to be attributed,
even although any one may know that he is not yet perfect. For what is
more perfect, or what was more excellent, than the holy priests among
the ancient people?  And yet God prescribed to them to offer sacrifice
first of all for their own sins. And what is more holy among the new
people than the apostles?  And yet the Lord prescribed to them to say in
their prayer, "Forgive us our debts." For all the pious, therefore, who
lie under this burden of a corruptible flesh, and groan in the infirmity
of this life of theirs, there is one hope: "We have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our
sins."(5)

CHAP. 16 [VI.]--MISREPRESENTATION CONCERNING SIN IN CHRIST.

    They have not a righteous advocate, who are (even if that were the
only difference) distinguished absolutely and widely from the righteous.
Be it far from us to say, as they themselves slanderously affirm, that
this just Advocate "spoke falsely by the necessity of the flesh;" but we
say that He, in the likeness of sinful flesh, in respect of sin,
condemned sin. And they, perchance not understanding this, and being
blinded by the desire of misrepresentation, and ignorant of the number
of ways in which the name of sin is accustomed to be used in the Holy
Scriptures, declare that we affirm sin of Christ. Therefore we assert
that Christ both had no sin,--neither in soul nor in the body; and that,
by taking upon Him flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh, in respect of
sin He condemned sin. And this assertion, somewhat obscurely made by the
apostle, is explained in two ways,--either that the likenesses of things
are accustomed to be called by the names of those things to which they
are like, so that the apostle may be understood to have intended to call
this likeness of sinful flesh by the name of "sin;" or else that the
sacrifices for sins were under the law called "sins," all which things
were figures of the flesh of Christ, which is the true and only
sacrifice for sins,--not only for those which are all washed away in
baptism, but also for those which afterwards creep in from the weakness
of this life, on account of which the universal Church daily cries in
prayer to God, "Forgive us our debts," and they are forgiven us by means
of that singular sacrifice for sins which the apostle, speaking
according to the law, did not hesitate to call "sin." Whence, moreover,
is that much plainer passage of his, which is not uncertain by any
twofold ambiguity, "We beseech you in Christ's stead to be reconciled to
God. He made Him to be sin for us, who had not known sin; that we might
be the righteousness of God in Him."(1) For the passage which I have
above mentioned, "In respect of sin, He condemned sin," because it was
not said, "In respect of his sin," may be understood by any one, as if
He said that He condemned sin in respect of the sin of the Jews; because
in respect of their sin who crucified Him, it happened that He shed His
blood for the remission of sins. But this passage, where God is said to
have made Christ Himself "sin," who had not known sin, does not seem to
me to be more fittingly understood than that Christ was made a sacrifice
for sins, and on this account was called "sin."

CHAP. 17 [VII.]--THEIR CALUMNY ABOUT THE FULFILMENT OF PRECEPTS IN THE
LIFE TO COME.

    But who can bear their objecting to us, "that we say that after the
resurrection such is to be our progress, that there men can begin to
fulfil the commands of God, which they would not here;" since we say
that there there will be no sin at all, no struggle with any desire of
sin; as if they themselves would dare to deny this? That wisdom also and
the knowledge of God, is then perfected in us, and that in the Lord
there is such rejoicing that it is a full and a true security, who will
deny, unless he is so averse from the truth that on this very account he
cannot attain unto it?  But these things will not be in precepts, but in
reward of those precepts which should here be observed; the neglect of
which precepts, indeed, does not lead thither to the reward. But here
the grace of God gives the desire of keeping His commandments; and if
anything in these commandments is less perfectly observed, He forgives
it on account of what we say in prayer, as well "Thy will be done," as
"Forgive us our debts." Here, then, it is prescribed that we sin not;
there, the reward is that we cannot sin. Here, the precept is that we
obey not the desires of sin; there, the reward that we have no desires
of sin. Here, the precept is," Understand, ye senseless among the
people; and ye fools, be at some time wise;"(2) there, the reward is
full wisdom and perfect knowledge. "For we see now through a glass in an
enigma," says the apostle, "but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then I shall know even as also I am known."(3) Here, the precept is,
"Exult unto the Lord, our helper,"(4) and, "Rejoice, ye righteous, in
the Lord;"(5) there, the reward is to rejoice with a perfect and
unspeakable joy. Lastly, in the precept it is written, "Blessed are they
which hunger and thirst after righteousness;" but in the reward,
"Because they shall be filled."(6) Whence, I ask, shall they be filled,
except with what they hunger and thirst after?  Who, then, is so
abhorrent, not only from the divine perception, but also from the human
perception, as to say that in man there can be such righteousness while
he is hungering and thirsting for it, as there will be when he shall be
filled with it?  But when we are hungering and thirsting after
righteousness, if the faith of Christ is watchful in us, what is it to
be believed that we are hungering and thirsting for, save Christ?  "For
He is made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption; that, as it is written, He that
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."(7) And because we only believe on
Him not seeing Him, therefore we thirst and hunger after righteousness.
For as long as we are in the body, we wander from the Lord; for we walk
by faith, not by appearance. But when we shall see Him, and attain
certainly to the appearance, we shall rejoice with joy unspeakable; and
then we shall be filled with righteousness, since now we say to Him with
pious longing, "I shall be satisfied when Thy glory shall be
manifested."(8)

CHAP. 18.--PERFECTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND FULL SECURITY WAS NOT EVEN IN
PAUL IN THIS LIFE.

    But how impudent I do not say, but how insane, is the pride which,
not yet being equal to the angels of God, thinks itself already able to
have a righteousness equal to the angels of God; and does not consider
so great and holy a man, who assuredly hungered and thirsted after that
very perfection of righteousness, when he was unwilling to be lifted up
by the greatness of his revelations; and yet that he might not be lifted
up, he was not left to his own choice and will, but received "the thorn
in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to buffet him; on which account he
besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from him, and the Lord
said unto him, My grace is sufficient for thee, for strength is made
perfect in weakness."(1) What strength, save that to which it belongs
not to be lifted up? And who doubts that this belongs to righteousness?
The angels of God, then, are endowed with this perfection of
righteousness, since they always behold the face of the Father, and thus
of the entire Trinity, because they see through the Son, in the Holy
Spirit. But nothing is more sublime than that revelation, nor yet does
any of the angels in that contemplation of rejoicing ones find a
messenger of Satan needful that he may be buffeted by him, lest so great
a magnitude of revelation should lift him up. The apostle Paul certainly
had not yet that perfection of virtue, nor yet was he equal to the
angels of God; but there was in Him the weakness of lifting himself up,
which also had to be checked by the angel of Satan, lest he should be
lifted up by (he magnitude of his revelations. Although, then, the first
lifting up cast down Satan,(2) yet that greatest Physician, who well
knew how to make use of even evil things, applied from the angel of
Satan, against the mischief of elation, a wholesome, although a painful,
medicament, just as an antidote used to be made even of serpents against
the poisons of serpents. What, then, is the meaning of "My grace is
sufficient for thee," except that you may not by giving way succumb to
the buffet of the messenger of Satan? And what is "Strength is made
perfect in weakness," except that in that place of weakness hitherto,
there may be the perfection of virtue, so that in the very presence of
infirmity, lifting-up may be repressed? Which infirmity assuredly shall
be healed by future immortality. For how is that  soundness to be called
perfect where medicine is still needful, even from the buffet of an
angel of Satan?

CHAP. 19.--IN WHAT SENSE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN IN THIS LIFE IS SAID
TO BE PERFECT.

    From this it results that the virtue which is now in the righteous
man is named perfect up to this point, that to its perfection belong
both the true knowledge and humble confession of even imperfection
itself. For, in respect to this infirmity, that little righteousness of
man's is perfect according to its measure, when it understands even what
it lacks. And therefore the apostle calls himself both perfect and
imperfect,(3)--imperfect, to wit, in the thought of how much is wanting
to him for the righteousness for the fulness of which he is still
hungering and thirsting; but perfect in that he does not blush to
confess his own imperfection, and goes forward in good that he may
attain. As we can say that the wayfarer is perfect whose approach is
well forwarded, although his intention is not carried out unless his
arrival be actually effected. Therefore, when he had said," According to
the righteousness which is in the law, I am one who has been without
blame," he immediately added, "What things were gain to me, those I
counted but loss for Christ's sake. Yea, doubtless, and I count all
things to be loss for the sake of the eminent knowledge of Christ Jesus
our Lord: for whose sake I have believed all things not only to be
losses, but I have thought them to be even as dung, that I might gain
Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of
the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God in faith."(4) See! the apostle does not, of course, say
falsely, that "according to the righteousness which is of the law he was
without blame;" and yet those things which were gain to him, he casts
away for Christ's sake, and thinks them losses, injuries, dung. And not
only these things, but all other things which he mentioned previously;
not on account of any kind of knowledge, but, as he himself says, "the
eminent knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord," which, beyond a doubt, he
had as yet in faith, but not yet in sight. For then the knowledge of
Christ will be eminent, when He shall be so revealed that what is
believed is seen. Whence, in another place, he thus says, "For ye have
died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, your
life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory."(5)
Hence, also, the Lord Himself says, "He who loveth me shall be loved of
my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."(6)
Hence John the Evangelist says, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God,
and it has not yet appeared 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."(7)
Then shall the knowledge of Christ be eminent. For now it is, as it
were, hidden away in faith; but it does not yet appear eminent in sight.

CHAP.20.--WHY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF THE LAW IS VALUED SLIGHTLY
BY PAUL.

	Therefore the blessed Paul casts away those past attainments of his
righteousness, as "losses" and "dung," that "he may win Christ and be
found in Him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law."
Wherefore his own, if it

412 

is of the law? For that law is the law of God. Who has denied this, save
Marcion and Manicheus, and such like pests? Since, then, that is the law
of God, he says it is" his own" righteousness "which is of the law;" and
this righteousness of his own he would not have, but cast it forth as
"dung." Why so, except because it is this which I have above
demonstrated,(1) that those are under the law who, being ignorant of the
righteousness of God, and going about to establish their own, are not
subject to the righteousness of God?(2) For they think that, by the
strength of their own will, they will fulfil the commands of the law;
and wrapped up in their pride, they are not converted to assisting
grace. Thus the letter killeth(3) them either openly, as being guilty to
themselves, by not doing what the law commands; or by thinking that they
do it, although they do it not with spiritual love, which is of God.
Thus they remain either plainly wicked or deceitfully
righteous,--manifestly cut off in open unrighteousness, or foolishly
elated in fallacious righteousness. And by this means--marvellous
indeed, but yet true--the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled by
the righteousness which is in the law, or by the law, but by that which
is in the Spirit of grace. Because the righteousness of the law is
fulfilled in those, as it is written, who walk not according to the
flesh, but according to the Spirit. But, according to the righteousness
which is in the law, the apostle says that he was blameless in the
flesh, not in the Spirit; and he says that the righteousness which is of
the law was his, not God's. It must be understood, therefore, that the
righteousness of the law is not fulfilled according to the righteousness
which is in the law or of the law, that is, according to the
righteousness of man, but according to the righteousness which is in the
Spirit of grace, therefore according to the righteousness of God, that
is, which man has from God. Which may be thus more clearly and briefly
stated: That the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled when the law
commands, and man as it were of his own strength obeys; but when the
Spirit aids, and man's free will, but freed by the grace of God,
performs. Therefore the righteousness of the law is to command what is
pleasing to God, to forbid what is displeasing; but the righteousness in
the law is to obey the letter, and beyond it to seek for no assistance
of God for holy living. For when he had said, "Not having my own
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of
Christ," he added, "Which is from God." That, therefore, is itself the
righteousness of God, being ignorant of which the proud go about to
establish their own; for it is not called the righteousness of God
because by it God is righteous, but because man has it from God.

           CHAP. 21.--THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NEVER PER-

                      FECTED IN THIS LIFE.

    Now, according to this righteousness of God, that is, which we have
from God, faith now worketh by love. But it worketh that, in what way
man can attain to Him on whom now, not seeing, he believes; and when he
shall see Him, then that which was in faith through a glass
enigmatically, shall at length be in sight face to face; and then shall
be perfected even love itself. Because it is said with excessive folly,
that God is loved as much before He is seen, as He will be loved when He
is seen. Further, if in this life, as no religious person doubts, the
more we love God, so much the more righteous we certainly are, who can
doubt that pious and true righteousness will then be perfected when the
love of God shall be perfect? Then the law, therefore, shall be
fulfilled; so that nothing at all is wanting to it, of which law,
according to the apostle, the fulfilling is Love. And thus, when he had
said," Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that
which is by the faith of Jesus Christ, which is the righteousness from
God in faith," he then added, "That I may know Him, and the power of His
resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings."(4) All these things
were not yet full and perfect in the apostle; but, as if he were placed
on the way, he was running towards their fulness and perfection. For how
had he already perfectly known Christ, who says in another place, "Now I
know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known"?(5) And how had
he already perfectly known the power of His resurrection, to whom it
remained to know it yet more fully by experience at the time of the
resurrection of the flesh? And how had he perfectly known already the
fellowship of His suffering, if he had not yet experienced for him the
suffering of death? Finally, he adds and says, "If in any manner I may
attain unto the resurrection of the dead."(6) And then he says, "Not
that I have already received or am already perfected." What, then, does
he confess that he has not yet received, and in what is he not yet
perfected, except that righteousness which is of God, which he desired,
not willing to have his own righteousness, which is of the law? For
hence he was speaking, and such was the reason for his saying these
things in resistance to the enemies of the grace of God, for the
bestowal of which Christ was crucified; and of the race of whom are also
these.

 CHAP. 22.--NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS

                         AND PERFECTION.

    For from the place in which he undertook to say these things, he
thus began, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the
concision. For we are the circumcision, who serve God in the
Spirit,"--or, as some codices have it, "who serve God the Spirit," or
"the Spirit of God,"--"and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence
in the flesh." (1) Here it is manifest that he is speaking against the
Jews, who, observing the law carnally, and going about to establish
their own righteousness, were slain by the letter, and not made alive by
the Spirit, and gloried in themselves while the apostles and all the
children of the promise were glorying in Christ. Then he added,
"Although I may have confidence in the flesh. If any one else thinks
that he has confidence in the flesh, I more."(2) And enumerating all
things which have glory according to the flesh, he ended at that point
where he says, "According to the righteousness which is in the law,
blameless." And when he had said that he regarded all these things as
altogether loss and disadvantage and dung that he might gain Christ, he
added the passage which I am treating, "And be found in Him, not having
my own righteousness, but that which is by the faith of Christ, which is
from God." He confessed that he had not yet received the perfection of
this righteousness, which will not be except in that excellent knowledge
of Christ, on account of which he said that all things were loss to him;
and he confessed, therefore, that he was not yet perfect. "But I follow
on," said he, "if I may apprehend that in which I also am apprehended of
Christ Jesus."(3) "I may apprehend that in which I also am apprehended,"
is much the same as, "I may know, even as I also am known." "Brethren,"
says he, "I count not myself to have apprehended: but one thing,
forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forward to those
which are before, I follow on according to the purpose for the reward of
the supreme calling of God in Christ Jesus."(4) The order of the words
is, "But one thing I follow." Of which one thing the Lord also is well
understood to have admonished Martha, where he says, "Martha, Martha, 
thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is
needful."(5) The apostle, wishing to apprehend this as if set in the
way, said that he followed on to the reward of the high calling of God
in Christ Jesus. For who can delay when he would apprehend that which he
declares that he is following, that he shall then have a righteousness
equal to the righteousness of the holy angels, none of whom, of course,
does any messenger of Satan buffet lest he should be lifted up with the
greatness of his revelations? Then, admonishing those who might think
themselves already perfect with the fulness of that righteousness, he
says, "Let as many of us, therefore, as are perfect, be thus minded."(6)
As if he should say, If, according to the capacity of mortal man for the
little measure of this life, we are perfect, let us understand that it
also belongs to that perfection that we perceive that we are not yet
perfected in that angelical righteousness which we shall have in the
manifestation of Christ. "And if in anything," he said, "ye be otherwise
minded, God shall also reveal even this unto you."(6) How, save to those
that are walking and advancing in the way of the faith, until that
wandering be finished and they come to the actual vision? Whence
following on, he added, "Nevertheless, whereunto we have already
attained, let us walk therein."(6) Then he concludes that they should be
bewared of, concerning whom this passage treated at its beginning.
"Brethren, be imitators of me, and mark them which so walk as ye have
our ex- ample. For many walk, of whom I have spoken  often, and now tell
you even weeping, whose end is destruction,"(7) and the rest. These are
the very ones of whom, in the beginning, he had said, "Beware of dogs,
beware of evil workers," and what follows. Therefore all are enemies of
the cross of Christ who, going about to establish their own
righteousness, which is of the law,--that is, where only the letter
commands, and the Spirit does not fulfil,--are not subject to the law of
God. For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made an empty
thing. "If righteousness is by the law, then Christ has died in vain:
then is the offence of the cross done away." And thus those are enemies
of the cross of Christ who say that righteousness is by the law, to
which it belongs to command, not to assist. But the grace of God through
Jesus Christ the Lord in the Holy Spirit helpeth our infirmity.

CHAP. 23.--THERE IS NO TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT THE FAITH OF THE GRACE
OF CHRIST.

    Wherefore he who lives according to the righteousness which is in
the law, without the faith of the grace of Christ, as the apostle
declares that he lived blameless, must be accounted to have no true
righteousness; not because the law is not true and holy, but because to
wish to obey the letter which commands, without the Spirit of God which
quickens, as if of the strength of free will, is not true righteousness.
But the righteousness according to which the righteous man lives by
faith, since man has it from God by the Spirit of grace, is true
righteousness. And although this is not undeservedly said to be perfect
in some righteous men, according to the capacity of this life, yet it is
but little to that great righteousness which the equality of the angels
receives. And he who had not yet possessed this, on the one hand, in
respect of that which was already in him, said that he was perfect; and
in respect of that which was still wanting to him, said that he was
imperfect. But manifestly that lower degree of righteousness makes
merit, that higher kind becomes reward. Whence he who does not strive
after the former does not attain unto the latter. Wherefore, after the
resurrection of man, to deny that there will be a fulness of
righteousness, and to think that the righteousness in the body of that
life will be such as it can be in the body of this death, is singular
folly. But it is most true that men do not there begin to fulfil those
commands of God which here they have been unwilling to obey. For there
will be the fulness of the most perfect righteousness, yet not of men
striving after what is commanded, and making gradual endeavours after
that fulness; but in the twinkling of an eye, even as shall be that
resurrection of the dead itself, because that greatness of perfect
righteousness will be given as a reward to those who here have obeyed
the commandments, and will not itself be commanded to them as a thing to
be accomplished. But I should in such wise say they have done the
commandments, that we might remember that to these very commandments
belongs the prayer in which the holy children of promise daily say with
truth, "Thy will be done,"(1) and "Forgive us our debts."(2)

CHAP. 24 [VIII.]--THERE ARE THREE PRINCIPAL HEADS IN THE PELAGIAN
HERESY.

    When, then, the Pelagians are pressed with these and such like
testimonies and words of truth, not to deny original sin; not to say
that the grace of God whereby we are justified is not given freely, but
according to our merits; nor to say that in mortal man, however holy and
well doing, there is so great righteousness that even after the washing
of regeneration, until he finishes this life of his, forgiveness of sins
is not necessary to him,--therefore when they are pressed not to make
these three assertions, and by their means alienate men who believe them
from the grace of the Saviour, and persuade the lifted-up unto pride to
go headlong unto the judgment of the devil: they introduce the clouds of
other questions in which their impiety--in the sight of men more simple 
minded, whether that they are more slow or less instructed in the sacred
writings--may be concealed. These are the misty questions of the praise
of the creature, of the praise of marriage, of the praise of the law, of
the praise of free will, of the praise of the saints; as if any one of
our people were in the habit of disparaging those things, and not rather
of announcing all things with due praises to the honour of the Creator
and Saviour. But even the creature does not desire in such wise to be
praised as to be unwilling to be healed. And the more marriage is to be
praised, the less is to be attributed to it the shameful concupiscence
of the flesh, which is not of the Father, but of the world; and which
assuredly marriage found and did not make in men; because, moreover, it
is actually in very many without marriage, and if nobody had sinned
marriage itself might be without it. And the law, holy and just and
good, is neither grace itself, nor is anything rightly done by it
without grace; because the law is not given that it may give life, but
it was added because of transgression, that it might conclude all
persons convicted under sin, and that the promise by faith of Jesus
Christ might be given to them that believe.(3) And the free will taken
captive does not avail, except for sin; but for righteousness, unless
divinely set free and aided, it does not avail. And thus, also, all the
saints, whether from that ancient Abel to John the Baptist, or from the
apostles themselves up to this time, and henceforth even to the end of
the world, are to be praised in the Lord, not in themselves. Because the
voice, even of those earlier ones, is, "In the Lord shall my soul be
praised."(4) And the voice of the later ones is, "By the grace of God I
am what I am."(5) And to all belongs, "That he that glorieth may glory
in the Lord." And it is the common confession of all, "If we say that we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."(6)

CHAP. 25 [IX.]--HE SHOWS THAT THE OPINION OF THE CATHOLICS IS THE MEAN
BETWEEN THAT OF THE MANICHEANS AND PELAGIANS, AND REFUTES BOTH.

    But since, in these five particulars which I have set forth, in
which they seek lurking-places, and from which they weave
misrepresentations, they are forsaken and convicted by the divine
writings, they have thought to deter those whom they could by the
hateful name of Manicheans, lest in opposition to their most perverse
teachings their ears should be conformed to the truth; because doubtless
the Manicheans blasphemously condemn the three former of those five
dogmas, saying that neither the human creature, nor marriage, nor the
law was ordained by the supreme and true God. But they do not receive
what the truth says, that sin took its origin from free will, and that
all evil, whether of angel or man, comes from it; because they prefer to
believe, in their turning aside from God, that the nature of evil was
always evil, and co-eternal with God. They, moreover, attack the holy
patriarchs and prophets with as many execrations as they can. This is
the way in which the modern heretics think, that by objecting the name
of Manicheans, they evade the force of truth. But they do not evade it;
because it follows them up, and overturns at once Manicheans and
Pelagians. For in that when a man is born there is something good, so
far as he is a man, he condemns the Manichean, and praises the Creator;
but in so far as he derives original sin, he condemns the Pelagian, and
holds a Saviour necessary. For even because that nature is said to be
healable, it repels both teachings; because it would not, on the one
hand, have need of medicine if it were sound, which is opposed to the
Pelagian, nor could it be healed at all if the evil in it were eternal
and immutable, which is opposed to the Manichean. Moreover, in that to
marriage, which we praise as ordained of God, we do not say that the
concupiscence of the flesh is to be attributed, this is both contrary to
the Pelagians,  who make this concupiscence itself a matter of praise,
and contrary to the Manicheans, who attribute it to a foreign and evil
nature, when it really is an evil accidental to our nature, not to be
separated by the disjunction from God, but to be healed by the mercy of
God. Moreover, in that we say that the law, holy and just and good, was
given not for the justification of the wicked, but for the conviction of
the proud, for the sake of transgressions,--this is, on the one hand,
opposed to the Manicheans, in that according to the apostle the law is
praised; and on the other opposed to the Pelagians, in that, in
accordance with the apostle, no one is justified by the law; and
therefore, for the sake of making alive those whom the letter has
killed,  that is, whom the law, enjoining good, makes guilty by
transgressions, the Spirit of grace freely  brings aid. Also in that we
say that the will is free in evil, but for doing good it must be made
free by God's grace, this is opposed to the Pelagians; but in that we
say it originated from that which previously was not evil, this is
opposed to the Manicheans. Again, that we honour the holy patriarchs and
prophets with praises due to them in God, is in opposition to the
Manicheans; but that we say that even to them, however righteous and
pleasing to God they might have been, the propitiation of the Lord was
necessary, this is in opposition to the Pelagians. The catholic faith,
therefore, finds them both, as it does also Other heretics, in
opposition to it, and convicts both by the authority of the divine
testimonies and by the light of truth.

CHAP. 26 [X.]--THE PELAGIANS STILL STRIVE AFTER A HIDING-PLACE, BY
INTRODUCING THE NEEDLESS QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL.

    The Pelagians, indeed, add to the clouds which envelop their
lurking-places the unnecessary question concerning the origin of the
soul, for the purpose of erecting a hiding-place by disturbing manifest
things by the obscurity of other matters. For they say "that we guard
the continuous propagation of souls with the continuous propagation of
sin." And where and when they have read this, either in the addresses 
or in the writings of those who maintain the catholic faith against
this, I do not know; because, although I find something written by
catholics on the subject, yet the defence of the truth had not yet been
undertaken against those men, neither was there any anxiety to answer
them. But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin
is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the layer of
regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the
catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the
Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody
concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be
true. Wherefore, whoever builds up, either concerning the soul or  any
other obscure matter, any edifice whence he may destroy this, which is
true, best founded, I and best known, whether he is a son or an enemy of
the Church, must either be corrected or avoid ed. But let this be the
end of this Book, that the things which follow may have another
beginning.

 BOOK IV.

AFTER HAVING SET ASIDE IN THE FORMER BOOKS THE CALUMNIES HURLED AGAINST
THE CATHOLICS, AUGUSTIN HERE PROCEEDS TO OPEN UP THE SNARES WHICH LIE
HIDDEN IN THE REMAINING PART OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF THE PELAGIANS, IN
THE FIVE HEADS OF THEIR DOCTRINE--IN THE PRAISE, TO WIT, OF THE
CREATURE, THE PRAISE OF MARRIAGE, THE PRAISE OF THE LAW, THE PRAISE OF
FREE WILL, AND THE PRAISE OF THE SAINTS; IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH HEADS
THE PELAGIANS MALIGNANTLY BOAST THAT THEY ARE AT ISSUE NOT MORE WITH THE
MANICHEANS THAN WITH THE CATHOLICS. HENCE THESE FIVE POINTS MAY BRING US
BACK TO THIS, THAT THEY PUT FORWARD THEIR THREEFOLD ERROR--NAMELY, THE
TWO FIRST, THE DENIAL OF ORIGINAL SIN; THE TWO FOLLOWING, THE ASSERTION
THAT GRACE IS GIVEN ACCORDING TO MERITS; THE FIFTH, THEIR STATEMENT THAT
THE SAINTS HAD NOT SINNED IN THIS LIFE. AUGUSTIN SHOWS THAT BOTH
HERESIES, THAT OF THE MANICHEANS AND THAT OF THE PELAGIANS, ARE OPPOSED
AND EQUALLY ODIOUS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH, WHEREBY WE PROFESS, FIRST,
THAT THE NATURE CREATED BY A GOOD GOD WAS GOOD, BUT THAT, NEVERTHELESS,
IT IS IN NEED OF A SAVIOUR BECAUSE OF ORIGINAL SIN, WHICH PASSED INTO
ALL MEN FROM THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN: THEN SECONDLY, THAT
MARRIAGE IS GOOD, TRULY INSTITUTED BY GOD, BUT THAT THAT CONCUPISCENCE
IS EVIL WHICH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH MARRIAGE BY SIN: ALSO THIRDLY THAT THE
LAW OF GOD IS GOOD, BUT IN SUCH WISE AS ONLY TO MANIFEST SIN, NOT TO
TAKE IT AWAY: THAT FOURTHLY FREE WILL IS ASSUREDLY INHERENT IN THE
NATURE OF MAN, BUT THAT NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS SO ENSLAVED THAT IT DOES NOT
AVAIL TO THE DOING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, UNLESS WHEN IT SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE
FREE BY GRACE: BUT THAT FIFTHLY THE SAINTS, WHETHER OF THE OLD OR NEW
TESTAMENT, WERE INDEED ENDUED WITH A RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHICH WAS TRUE BUT
NOT PERFECT, NOR SO FULL THAT THEY SHOULD BE FREE FROM ALL SIN. IN
CONCLUSION, HE BRINGS FORWARD THE TESTIMONIES OF CYPRIAN AND AMBROSE ON
BEHALF OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, SOME CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN, OTHERS ABOUT
THE ASSISTANCE OF GRACE, AND THE LAST CONCERNING THE IMPERFECTION OF
PRESENT RIGHTEOUSNESS.

CHAP. [I.]--THE SUBTERFUGES OF THE PELAGIANS ARE FIVE.

    AFTER the matters which I have considered, and to which I have
answered, they repeat the same things as those contained in the letter
which I have refuted, but in a different manner. For before, they put
them forward as objecting to us things which we think as it were
falsely; but afterwards, as explaining what they themselves think, they
have presented the same things from the opposite side, adding two
certain points which they had not mentioned--that is, "that they say
that baptism is necessary for all ages," and "that by Adam death passed
upon us, not sins," which things must also themselves be considered in
their own place. Hence, because in the former Book which I have just
finished I said that they alleged hindrances of five matters in which
lurk their dogmas hostile to God's grace and to the catholic faith,--the
praise, to wit, of the creature, the praise of marriage, the praise of
the law, the praise of free will, the praise of the saints,--I think it
is more convenient to make a general discrimination of all that they
maintain, the contrary of which they object to us, and to show which of
those things pertain to any of those five, that so my answer may be by
that very distinction clearer and briefer.

          CHAP. 2 [II.] -- THE PRAISE OF THE CREATURE.

    They accomplish the praise of the creature, inasmuch as it pertains
to the human race of which the question now is, in these statements:
"That God is the Maker of all those that are born, and that the sons of
men are God's work; and that all sin descends not from nature, but from
the will." With this praise of the creature they connect, "that they say
that baptism is necessary for every age, so that," namely, "the creature
itself may be adopted among the children of God; not because it derives
anything from its parents which must be purified in the layer of
regeneration." To this praise they add also, "that they say that Christ
the Lord was sprinkled with no stain of sin as far as pertains to His
infancy;" because they assert that His flesh was most pure from all
contagion of sin, not by His own excellence and singular grace, but by
His fellowship with the nature which is shared by all infants. It also
belongs to this that they introduce the question "of the origin of the
soul," thus endeavouring to make all the souls of infants equal to the
soul of Christ, maintaining that they likewise are sprinkled with no
stain of sin. On this account, also, they say, "that nothing of evil
passed from Adam upon the rest of humanity except death, which," they
say, "is not always an evil, since to the martyrs, for instance, it is
for the sake of rewards; and it is not the dissolution of the bodies,
which in every kind of then shall be raised up, that can make death to
be called either good or evil, but the diversity of merits which arises
from human liberty." These things they write in this letter concerning
the praise of the creature.

    They praise marriage truly according to the Scriptures, "because the
Lord saith in the gospel, He who made men from the beginning made them
male and female, and said, Increase and multiply, and replenish the
earth." Although  this is not written in that passage of the gospel, 
yet it is written in the law. They add, moreover," What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder."(1) And these we
acknowledge to be gospel words.

    In the praise of the law they say, "that the old law was, according
to the apostle, holy and just and good; that on those who keep its
commandments, and live righteously by faith, such as the prophets and
patriarchs, and all the saints, life eternal could be conferred."

    In the praise of free will they say, "that free will has not
perished, since the Lord says by the prophets, 'If ye be willing and
will hear me, ye shall eat the good things of the land: if ye are
unwilling, and will not hear, the sword shall devour you.'(2) And thus,
also, it is that grace assists the good purpose of any person, but yet
does not infuse a desire of virtue into the reluctant heart, because
there is no acceptance of persons with God."

    In the praise of the saints they conceal themselves, saying "that
baptism perfectly renews men, inasmuch as the apostle is a witness who 
testifies that, by the washing of water, the Church is made out of the
heathen holy and spotless;(3) that the Holy Spirit also assisted pious
souls in ancient times, even as the prophet says to God, 'Thy good
Spirit shall lead me into the right way;'(4) that all the prophets,
moreover, and apostles or saints, as well of the New as of the Old
Testament, to whom God gives witness, were righteous, not in comparison
with the wicked, but by the rule of virtue; and that in future time
there is a reward as well of good works as of evil. But that no one can
then perform the commandment which here he may have contemned, because
the apostle said, 'We must be manifested before the judgment-seat of
Christ, that every one may receive the things belonging to the body,
according to what he has done, whether good or evil.'"(5)

    In all these points, whatever they say of the praise of the creature
and of marriage, they endeavour to bring us hack to this,--that there is
no original sin; whatever of the praise of law and of free will, to
this, that grace does not assist without merit, and that thus grace is
no more grace; whatever of the praise of the saints, to this, that
mortal life in the saints appears not to have sin, and that it is not
necessary for them to pray God for the remitting of their debts.

CHAP. 3 [III.] -- THE CATHOLICS PRAISE NATURE, MARRIAGE, LAW, FREE WILL,
AND THE SAINTS, IN SUCH WISE AS TO CONDEMN AS WELL PELAGIANS AS
MANICHEANS.

    Let every one who, with a catholic mind, shudders at these impious
and damnable doctrines, in this tripartite division, shun the
lurkingplaces and snares of this fivefold error, and be so careful
between one and another as in such wise to decline from the Manicheans
as not to incline to the Pelagians; and again, so to separate himself
from the Pelagians as not to associate himself with the Manicheans; or,
if he should already be taken hold of in one or the other bondage, that
he should not so pluck himself out of the hands of either as to rush
into those of the other. Because they seem to be contrary to one
another; since the Manicheans manifest themselves by vituperating these
five points, and the Pelagians conceal themselves by praising them.
Wherefore he condemns and shuns both, whoever he may be, who according
to the rule of the catholic faith so glorifies the Creator in men, that
are born of the good creature of flesh and soul (for this the Manichean
will not have), as that he yet confesses that on account of the
corruption which has passed over into them by the sin of the first man,
even infants need a Saviour (for this the Pelagian will not have). He
who so distinguishes the evil of shameful concupiscence from the
blessing of marriage, as neither, like the Manicheans, to reproach the
source of our birth, nor, like the Pelagians, to praise the source of
our disorder. He who so maintains the law to have been given holy and
just and good through Moses by a holy and just and good God (which
Manicheus, in opposition to the apostle, denies), as to say that it both
shows forth sin and yet does not take it away, and commands
righteousness which yet it does not give (which, again, in opposition to
the apostle, Pelagius denies). He who so asserts free will as to say
that the evil of both angel and man began, not from I know not what
nature always evil, which is no nature, but from the will itself, which
overturns Manichean heresy, and nevertheless that even thus the captive
will cannot breathe into a wholesome liberty save by God's grace, which
overturns the Pelagian heresy. He who so praises in God the holy men of
God, not only after Christ manifested in the flesh and subsequently, but
even those of the former times, whom the Manicheans dare to blaspheme,
as yet to believe their own confessions concerning themselves, more than
the lies of the Pelagians. For the word of the saints is, "If we should
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us."(1)

CHAP. 4 [IV.] -- PELAGIANS AND MANICHEANS ON THE PRAISE OF THE CREATURE.

    These things being so, what advantage is it to new heretics, enemies
of the cross of Christ and opposers of divine grace, that they seem
sound from the error of the Manicheans, if they are dying by another
pestilence of their own? What advantage is it to them, that in the
praise of the creature they say "that the good God is the maker of those
that are born, by whom all things were made, and that the children of
men are His work," whom the Manicheans say are the work of the prince of
darkness; when between them both, or among them both, God's creation,
which is in infants, is perishing? For both of them refuse to have it
delivered by Christ's flesh and blood,--the one, because they destroy
that very flesh and blood, as if He did not take upon Him these at all
in man or of man; and the other, because they assert that there is no
evil in infants from which they should be delivered by the sacrament of
this flesh and blood. Between them lies the human creature in infants,
with a good origination, with a corrupted propagation, confessing for
its goods a most excellent Creator, seeking for its evils a most
merciful Redeemer, having the Manicheans as disparagers of its benefits,
having the Pelagians as deniers of its evils, and both as persecutors.
And although in infancy there is no power to speak, yet with its silent
look and its hidden weakness it addresses the impious vanity of both,
saying to the one, "Believe that I am created by Him who creates good
things;" and saying to the other, "Suffer me to be healed by Him who
created me." The Manicheans say, "There is nothing of this infant save
the good soul to be delivered; the rest," which belongs not to the good
God, but to tile prince of darkness, "is to be rejected."' The Pelagians
say, "Certainly there is nothing of this infant to be delivered, because
we have shown the whole to be safe." Both lie; but now the accuser of
the flesh alone is more bearable than the praiser, who is convicted of
cruelty against the whole. But neither does tile Manichean help the
human soul by blaspheming God, the Author of the entire man; nor does
the Pelagian permit the divine grace to come to the help of human
infancy by denying original sin. Therefore it is by the catholic faith
that God has mercy, seeing that by condemning both mischievous doctrines
it comes to the help of the infant for salvation. It says to the
Manicheans, "Hear the apostle crying, 'Know ye not that your body is the
temple of the Holy Ghost in you ?'(2) anti believe that the good God is
the Creator of bodies, because the temple of the Holy Ghost cannot be
the work of the prince of darkness." It says to the Pelagians, "The
infant that you look upon 'was conceived in iniquity, and in sin its
mother nourished it in the womb.'(3) Why, as if in defending it as free
from all mischief, do you not permit it to be delivered by mercy? No one
is pure from uncleanness, not even the infant whose life is of one day
upon the earth.(4) Allow the wretched creatures to receive remission of
sins, through Him who alone neither as small nor great could have any
sin."

          CHAP. 5. -- WHAT IS THE SPECIAL ADVANTAGE IN

                     THE PELAGIAN OPINIONS?

    What advantage, then, is it to them that they say "that all sin
descends not from nature, but from the will," and resist by the truth of
this judgment the Manicheans, who say that evil nature is the cause of
sin; when by being unwilling to admit original sin although itself also
descends from the will of the first man, they make infants to depart in
guilt from the body? What advantage is it to them "that they confess 
that baptism is necessary for all ages," while the Manicheans say that
it is superfluous for every age, while they say that in infants it is
false so far as it pertains to the forgiveness of sins? What advantage
is it to them that they maintain "the flesh of Christ" (which the
Manicheans contend was either no flesh at all, or a feigned flesh) to
have been not only the true flesh, but also "that the soul itself was
stained by no spot of sin," when other infants are by them so put on the
same level with His infancy, with not unequal purity, as that both that
flesh does not appear to keep its own holiness in comparison with these,
and these obtain no salvation from that?

CHAP. 6. -- NOT DEATH ALONE, BUT SIN ALSO HAS PASSED INTO US BY MEANS OF
ADAM.

    In that particular, indeed, wherein they say "that death passed to
us by Adam, not sins," they have not the Manicheans as their
adversaries: since they, too, deny that original sin from the first man,
at first of pure and upright body and spirit, and afterwards depraved by
free will, subsequently passed and passes as sin into all with death;
but they say that the flesh was evil from the beginning, and was created
by an evil spirit and along with an evil spirit; but that a good soul--a
portion, to wit, of God--for the deserts of its defilement by food and
drink, in which it was before bound up, came into man, and thus by means
of copulation was bound in the chain of the flesh. And thus the
Manicheans agree with the Pelagians that it was not the guilt of the
first man that passed into the human race--neither by the flesh, which
they say was never good; nor by the soul, which they assert comes into
the flesh of man with the merits of its own defilements with which it
was polluted before the flesh. But how do the Pelagians say "that only
death passed upon us by Adam's means"? For if we die because he died,
but he died because be sinned, they say that the punishment passed
without the guilt, and that innocent infants are punished with an unjust
penalty by deriving death without the deserts of death. This, the
catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and
man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death--that is,
the penalty of sin--without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of
man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone,
on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we
through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us
nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was clue. Therefore,
commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved
life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death. This
special prerogative of the Mediator the Pelagians endeavour to make
void, so that this should no longer be special in the Lord, if Adam in
such wise suffered a death due to him on account of his guilt, as that
infants, drawing from him no guilt, should suffer undeserved death. For
although very much good is conferred on the good by means of death,
whence some have filly argued even "of the benefit of death;" yet from
this what can be declared except the mercy of God, since the punishment
of sin is converted into beneficent uses?

           CHAP. 7. -- WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "IN WHOM

                        ALL HAVE SINNED"?

    But these speak thus who wish to wrest men from the apostle's words
into their own thought. For where the apostle says, "By one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin, anti so passed upon all
men,"(1) they will have it there understood not that "sin" passed over,
but "death." What, then, is the meaning of what follows, "Whereto all
have sinned"? For either the apostle says that in that "one man" all
have sinned of whom he had said, "By one man sin entered into the
world," or else in that "sin," or certainly in "death." For it need not
disturb us that he said not "in which" [using the feminine form of the
pronoun],  but "in whom" [using the masculine] all have sinned; since
"death" in the Greek language is of the masculine gender. Let them,
then, choose which they will,--for either in that "man" all have sinned,
and it is so said because when he sinned all were in him; or m that
"sin" all have sinned, because that was the doing of all in general
which all those who were born would have to derive; or it remains for
them to say that in that "death" all sinned. But in what way this can be
understood, I do not clearly see. For all die in the sin; they do not
sin in the death; for when sin precedes, death follows --not when death
precedes, sin follows. Because sin is the sting of death--that is, the
sting by whose stroke death occurs, not the sting with which death
strikes? Just as poison, if it is drunk, is called the cup of death,
because by that cup death is caused, not because the cup is caused by
the death, or is given by death. But if "sin" cannot be understood by
those words of the apostle as being that "wherein all have sinned,"
because in Greek, from which the Epistle is translated, "sin" is
expressed in the feminine gender, it remains that all men are understood
to have sinned in that first "man," because all men were in him when he
sinned; and from him sin is derived by birth, and is not remitted save
by being born again. For thus also the sainted Hilary understood what is
written, "wherein all have sinned;" for he says, "wherein," that is, in
Adam, "all have sinned."(1) Then he adds, "It is manifest that all have
sinned in Adam, as it were in the mass; for he himself was corrupted by
sin, and all whom he begot were born under sin." When he wrote this,
Hilary, without any ambiguity, indicated how we should understand the
words, "wherein all have sinned."

           CHAP. 8. --  DEATH PASSED UPON ALL BY SIN.

    But on account of what does the same apostle say, that we are
reconciled to God by Christ, except on account of what we had become
enemies? And what is this but sin? Whence also the prophet says, "Your
sins separate between you and God."(2) On account of this separation,
therefore, tile Mediator was sent, that He might take away tile sin of
the world, by which we were separated as enemies, and that we, being
reconciled, might be made from energies children. About this, certainly,
tile apostle was speaking; hence it happened that he interposed what he
says, "That sin entered by one man." For these are his former words. He
says, "But God commendeth His love towards us in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified in His
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by tile death of His Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved in His life. And not only so, but
glorying also in God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom also we have
now received reconciliation." Then he subjoins, "Therefore, as by one
man sin entered into this world, and death by sin, and so passed upon
all men, for in him all have sinned."(3) Why do the Pelagians evade this
matter? If reconciliation through Christ is necessary to all men, on all
men has passed sin by which we have become enemies, in order that we
should have need of reconciliation. This reconciliation is in the layer
of regeneration and in the flesh and blood of Christ, without which not
even infants can have life in themselves. For as there was one man for
death on account of sin, so there is one man for life on account of
righteousness; because "as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all
be made alive;"(4) and "as by the sin of one upon all men to
condemnation, so also by the righteousness of one upon all men unto
justification of life."(5) Who is there that has turned a deaf ear to
these apostolical words with such hardiness of wicked impiety, as,
having heard them, to contend that death passed upon us through Adam
without sin, unless, indeed, they are opposers of the grace of God and
enemies of the cross of Christ?--whose end is destruction if they
continue in this obstinacy. But let it suffice to have said thus much
for the sake of that serpentine subtlety of theirs, by which they wish
to corrupt simple minds, and to turn them away from the simplicity of
the faith, as if by the praise of the creature.

CHAP. 9 [V.] -- OF THE PRAISE OF MARRIAGE.

    But further, concerning the praise of marriage,(6) what advantage is
it to them that, in opposition to the Manicheans, who assign marriage
not to the true and good God, but to the prince of darkness, these men
resist the words of true piety, and say, "That the Lord speaks in the
gospel, saying, Who from the beginning made them male and female, and
said, Increase anti multiply and replenish the earth. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder"?(7) What does this profit
them, by means of the truth to seduce to a falsehood? For they say this
in order that infants may be thought to be born free from all fault, and
thus that there is no need of their being reconciled to God through
Christ, since they have no original sin, on account of which
reconciliation is necessary to all by means of one who came into the
world without sin, just as tile enmities of all were caused by means of
one through whom sin entered into the world. And this is believed by
catholics for the sake of the salvation of tile nature of men, without
detracting from the praise of marriage; because the praise of marriage
is a righteous intercourse of the sexes, not a wicked defence of vices.
And thus, when, by their praise of marriage, these persons wish to draw
over men from the Manicheans to themselves, they desire merely to change
their disease, not to heal it.

              CHAP. 10.--OF THE PRAISE OF THE LAW.

    Once more, in the praise of the law, what advantage is it to them
that, in opposition to the Manicheans, they say the truth when they wish
to bring men from that view to this which they hold falsely against the
catholics? For they say, "We confess that even the old law, according to
the apostle, is holy and just and good, and that this could confer
eternal life on those that kept its commandments, and lived righteously
by faith, like the prophets and patriarchs, and all the saints." By
which words, very craftily expressed, they praise the law in opposition
to grace; for certainly that law, although just and holy and good, could
not confer eternal life on all those men of God, but the faith which is
in Christ. For this faith worketh by love, not according to the letter
which killeth, but according to the Spirit which maketh alive, to which
grace of God the law, as it were a schoolmaster, leads by deterring from
transgression, that so that might be conferred upon man which it could
not itself confer. For to those words of theirs in which they say "that
the law was able to confer eternal life on the prophets and patriarchs,
and all saints who kept its commandments," the apostle replies, "If
righteousness be by the law, then has Christ died in vain."(1) "If the
inheritance be by the law, then is it no more of promise."(2) "If they
which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is
made of none effect."(3) "But that no man is justified by the law in the
sight of God, is evident: for, The just by faith liveth."(4) "But the
law is not of faith: but The man that doeth them shall live in them."
Which testimony, quoted by the apostle from the law, is understood in
respect of temporal life, in respect of the fear of losing which, men
were in the habit of doing the works of the law, not of faith; because
the transgressors of the law were commanded by the same law to be put to
death by the people. Or, if it must be understood more highly, that "He
who doeth these things shall live in them" was written in reference to
eternal life; the power of the law is so expressed that the weakness of
man in himself, itself failing to do what the law commands, might seek
help from the grace of God rather of faith, seeing that by His mercy
even faith itself is bestowed. Because faith is thus possessed,
according as God has given to every one the measure of faith.(6) For if
men have it not of themselves, but men receive the Spirit of power and
of love and of continence, whence that very same teacher of the Gentiles
says, "For we have not received the spirit of fear, but of power, and of
love, and of continence,"(7)--assuredly also the Spirit of faith is
received, of which he says, "Having also the same Spirit of faith."(8)
Truly, then, says the law, "He who doeth these things shall live in
them." But in order to do these things, and live in them, there is
necessary not law which ordains this, but faith which obtains this.
Which faith, however, that it may deserve to receive these things, is
itself given freely.

CHAP. II. -- THE PELAGIANS UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAW ITSELF IS GOD'S
GRACE.

    But those enemies of grace never endeavour to lay more secret snares
for more vehement opposition to that same grace than when they

praise the law, which, without doubt, is worthy to be praised? Because,
by their different modes of speaking, and by variety of words in all
their arguments, they wish the law to be understood as "grace"--that, to
wit, we may have from the Lord God the help of knowledge, whereby we may
know those things which have to be done,--not the inspiration of love,
that, when known, we may do them with a holy love, which is properly
grace. For the knowledge of the law without love puffeth up, does not
edify, according to the same apostle, who most openly says, "Knowledge
puffeth up, but love edifieth."(10) Which saying is like to that in
which it is said, "The letter killeth, the spirit maketh alive."(11) For
"Knowledge puffeth up," corresponds to "The letter kiIleth:" and, "Love
edifieth," to "The spirit maketh alive;" because "the love of God is
shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given unto us."(12)
Therefore the knowledge of the law makes a proud transgressor; but, by
the gift of charity, he delights to be a doer of the law. We do not then
make void the law through faith, but we establish the law,(13) which by
terrifying leads to faith. Thus certainly the law worketh wrath, that
the mercy of God may bestow grace on the  sinner, frightened and turned
to the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law through Jesus Christ
our Lord, who is that wisdom of God of which it is written, "She carries
law and mercy on her tongue,"(14)--law whereby she frightens, mercy by
which she may help, --law by His servant, mercy by Himself,--the law, as
it were, in the staff which Elisha(15) sent to raise up the son of the
widow, and it failed to raise him up, "For if a law had been given which
could have given life, righteousness would altogether have been by the
law,"(16) but mercy, as it were, in Elisha himself, who, wearing the
figure of Christ, by giving life to the dead was joined in the
signification of the great sacrament, as it were, of the New Testament.

CHAP. 12 [VI.] -- OF THE PRAISE OF FREE WILL.

    Moreover, that, in opposition to the Manicheans, they praise free
will, making use of the prophetic testimony, "If ye shall be willing and
will hear me, ye shall eat what is good in the land; but if ye shall be
unwilling and will not hear me, the sword shall consume you:"(17) what
advantage is this to them, when, indeed, it is not so much against the
Manicheans that they are maintaining, as against the catholics that they
are extolling, free will? For they wish what is said, "If ye be willing
and will hear me," to be so understood, as if in the preceding will
itself were the merit of the grace that follows; and thus grace were no
more grace, seeing that it is not free when it is rendered as a debt.
But if they should so understand what is written, "If ye be willing," as
to confess that He prepares even that good will itself of whom it is
written, "The will is prepared by the Lord,"(1) they would use this
testimony as catholics, and not only would overcome the ancient heresy
of the Manicheans, but would not found the new one of the Pelagians.

           CHAP. 13. -- GOD'S PURPOSES ARE EFFECTS OF

                             GRACE.

    What does it profit them, that in the praise of that same free will
"they say that grace assists the good purpose of every one"?(2) This
would be received without scruple as being said in a catholic spirit, if
they did not attribute merit to the good purpose, to which merit now a
wage is paid of debt, not according to grace, but would understand and
confess that even that very good purpose, which the grace which follows
assists could not have been in the man if grace had not preceded it. For
how is there a good purpose in a man without the mercy of God first,
since it is that very good will which is prepared by the Lord?(1) But
when they had said this, "that grace also assists every one's good
purpose," and presently added, "yet does not infuse the love of virtue
into a resisting heart," it might be fitly understood, if it were not
said by those whose meaning is known. For, for the resisting heart a
hearing for the divine call is first procured by the grace of God
itself, and then in that heart, now no more resisting, the desire of
virtue is kindled. Nevertheless, in all things which any one does
according to God, His mercy precedes him. And this they will not have,
because they choose to be not catholics, but Pelagians. For it much
delights a proud impiety, that even that which a man is forced to
confess to be given by the Lord should seem to be not bestowed on
himself, but repaid; so that, to wit, the children of perdition, not of
the promise, may be thought themselves to have made themselves good, and
God to have repaid to those who are now good, having been made so by
themselves, the reward due for that their work.

          CHAP. 14. -- THE TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE IN

                        FAVOUR OF GRACE.

    For that very pride has so stopped the ears of their heart that they
do not hear, "For what hast thou that thou hast not received?"(3) They
do not hear, "Without me ye can do nothing;"(4) they do not hear, "Love
is of God;"(5) they do not hear, "God hath dealt the measure of

faith;"(6) they do not hear, "The Spirit breatheth where it will,"(7)
and, "They who are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God;"(8) they do not hear, "No one can come unto me, unless it were
given him of my Father;"(9) they do not hear what Esdras writes,
"Blessed is the Lord of our fathers, who hath put into the heart of the
king to glorify His house which is in Jerusalem;"(10) they do not hear
what the Lord says by Jeremiah, "And I will put my fear into their
heart, that they depart not from me; and I will visit them to make them
good;"(11) and specially that word by Ezekiel the prophet, where God
fully shows that He is induced by no good deservings of men to make them
good, that is, obedient to His commands, but rather that He repays to
them good for evil, by doing this for His own sake, and not for theirs.
For He says, "These things saith the Lord God: I do not this for your
sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine own holy name's sake, which has
been profaned among the nations, whither ye have gone in there; and I
will sanctify my great name, which has been profaned among the nations,
and which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall
know that I am the Lord, saith Adonai the Lord, when I shall be
sanctified among you before their eyes. And I will take you from among
the nations, and gather you together out of all lands, and will bring
you into your own land. And I will sprinkle upon you clean water, and ye
shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you. And
I will give unto you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within
you: and the stony heart shall be taken away out of your flesh, and I
will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and
will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe my judgments,
and do them."(12) And after a few words, by the same prophet He says,
"Not for your sakes do I do this, saith the Lord God; it shall be known
unto you: be ye confounded and blush for your ways, O house of Israel.
These things saith the Lord God: In the day in which I shall cleanse you
from all your iniquities, and shall ordain cities, and the wilderness
shall be built, and the desolated land shall be tilled, whereas it was
desolated before the eyes of every passer by. And they shall say, This
land that was desolated has become as a garden of pleasure; and the
wasted and desolated and ruined cities have settled down fortified. And
whatever nations have been left round about you shall know that I the
Lord have built the ruined places, I have planted the desolated places:
I the Lord have spoken, and have done it. Thus saith the Lord: I will
yet for this inquire of the house of Israel, that I may do it for them;
I will multiply them men like sheep, as holy sheep, as the sheep of
Jerusalem in the days of her feast; so shall be those desolated cities
full of men as sheep: and they shall know that I am the Lord."(1)

CHAP. 15.--FROM SUCH SCRIPTURES GRACE IS PROVED TO BE GRATUITOUS AND
EFFECTUAL

    What remained to the carrion skin whence it might be puffed up, and
could disdain when it glories to glory in the Lord?(2) What remained to
it, when whatsoever it shall have said that it has done in such a way
that after that preceding merit of man had originated from man, God
should subsequently do that of which the man is deserving,--it shall be
answered, it shall be exclaimed against, it shall be contradicted, "I do
it; but for my own holy name's sake; not for your sakes, do I do it,
saith the Lord God"?(3) Nothing so overturns the Pelagians when they say
that the grace of God is given in respect of our merits. Which, indeed,
Pelagius himself condemned,(4) and if not by correcting it, yet by being
afraid of the Eastern judges. Nothing so overturns tile presumption of
men who say, "We do it, that we may deserve those things with which God
may do it." It is not Pelagius that answers you, but the Lord Himself,
"I do it and not for your sakes, but for my own holy name's sake."(3)
For what good can ye do out of a heart which is not good? But that you
may have a good heart, He says, "I will give you a new heart, and I will
put a new Spirit within you." Can you say, We will first walk in His
righteousness, and will observe His judgment, and will do so that we may
be worthy, such as He should give His grace to? But what good would ye
evil men do, and how should you do those good things, unless you were
yourselves good? But who causes that men should be good save Him who
said, "And I will visit them to make them good"? and who said "I will
put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my
righteousness, and to observe my judgments, and do them"? Are ye thus
not yet, awake? Do ye not yet hear, "I will cause you to walk, I will
make you to observe," lastly, "I, win make you to do"? What l are you
still l puffing yourselves up? We indeed walk, it is true; we observe;
we do; but He makes us to walk, to observe, to do. This is the grace of
God making us good; this is His mercy preventing us. What do waste and
desolated and dug-up places deserve, which yet shall be built and tilled
and fortified? Are these things for the merits of their wasteness, their
desolation, their uprooting? Far from it. For such things as these are
evil deservings, while those gifts are good. Therefore good things are
given for evil ones--gratuitous, therefore; not of debt, and therefore
grace. "I," saith the Lord: "I, the Lord." Does not such a word as that
restrain you, O human pride, when you say, I do such things as to
deserve from the Lord to be built and planted? Do you not hear, "I do it
not on your account; I the Lord have built up the destroyed cities, and
I have planted the desolated lands; I the Lord have spoken, and I have
done it, yet not for your sakes, but for my own holy name's sake"? Who
multiplies men sheep, as holy sheep, as the sheep of Jerusalem? Who
causes those desolated cities to be full of men as sheep, save He who
goes on, and says, "And they shall know that I am the Lord"? But with
what men as sheep does He fill the cities as He promised? those which He
finds, or those which He makes? Let us interrogate the Psalm; lo, it
answers; let us hear: "O come, let us worship and fall down before Him:
and let us weep before the Lord who made us; because He is our God, and
we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand."(5) He
therefore makes the sheep, with which He may fill the desolated cities.
What wonder, when, indeed, to that single sheep, that is, the Church
whose members are all the human sheep, it is said, "Because I am the
Lord who make thee"? What do you pretend to me of free will, which will
not be free to do righteousness, unless you should be a sheep? He then
who makes men His sheep, He frees the wills of men for the obedience of
piety.

             CHAP. 16.--WHY GOD MAKES OF SOME SHEEP,

                           OTHERS NOT.

    But wherefore does God make these men sheep, and those not, since
with Him there is no acceptance of persons? This is the very question
which the blessed apostle thus answers to those who propose it with more
curiosity than propriety, "O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Does the thing formed say to him that formed it, Wherefore hast
thou made me thus?" (6) This is the very question which belongs to that
depth desiring to look into which the same apostle was in a certain
measure terrified, and exclaimed, "Oh the depth of the riches of the
wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and
His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? or
who has been His counsellor? Or who has first given to Him, that it
should be recompensed to Him again? Because of Him, and through Him, and
in Him, are all things: to Him be glory for ages of ages."(7) Let them
not, then, dare to pry into that unsearchable question who defend merit
before grace, and therefore even against grace, and wish first to give
unto God, that it may be given to them again,--first, of course, to give
something of free will, that grace may be given them again as a reward;
and let them wisely understand or faithfully believe that even what they
think that they have first given, they have received from Him, from whom
are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things. But why
this man should receive, and that should not receive, when neither of
them deserves to receive, and whichever of them receives, receives
undeserv-ingly,--let them measure their own strength, and not search
into things too strong for them. Let it suffice them to know that there
is no un-righteousness with God. For when the apostle could find no
merits for which Jacob should take precedence of his twin-brother with
God, he said, "What, then, shall we say? Is there unrighteousness with
God? Away with the thought! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on
whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will show
compassion. Therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."(1) Let, therefore, His free
compassion be grateful to us, even although this profound question be
still unsolved; which, nevertheless, is so far solved as the same
apostle solves it, saying, "But if God, willing to show His wrath, and
to demonstrate His power, endured in much patience the vessels of wrath
which are fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches
of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared for
glory."(2) Certainly wrath is not repaid unless it is due, lest there be
unrighteousness with God; but mercy, even when it is bestowed, and not
due, is not unrighteousness with God. And hence, let the vessels of
mercy understand how freely mercy is afforded to them, because to the
vessels of wrath with whom they have common cause and measure of
perdition, is repaid wrath, righteous and due. This is now enough in
opposition to those who, by freedom of will, desire to destroy the
liberality of grace.

CHAP. 17 [VII.]--OF THE PRAISE OF THE SAINTS.

    In that, indeed, in the praise of the saints, they will not drive us
with the zeal of that publican(3) to hunger and thirst after
righteousness, but with the vanity of the Pharisees, as it were, to
overflow with sufficiency and fulness; what does it profit them that--in
opposition to the Manicheans, who do away with baptism--they say "that
men are perfectly renewed by baptism," and apply the apostle's testimony
for this,--"who testifies that, by the washing of water, the Church is
made holy and spotless from the Gentiles,"(4)--when, with a proud and
perverse meaning, they put forth their arguments in opposition to the
prayers of the Church itself. For they say this in order that the Church
may be believed after holy baptism--in which is accomplished the
forgiveness of all sins--to have no further sin; when, in opposition to
them, from the rising of the sun even to its setting, in all its members
it cries to God, "Forgive us our debts."(5) But if they are interrogated
regarding themselves in this matter, they find not what to answer. For
if they should say that they have no sin, John answers them, that they
deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them.(6) But if they confess
their sins, since they wish themselves to be members of Christ's body,
how will that body, that is, the Church, be even in this time perfectly,
as they think, without spot or wrinkle, if its members without falsehood
confess themselves to have sins? Wherefore in baptism all sins are
forgiven, and, by that very washing of water in the word, the Church is
set forth in Christ without spot or wrinkle;(7) and unless it were
baptized, it would fruitlessly say, "Forgive us our debts," until it be
brought to glory, when there is in it absolutely no spot or wrinkle.(8)

           CHAP. 18.--THE OPINION OF THE SAINTS THEM-

                    SELVES ABOUT THEMSELVES.

    It is to be confessed that "the Holy Spirit, even in the old times,"
not only "aided good dispositions," which even they allow, but that it
even made them good, which they will not have. "That all, also, of the
prophets and apostles or saints, both evangelical and ancient, to whom
God gives His witness, were righteous, not in comparison with the
wicked, but by the rule of virtue," is not doubtful. And this is opposed
to the Manicheans, who blaspheme the patriarchs and prophets; but what
is opposed to the Pelagians is, that all of these, when interrogated
concerning themselves while they lived in the body, with one most
accordant voice would answer, "If we should say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."(6) "But in the future
time," it is not to be denied "that there will be a reward as well of
good works as of evil, and that no one will be commanded to do the
commandments there which here he has contemned," but that a sufficiency
of perfect righteousness where sin cannot be, a righteousness which is
here hungered and thirsted after by the saints, is here hoped for in
precept, is there received as a reward, on the entreaty of alms and
prayers; so that what here may have been wanting in fulfilment of the
commandments may become unpunished for the forgiveness of sin.(1)

             CHAP. 19.--THE CRAFT  OF THE PELAGIANS.

    And if these things be so, let the Pelagians cease by their most
insidious praises of these five things--that is, the praise of the
creature, the praise of marriage, the praise of the law, the praise of
free will, the praise of the saints--from feigning that they desire to
pluck men, as it were, from the little snares of the Manicheans, in
order that they may entangle them in their own nets--that is, that they
may deny original sin; may begrudge to infants the aid of Christ the
physician; may say that the grace of God is given according to our
merits, and thus that grace is no more grace; and may say that the
saints in this life had not sin, and thus make the prayer of none effect
which He gave to the saints who had no sin, and by which all sin is
pardoned to the saints that pray unto Him. To these three evil
doctrines, they by their deceitful praise of these five good things
seduce careless and unlearned men. Concerning all which things, I think
I have sufficiently censured their most cruel and wicked and proud
vanity.

CHAP. 20 [VIII.]--THE TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS AGAINST THE PELAGIANS.

    But since they say "that their enemies have taken up our words for
hatred of the truth," and complained that "throughout nearly the whole
of the West a dogma not less foolish than impious is taken up, and from
simple bishops sitting in their places without a Synodal congregation a
subscription is extorted to confirm this dogma,"--although the Church of
Christ, both Western and Eastern shuddered at the profane novelties of
their words--I think it belongs to my care not only to avail myself of
the sacred canonical Scriptures as witnesses against them, which I have
already sufficiently done, but, moreover, to bring forward some proofs
from the writings of the holy men who before us have treated upon those
Scriptures with the most widespread reputation and great glory. Not that
I would put the authority of any controversialist on a level with the
canonical books, as if there were nothing which is better or more truly
thought by one catholic than by another who likewise is a catholic; but
that those may be admonished who think that these men say anything as it
used to be said,  before their empty talk on these subjects, by catholic
teachers following the divine oracles, and may know that the true and
anciently established catholic faith is by us defended against the
receding presumption and mischief of the Pelagian heretics.

CHAP. 21.--PELAGIUS, IN IMITATION OF CYPRIAN, WROTE A BOOK OF
TESTIMONIES.

    Even that heresiarch of these men, Pelagius himself, mentions with
the honour that is certainly due to him, the most blessed Cyprian, most
glorious with even the crown of martyrdom, not only in the African and
the Western, but also in the Eastern Churches, well known by the report
of fame, and by the diffusion far and wide of his writings,--when,
writing a book of testimonies,(2) he asserts that he is imitating him,
saying that "he was doing to Romanus what Cypria had done to Quirinus."
Let us, then, see what Cyprian thought concerning original sin, which
entered by one man into the world. In the epistle on "Works and Alms"(3)
he thus speaks "When the Lord at His advent had cured these wounds which
Adam had introduced, and had healed the old poisons of the serpent, He
gave a law to the sound man, and bade him sin no more, lest a worse
thing should happen to him if he sinned. We had been limited and shut up
into a narrow space by the commandment of innocence; nor would the
infirmity and weakness of human frailty have any resource unless the
divine mercy coming once more in aid should open some way of securing
salvation by pointing out works of justice and mercy, so that by
alms-giving we may wash away whatever foulness we subsequently
contract." By this testimony this witness refutes two falsehoods of
theirs,--the one, wherein they say that the human race draws no sin from
Adam which needs cure and healing through Christ; the other, in which
they say that the saints have no sin after baptism. Again, in the same
epistle(4) he says, "Let each one place before his eyes the devil with
his servants,--that is, with the people of perdition and death,--as
springing forth into the midst and provoking the people of
Christ,--Himself being present and judging,--with the trial of
comparison in these words: 'I, on behalf of those whom thou seest with
me, neither received buffets, nor bore scourgings, nor endured the
cross, nor shed my blood, nor redeemed my family at the price of my
suffering and blood; but neither do I promise them a celestial kingdom,
nor do I recall them to Paradise, having again restored to them
immortality.'" Let the Pelagians answer and say when we could have been
in the immortality of Paradise, and how we could have been expelled
thence so as to be recalled thither by the grace of Christ. And,
although they may be unable to find what they can answer in this case on
behalf of their own perversity, let them observe in what manner Cyprian
understood what the apostle says, "In whom all have sinned." And let not
the Pelagian heretics, freed from the  old Manichean heretics, dare to
suggest any calumny against a catholic, lest they should be convicted of
doing so wicked a wrong even to the ancient martyr Cyprian.

CHAP. 22.--FURTHER REFERENCES TO CYPRIAN.

    For he says also this in the epistle whose title is inscribed, "On
the Mortality:"(1) "The kingdom of God, beloved brethren, is beginning
to be at hand; the reward of life, and the rejoicing of eternal
salvation and perpetual gladness, and the possession formerly lost of
Paradise, are now coming with the passing away of the world." This
again, in the same epistle, he says: "Let us greet the day which assigns
each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence and sets us free
from the snares of the world, and restores us to Paradise and the
kingdom." Moreover, he says m the epistle concerning Patience: "Let the
judgment of God be pondered, which, even in the beginning of the world
and of the human race, Adam, forgetful of the commandment and a
transgressor of the law that had been given, received. Then we shall
know how patient in this life we ought to be, who are born in such a
state that we labour here with afflictions and contests. Because, says
He, 'thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the
tree of which alone I had charged thee that thou shouldest not eat,
cursed shall be the ground in all thy works: in sorrow and in groaning
shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall
it give forth to thee, and thou shall eat the food of the field. In the
sweat of thy face thou shalt eat thy bread, till thou return unto the
ground from which thou wast taken: for earth thou art, and unto earth
shalt thou go.' We are all tied and bound with the chain of this
sentence until, death being destroyed, we depart from this world."(2)
And, moreover, in the same epistle he says: "For, since in that first
transgression of the commandment strength of body departed with
immortality, and weakness came on with death, and strength cannot be
received unless when immortality also has been received, it behoves us
in this bodily frailty and weakness always to struggle and fight; and
this struggle and encounter cannot be sustained but by the strength of
patience."(3)

CHAP. 23.--FURTHER REFERENCES TO CYPRIAN.

   And in the epistle which he wrote with sixty-six of his joint-bishops
to Bishop Fidus, when he was consulted by him in respect of the law of
circumcision, whether an infant might be baptized before the eighth day,
this matter is treated in such a way as if by a divine forethought the
catholic Church would already confute the Pelagian heretics who would
appear so long afterwards. For he who had consulted had no doubt on the
subject whether children on birth inherited original sin, which they
might wash away by being born again. For be it far from the Christian
faith to have at any time doubted on this matter. But he was in doubt
whether the washing of regeneration, by which he made no question but
that original sin was put away, ought to be given before the eighth day.
To which consultation the most blessed Cyprian in reply said: "But as
regards the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized
within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of
the ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one
who is born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day,
we all thought very differently in our council. For to the course which
you thought was to be taken no one agreed, but we all rather judged that
the grace of a merciful God was not to be denied to any one born of men;
for, as the Lord says in His gospel, 'the Son of man is not come to
destroy men's lives, but to save them.'(4) As far as we can, we must
strive that, if possible, no soul be lost."(5) And a little afterwards
he says: "Nor ought any of us to shudder at what God hath condescended
to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it
is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace
and in making peace, since in the kiss of an infant every one of us
ought for his very religion's sake to consider the still recent hands of
God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing in the man just formed
and newly born, when we are embracing that which God has made."(6) A
little after, also, he says: "But if anything could hinder men from
obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who
are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest
sinners, and to those who have before sinned much against God, when they
have subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted, and nobody is
hindered from baptism and from grace; how much rather ought we to shrink
from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except
that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted
the contagion of the ancient death at his earliest birth; who approaches
more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of
sins, in that to him are remitted not his own sins, but the sins of
another!"(1)

             CHAP. 24.--THE DILEMMA PROPOSED TO THE

                           PELAGIANS.

    What will be said to such things as these, by those who are not only
the forsakers, but also the persecutors of God's grace? What will they
say to such things as these? On what ground is the "possession of
Paradise" restored to us? How are we restored to Paradise if we have
never been there? Or how have we been there, except because we were
there in Adam? And how do we belong to that "judgment" which was spoken
against the transgressor, if we do not inherit injury from the
transgressor? Finally, he thinks that infants are to be baptized, even
before the eighth day; lest "by the contagion of the ancient death,
contracted in the first birth," the souls of the infants should perish.
How do they perish if they who are born even of believing men are not
held by the devil until they are born again in Christ, and plucked out
from the power of darkness, and transferred into His kingdom? And who
says that the souls of those who are born will perish unless they are
born again? No other than he who so praises the Creator and the
creature, the workman and the work, as to restrain and correct the
horror of human feeling with which men refuse to kiss infants fresh from
the womb, by interposing the veneration of the Creator Himself, saying
that in the kiss of infants of that age the recent hands of God were to
be considered! Did he, then, in confessing original sin, condemn either
nature or marriage? Did he, because he applied to the infant born guilty
from Adam, the cleansing of regeneration, therefore deny God as the
Creator of those that were born? Because, in his dread that souls of any
age whatever should perish, he, with his council of colleagues, decided
that even before the eighth clay they were to be delivered by the
sacrament of baptism, did he therefore accuse marriage, when, indeed, in
the case of an infant,--whether born of marriage or of adultery, yet
because it was born a man,--he declared that the recent hands of God
were worthy even of the kiss of peace? If, then, the holy bishop and
most glorious martyr Cyprian could think that original sin in infants
must be healed by the medicine of Christ, without denying the praise of
the creature, without denying the praise of marriage, why does a novel
pestilence, although it does not dare to call such an one as him a
Manichean, think that another person's fault is to be objected against
catholics who maintain these things, in order to conceal its own? So the
most lauded commentator on the divine declarations, before even the
slightest taint of the Manichean plague had touched our lands, without
any reproach of the divine work and of marriage, confesses original
sin,--not saying that Christ was stained with any spot of sin, nor yet
comparing with Him the flesh of sin in others that were born, to whom by
means of the likeness of sinful flesh He might afford the aid of
cleansing; neither is he deterred by the obscure question of the origin
of souls, from confessing that those who are made free by the grace of
Christ return into Paradise, Does he say that the condition of death
passed upon men from Adam without the contagion of sin? For it is not on
account of avoiding the death of the body, but on account of the sin
which entered by one man into the world,(2) that he says that help is to
be afforded by baptism to infants, however fresh they may be from the
womb.

           CHAP. 25 [IX.]--CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONIES CON-

                      CERNING GOD'S GRACE.

    But now it plainly appears in what way Cyprian proclaims the grace
of God against such as these, when he is arguing about the Lord's
Prayer. For he says: "We say, 'May Thy name be made holy,'(3) not that
we wish for God  that He may be made holy by our prayers, but that we
beseech of Him that His name may be made holy in us. But by whom is God
made holy, since He Himself makes holy? But, because He says, 'Be ye
holy, because I also am holy,' we ask and entreat this, that we who were
made holy in baptism may continue in that which we have begun to be."(4)
And in another place in the same epistle he says: "We add also, and say,
'Thy will be done in heaven, and in earth,' not in order that God may do
what He wills, but that we may be able to do what God wills. For who
resists God that He may not do  what He wills? But, since we are
hindered by the devil from obeying God with our thought and deed in all
things, we pray and ask that God's will may be done in us. And that it
may be done in us, we have need of God's will, that is, of His help and
protection; since no one is strong in his own strength, but he is safe
by the indulgence and mercy of God."(5) In another place also:
"Moreover, we ask that the will of God may be done both in heaven and in
earth, each of which things pertains to the fulfilment of our safety and
salvation. For since we possess the body from the earth, and the spirit
from heaven, we are ourselves earth and heaven; and in both, that is,
both in body and in spirit, we pray that God's will be done. For between
the flesh and the spirit there is a struggle, and there is a daily
strife as they disagree one with the other; so that we cannot do the
very things that we would, in that the spirit seeks heavenly and divine
things, while the flesh lusts after earthly and temporal things. And,
therefore, we ask that, by the help and assistance of God, agreement may
be made between these two natures; so that while the will of God is done
both in the spirit and in the flesh, the soul which is newborn by Him
may be preserved. And this the Apostle Paul openly and manifestly
declares by his words. 'The flesh,' says he, 'lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one
to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.'"(1) And a
little after he says: "And it may be thus understood, most beloved
brethren, that since the Lord commands and teaches us even to love our
enemies, and to pray even for those who persecute us, we should ask even
for those who are still earth, and have not yet begun to be heavenly,
that even in respect of these God's will may be done, which Christ
accomplished in preserving and renewing humanity."(2) And again, in
another place he says: "But we ask that this bread should be given to us
daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for
the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some more
heinous sin,--by being prevented, as those abstaining and not
communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread,--be separated from
Christ's body."(3) And a little afterwards, in the same treatise he
says: "But when we ask that we may not come into temptation, we are
reminded of our infirmity and weakness, while we so ask as that no one
should insolently vaunt himself; that none should proudly and arrogantly
assume anything to himself; that none should take to himself the glory
either of confession or of suffering as his own, when the Lord Himself
teaching humility said, 'Watch and pray, that ye come not into
temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak;'(4) so
that while a humble and submissive confession comes first, and all is
attributed to God, whatever is sought for suppliantly, with fear and
honour of God, may be granted by His own loving-kindness."(5) Moreover,
in his treatise addressed to Quirinus, in respect to which work Pelagius
wishes himself to appear as his imitator, he says in the Third Book
"that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own."(6) And
subjoining the divine testimonies to this proposition, he added among
others that apostolic word with which especially the mouths of such as
these must be closed: "For what hast thou, which thou hast not received?
But if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not
received it?" Also in the epistle concerning Patience he says: "For we
have this virtue in common with God. From Him patience begins; from Him
its glory and its dignity take their rise. The origin and greatness of
patience proceed from God as its Author."(7)

             CHAP. 26.--FURTHER APPEALS TO CYPRIAN'S

                            TEACHING.

    Does that holy and so memorable instructor of the Churches in the
word of truth, deny that there is free will in men, because he
attributes to God the whole of your righteous living? Does he reproach
God's law, because he intimates that man is not justified by it, seeing
that he declares that what that law commands must be obtained from the
Lord God by prayers? Does he assert fate under the name of grace, by
saying that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own? Does he,
like these, believe that the Holy Spirit is in such wise the aider of
virtue, as if that very virtue which it assists springs from ourselves,
when, asserting that nothing is our own, he mentions in this respect
that the apostle said, "For what hast thou that thou hast not received?"
and says that the most excellent virtue, that is, patience, does not
begin from us, and afterwards receive aid by the Spirit of God, but from
Him Himself takes its source, from Him takes its origin? Finally, he
confesses that neither good purpose, nor desire of virtue, nor good
dispositions, begin to be in men without God's grace, when he says that
"we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own." What is so
established in free will as what the law says, that we must not worship
an idol, must not commit adultery, must do no murder? Nay, these crimes,
and such like, are of such a kind that, if any one should commit them,
he is removed from the communion of the body of Christ. And yet, if the
blessed Cyprian thought that our own will was sufficient for not
committing these crimes, he would not in such wise understand what we
say in the Lord's Prayer, "Give us this day our daily bread," as that he
should assert that we ask "that we may not by the interposition of some
heinous sin--by being prevented as abstaining, and not communicating,
from partaking of the heavenly bread--be separated from Christ's body."
Let these new heretics answer of a surety what good merit precedes, in
men who are enemies of the name of Christ? For not only have they no
good merit, but they have, moreover, the very worst merit. And yet,
Cyprian even thus understands what we say in the prayer, "Thy will be
done in heaven, and in earth:" that we pray also for those very persons
who in this respect are calmed earth. We pray, therefore, not only for
the unwilling, but also for the objecting and resisting. What, then, do
we ask, but that from unwilling they may be made willing; from
objecting, consenting; from resisting, loving? And by whom, but by Him
of whom it is written, "The will is prepared by God"? (1) Let them,
then, who disdain, if they do not do any evil and if they do any good,
to glory, not in themselves, but in the Lord, learn to be catholics.

CHAP. 27 [X.] -- CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONIES CONCERNING THE IMPERFECTION OF
OUR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    Let us, then, see that third point, which in these men is not less
shocking to every member of Christ and to His whole body,--that they
contend that there are in this life, or that there have been, righteous
men having absolutely no sin.(2) In which presumption they most
manifestly contradict the Lord's Prayer, wherein, with truthful heart
and with daily words, all the members of Christ cry aloud, "Forgive us
our debts." Let us see, then, what Cyprian, most glorious in the Lord,
thought of this,--what he not only said for the instruction of the
Churches, not, of course, of the Manicheans, but of the catholics, but
also committed to letters and to memory. In the epistle on "Works and
Alms," he says: "Let us then acknowledge, beloved brethren, the
wholesome gift of the divine mercy, and let us who cannot be without
some wound of conscience heal our wounds by the spiritual remedies for
the cleansing and purging of our sins. Nor let any one so flatter
himself with the notion of a pure and immaculate heart, as, in
dependence on his own innocence, to think that the medicine needs not to
be applied to his wounds; since it is written, 'Who shall boast that he
hath a clean heart, or who shall boast that he is pure from sins?'(3)
And again, in his epistle, John lays it down and says, 'If we say that
we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.'(4)

But if no one can be without sin, and whoever should say that he is
without fault is either proud or foolish, how needful, how kind is the
divine mercy, which, knowing that there are still found some wounds in
those that have been healed, I has given even after their healing
wholesome remedies for the curing and healing of their wounds anew!"(5)
Again, in the same treatise he says: "And since there cannot fail daily
to be sins committed in the sight of God, there failed not daily
sacrifices wherewith the sins might be cleansed away."(6) Also, in the
treatise on the Mortality, he says: "Our warfare is with avarice, with
immodesty, with anger, with ambition; our trying and toilsome wrestling
with carnal vices, with the enticements of the world. The mind of man
besieged, and on every hand invested with the onsets of the devil,
scarcely meets the repeated attacks, scarcely resists them.  If avarice
is prostrated, lust springs up. If lust is overcome, ambition takes its
place. If ambition is despised, anger exasperates, pride puffs up,
wine-bibbing entices; envy breaks concord: jealousy cuts friendship; you
are constrained to curse, which the divine law forbids; you are
compelled to swear, which is not lawful. So many persecutions the soul
suffers daily, with so many risks is the heart wearied; and yet it
delights to abide here long among the devil's weapons, although it
should rather be our craving and wish to hasten to Christ by the aid of
a quicker death."(7) Again, in the same treatise he says: "The blessed
Apostle Paul in his epistle lays it down, saying, 'To me to live is
Christ, and to die is gain;' (8) counting it the greatest gain no longer
to be held by the snares of this world, no longer to be liable to the
sins and vices of the flesh." (9) Moreover, on the Lord's Prayer,
explaining what it is we ask when we say, "Hallowed be thy name," he
says, among other matters: "For we have need of daily sanctification,
that we, who daily fall away, may wash out our sins by continual
sanctification." (10) Again, in the same treatise, when he would explain
our saying, "Forgive us our debts," he says: "And how necessarily, how
providently and salutarily, are we admonished that we are sinners, since
we are compelled to entreat for our sins; and while pardon is asked for
from God, the soul recalls its own consciousness of guilt. Lest any one
should flatter himself as being innocent, and by exalting himself should
more deeply perish, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, in
that he is bidden to entreat daily for his sins. Thus, moreover, John
also in his epistle warns us, and says: 'If we say that we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our
sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.'"(11) Rightly,
also, he proposed in his letter to Quirinus his own most absolute
judgment on this subject, to which he subjoined the divine testimonies,
"That no one is without filth and without sin." (1) There also he set
down those testimonies by which original sin is confirmed, which these
men endeavour to twist into I know not what new and evil meanings,
whether what the holy Job says, "No one is pure from filth not one even
if his life be of one day upon the earth,"(2) or what is read in the
Psalm, "Behold, I was conceived in iniquity; and in sins hath my mother
nourished me in the womb." (3) To which testimonies, on account of those
also who are already holy in mature age, since even they are not without
filth and sin, he added also that word of the most blessed John, which
he often mentions in many other places besides, "If we say that we have
no sin, we deceive ourselves;"(4) and other passages of the same
sentiment, which are asserted by all catholics, by way of opposing those
"who deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them."

CHAP. 28.--CYPRIAN'S ORTHODOXY UNDOUBTED.

    Let the Pelagians say, if they dare, that this man of God was
perverted by the error of the Manicheans, in so praising the saints as
yet to confess that no one in this life had attained to such a
perfection of righteousness as to have no sin at all, confirming his
judgment by the clear truth and divine authority of the canonical
testimonies. For does he deny that in baptism all sins are forgiven,
because he confesses that there remain frailty and infirmity, whence he
says that we sin after baptism and even to the end of this life, having
unceasing conflict with the vices of the flesh? Or did he not remember
what the apostle said about the Church without spot, that he prescribed
that no one ought so to flatter himself in respect of a pure and
spotless heart as to trust in his own innocence, and think that no
medicine needed to be applied to his wounds? I think that these new
heretics may concede to this catholic man that he knew "that the Holy
Spirit even in the old times aided good dispositions;" nay, even, what
they themselves will not allow, that they could not have possessed good
dispositions except through the Holy Spirit. I think that Cyprian knew
that all the prophets and apostles or saints of any kind soever who
pleased the Lord at any time were righteous--"not in comparison with the
wicked," as they falsely assert that we say, "but by the rule of
virtue," as they boast that they say; although Cyprian says,
nevertheless, no one can be without sin, and whoever should assert that
he is blameless is either proud or a fool. Nor is it with reference to
anything else that he understands the Scripture, "Who shall boast that
he has a pure heart? or who shall boast that he is pure from sins?"(5) I
think that Cyprian would not have needed to be taught by such as these,
what he very well knew, "that, in the time to come, there would be a
reward of good works and a punishment of evil works, but that no one
could then perform the commands which here he might have despised;" and
yet he does not understand and assert the Apostle Paul, who was
assuredly not a contemner of the divine commands, to have said, "To me
to live is Christ, and to die is gain,"(6) on any other account, except
that he reckoned it the greatest gain after this life no longer to be
held in worldly entanglements, no longer to be obnoxious to the sins and
vices of the flesh. Therefore the most blessed Cyprian felt, and in the
truth of the divine Scriptures saw, that even the life of the apostles
themselves, however good, holy, and righteous, suffered some
involvements of worldly entanglements, was obnoxious to some sins and
vices of the flesh; and that they desired death that  they might be free
from those evils, and that they might attain to that perfect
righteousness which would not suffer such things, and which would no
more have to be achieved in the way of command merely, but to be
received in the way of reward. For not even when that shall have come
for which we pray when we say, "Thy kingdom come," will there be in that
kingdom of God no righteousness; since the apostle says, "The kingdom of
God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost." (7) Certainly these three things are commanded among other
divine precepts. Here righteousness is prescribed to us when it is said,
"Do righteousness;"(8) peace is prescribed when it is said, "Have peace
among yourselves;"(9) joy is prescribed when it is said, "Rejoice in the
Lord always."(10) Let, then, the Pelagians deny that these things shall
be in the kingdom of God, where we shall live without end; or let them
be so mad, if it appears good, as to contend that righteousness, peace,
and joy, will be such there as they are here to the righteous. But if
they both shall be, and yet shall not be the same, assuredly here, in
respect of the commandment of them, the doing is to be cared for,--there
the perfection is to be hoped for in the way of reward; when, not being
withheld by any earthly entanglements, and being liable to no sins and
vices of the flesh (on account of which the apostle, as Cyprian received
this testimony, said that to die would be to him gain), we may perfectly
love God, the contemplation of whom will be face to face; we may also
perfectly love our neighbour, since, when the thoughts of the heart are
made manifest, no suspicion of any evil can disturb any one concerning
any one.

 CHAP. 29 [XI.]--THE TESTIMONIES OF AMBROSE  AGAINST THE PELAGIANS AND
FIRST OF CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN.

    But now also to the most glorious martyr! Cyprian, let me add, for
the sake of more amply confuting these men, the most blessed Ambrose;
because even Pelagius praised him so much as to say that in his writings
could be found nothing to be blamed even by his enemies.(1) Since, then,
the Pelagians say that there is no original sin with which infants are
born, and object to the catholics the guilt of the Manichean heresy, who
withstand them on behalf of the most ancient faith of the Church, let
this catholic man of God, Ambrose, praised even by Pelagius himself in
the truth of the faith, answer them concerning this matter. When he was
expounding the prophet Isaiah, he says: "Christ was, therefore, without
spot, because He was not stained even in the usual condition itself of
birth." (2) And in another place in the same work, speaking of the
Apostle Peter, he says: "He offered himself, which he thought before to
be sin, asking for himself that not only his feet but his head also
should be washed, because he had directly understood that by the washing
of the feet, for those who fell in the first man, the filth of the
obnoxious succession was abolished."(2) Also in the same work he says:
"It was preserved, therefore, that of a man and woman, that is, by that
mingling of bodies, no one could be seen to be free from sin; but He who
is free from sin is free also from this kind of conception." Also
writing against the Novatians he says: "All of us men are born under
sin. And our very origin is in corruption, as you have it read in the
words of David, (3) 'For lo, I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins
hath my mother brought the forth.'" (4) Also in the apology of the
prophet David, he says: "Before we are born we are spotted with
contagion, and before the use of light we receive the mischief of that
origin. We are conceived in iniquity." (5) Also speaking of the Lord, he
says: "It was certainly fitting that He who was not to have the sin of a
bodily fall, should feel no natural contagion of generation. Rightly,
therefore, David with weeping deplored in himself these defilements of
nature, and the fact that the stain had begun in man before his
life."(6) Again, in the Ark of Noah he says: "Therefore by one Lord
Jesus the coming salvation is declared to the nations; for He only could
be righteous, although every generation should go astray, nor for any
other reason than that, being born of a virgin, He was not at all bound
by the ordinance of a guilty generation. 'Behold,' he says, 'I was
conceived in iniquities; and in sins has my mother brought me forth;'(7)
he who was esteemed righteous beyond others so speaks. Whom, then,
should I now call righteous unless Him who is free from those chains,
whom the bonds of our common nature do not hold fast?"(8) Behold, this
holy man, most approved, even by the witness of Pelagius, in the
catholic faith, condemned the Pelagians who deny original sin with such
evidence as this; and yet he does not with the Manicheans deny either
God to be the Creator of those who are born, or condemn marriage, which
God ordained and blessed.

CHAP. 30.--THE TESTIMONIES OF AMBROSE CONCERNING GOD'S GRACE.

    The Pelagians say that merit begins from man by free will, to which
God repays the subsequent aid of grace. Let the venerable Ambrose here
also refute them, when he says, in his exposition of the prophet Isaiah,
"that human care without divine help is powerless for healing, and needs
a divine helper." Also, in the treatise which is inscribed, "On the
Avoidance of the World,"(9) he says: "Our discourse is frequent on the
avoidance of this world; and I wish that our disposition were as
cautious and careful as our discourse is easy. But what is worse, the
enticement of earthly lusts frequently creeps in, and the flowing forth
of vanities takes hold of the mind, so that the very thing that you
desire to avoid you think upon, and turn over in your mind; and this it
is difficult for a man to beware of, but to get rid of it is impossible.
Finally, that that is rather a matter to be wished than to be
accomplished the prophet testifies when he says, 'Incline my heart unto
thy testimonies, and not to avarice.'(10) For our heart and our thoughts
are not in our power, seeing that they are suddenly forced forth and
confuse the mind and the soul and draw them in other directions from
those which you have proposed for them;--they recall to things of time,
they suggest worldly things, they obtrude voluptuous thoughts, they
inweave seducing thoughts, and, in the very season in which we are
proposing to lift up our mind, vain thoughts are intruded upon us, and
we are cast down for the most part to things of earth; and who is so
happy as always to rise upwards in his heart? And how can this be done
without the divine help? Absolutely in no manner. Finally, of old
Scripture says the same thing, 'Blessed is the man whose help is of
Thee, O Lord; in his heart is going up.'"(11) What can be said more
openly and more sufficiently? But lest the Pelagians perchance should
answer that, in that very point in which divine help is asked for, man's
merit precedes, saying that that very thing is merit, that by his prayer
he is desiring that divine grace should come to his assistance, let them
give heed to what the same holy man says in his exposition of Isaiah He
says: "And to pray God is a spiritual grace; for no man says that Jesus
is the Lord, except in the Holy Spirit."(1) Whence also, expounding the
Gospel according to Luke,(3) he says: "You see certainly that everywhere
the power of the Lord cooperates with human desires, so that no man can
build without the Lord, no man can undertake anything without the Lord."
Because such a man as Ambrose says this, and commends God's grace, as it
is fitting for a son of promise to do, with grateful piety, does he
therefore destroy free will? Or does he mean grace to be understood as
the Pelagians in their different discourses will have to appear nothing
but law--so that, for instance, God may be believed to help us not to do
what we may know, but to know what we may do? If they think that such a
man of God as this is of this mind, let them hear what he has said about
the law itself. In the book "On the Avoidance of the World," he says:
"The law could stop the mouth of all men; it could not convert their
mind."(3) In another place also, in the same treatise, he says: "The law
condemns the deed; it does not take away its wickedness."(4) Let them
see that this faith fill and catholic man agrees with the apostle who
says, "Now we know that what things soever the law says, it says to
those who are under the law: that every month may be stopped, and all
the world may become guilty before God. Because by the law no flesh
shall be justified in His sight."(5) For from that apostolic opinion
Ambrose took and wrote these things.

CHAP. 31. -- THE TESTIMONIES OF AMBROSE ON THE IMPERFECTION OF PRESENT
RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    But now, since the Pelagians say that there either are or have been
righteous men in tills life who have lived without any sin, to such an
extent that the future life which is to be hoped for as a reward cannot
be more advanced or  more perfect, let Ambrose here also answer them and
refute them. For, expounding Isaiah the Prophet in reference to what is
written, "I have begotten and brought up children, and they have
despised me,"(6) he undertook to dispute concerning the generations
which are of God, and in that argument he quoted the testimony of John
when he says, "He that is born  of God sinneth not."(7) And, treating
the same  very difficult question, he says: "Since in this world there
is none who is free from sin; since John himself says, 'If we say that
we have not sinned, we make Him a liar.'(8) But if they that are born of
God sin not,' and if these words refer to those of them who are in the
world, it is necessary that we should regard them as those numberless
people who have obtained God's grace by the regeneration of the layer.
But yet, when the prophet says, 'All things are waiting upon Thee, that
Thou mayest give them meat in season. That Thou givest them they gather
for themselves; when Thou openest Thine hand, all things shall be filled
with goodness. But when Thou turnest away Thy face, they shall be
troubled: Thou shall take away their breath, and they shall fail, and
shall be turned into their dust. Thou shall send forth Thy Spirit, and
they shall be created: and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth,'(9)
such things as these cannot seem to have been said of any time whatever
but of that future time, in which there shall be a new earth and a new
heaven. Therefore they shall be disturbed that they may take their
beginning. 'And when Thou openest Thy hand all things shall be filled
with goodness,' which is not easily characteristic of this age. For
concerning this age what does Scripture say? 'There is none that doeth
good, no, not one.'(10) If, therefore, there are different
generations,--and here the very entrance into this life is the receiver
of sins to such an extent that even he who begot should be despised;
while another generation does not receive sins;--let us consider whether
by any means there may not be a regeneration for us after the course of
this life,--of which regeneration it is said, 'In the regeneration when
the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory.'(11) For as that is
called the regeneration of washing whereby we are renewed from the filth
of sins washed away, so that seems to be called a regeneration by which
we are purified from every stain of bodily materiality, and are
regenerated in the pure sense of the soul to life eternal; so that every
quality of regeneration may be purer than of  that washing, so that no
suspicion of sins can fall either on a man's doings, or even on his very
thoughts themselves." Moreover, in another place in the same work he
says: "We see it to be impossible that any person created in a body can
be absolutely spotless, since even Paul says I that he is imperfect. For
thus he has it: 'Not that I have already received, or am already
perfect;'(12) and yet after a little he says, 'As many of us, therefore,
as are perfect.'(13) Unless, perchance, there is one perfection in this
world, another after this is completed, of which he says to the
Corinthians, 'When that which is perfect is come;'(14) and elsewhere,
'Till we all come into the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the
Son of God, into the perfect man to the measure of the age of the
fulness of Christ.'(1) As, then, the apostle says that many are placed
in this world who are perfect along with him, but who, if you have
regard to true perfection, could not be perfect, since he says, 'We see
now through a mirror, enigmatically; but then face to face: now I know
in part; but then I shall know even as also I am known:'(2) so also
there both are those who are 'spotless' in this world, and will be those
who are 'spotless' in the kingdom of God, although certainly, if you
consider it accurately, no person can be spotless, because no person is
without sin." Also in the same he says: "We see that, while we live in
this life, we ought to purify ourselves and to seek God; and to begin
from the purification of our soul, and as it were to establish the
foundations of virtue, so that we may deserve to attain the perfection
of our purgation after this life." And again, in the same he says: "But
laden and groaning, who does not say, 'O wretched man that I am! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death?'(3) So with the same
teacher we give all varieties of interpretation. For if he is unhappy
who recognises himself as involved in the evils of the body, certainly
everybody is unhappy; for I should not call that man happy who, being
confused with any darkness of his mind, does not know his own condition.
That, moreover, has not absurdly come to be understood; for if a man who
knows himself is unhappy, assuredly all are wretched, because every one
either recognises his weakness by wisdom, or by folly is ignorant of
it." Moreover, in the treatise "On the Benefit of Death," he says: (4)
"Let death work in us, in order that that may work life also, a good
life after death,--that is, a good life after victory, a good life after
the contest is finished; so that now no longer the law of the flesh may
know how to resist the law of the mind, that no longer we may have any
contention with the body of death." Again, in the same treatise he says:
"Therefore, because the righteous have this reward, that they see the
face of God, and that light which lightens every man, let us henceforth
put on the desire of this kind of reward, that our soul may draw near to
God, our prayer may draw near to Him, our desire may cleave,  to Him,
that we be not separated from Him. And placed here as we are, let us by
meditating, by reading, by seeking, be united with God. Let us know Him
as we can. For we know Him in part here; because here all things are
imperfect, there all are perfect; here we are infants, there we shall be
strong men. 'We see,' says he, 'now through a mirror in an enigma, but
then face to face.' Then, His face being revealed, we shall be allowed
to look upon the glory of God, which now our souls, involved in the
compacted dregs of this body, and shadowed by some stains and filth of
this flesh, cannot clearly see. 'For who,' He says, 'shall see my face
and live?' and rightly. For if our eyes cannot bear the rays of the
sun,--and if any one should gaze too long on the region of the sun he is
said to be blinded,--if a creature cannot look upon a creature without
deceit and offence, how can he without his own peril look upon the
glittering face of the eternal Creator, covered as he is with the
clothing of this body? For who is justified in God's sight, when even
the infant of one day cannot be pure from sin, and no one can boast of
his integrity and pureness of heart?"

         CHAP. 32 [XII.] -- THE PELAGIAN'S HERESY AROSE

                       LONG AFTER AMBROSE.

    It would be too long if I were to seek to mention everything which
the holy Ambrose said and wrote against this heresy of the Pelagians,
which was to arise so long afterwards; not indeed with a view to answer
them, but with a view to declare the catholic faith, and to build up men
in it. Moreover, I neither could nor ought to mention all those things
which Cyprian, most glorious in the Lord, wrote in his letters, whereby
it is shown how this which we hold is the true and truly Christian and
catholic faith, as it was delivered of old by the Holy Scriptures, and
so retained and kept by our fathers and even to this time, in which
these heretics have attempted to destroy it, and as it will hereafter by
God's good will be retained and kept. For that these things and things
of this kind were thus delivered to Cyprian, and by Cyprian, is
testified by the testimonies produced from his letters; and that thus
they were maintained up to our times is shown by these things which
Ambrose wrote about these matters before these heretics had begun to
rage, and catholic ears had shuddered at their profane novelties which
are everywhere; and that thus, moreover, they shall be maintained
hereafter, was declared with sufficient vigour partly by the
condemnation of such opinions as these, partly by their correction. For
whatever they may dare to mutter against the sound faith of Cyprian and
Ambrose, I do not think that they will break out into such a madness as
to dare to call those noted and memorable men of God, Manicheans.

          CHAP. 33. -- OPPOSITION OF THE MANICHEAN AND

                        CATHOLIC DOGMAS.

    What is it, then, which in their raging blindness of mind they are
now spreading about,(5) "that almost throughout the entire West a dogma
not less foolish than impious is taken up;" when by the mercy of God and
by His merciful governance of His Church, the catholic faith has been so
watchful that the dogma, "not less foolish than wicked," as of the
Manicheans, so also of these heretics, should not be taken up? So holy
and learned catholic men, such as are attested to be so by the report of
the whole Church, praise both God's creation, and marriage as ordained
by Him, and the law given by Him by means of the holy Moses, and the
free will implanted into man's nature, and the holy patriarchs and
prophets, with due and fitting proclamation; all which five things the
Manicheans condemn, partly by denying, and partly also by abominating.
Whence it appears that these catholic doctors were far removed from the
notions of the Manicheans, and yet they assert original sin; they assert
God's grace above free will, as antecedent to all merit, so as truly to
afford a gratuitous divine assistance; they assert that the saints lived
righteously in this flesh, in such wise that the help of prayer was
necessary to them, by which their daily sins might be forgiven; and that
a perfected righteousness which could not have sin would be in another
life the reward of those who should live righteously here.

CHAP. 34. -- THE CALLING TOGETHER OF A SYNOD NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY TO THE
CONDEMNATION OF HERESIES.

   What is it, then, that they say, that "subscription was extorted from
simple bishops sitting in their places without any Synodal
congregation"? Was subscription extorted against such heretics as these
from the most blessed and excellent men in the faith, Cyprian and
Ambrose, before such heretics as these were in existence?--seeing that
they overthrow their impious dogmas with such clearness that we can
scarcely find anything more manifest to say against them. Or, indeed,
was there any need of the congregation of a Synod to condemn this open
pest, as if no heresy could at any time be condemned except by a Synodal
congregation?--when, on the contrary, very few heresies can be found for
the sake of condemning which any such necessity has arisen; and those
have been many and incomparably more which have deserved to be accused
and condemned in the place where they arose, and thence could be known
and avoided over the rest of the lands. But the pride of such as these,
which lifts itself up so much against God as not to be willing to glory
in Him but rather in free will, is understood as grasping also at this
glory, that a Synod of the East and West should be gathered together on
their account. In fact, they endeavour, forsooth, to disturb the
catholic world, because, the Lord being against them, they are unable to
pervert it; when rather they ought to have been trodden out wherever
those wolves might have appeared, by watchfulness and pastoral
diligence, after a competent and sufficient judgment made concerning
them; whether with a view of their being healed and changed, or with a
view of their being shunned by the safety and soundness of others, by
the help of the Shepherd of the sheep, who seeks the lost sheep also
among the little ones, who makes the sheep holy and righteous freely;
who both providently instructs them, although sanctified and justified,
yet in their frailty and infirmity to pray for a daily remission for
their daily sins, without which no one lives in this world, even
although he may live well; and mercifully listens to their prayers.

A TREATISE ON GRACE AND FREE WILL.

 EXTRACT FROM AUGUSTIN'S "RETRACTATIONS,"

                       Book II. Chap. 66,

                   ON THE FOLLOWING TREATISE,

                 "DE GRATIA ET LIBERO ARBITRIO."

             There are some persons who suppose that the freedom of the
will is denied whenever God's grace is maintained, and who on their side
defend their liberty of will so peremptorily as to deny the grace of
God. This grace, as they assert, is bestowed according to our own
merits. It is in consequence of their opinions that I wrote the book
entitled On Grace and Free Will. This work I addressed to the monks of
Adrumetum,(1) in whose monastry tint arose the controversy on that
subject, and that in such a manner that some of them were obliged to
consult me thereon. The work begins with these words: "With reference to
those persons who so preach the liberty of the human will."

 TWO LETTERS WRITTEN BY AUGUSTIN TO VALENTINUS

                   AND THE MONKS OF ADRUMETUM,

          AND FORWARDED(1) WITH THE FOLLOWING TREATISE.

                            LETTER I.

               [The 214th of Augustin's Epistles.]

TO MY VERY DEAR LORD AND MOST HONOURED BROTHER AMONG THE MEMBERS OF
CHRIST, VALENTINUS, AND TO THE BRETHREN THAT ARE WITH YOU, AUGUSTIN
SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.

    I. TWO young men, Cresconius and Felix, have found their way to us,
and, introducing themselves as belonging to your brotherhood, have told
us that your monastery was disturbed with no small commotion, because
certain amongst you preach grace in such a manner as to deny that the
will of man is free; and maintain--a more serious matter--that in the
day of judgment God will not render to every man according to his
works.(2) At the same time, they have pointed out to us, that many of
you do not entertain this opinion, but allow that free will is assisted
by the grace of God, so as that we may think and do aright; so that,
when the Lord shall come to render unto every man according to his
works,(2) He shall find those works of ours good which God has prepared
in order that we may walk in them.(3) They who think this think rightly.

    2. "I beseech you therefore, brethren," even as the apostle besought
the Corinthians, "by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all
speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you." For, in
the first place, the Lord Jesus, as it is written in the Gospel of the
Apostle John, "came not to condemn the world, but that the world by
Himself might be saved."(4)  Then, afterwards, as the Apostle Paul
writes, "God shall judge the world(5) when He shall come," as the whole
Church confesses in the Creed, "to judge the quick and the dead." Now, I
would ask, if there is no grace of God, how does He save the world? and
if there is no free will, how does He judge the world? That book of
mine, therefore, or epistle, which the above-mentioned brethren have
brought with them to you, I wish you to understand in accordance with
this faith, so that you may neither deny God's grace, nor uphold free
will in such wise as to separate the latter from the grace of God, as if
without this we could by any means either think or do anything according
to God,--which is quite beyond our power. On this account, indeed, it
is, that the Lord when speaking of the fruits of righteousness said,
"Without me ye can do nothing."(6)

    3. From this you may understand why I wrote the letter which has
been referred to,(7) to Sixtus, presbyter of the Church at Rome, against
the new Pelagian heretics, who say that the grace of God is bestowed
according to our own merits, so that he who glories has to glory not in
the Lord, but in himself,--that is to say, in man, not in the Lord.
This, however, the apostle forbids in these words: "Let no man glory in
man;"(8) while in another passage he says, "He that glorieth let him
glory in the Lord."(9) But these heretics, under the idea that they are
justified by their own selves, just as if God did not bestow on them
this gift, but they themselves obtained it by themselves, glory of
course in themselves, and not in the Lord. Now, the apostle says to
such, "Who maketh thee to differ from another?"(10) and this he does on
the ground that out of the mass of perdition which arose from Adam, none
but God distinguishes a man to make him a vessel to honour, and not to
dishonour.(11) Lest, however, the carnal man in his foolish pride
should, on hearing the question, "Who maketh thee to differ from
another?" either in thought or in word answer and say: My faith, or my
prayer, or my righteousness makes me to differ from other men, the
apostle at once adds these words to the question, and so meets all such
notions, saying, "What hast thou that thou didst not receive? now, if
thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou didst not receive
it?" (1) Now, they boast as if they did not receive their gifts by
grace, who think that they are justified of their own selves, and who,
on this account, glory in themselves, and not in the Lord.

    4. Therefore I have in this letter, which has reached you, shown by
passages of Holy Scripture, which you can examine for yourselves, that
our good works and pious prayers and right faith could not possibly have
been in us unless we had received them all from Him, concerning whom the
Apostle James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from
above, and cometh down from the Father of lights."(2) And so no man can
say that it Is by the merit of his own works, or by the merit of his own
prayers, or by the merit of his own faith, that God's grace has been
conferred upon him; nor suppose that the doctrine is true which those
heretics hold, that the grace of God is given us in proportion to our
own merit. This is altogether a most erroneous opinion; not, indeed,
because there is no desert, good in pious persons, or evil in impious
ones (for how else shall God judge the world?),(3) but because a man is
converted by that mercy and grace of God, of which the Psalmist says,
"As for my God, His mercy shall prevent me;"(4) so that the unrighteous
man is justified, that is, becomes just instead of impious, and begins
to possess that good desert which God will crown when the world shall be
judged.

    5. There were many things which I wanted to send you, by the perusal
whereof you would have been able to gain a more exact and full knowledge
of all that has been done by the bishops in their councils against these
Pelagian heretics. But the brethren were in haste who came to us from
your company. By them we have sent you this letter; which is, however,
not an answer to any communication, because, in truth, they brought us
no epistle from your beloved selves. Yet we had no hesitation in
receiving them; for their simple manners proved to us clearly enough
that there could have been nothing unreal or deceptive in their visit to
us. They were, however, in much haste, as wishing to spend Easter at
home with you; and my earnest prayer is, that so sacred a day may, by
the Lord's help, bring peace to you, and not dissension.

    6. You will, indeed, take the better course (as I earnestly request
you), if you will not refuse to send to me the very person by whom they
say they have been disturbed. For either he does not understand my book,
or else, perhaps, he is himself misunderstood, when he endeavours to
solve and explain a question which is a very difficult one, and
intelligible to few. For it is none other than the question of God's
grace which has caused persons of no understanding to think that the
Apostle Paul prescribes it to us as a rule, "Let us do evil that good
may come."(5) It is in reference to these that the Apostle Peter writes
in his second Epistle; "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such
things, be diligent, that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot
and blameless and account that the long-suffering of our Lord is
salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the
wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his
epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things
hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."(6)

    7. Take good heed, then, to these fearful words of the great
apostle; and when you feel that you do not understand, put your faith in
the meanwhile in the inspired word of God, and believe both that man's
will is free, and that there is also God's grace, without whose help
man's free will can neither be turned towards God, nor make any progress
in God. And what you piously believe, that pray that you may have a wise
understanding of. And, indeed, it is for this very purpose,--that is,
that we may have a wise understanding, that there is a free will. For
unless we understood and were wise with a free will, it would not be
enjoined to us in the words of Scripture, "Understand now, ye simple
among the people; and ye fools, at length be wise,"(7) The very precept
and injunction which calls on us to be intelligent and wise, requires
also our obedience; and we could exercise no obedience without free
will. But if it were in our power to obey this precept to be
understanding and wise by free will, without the help of God's grace, it
would be unnecessary to say to God, "Give me understanding, that I may
learn Thy commandments;"(8) nor would it have been written in the
gospel, "Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand
the Scriptures;"(9) nor should the Apostle James address us in such
words as, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to
all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."(10)
But the Lord is able to grant, both to you and to us, that we may
rejoice over very speedy tidings of your peace and pious unanimity. I
send you greeting, not in my own name only, but of the brethren also who
are with me; and I ask you to pray for us with one accord and with all
earnestness. The Lord be with you.

 LETTER II.

               [The 215th of Augustin's Epistles.]

TO MY VERY DEAR LORD AND MOST HONOURED BROTHER AMONG THE MEMBERS OF
CHRIST, VALENTINUS, AND TO THE BRETHREN THAT ARE WITH YOU, AUGUSTIN
SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.

    1. That Cresconius and Felix, and another Felix, the servants of
God, who came to us from your brotherhood, have spent Easter with us is
known to your Love.(1) We have detained them somewhile longer in order
that they might return to you better instructed against the new Pelagian
heretics, into whose error every one falls who supposes that it is
according to any human merits that the grace of God is given to us,
which alone delivers a man through Jesus Christ our Lord. But he, too,
is no less in error who thinks that, when the Lord shall come to
judgment, a man is not judged according to his works who has been able
to use throughout his life free choice of will. For only infants, who
have not yet done any works of their own, either good or bad, will be
condemned on account of original sin alone, when they have riot been
delivered by the Saviour's grace in the layer of regeneration. As for
all others who, in the use of their free will, have added to original
sin, sins of their own commission, but who have not been delivered by
God's grace from the power of darkness and removed into the kingdom of
Christ, they will receive judgment according to the deserts not of their
original sin only, but also of the acts of their own will. The good,
indeed, shall receive their reward according to the merits of their own
good-will, but then they received this very good-will through the grace
of God; and thus is accomplished that sentence of Scripture,
"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 man that worketh good; to the Jew first, and
also to the Gentile."(2)

    2. Touching the very difficult question of will and grace, I have
felt no need of treating it further in this letter, having given them
another letter also when they were about to return in greater haste. I
have written a book likewise for you,(3) and if you, by the Lord's help,
read it, and have a lively understanding of it, I think that no further
dissension on this subject will arise among you. They take with them
other documents besides, which, as we supposed, ought to be sent to you,
in order that from these you may ascertain what means the catholic
Church has adopted for repelling, in God's mercy, the poison of the
Pelagian heresy. For the letters to Pope Innocent, Bishop of Rome, from
the Council of the province of Carthage, and from the Council of
Numidia, and one written with exceeding care by five bishops, and what
he wrote back to these three; our letter also to Pope Zosimus about the
African Council, and his answer addressed to all bishops throughout the
world; and a brief constitution, which we drew up against the error
itself at a later plenary Council of all Africa; and the above-mentioned
book of mine, which I have just written for you,--all these we have both
read over with them, while they were with us, and have now despatched by
their hands to you.(4)

    3. Furthermore, we have read to them the work of the most blessed
martyr Cyprian on the Lord's Prayer, and have pointed out to them how He
taught that all things pertaining to our morals, which constitute right
living, must be sought from our Father which is in heaven, test, by
presuming on free will, we fall from divine grace. From the same
treatise we have also shown them how the same glorious martyr has taught
us that it behoves us to pray even for our enemies who have not yet
believed in Christ, that they may believe; which would of course be all
in vain unless the Church believed that even the evil and unbelieving
wills of men might, by the grace of God, be converted to good. This book
of St. Cyprian, however, we have not sent you, because they told us that
you possessed it among yourselves already. My letter, also, which had
been sent to Sixtus, presbyter of the Church at Rome? and which they
brought with them to us, we read over with them, and pointed out how
that it had been written in opposition to those who say that God's grace
is bestowed according to our merits,--that is to say, in opposition to
the same Pelagians.

    4. As far, then, as lay in our power, we have used our influence
with them, as both your brethren and our own, with a view to their
persevering in the soundness of the catholic faith, Which neither denies
free will whether for an evil or a good life, nor attributes to it so
much power that it can avail anything without God's grace, whether that
it may be changed from evil to good, or that it may persevere in the
pursuit of good, or that it may attain to eternal good when there is no
further fear of failure. To yourselves, too, my most dearly beloved, I
also, in this letter, give the same exhortation which the apostle
addresses to us all, "not to think of yourselves more highly than you
ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to
every man the measure of faith."(1)

    5. Mark well the counsel which the Holy Ghost gives us by Solomon:
"Make straight paths for thy feet, and order thy ways aright. Turn not
aside to the right hand nor to the left, but turn away thy foot from the
evil way; for the Lord knoweth the ways on the right hand, but those on
the left are perverse. He will make thy ways straight, and will direct
thy steps in peace."(2) Now consider, my brethren, that in these words
of Holy Scripture, if there were no free will, it would not be said,
"Make straight paths for thy feet, and order thy ways; turn not aside to
the right hand, nor to the left." Nor yet, were this possible for us to
achieve without the grace of God, would it be afterwards added, "He will
make thy ways straight, and will direct thy steps in peace."

    6. Decline, therefore, neither to the right hand nor to the left,
although the paths on the right hand are praised, and those on the left
hand are blamed. This is why he added, "Turn away thy foot from the evil
way,"--that is, from the left-hand path. This he makes manifest in the
following words, saying, "For the Lord knoweth the ways on the right
hand; but those on the left are perverse." In those ways we ought surely
to walk which the Lord knows; and it is of these that we read in the
Psalm, "The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, but the way of the
ungodly shall perish;"(3) for this way, which is on the left hand, the
Lord does not know. As He will also say at last to such as are placed on
His left hand at the day of judgment: "I know you not."(4)  Now what is
that which He knows not, who knows all things, both good and evil, in
man? But what is the meaning of the words, "I know you not," unless it
be that you are now such as I never made you? Precisely as that passage
runs, which is spoken of the Lord Jesus Christ, that "He knew no
sin."(5) How knew it not, except that He had never made it? And,
therefore, how is to be understood the passage, "The ways which are on
the right hand the Lord knoweth," except in the sense that He made those
ways Himself,--even "the paths of the righteous," which no doubt are
"those good works that God," as the apostle tells us, "hath before
ordained that we should walk in them"?(6) Whereas the left-hand
ways--those perverse paths of the unrighteous--He truly knows nothing
of, because He never made them for man, but man made them for himself.
Wherefore tie says, "The perverse ways of the wicked I utterly abhor;
they are on the left hand."

    7. But the reply is made: Why did He say, "Turn not aside to the
right hand, nor to the left," when he clearly ought rather to have said,
Keep to the right hand, and turn not off to the left, if the right-hand
paths are good? Why, do we think, except this, that the paths on the
right hand are so good that it is not good to turn off from them, even
to the right? For that man, indeed, is to be understood as declining to
the right who chooses to attribute to himself, and not to God, even
those good works which appertain to right-hand ways. Hence it was that
after saying, "For the Lord knoweth the ways on the right hand, but
those on the left hand are perverse," as if the objection were raised to
Him, Wherefore, then, do you not wish us to turn aside to the right? He
immediately added as follows: "He will Himself make thy paths straight,
and will direct thy ways in peace." Understand, therefore, the precept,
"Make straight paths for thy feet, and order thy ways aright," in such a
sense as to know that whenever you do all this, it is the Lord God who
enables you to do it. Then you will not turn off to the right, although
you are walking in right-hand paths, not trusting in your own strength;
and He will Himself be your strength, who will make straight paths for
your feet, and will direct your ways in peace.

    8. Wherefore, most dearly beloved, whosoever says, My will suffices
for me to perform good works, declines to the right. But, on the other
hand, they who think that a good way of life should be forsaken, when
they hear God's grace so preached as to lead to the supposition and
belief that it of itself makes men's wills from evil to good, and it
even of itself keeps them what it has made them; and who, as the result
of this opinion, go on to say, "Let us do evil that good may
come,"(7)--these persons decline to the left. This is the reason why he
said to you, "Turn not aside to the right hand, nor to the left;" in
other words, do not uphold free will in such wise as to attribute good
works to it without the grace of God, nor so defend and maintain grace
as if, by reason of it, you may love evil works in security and
safety,--which may God's grace itself avert from you! Now it was the
words of such as these which the apostle had in view when he said, "What
shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"(8)
And to this cavil of erring men, who know nothing about the grace of
God, he returned such an answer as he ought in these words: "God forbid.
How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Nothing
could have been said more succinctly, and yet to the point. For what
more useful gift does the grace of God confer upon us, in this present
evil world, than our dying unto sin? Hence he shows himself ungrateful
to grace itself who chooses to live in sin by reason of that whereby we
die unto sin. May God, however, who is rich in mercy, grant you both to
think soundly and wisely, and to continue perseveringly and
progressively to the end in every good determination and purpose. For
yourselves, for us, for all who love you, and for those who hate you,
pray that this gift may be attained,--pray earnestly and vigilantly in
brotherly peace. Live unto God. If I deserve any favour at your hands,
let brother Florus come to me.

 A TREATISE ON GRACE AND FREE WILL.

             BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO;

     ADDRESSED TO VALENTINUS AND THE MONKS OF ADRUMETUM, AND

                     COMPLETED IN ONE BOOK.

                WRITTEN IN A.D. 426 OR A.D. 427.

IN THIS TREATISE AUGUSTIN TEACHES US TO BEWARE OF MAINTAINING GRACE BY
DENYING FREE WILL, OR FREE WILL BY DENYING GRACE; FOR THAT IT IS EVIDENT
FROM THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE THAT THERE IS IN MAN A FREE CHOICE OF
WILL; AND THERE ARE ALSO IN THE SAME SCRIPTURES INSPIRED PROOFS GIVEN OF
THAT VERY GRACE OF GOD WITHOUT WHICH WE CAN DO NOTHING GOOD. AFTERWARDS,
IN OPPOSITION TO THE PELAGIANS, HE PROVES THAT GRACE IS NOT BESTOWED
ACCORDING TO OUR MERITS. HE EXPLAINS HOW ETERNAL LIFE, WHICH IS RENDERED
TO GOOD WORKS, IS REALLY OF GRACE. HE THEN GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE
GRACE WHICH IS GIVEN TO US THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS NEITHER THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, NOR NATURE, NOR SIMPLY REMISSION OF SINS; BUT THAT
IT IS GRACE THAT MAKES US FULFIL THE LAW, AND CAUSES NATURE TO BE
LIBERATED FROM THE DOMINION OF SIN. HE DEMOLISHES THAT VAIN SUBTERFUGE
OF THE PELAGIANS, TO THE EFFECT THAT "GRACE, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT BESTOWED
ACCORDING TO THE MERITS OF GOOD WORKS, IS YET GIVEN ACCORDING TO THE
MERITS OF THE ANTECEDENT GOOD-WILL OF THE MAN WHO BELIEVES AND PRAYS."
HE INCIDENTALLY TOUCHES THE QUESTION, WHY GOD COMMANDS WHAT HE MEANS
HIMSELF TO GIVE, AND WHETHER HE IMPOSES ON US ANY COMMANDS WHICH WE ARE
UNABLE TO PERFORM. HE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LOVE WHICH IS INDISPENSABLE
FOR FULFILLING THE COMMANDMENTS IS ONLY WITHIN US FROM GOD HIMSELF. HE
POINTS OUT THAT GOD WORKS IN MEN'S HEARTS TO INCLINE THEIR WILLS
WHITHERSOEVER HE WILLETH, EITHER TO GOOD WORKS ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY,
OR TO EVIL ONES IN RETURN FOR THEIR DESERVING; HIS JUDGMENT, INDEED,
BEING SOMETIMES MANIFEST, SOMETIMES HIDDEN, BUT ALWAYS RIGHTEOUS.
LASTLY, HE TEACHES US THAT A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THE GRATUITOUSNESS OF
GRACE,NOT GIVEN IN RETURN FOR OUR DESERTS, IS SUPPLIED TO US IN THE CASE
OF THOSE INFANTS WHICH ARE SAVED, WHILE OTHERS PERISH THOUGH THEIR CASE
IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE REST.

CHAP. I [I.]--THE OCCASION AND ARGUMENT OF THIS WORK.

    WITH reference to those persons who so preach and defend man's free
will, as boldly to deny, and endeavour to do away with, the grace of God
which Calls us to Him, and delivers us from our evil deserts, and by
which we obtain the good deserts which lead to everlasting life: we have
already said a good deal in discussion, and committed it to writing, so
far as the Lord has vouchsafed to enable us. But since there are some
persons who so defend God's grace as to deny man's free will, or who 
suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have
determined to write somewhat on this point to your Love,[1] my brother
Valentinus, and the rest of you, who are serving God together under the
impulse of a mutual love. For it has been told me concerning you,
brethren, by some members of your brotherhood who have visited us, and
are the bearers of this communication of ours to you, that there are
dissensions among you on this subject. This, then, being the case,
dearly beloved, that you be not disturbed by the obscurity of this
question, I counsel you first to thank God for such things as you
understand; but as for all which is beyond the reach of your mind, pray
for understanding from the Lord, observing, at the same time peace and
love among yourselves; and until He Himself lead you to perceive what at
present is beyond your comprehension, walk firmly on the ground of which
you are sure. This is the advice of the Apostle Paul, who, after saying
that he was not yet perfect,[2] a little later adds, "Let us, therefore,
as many as are perfect, be thus minded,"[3]--meaning perfect to a
certain extent, but not having attained to a perfection sufficient for
us; and then immediately adds, "And if, in any thing, ye be otherwise
minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereunto we
have already attained, let us walk by the same rule."[4] For by walking
in what we have attained, we shall be able to advance to what we have
not yet attained,--God revealing it to us if in anything we are
otherwise minded,--provided we do not give up what He has already
revealed.

CHAP. 2 [II]--PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF FREE WILL IN MAN FROM THE PRECEPTS
ADDRESSED TO HIM BY GOD.

    Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there
is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not
recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the
fact that God's precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless
he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain
the promised rewards. For they are given that no one might be able to
plead the excuse of ignorance, as the Lord says concerning the Jews in
the gospel: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have
sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin."[5] Of what sin does He
speak but of that great one which He foreknew, while speaking thus, that
they would make their own--that is, the death they were going to inflict
upon Him? For they did not have "no sin" before Christ came to them in
the flesh. The apostle also says: "The wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold back
the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible
things of Him are from the creation of the world clearly seen--being
understood by the things that are made--even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are inexcusable."[6] In what sense does he
pronounce them to be "inexcusable," except with reference to such excuse
as human pride is apt to allege in such words as, "If I had only known,
I would have done it; did I not fail to do it because I was ignorant of
it?" or," I would do it if I knew how; but I do not know, therefore I do
not do it"? All such excuse is removed from them when the precept is
given them, or the knowledge is made manifest to them how to avoid sin.

CHAP. 3.--SINNERS ARE CONVICTED WHEN ATTEMPTING TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES BY
BLAMING GOD, BECAUSE THEY HAVE FREE WILL.

    There are, however, persons who attempt to find excuse for
themselves even from God. The Apostle James says to such:  "Let no man
say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempteth He any man. But every man is tempted when he
is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then, when lust hath
conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth
forth death."[7] Solomon, too, in his book of Proverbs, has this answer
for such as wish to find an excuse for themselves from God Himself: "The
folly of a man spoils his ways;  but he blames God in his heart."[8] And
in the book of Ecclesiasticus we read: "Say not thou, It is through the
Lord that I fell away; for thou oughtest not to do the things that He
hateth: nor do thou say, He hath caused me to err; for He hath no need
of the sinful man. The Lord hateth all abomination, and they that fear
God love it not. He Himself made man from the beginning, and left him in
the hand of His counsel. If thou be willing, thou shalt keep His
commandments, and perform true fidelity. He hath set fire and water
before thee: stretch forth thine hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man
is life and death, and whichsoever pleaseth him shall be given to
him."[9] Observe how very plainly is set before our view the free choice
of the human will.

CHAP. 4.--THE DIVINE COMMANDS WHICH ARE MOST SUITED TO THE WILL ITSELF
ILLUSTRATE ITS FREEDOM.

         What is the import of the fact that in so many passages God
requires all His commandments to  be kept and fulfilled ? How does He
make this requisition, if there is no free will ? What means "the happy
man," of whom the Psalmist says that "his will has been the law of the
Lord "?[1] Does he not clearly enough show that a man by his own will
takes his stand in the law of God ? Then again, there are so many
commandments which in some way are expressly adapted to the human will;
for instance, there is, "Be not overcome of evil,"[2] and others of
similar import, such as, "Be not like a horse or a mule, which have no
understanding;"[3] and, "Reject not the counsels of thy mother;"[4] and,
"Be not wise in thine own conceit;"[5] and, "Despise not the chastening
of the Lord;"[6] and, "Forget not my law;"[7] and, "Forbear not to do
good to the poor;"[8] and, "Devise not evil against thy friend;"[9] and,
"Give no heed to a worthless woman;[10] and, "He is not inclined to
understand how to do good;"[11] and, "They refused to attend to my
counsel;"[12] with numberless other passages of the inspired Scriptures
of the Old Testament. And what do they all show us but the free choice
of the human will? So, again, in the evangelical and apostolic books of
the New Testament what other lesson is taught us ? As when it is said,
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth; "[13] and, "Fear not
them which kill the body;"[14] and, "If any man will come after me, let
him deny himself;"[15] and again, "Peace on earth to men of good
will."[16] So also that the Apostle Paul says: "Let him do what he
willeth; he sinneth not if he marry. Nevertheless, he that standeth
stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own
will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin,
doeth well."[17] And so again," If I do this willingly, I have a
reward;"[18] while in another passage he says, "Be ye sober and
righteous, and sin not;"[19] and again, "As ye have a readiness to will,
so also let there be a prompt performance;"[20] then he remarks to
Timothy about the younger widows, "When they have begun to wax wanton
against Christ, they choose to marry." So in another passage, "All that
will to live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution;"[21] while
to Timothy himself he says, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee."[22]
Then to Philemon he addresses this explanation: "That thy benefit should
not be as it were of necessity, but of thine own will."[23] Servants
also he advises to obey their masters "with a good will."[24] In strict
accordance with this, James says: "Do not err, my beloved brethren . . .
and have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect to
persons;"[25] and," Do not speak evil one of another."[26] So also John
in his Epistle writes," Do not love the world,"[27] and other things of
the same import. Now wherever it is said, "Do not do this," and "Do not
do that," and wherever there is any requirement in the divine
admonitions for the work of the will to do anything, or to refrain from
doing anything, there is at once a sufficient proof of free will. No
man, therefore, when he sins, can in his heart blame God for it, but
every man must impute the fault to himself. Nor does it detract at all
from a man's own will when he performs any act in accordance with God.
Indeed, a work is then to be pronounced a good one when a person does it
willingly; then, too, may the reward of a good work be hoped for from
Him concerning whom it is written, "He shall reward every man according
to his works."[28]

CHAP. 5.--HE SHOWS THAT IGNORANCE AFFORDS NO SUCH EXCUSE AS SHALL FREE
THE OFFENDER FROM PUNISHMENT; BUT THAT TO SIN WITH KNOWLEDGE IS A GRAVER
THING THAN TO SIN IN IGNORANCE.

    The excuse such as men are in the habit of alleging from ignorance
is taken away from those persons who know God's commandments. But
neither will those be without punishment who know not the law of God.
"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law;
and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."[29]
Now the apostle does not appear to me to have said this as if he meant
that they would have to suffer something worse who in their sins are
ignorant of the law than they who know it. [III.] It is seemingly worse,
no doubt, "to perish" than "to be judged;" but inasmuch as he was
speaking of the Gentiles and of the Jews when he used these words,
because the former were without the law, but the latter had received the
law, who can venture to say that the Jews who sin in the law will not
perish, since they refused to believe in Christ, when it was of them
that the apostle said, "They shall be judged by the law"? For without
faith in Christ no man can be delivered; and therefore they will be so
judged that they perish. If, indeed, the condition of those who are
ignorant of the law of God is worse than the condition of those who know
it, how can that be true which the Lord says in the gospel: "The servant
who knows not his lord's will, and commits things worthy of stripes,
shall be beaten with few stripes; whereas the servant who knows his
lord's will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with
many stripes "?[1] Observe how clearly He here shows that it is a graver
matter for a man to sin with knowledge than in ignorance. And yet we
must not on this account betake ourselves for refuge to the shades of
ignorance, with the view of finding our excuse therein. It is one thing
to be ignorant, and another thing to be unwilling to know. For the will
is at fault in the case of the man of whom it is said, "He is not
inclined to understand, so as to do good."[2] But even the ignorance,
which is not theirs who refuse to know, but theirs who are, as it were,
simply ignorant, does not so far excuse any one as to exempt him from
the punishment of eternal fire, though his failure to believe has been
the result of his not having at all heard what he should believe; but
probably only so far as to mitigate his punishment. For it was not said
without reason: "Pour out Thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known
Thee;"[3] nor again according to what the apostle says: "When He shall
come from heaven in a flame of fire to take vengeance on them that know
not God."[4] But yet in order that we may have that knowledge that will
prevent our saying, each one of us, "I did not know," "I did not hear,"
"I did not understand;" the human will is summoned, in such words as
these: "Wish not to be as the horse or as the mule, which have no
understanding;"[5] although it may show itself even worse, of which it
is written, "A stubborn servant will not be reproved by words; for even
if he understand, yet he will not obey."[6] But when a man says, "I
cannot do what I am commanded, because I am mastered by my
concupiscence," he has no longer any excuse to plead from ignorance, nor
reason to blame God in his heart, but he recognises and laments his own
evil in himself; and still to such an one the apostle says: "Be not
overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good;"[7] and of course the
very fact that the injunction, "Consent not to be overcome," is
addressed to him, undoubtedly summons the determination of his will. For
to consent and to refuse are functions proper to will.

CHAP. 6 [IV.]--GOD'S GRACE TO BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THE PELAGIANS; THE
PELAGIAN HERESY NOT AN OLD ONE.

    It is, however, to be feared lest all these and similar testimonies
of Holy Scripture (and undoubtedly there are a great many of them), in
the maintenance of free will, be understood in such a way as to leave no
room for God's assistance and grace in leading a godly life and a good
conversation, to which the eternal reward is due; and lest poor wretched
man, when he leads a good life and performs good works (or rather thinks
that he leads a good life and performs good works), should dare to glory
in himself and not m the Lord, and to put his hope of righteous living
in himself alone; so as to be followed by the prophet Jeremiah's
malediction when he says, "Cursed is the man who has hope in man, and
maketh strong the flesh of his arm, and whose heart departeth from the
Lord."[8] Understand, my brethren, I pray you, this passage of the
prophet. Because the prophet did not say, "Cursed is the man who has
hope in his own self," it might seem to some that the passage, "Cursed
is the man who has hope in man," was spoken to prevent man having hope
in any other man but himself. In order, therefore, to show that his
admonition to man was not to have hope in himself, after saying, "Cursed
is the man who has hope in man," he immediately added, "And maketh
strong the flesh of his arm." He used the word "arm" to designate power
in operation. By the term "flesh," however, must be understood human
frailty. And therefore he makes strong the flesh of his arm who supposes
that a power which is frail and weak (that is, human) is sufficient for
him to perform good works, and therefore puts not his hope in God for
help. This is the reason why he subjoined the further clause, "And whose
heart departeth from the Lord." Of this character is the Pelagian
heresy, which is not an ancient one, but has only lately come into
existence. Against this system of error there was first a good deal of
discussion; then, as the ultimate resource, it was referred to sundry
episcopal councils, the proceedings of which, not, indeed, in every
instance, but in some, I have despatched to you for your perusal. In
order, then, to our performance of good works, let us not have hope in
man, making strong the flesh of our arm; nor let our heart ever depart
from the Lord, but let it say to him," Be Thou my helper; forsake me
not, nor despise me, O God of my salvation."[9]

          CHAP. 7.--GRACE IS NECESSARY ALONG WITH FREE

                    WILL TO LEAD A GOOD LIFE.

    Therefore, my dearly beloved, as we have now proved by our former
testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free
determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let
us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God,
without which we are not able to do any good thing. And first of all, I
will say something about the very profession which you make in your
brotherhood. Now your society, in which you are leading lives of
continence, could not hold together unless you de-

447

spised conjugal pleasure. Well, the Lord was one day conversing on this
very topic, when His disciples remarked to Him, "If such be the case of
a man with his wife, it is not good to marry." He then answered them,
"All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." And
was it not to Timothy's free will that the apostle appealed, when he
exhorted him in these words: "Keep thyself continent"?(2) He also
explained the power of the will in this matter when He said, "Having no
necessity, but possessing power over his own will, to keep his
virgin."(3) And yet. "all men do not receive this saying, except those
to whom the power is given." Now they to whom this is not given either
are unwilling or do not fulfil what they will; whereas they to whom it
is given so will as to accomplish what they will. In order, therefore,
that this saying, which is not received by all men, may yet be received
by some, there are both the gift of God and free will.

         CHAP. 8.--CONJUGAL CHASTITY IS ITSELF THE GIFT

                             OF GOD.

    It is concerning conjugal chastity itself that the apostle treats,
when he says, "Let him do what he will, he sinneth not if he marry;"(4)
and yet this too is God's gift, for the Scripture says, "It is by the
Lord that the woman is joined to her husband." Accordingly the teacher
of the Gentiles, in one of his discourses, commends both conjugal
chastity, whereby adulteries are prevented, and the still more perfect
continence which foregoes all cohabitation, and shows how both one and
the other are severally the gift of God. Writing to the Corinthians, he
admonished married persons not to defraud each other; and then, after
his admonition to these, he added: "But I could wish that all men were
even as I am myself,"(5)--meaning, of course, that he abstained from all
cohabitation; and then proceeded to say: "But every man hath his own
gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." (5) Now, do
the many precepts which are written in the law of God, forbidding all
fornication and adultery, indicate anything else than free will? Surely
such precepts would not be given unless a man had a will of his own,
wherewith to obey the divine commandments. And yet it is God's gift
which is indispensable for the observance of the precepts of chastity.
Accordingly, it is said in the Book of Wisdom: "When I knew that no one
could be continent, except God gives it, then this became a point of
wisdom to know whose gift it was."(6) "Every man," however, "is tempted
when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed"(7) not to observe
and keep these holy precepts of chastity. If he should say in respect of
these commandments, "I wish to keep them, but am mastered by my
concupiscence," then the Scripture responds to his free will, as I have
already said: "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."(8)
In order, however, that this victory may be gained, grace renders its
help; and were not this help given, then the law would be nothing but
the strength of sin. For concupiscence is increased and receives greater
energies from the prohibition of the law, unless the spirit of grace
helps.

This explains the statement of the great Teacher of the Gentiles, when
he says, "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the
law."(9) See, then, I pray you, whence originates this confession of
weakness, when a man says, "I desire to keep what the law commands, but
am overcome by the strength of my concupiscence." And when his will is
addressed, and it is said, "Be not overcome of evil," of what avail is
anything but the succour of God's grace to the accomplishment of the
precept? This the apostle himself afterwards stated; for after saying
"The strength of sin is the law" he immediately subjoined, "But thanks
be to God, who giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus
Christ."(10) It follows, then, that the victory in which sin is
vanquished is nothing else than the gift of God, who in this contest
helps free will.

CHAP. 9.--ENTERING INTO TEMPTATION. PRAYER IS A PROOF OF GRACE.

    Wherefore, our Heavenly Master also says: "Watch and pray, that ye
enter pot into temptation."(11) Let every man, therefore, when fighting
against his own concupiscence, pray that he enter not into temptation;
that is, that he be not drawn aside and enticed by it. But he does not
enter into temptation if he conquers his evil concupiscence by good
will. And yet the determination of the human will is insufficient,
unless the Lord grant it victory in answer to prayer that it enter not
into temptation. What, indeed, affords clearer evidence of the grace of
God than the acceptance of prayer in any petition? If our Saviour had
only said, "Watch that ye enter not into temptation," He would appear to
have done nothing further than admonish man's will; but since He added
the words, "and pray," He showed that God helps us not to enter into
temptation. It is to the free will of man that the words are addressed:
"My son, remove not thyself from the chastening of the Lord." (12) And
the Lord said: "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not."
(13) So that a man is assisted by grace, in order that his will may not
be uselessly commanded.

 CHAP. 10 [V.]--FREE WILL AND GOD'S GRACE ARE

                    SIMULTANEOUSLY COMMENDED.

    When God says, "Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,"(I) one
of these clauses--that which invites our return to God--evidently
belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us,
belongs to His grace. Here, possibly, the Pelagians think they have a
justification for their opinion which they so prominently advance, that
God's grace is given according to our merits. In the East, indeed, that
is to say, in the province of Palestine, in which is the city of
Jerusalem, Pelagius, when examined in person by the bishop,(2) did not
venture to affirm this. For it happened that among the objections which
were brought up against him, this in particular was objected, that he
maintained that the grace of God was given according to our merits,--an
opinion which was so diverse from catholic doctrine, and so hostile to
the grace of Christ, that unless he had anathematized it, as laid to his
charge, he himself must have been anathematized on its account. He
pronounced, indeed, the required anathema upon the dogma, but how
insincerely his later books plainly show; for in them he maintains
absolutely no other opinion than that the grace of God is given
according to our merits. Such passages do they collect out of the
Scriptures,--like the one which I just now quoted, "Turn ye unto me, and
I will turn unto you,"--as if it were owing to the merit of our turning
to God that His grace were given us, wherein He Himself even turns unto
us. Now the persons who hold this opinion fail to observe that, unless
our turning to God were itself God's gift, it would not be said to Him
in prayer, "Turn us again, O God of hosts;"(3) and, "Thou, O God, wilt
turn and quicken us;"(4) and again, "Turn us, O God of our
salvation,"(5)--with other passages of similar import, too numerous to
mention here. For, with respect to our coming unto Christ, what else
does it mean than our being turned to Him by believing? And yet He says:
"No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my
Father."(6)

CHAP. II.--OTHER PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH THE PELAGIANS ABUSE.

    Then, again, there is the Scripture contained  in the second book of
the Chronicles: "The  Lord is with you when ye are with Him: and  if ye
shall seek Him ye shall find Him; but if ye forsake Him, He also will
forsake you."(7) his passage, no doubt, clearly manifests the choice of
the will. But they who maintain that God's grace is given according to
our merits, receive these testimonies of Scripture in such a manner as
to believe that our merit lies in the circumstance of our "being with
God," while His grace is given according to this merit, so that He too
may be with us. In like manner, that our merit lies in the fact of "our
seeking God," and then His grace is given according to this merit, in
order that we may find Him." Again, there is a passage in the first book
of the same Chronicles which declares the choice of the will: "And thou,
Solomon, my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve Him with a
perfect heart and with a willing mind, for the Lord searcheth all
hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts; if thou
seek Him, He will be found of thee; but if thou forsake Him, He will
cast thee off for ever."(8) But these people find some room for human
merit in the clause, "If thou seek Him," and then the grace is thought
to be given according to this merit in what is said in the ensuing
words, "He will be found of thee." And so they labour with all their
might to show that God's grace is given according to our merits,--in
other words, that grace is not grace. For, as the apostle most expressly
says, to them Who receive reward according to merit "the recompense is
not reckoned of grace but of debt."(9)

CHAP. 12.--HE PROVES OUT OF ST. PAUL THAT GRACE IS NOT GIVEN ACCORDING
TO MEN'S MERITS.

    Now there was, no doubt, a decided merit in the Apostle Paul, but it
was an evil one, while he persecuted the Church, and he says of it: "I
am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of
God."(10) And it was While he had this evil merit that a good one was
rendered to him instead of the evil; and, therefore, he went on at once
to say, "But by the grace of God I am what I am."(11) Then, in order to
exhibit also his free will, he added in the next clasue, "And His grace
within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they
all." This free will of man he appeals to in the case of others also, as
when he says to them, "We beseech you that ye receive not the grace of
God in vain." (12) Now, how could he so enjoin them, if they received
God's grace in such a manner as to lose their own will? Nevertheless,
lest the will itself should be deemed capable of doing any good thing
without the grace of God, after saying, "His grace within me was not in
vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all," he immediately
added the qualifying clause, "Yet not I, but the grace of God which was
with me."(11) In other words, Not I alone, but the grace of God with me.
And thus, neither was it the grace of God alone, nor was it he himself
alone, but it was the grace Of God with him. For his call, however, from
heaven and his conversion by that great and most effectual call, God's
grace was alone, because his merits, though great, were yet evil. Then,
to quote one passage more, he says to Timothy: "But be thou a
co-labourer with the gospel, according to the power of God, who saveth
us and calleth us with His holy calling,--not according to our works but
according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ
Jesus."(1) Then, elsewhere, he enumerates his merits, and gives us this
description of their evil character: "For we ourselves also were
formerly foolish, unbelieving, deceived, serving divers lusts and
pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one
another."(2) Nothing, to be sure, but punishment was due to such a
course of evil desert! God, however, who returns good for evil by His
grace, which is not given according to our merits, enabled the apostle
to conclude his statement and say: "But when the kindness and love of
our Saviour God shone upon us,--not of works of righteousness which we
have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the layer of
regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost, whom He shed upon us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by
His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal
life."(3)

CHAP. 13 [VI.]--THE GRACE OF GOD IS NOT GIVEN ACCORDING TO MERIT, BUT
ITSELF MAKES ALL GOOD DESERT.

    From these and similar passages of Scripture, we gather the proof
that God's grace is not given according to our merits. The truth is, we
see that it is given not only where there are no good, but even where
there are many evil merits preceding: and we see it so given daily. But
it is plain that when it has been given, also our good merits begin to
be,--yet only by means of it; for, were that only to withdraw itself,
man falls, not raised up, but precipitated by free will. Wherefore no
man ought, even when he begins to possess good merits, to attribute them
to himself, but to God, who is thus addressed by the Psalmist: "Be Thou
my helper, forsake me not."(4) By saying, "Forsake me not," he shows
that if he were to be forsaken, he is unable of himself to do any good
thing. Wherefore also he says: "I said in my abundance, I shall never be
moved,"(5) for he thought that he had such an abundance of good to call
his own that he would not be moved. But in order that he might be taught
whose that was, of which he had begun to boast as if it were his own, he
was admonished by the gradual desertion of God's grace, and says: "O
Lord, in Thy good pleasure Thou didst add strength to my beauty. Thou
didst, however, turn away Thy face, and then I was troubled and
distressed."(6) Thus, it is necessary for a man that he should be not
only justified when unrighteous by the grace of God,--that is, be
changed from unholiness to righteousness,--when he is requited with good
for his evil; but that, even after he has become justified by faith,
grace should accompany him on his way, and he should lean upon it, lest
he fall. On this account it is written concerning the Church herself in
the book of Canticles: "Who is this that cometh up in white raiment,
leaning upon her kinsman?"(7) Made white is she who by herself alone
could not be white. And by whom has she been made white except by Him
who says by the prophet, "Though your sins be as purple, I will make
them white as snow"?(8) At the time, then, that she was made white, she
deserved nothing good; but now that she is made white, she walketh
well;--but it is only by her continuing ever to lean upon Him by whom
she was made white. Wherefore, Jesus Himself, on whom she leans that was
made white, said to His disciples, "Without me ye can do nothing."(9)

            CHAP. 14.--PAUL FIRST RECEIVED GRACE THAT

                     HE MIGHT WIN THE CROWN.

    Let us return now to the Apostle Paul, who, as we have found,
obtained God's grace, who recompenses good for evil, without any good
merits of his own, but rather with many evil merits. Let us see what he
says when his final sufferings were approaching, writing to Timothy: "I
am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I
have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the
faith."(10) He enumerates these as, of course, now his good merits; so
that, as after his evil merits he obtained grace, so now, after his good
merits, he might receive the crown. Observe, therefore, what follows:
"There is henceforth laid up for me," he says, "a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at
that day."(11) Now, to whom should the righteous Judge award the crown,
except to him on whom the merciful Father had bestowed grace? And how
could the crown be one "of righteousness," unless the grace had preceded
which "justifieth the ungodly"? How, moreover, could these things now be
awarded as of debt, unless the other had been before given as a free
gift ?

 CHAP. 15.--THE PELAGIANS PROFESS THAT THE ONLY GRACE WHICH IS NOT GIVEN
ACCORDING TO OUR MERITS IS THAT OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

    When, however, the Pelagians say that the only grace which is not
given according to our merits is that whereby his sins are forgiven to
man, but that at which is given in the end, that is, eternal life, is
rendered to our preceding merits: they must not be allowed to go without
an answer. If, indeed, they so understand our merits as to acknowledge
them, too, to be the gifts of God, then their opinion would not deserve
reprobation. But inasmuch as they so preach human merits as to declare
that a man has them of his own self, then most rightly the apostle
replies: "Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou,
that thou didst not receive? Now, if thou didst receive it, why dost
thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?"(1) To a man who holds such
views, it is perfect truth to say: It is His own gifts that God crowns,
not your merits,--if, at least, your merits are of your own self, not of
Him. If, indeed, they are such, they are evil; and God does not crown
them; but if they are good, they are God's gifts, because, as the
Apostle James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from
above, and cometh down from the Father of lights." (2) In accordance
with which John also, the Lord's forerunner, declares: "A man can
receive nothing except it be given him from heaven"(3)--from heaven, of
course, because from thence came also the Holy Ghost, when Jesus
ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.(4)
If, then, your good merits are God's gifts, God does not crown your
merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.

CHAP. 16 [VII.]--PAUL FOUGHT, BUT GOD GAVE THE VICTORY: HE RAN, BUT GOD
SHOWED MERCY.

    Let us, therefore, consider those very merits of the Apostle Paul
which he said the Righteous Judge would recompense with the crown of
righteousness; and let us see whether these merits of his were really
his own--I mean, whether they were obtained by him of himself, or were
the gifts of God. "I have fought," says he, "the good fight; I have
finished my course; I have kept the faith."(5) Now, in the first place,
these good works were nothing, unless they had been preceded by good
thoughts. Observe, therefore, what he says concerning these very
thoughts. His words, when writing to the Corinthians, are: "Not that we
are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our
sufficiency is of God."(6) Then let us look at each several merit. "I
have fought the good fight." Well, now, I want to know by what power he
fought. Was it by a power which he possessed of himself, or by strength
given to him from above? It is impossible to suppose that so great a
teacher as the apostle was ignorant of the law of God, which proclaims
the following in Deuteronomy: "Say not in thine heart, My own strength
and energy of hand hath wrought for me this great power; but thou shall
remember the Lord thy God, how it is He that giveth thee strength to
acquire such power."(7) And what avails "the good fight," unless
followed by victory? And who gives the victory but He of whom the
apostle says himself, "Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ"?(8) Then, in another passage, having
quoted from the Psalm these words: "Because for Thy sake we are killed
all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for slaughter,"(9) he went
on to declare: "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors,
through Him that loved us." (10) Not by ourselves, therefore, is the
victory accomplished, but by Him who hath loved us. In the second clause
he says, "I have finished my course." Now, who is it that says this, but
he who declares in another passage, "So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."(11)
And this sentence can by no means be transposed, so that it could be
said: It is not of God, who showeth mercy, but of the man who willeth
and runneth. If any person be bold enough to express the matter thus, he
shows himself most plainly to be at issue with the apostle.

            CHAP. 17+--THE FAITH THAT HE KEPT WAS THE

                        FREE GIFT OF GOD,

    His last clause runs thus: "I have kept the faith." But he who says
this is the same who declares in another passage, "I have obtained mercy
that I might be faithful."(12) He does not say, "I obtained mercy
because I was faithful," but "in order that I might be faithful," thus
showing that even faith itself cannot be had without God's mercy, and
that it is the gift of God. This he very expressly teaches us when he
says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves; it is the gift of God."(13) They might possibly say, "We
received grace because we believed;" as if they would attribute the
faith to themselves, and the grace to God. Therefore, the apostle having
said, "Ye are saved through faith," added," And that not of yourselves,
but it is the gift of God." And again, lest they should say they
deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, "Not of
works, lest any man should boast."(1) Not that he denied good works, or
emptied them of their value, when he says that God renders to every man
according to his works;(2) but because works proceed from faith, and not
faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of
righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself, concerning which it is
written, "The just shall live by faith."(3)

           CHAP. 18.--FAITH WITHOUT GOOD WORKS IS NOT

                    SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION.

    Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's
statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
works of the law,"(4) have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a
man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it
that such a character should be deemed "a vessel of election" by the
apostle, who, after declaring that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,"(5) adds at once, "but faith
which worketh by love." It is such faith which severs God's faithful
from unclean demons,--for even these "believe and tremble,"(6) as the
Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not
the faith by which the just man lives,--the faith which works by love in
such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal
life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom
likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great
teacher of the Gentiles has designated "eternal life" itself as His
gracious "gift."(7)

CHAP. 19 [VIII.]--HOW IS ETERNAL LIFE BOTH A REWARD FOR SERVICE AND A
FREE GIFT OF GRACE?

    And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by
the Lord's gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the
Scripture most openly declares: "Then He shall reward every man
according to his works:"(8) how can eternal life be a matter of grace,
seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously,
as the apostle himself tells us: "To him that worketh is the reward not
reckoned of grace, but of debt;"(9) and again: "There is a remnant saved
according to the election of grace;" with these words immediately
subjoined: "And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise
grace is no more grace"?(10) How, then, is eternal life by grace, when
it is received from works? Does the apostle perchance not say that
eternal life is a grace? Nay, he has so called it, with a clearness
which none can possibly gainsay. It requires no acute intellect, but
only an attentive reader, to discover this. For after saying, "The wages
of sin is death," he at once added, "The grace of God is eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord."(7)

	CHAP. 20.--THE QUESTION ANSWERED. JUSTIFICATION IS GRACE SIMPLY AND
ENTIRELY, ETERNAL LIFE IS REWARD AND GRACE.

    This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of
solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which
are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because
of what is said by the Lord Jesus: "Without me ye can do nothing."(11)
And the apostle himself, after saying, "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;"(12) saw, of course, the possibility that men
would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to
those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again,
the possibility of men's boasting of their good works, as if they were
of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these
opinions on both sides, he immediately added, "For we are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them."(13) What is the purport of
his saying, "Not of works, lest any man should boast," while commending
the grace of God? And then why does he afterwards, when giving a reason
for using such words, say, "For we are His workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus unto good works"? Why, therefore, does it run, "Not of
works, lest any man should boast"? Now, hear and understand. "Not of
works" is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in
yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded
(that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, "We are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Now he does not
here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in
reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, "Create in
me a clean heart, O God;"(14) concerning which also the apostle says,
"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things
are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are
of God."(15) We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, "in
the good works which" we have not ourselves prepared, but "God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them." It follows, then, dearly
beloved, beyond all doubt,  that as your good life is nothing else than
God's  grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good
life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as
that is given  gratuitously to which it is given. But that to  which it
is given is solely and simply grace;

this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its
reward;--grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in
order that it may be true, because it is true, that God "shall reward
every man according to his works."(1)

           CHAP. 21 [IX.]--ETERNAL LIFE IS "GRACE FOR

                             GRACE."

    Perhaps you ask whether we ever read in the Sacred Scriptures of
"grace for grace." Well you possess the Gospel according to John, which
is perfectly clear in its very great light. Here John the Baptist says
of Christ: "Of His fulness have we all received, even grace for
grace."(2) So that out of His fulness we have received, according to our
humble measure, our particles of ability as it were for leading good
lives--"according as God hath dealt to every man his measure of
faith;"(3) because "every man hath his proper gift of God; one after
this manner, and another after that."(4) And this is grace. But, over
and above this, we shall also receive "grace for grace," when we shall
have awarded to us eternal life, of which the apostle said: "The grace
of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,"(5) having just
said that "the wages of sin is death." Deservedly did he call it
"wages," because everlasting death is awarded as its proper due to
diabolical service. Now, when it was in his power to say, and rightly to
say: "But the wages of righteousness is eternal life," he yet preferred
to say: "The grace of God is eternal life;" in order that we may hence
understand that God does not, for any merits of our own, but from His
own divine compassion, prolong our existence to everlasting life. Even
as the Psalmist says to his soul, "Who crowneth thee with mercy and
compassion."(6) Well, now, is not a crown given as the reward of good
deeds? It is, however, only because He works good works in good men, of
whom it is said, "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do
of His good pleasure,"(7) that the Psalm has it, as just now quoted: "He
crowneth thee with mercy and compassion," since it is through His mercy
that we perform the good deeds to which the crown is awarded. It is not,
however, to be for a moment supposed, because he said, "It is God that
worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure," that
free will is taken away. If this, indeed, had been his meaning, he would
not have said just before, "Work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling."(8) For when the command is given "to work," their free will
is addressed; and when it is added, "with fear and trembling," they are
warned against boasting of their good deeds as if they were their own,
by attributing to themselves the performance of anything good. It is
pretty much as if the apostle had this question put to him: "Why did you
use the phrase, 'with fear and trembling'?" And as if he answered the
inquiry of his examiners by telling them, "For it is God which worketh
in you." Because if you fear and tremble, you do not boast of your good
works--as if they were your own, since it is God who works within you.

CHAP. 22 [X.] --WHO IS THE TRANSGRESSOR OF THE LAW? THE OLDNESS OF ITS
LETTER. THE NEWNESS OF ITS SPIRIT.

    Therefore, brethren, you ought by free will not do evil but do good;
this, indeed, is the lesson taught us in the law of God, in the Holy
Scriptures--both Old and New. Let us, however, read, and by the Lord's
help understand, what the apostle tells us: "Because by the deeds of the
law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by the law is
the knowledge of sin."(9) Observe, he says "the knowledge," not "the
destruction," of sin. But when a man knows sin, and grace does not help
him to avoid what he knows, undoubtedly the law works wrath. And this
the apostle explicitly says in another passage. His words are: "The law
worketh wrath."(10) The reason of this statement lies in the fact that
God's wrath is greater in the case of the transgressor who by the law
knows sin, and yet commits it; such a man is thus a transgressor of the
law, even as the apostle says in another sentence," For where no law is,
there is no transgression."(10) It is in accordance with this principle
that he elsewhere says, "That we may serve m newness of spirit, and not
in the oldness of the letter;"(11) wishing the law to be here understood
:,by "the oldness of the letter," and what else by "newness of spirit"
than grace? Then, that it might not be thought that he had brought any
accusation, or suggested any blame, against the law, he immediately
takes himself to task with this inquiry: "What shall we say, then? Is
the law sin? God forbid." He then adds the statement: "Nay, I had not
known sin but by the law;" (12) which is of the same import as the
passage above quoted: "By the law is the knowledge of sin."[1] Then:
"For I had not known lust," he says, "except the law had said, 'Thou
shalt not covet." But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought
in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For
I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I
found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy; and the
commandment holy, just, and good. Was, then, that which is good made
death unto me ? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, worked
death in me by that which is good,--in order that the sinner, or[3] the
sin, might by the commandment become beyond measure."[4] And to the
Galatians he writes: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works
of the law, except through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and
not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh
be justified."[5]

CHAP. 23 [XI.]--THE PELAGIANS MAINTAIN THAT  THE LAW IS THE GRACE OF GOD
WHICH HELPS US NOT TO SIN.

    Why, therefore, do those very vain and perverse Pelagians say that
the law is the grace of God by which we are helped not to sin? Do they
not, by making such an allegation, unhappily and beyond all doubt
contradict the great apostle ? He, indeed, says, that by the law sin
received strength against man; and that man, by the commandment,
although it be holy, and just, and good, nevertheless dies, and that
death works in him through that which is good, from which death there is
no deliverance unless the Spirit quickens him, whom the letter had
killed,--as he says in another passage, "The letter killeth, but the
Spirit giveth life." [6] And yet these obstinate persons, blind to God's
light, and deaf to His voice, maintain that the letter which kills gives
life, and thus gainsay the quickening Spirit. "Therefore, brethren"
(that I may warn you with better effect in the words of the apostle
himself), "we are debtors not to the flesh, to live after the flesh; for
if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye through: the Spirit
do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."[7] I have said this to
deter your free will from evil, and to exhort it to good by apostolic
words; but yet you must not therefore glory in man,--that is to say, in
your own selves,--and not in the Lord, when you live not after the
flesh, but through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh. For in
order that they to whom the apostle addressed this language might not
exalt themselves, thinking that they were themselves able of their own
spirit to do such good works as these, and not by the Spirit of God,
after saying to them, "If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of
the flesh, ye shall live," he at once added, "For as many as are led by
the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." [8] When, therefore, you
by the Spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh, that you may have life,
glorify Him, praise Him, give thanks to Him by whose Spirit you are so
led as to be able to do such things as show you to be the children of
God; "for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God."

CHAP. 24 [XII.] -- WHO MAY BE SAID TO WISH TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN
RIGHTEOUSNESS.  "GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS," SO CALLED, WHICH MAN HAS FROM
GOD.

As many, therefore, as are led by their own spirit, trusting in their
own virtue, with the addition merely of the law's assistance, without
the help of grace, are not the sons of God. Such are they of whom the
same apostle speaks as "being ignorant of God's righteousness, and
wishing to  establish their own righteousness, who have not submitted
themselves to the righteousness of God."[9] He said this of the Jews,
who in their self-assumption rejected grace, and therefore did not
believe in Christ. Their own righteousness, indeed, he says, they wish
to establish; and this righteousness is of the law,--not that the law
was established by themselves, but that they had constituted their
righteousness in the law which is of God, when they supposed themselves
able to fulfil that law by their own strength, ignorant of God's
righteousness,--not indeed that by which God is Himself righteous, but
that which man has from God. And that you may know that he designated as
theirs the righteousness which is of the law, and as God's that which
man receives from God, hear what he says in another passage, when
speaking of Christ: "For whose sake I counted all things not only as
loss, but I deemed them to be dung, that I might win Christ, and be
found in Him--not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but
that which is through the faith of Christ, which is of God."[10] Now
what does he mean by "not having my own righteousness, which is of the
law," when the law is really not his at all, but God's,--except this,
that he called it his own righteousness, although it was of the law,
because he thought he could fulfil the law by his own will, without the
aid of grace which is through faith in Christ? Wherefore, after saying,
"Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law," he immediately
subjoined, "But that which is through the faith of Christ, which is of
God." This is what they were ignorant of, of whom he says, "Being
ignorant of God's righteousness,"--that is, the righteousness which is
of God (for it is given not by the letter, which kills, but by the
life-giving Spirit), "and wishing to establish their own righteousness,"
which he expressly described as the righteousness of the law, when he
said, "Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law;" they were
not subject to the righteousness of God,--in other words, they submitted
not themselves to the grace of God. For they were under the law, not
under grace, and therefore sin had dominion over them, from which a man
is not freed by the law, but by grace. On which account he elsewhere
says, "For sin shall not have dominion over you; because ye are not
under the law, but under grace." [1] Not that the law is evil; but
because they are under its power, whom it makes guilty by imposing
commandments, not by aiding. It is by grace that any one is a doer of
the law; and without this grace, he who is placed under the law will be
only a hearer of the law. To such persons he addresses these words: "Ye
who are justified by the law are fallen from grace."[2]

CHAP.  25 [XIII.]  -- AS THE  LAW  IS  NOT,  SO NEITHER IS OUR NATURE 
ITSELF THAT GRACE BY WHICH WE ARE CHRISTIANS.

    Now who can be so insensible to the words of the apostle, who so
foolishly, nay, so insanely ignorant of the purport of his statement, as
to venture to affirm that the law is grace, when he who knew very well
what he was saying emphatically declares, "Ye who are justified by the
law are fallen from grace" ? Well, but if the law is not grace, seeing
that in order that the law itself may be kept, it is not the law, but
only grace which can give help, will not nature at any rate be grace?
For this, too, the Pelagians have been bold enough to aver, that grace
is the nature in which we were created, so as to possess a rational
mind, by which we are enabled to understand,--formed as we are in the
image of God, so as to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the
earth. This, however, is not the grace which the apostle commends to us
through the faith of Jesus Christ. For it is certain that we possess
this nature in common with ungodly men and unbelievers; whereas the
grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ belongs only to them
to whom the faith itself appertains. "For all men have not faith."[3]
Now, as the apostle, with perfect truth, says to those who by wishing to
be justified by the law have fallen from grace, "If righteousness come
by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;"[4] so likewise, to those who
think that the grace which he commends and faith in Christ receives, is
nature, the same language is with the same degree of truth applicable:
if righteousness come from nature, then Christ is dead in vain. But the
law was in existence up to that time, and it did not justify; and nature
existed too, but it did not justify. It was not, then, in vain that
Christ died, in order that the law might be fulfilled through Him who
said, "I am come not to destroy the law, but to  fulfil it;" [5] and
that our nature, which was lost through Adam, might through Him be
recovered, who said that "He was come to seek and to save that which was
lost;"[6] in whose coming the old fathers likewise who loved God 
believed.

CHAP. 26. -- THE PELAGIANS CONTEND THAT THE GRACE, WHICH IS NEITHER THE
LAW NOR NATURE, AVAILS ONLY TO THE REMISSION OF PAST SINS, BUT NOT TO
THE AVOIDANCE OF FUTURE ONES.

    They also maintain that God's grace, which is given through the
faith of Jesus Christ, and which is neither the law nor nature, avails
only for the remission of sins that have been committed, and not for the
shunning of future ones, or the subjugation of those which are now
assailing us. Now if all this were true, surely after offering the
petition of the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors," we could hardly go on and say, "And lead us not into
temptation."[7] The former petition we present that our sins may be
forgiven; the latter, that they may be avoided or subdued,--a favour
which we should by no means beg of our Father who is in heaven if we
were able to accomplish it by the virtue of our human will. Now I
strongly advise and earnestly require your Love s to read attentively
the book of the blessed Cyprian which he wrote On the Lord's Prayer. As
far as the Lord shall assist you, understand it, and commit it to
memory. In this work you will see how he so appeals to the free will of
those whom he edifies in his treatise, as to show them, that whatever
they have to fulfil in the law, they must ask for in the prayer. But
this, of course, would be utterly empty if the human will were
sufficient for the performance without the help of God.

 CHAP. 27 [XIV.]--GRACE EFFECTS THE FULFILMENT OF THE LAW, THE
DELIVERANCE OF NATURE, AND THE SUPPRESSION OF SIN'S DOMINION.

    It has, however, been shown to demonstration that instead of really
maintaining free will, they have only inflated a theory of it, which,
having no stability, has fallen to the ground. Neither the knowledge of
God's law, nor nature, nor the mere remission of sins is that grace
which is given to us through our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is this very
grace which accomplishes the fulfilment of the law, and the liberation
of nature, and the removal of the dominion of sin. Being, therefore,
convicted on these points, they resort to another expedient, and
endeavour to show in some way or other that the grace of God is given us
according to our merits. For they say: "Granted that it is not given to
us according to the merits of good works, inasmuch as it is through it
that we do any good thing, still it is given to us according to the
merits of a good will; for," say they, "the good will of him who prays
precedes his prayer, even as the will of the believer preceded his
faith, so that according to these merits the grace of God who hears,
follows."

              CHAP. 28.--FAITH IS THE GIFT OF GOD.

    I have already discussed [1] the point concerning faith, that is,
concerning the will of him who believes, even so far as to show that it
appertains to grace,--so that the apostle did not tell us, "I have
obtained mercy because I was faithful;" but he said, "I have obtained
mercy in order to be faithful."[2] And there are many other passages of
similar import,--among them that in which he bids us "think soberly,
according as God hath dealt out to every man the proportion of
faith;"[3] and that which I have already quoted: "By grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God;"[4]
and again another in the same Epistle to the Ephesians: "Peace be to the
brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus
Christ;"[5] and to the same effect that passage in which he says, "For
unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him,
but also to suffer for His sake."[6] Both alike are therefore due to the
grace of God,--the faith of those who believe, and the patience of those
who suffer, because the apostle spoke of both as given. Then, again,
there is the passage, especially noticeable, in which he, says, "We,
having the same spirit of faith,"[7] for  his phrase is not "the
knowledge of faith," but "the spirit of faith;" and he expressed himself
thus in order that we might understand how that faith is given to us,
even when it is not sought, so that other blessings may be granted to it
at its request. For "how," says he, "shall they call upon Him in whom
they have not believed?" s The spirit of grace, therefore, causes us to
have faith, in order that through faith we may, on praying for it,
obtain the ability to do what we are commanded. On this account the
apostle himself constantly puts faith before the law; since we are not
able to do what the law commands unless we obtain the strength to do it
by the prayer of faith.

CHAP. 29. -- GOD IS ABLE TO CONVERT OPPOSING WILLS, AND TO TAKE AWAY
FROM THE HEART ITS HARDNESS.

    Now if faith is simply of free will, and is not given by God, why do
we pray for those who will not believe, that they may believe ? This it
would be absolutely useless to do, unless we believe, with perfect
propriety, that Almighty God is able to turn to belief wills that are
perverse and opposed to faith. Man's free will is addressed when it is
said, "Today, if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts."[9] But
if God were not able to remove from the human heart even its obstinacy
and hardness, He would not say, through the prophet, "I will take from
them their heart of stone, and will give them a heart of flesh."[10]
That all this was foretold in reference to the New Testament is shown
clearly enough by the apostle when he says, "Ye are our epistle, ...
written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in
tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." [11] We must not,
of course, suppose that such a phrase as this is used as if those might
live in a fleshly[12] way who ought to live spiritually; but inasmuch as
a stone has no feeling, with which man's hard heart is compared, what
was there left Him to compare man's intelligent heart with but the
flesh, which possesses feeling? For this is what is said by the prophet
Ezekiel: "I will give them another heart, and I will put a new spirit
within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will
give them a heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep
mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be
their God, saith the Lord."[13] Now can we possibly, without extreme
absurdity, maintain that there previously existed in any man the good
merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart,
when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than
a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against
God? For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a
heart of stone.

CHAP. 30.--THE GRACE BY WHICH THE STONY HEART IS REMOVED IS NOT PRECEDED
BY GOOD DESERTS, BUT BY EVIL ONES.

    In another passage, also, by the same prophet, God, in the clearest
language, shows us that it is not owing to any good merits on the part
of men, but for His own name's sake, that He does these things. This is
His language: "This I do, O house of Israel,[1] but for mine holy name's
sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I
will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which
ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I
am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you
before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and
gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
Then will I sprinkle you with clean water, and ye shall be clean: from
all your own filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;
and the stony heart shall be taken away out of your flesh, and I will
give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and will
cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do
them."[2] Now who is so blind as not to see, and who so stone-like as
not to feel, that this grace is not given according to the merits of a
good will, when the Lord declares and testifies "It is I, O house of
Israel, who do this, but for my holy name's sake "? Now why did He say
"It is I that do it, but for my holy name's sake," were it not that they
should not think that it was owing to their own good merits that these
things were happening, as the Pelagians hesitate not unblushingly to
say? But there were not only no good merits of theirs, but the Lord
shows that evil ones actually preceded; for He says, "But for my holy
name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen." Who can fail to
observe how dreadful is the evil of profaning the Lord's own holy name ?
And yet, for the sake of this very name of mine, says He, which ye have
profaned, I, even I, will make you good but not for your own sakes; and,
as He adds "I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the
heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them." He says that He
sanctifies His name, which He had already declared to be holy.
Therefore, this is just what we pray for in the Lord's Prayer--"Hollowed
be Thy name."[3] We ask for the hallowing among men of that which is in
itself undoubtedly always holy. Then it follows, "And the heathen shall
know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified
in you." Although, then, He is Himself always holy, He is, nevertheless,
sanctified in those on whom He bestows His grace, by taking from them
that stony heart by which they profaned the name of the Lord.

CHAP. 31 [XV.] -- FREE WILL HAS ITS FUNCTION IN THE HEART'S CONVERSION;
BUT GRACE TOO HAS ITS.

    Lest, however, it should be thought that men themselves in this
matter do nothing by free will, it is said in the Psalm, "Harden not
your hearts;"[4] and in Ezekiel himself, "Cast away from you all your
transgressions, which ye have impiously committed against me; and make
you a new heart and a new spirit; and keep all my commandments. For why
will ye die, O house of Israel, saith the Lord ? for I have no pleasure
in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: and turn ye, and
live."[5] We should remember that it is He who says, "Turn ye and live,"
to whom it is said in prayer, "Turn us again, O God."[6] We should
remember that He says, "Cast away from you all your transgressions,"
when it is even He who justifies the ungodly. We should remember that He
says, "Make you a new heart and a new spirit," who also promises, "I
will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you."[7]
How is it, then, that He who says, "Make you," also says, "I will give
you " ? Why does He command, if He is to give ? Why does He give if man
is to make, except it be that He gives what He commands when He helps
him to obey whom He commands ? There is, however, always within us a
free will,--but it is not always good; for it is either free from
righteousness when it serves sin,--and then it is evil,--or else it is
free from sin when it serves righteousness,--and then it is good. But
the grace of God is always I good; and by it it comes to pass that a man
is of a good will, though he was before of an evil one. By it also it
comes to pass that the very good will, which has now begun to be, is
enlarged, and made so great that it is able to fulfil the divine
commandments which it shall wish, when it shall once firmly and
perfectly wish. This is the purport of what the Scripture says: "If thou
wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments;" [8]  so that the man who wills
but is not able knows that he does not yet fully will, and prays that he
may have so great a will that it may suffice for keeping the
commandments. And thus, indeed, he receives assistance to perform what
he is commanded. Then is the will of use when we have ability; just as
ability is also then of use when we have the will. For what does it
profit us if we will what we are unable to do, or else do not will what
we are able to do ?

CHAP. 32 [XVI.] -- IN WHAT SENSE IT IS RIGHTLY SAID THAT, IF WE LIKE, WE
MAY KEEP GOD'S COMMANDMENTS.

    The Pelagians think that they know something great when they assert
that "God would not command what He knew could not be done by man." Who
can be ignorant of this? But God commands some things which we cannot
do, in order that we may know what we ought to ask of Him. For this is
faith itself, which obtains by prayer what the law commands. He, indeed,
who said, "If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments," did in the
same book of Ecclesiasticus afterwards say, "Who shall give a watch
before my mouth, and a seal of wisdom upon my lips, that I fall not
suddenly thereby, and that my tongue destroy me not."[1] Now he had
certainly heard and received these commandments: "Keep thy tongue from
evil, and thy lips from speaking guile."[2] Forasmuch, then, as what he
said is true: "If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments," why does
he want a watch to be given before his mouth, like him who says in the
Psalm, "Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth "?[3] Why is he not
satisfied with God's commandment and his own will; since, if he has the
will, he shall keep the commandments How many of God's commandments are
directed against pride ! He is quite aware of them; if he will, he may
keep them. Why, therefore, does he shortly afterwards say, "O God,
Father and God of my life, give me not a proud look" ?[4] The law had
long ago said to him, "Thou shalt not covet;" [5] let him then only
will, and do what he is bidden, because, if he has the will, he shall
keep the commandments. Why, therefore, does he afterwards say, "Turn
away from me concupiscence"?[6] Against luxury, too, how many
commandments has God enjoined! Let a man observe them; because, if he
will, he may keep the commandments. But what means that cry to God, "Let
not the greediness of the belly nor lust of the flesh take hold on me !"
?[7] Now,  if we were to put this question to him personally, he would
very rightly answer us and say, From that prayer of mine, in which I
offer this particular petition to God, you may understand in what sense
I said, "If thou wilt, thou mayest keep the commandments." For it is
certain that we keep the commandments if we will; but because the will
is prepared by the Lord, we must ask of Him for such a force of will as
suffices to make us act by the willing. It is certain that it is we that
will when we will, but it is He who makes us will what is good, of whom
it is said (as he has just now expressed it), "The will is prepared by
the Lord."[8] Of the same Lord it is said, "The steps of a man are
ordered by the Lord, and his way doth He will."[9] Of the same Lord
again it is said, "It is God who worketh in you, even to will!"[10] It
is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us
act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, "I will
make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do
them."[11] When he says, "I will make you ... to do them," what else
does He say in fact than, "I will take away from you your heart of
stone,"[12] from which used to arise your inability to act, "and I will
give you a heart of flesh,"[13] in order that you may act? And what does
this promise amount to but this: I will remove your hard heart, out of
which you did not act, and I will give you an obedient heart, out of
which you shall act ? It is He who causes us to act, to whom the human
suppliant says, "Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth."[3] That is to
say: Make or enable me, O Lord, to set a watch before my mouth,--a
benefit which he had already obtained from God who thus described its
influence: "I set a watch upon my mouth."[14]

CHAP. 33 [XVII.]--A GOOD WILL MAY BE SMALL AND WEAK; AN AMPLE WILL,
GREAT LOVE. OPERATING AND COOPERATING GRACE.

    He, therefore, who wishes to do God's commandment, but is unable,
already possesses a good will, but as yet a small and weak one; he will,
however, become able when he shall have acquired a great and robust
will. When the martyrs did the great commandments which they obeyed,
they acted by a great will,--that is, with great love. Of this love the
Lord Himself thus speaks: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a
man lay down his life for his friends."[15] In accordance with this, the
apostle also says, "He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law.
For this: Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other
commandment, it is briefly comprehended 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."[1] This love
the Apostle Peter did not yet possess, when he for fear thrice denied
the Lord.[2] "There is no fear in love," says the Evangelist John in his
first Epistle, "but perfect love casteth out fear."[3] But yet, however
small and imperfect his love was, it was not wholly wanting when he said
to the Lord, "I will lay down my life for Thy sake;"[4] for he supposed
himself able to effect what he felt himself willing to do. And who was
it that had begun to give him his love, however small, but He who
prepares the will, and perfects by His co-operation what He initiates by
His operation? Forasmuch as in beginning He works in us that we may have
the will, and in perfecting works with us when we have the will.[5] On
which account the apostle says, "I am confident of this very thing, that
He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of
Jesus Christ."[6] He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we
may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates
with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of
piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we
will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: "It is
God which worketh in you, even to will."[7] While of His co-working with
us, when we will and act by willing, the apostle says, "We know that in
all things there is co-working for good to them that love God."[8] What
does this phrase, "all things," mean, but the terrible and cruel
sufferings which affect our condition ? That burden, indeed, of Christ,
which is heavy for our infirmity, becomes light to love. For to such did
the Lord say that His burden was light,[9] as Peter was when he suffered
for Christ, not as he was when he denied Him.

CHAP. 34. -- THE APOSTLE'S EULOGY OF LOVE. CORRECTION TO BE ADMINISTERED
WITH LOVE.

    This charity, that is, this will glowing with intensest love, the
apostle eulogizes with these words: "Who shall separate us from the love
of Christ ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine,
or nakedness, or peril, or the sword ? (As it is written, For Thy sake
we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors,
through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor
life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord."[10] And in another passage he says, "And yet I show unto you a
more excellent way. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of
angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling
cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I
could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I
bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be
burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long,
and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed
up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in
the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,
endureth all things. Love never faileth."[11] And a little afterwards he
says, "And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest
of these is love. Follow after love."[12] He also says to the Galatians,
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty
for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the
law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself."[13] This is the same in effect as what he writes
to the Romans: "He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."[14] In
like manner he says to the Colossians, "And above all these things, put
on love, which is the bond of perfectness."[15] And to Timothy he
writes, "Now the end of the commandment is love;" and he goes on to
describe the quality of this grace, saying, "Out of a pure heart, and of
a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned."[16] Moreover, when he says
to the Corinthians, "Let all your things be done with love,"[17] he
shows plainly enough that even those chastisements which are deemed
sharp and bitter by those who are corrected thereby, are to be
administered with love. Accordingly, in another passage, after saying,
"Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak,
be patient toward all men," he immediately added, "See that none render
evil for evil unto any man."[18] Therefore, even when the unruly are
corrected, it is not rendering evil for evil, but contrariwise, good.
However, what but love worketh all these things ?

                CHAP. 35.--COMMENDATIONS OF LOVE.

    The Apostle Peter, likewise, says, "And, above all things, have
fervent love among yourselves: for love shall cover the multitude of
sins."[19] The Apostle James also says, "If ye fulfil the royal law,
according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye
do well."[1] So also the Apostle John says, "He that loveth his brother
abideth in the right;"[2] again, in another passage, "Whosoever doeth
not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother;
for this is the message which we have heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another."[3] Then he says again, "This is His
commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ,
and love one another."[4] Once more: "And this commandment have we from
Him that he who loveth God love his brother also."[5] Then shortly
afterwards he adds, "By this we know that we love the children of God,
when we love God, and keep His commandments; for this is the love of
God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not
grievous."[6] While, in his second Epistle, it is written, "Not as
though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from
the beginning, that we love one another."[7]

CHAP. 36.--LOVE COMMENDED BY OUR LORD HIMSELF.

    Moreover, the Lord Jesus Himself teaches us that the whole law and
the prophets hang upon the two precepts of love to God and love to our
neighbour. Concerning these two commandments the following is written in
the Gospel according to St. Mark: "And one of the scribes came, and
having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that He had
answered them well, asked Him: Which is the first commandment of all ?
And Jesus answered him: The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength.[8] This is the first commandment. And the
second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.[9]
There is none other commandment greater than these."[10] Also, in the
Gospel according to St. John, He says, "A new commandment I give unto
you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love
one another. By this shall all men know that, ye are my disciples, if ye
have love to one  another."[11]

CHAP. 37 [XVIII.]--THE LOVE WHICH FULFILS THE COMMANDMENTS IS NOT OF
OURSELVES, BUT OF GOD.

    All these commandments, however, respecting love or charity[12]
(which are so great, and such that whatever action a man may think he
does well is by no means well done if done without love) would be given
to men in vain if they had not free choice of will. But forasmuch as
these precepts are given in the law, both old and new (although in the
new came the grace which was promised in the old, but the law without
grace is the letter which killeth, but in grace the Spirit which giveth
life), from what source is there in men the love of God and of one's
neighbour but from God Himself ? For indeed, if it be not of God but of
men, the Pelagians have gained the victory; but if it come from God,
then we have vanquished the Pelagians. Let, then, the Apostle John sit
in judgment between us; and let him say to us, "Beloved, let us love one
another."[13] Now, when they begin to extol themselves on these words of
John, and to ask why this precept is addressed to us at all if we have
not of our own selves to love one another, the same apostle proceeds at
once, to their confusion, to add, "For love is of God."![13] It is not
of ourselves, therefore, but it is of God. Wherefore, then, is it said,
"Let us love one another, for love is of God," unless it be as a precept
to our free will, admonishing it to seek the gift of God ? Now, this
would be indeed a thoroughly fruitless admonition if the will did not
previously receive some donation of love, which might seek to be
enlarged so as to fulfil whatever command was laid upon it. When it is
said, "Let us love one another," it is law; when it is said, "For love
is of God," it is grace. For God's "wisdom carries law and mercy upon
her tongue."[14] Accordingly, it is written in the Psalm, "For He who
gave the law will give blessings."[15]

CHAP. 38.--WE WOULD NOT LOVE GOD UNLESS HE FIRST LOVED US. THE APOSTLES
CHOSE CHRIST BECAUSE THEY WERE CHOSEN; THEY WERE NOT CHOSEN BECAUSE THEY
CHOSE CHRIST.

    Let no one, then, deceive you, my brethren, for we should not love
God unless He first loved us. John again gives us the plainest proof of
this when he says, "We love Him because He first loved us."[16] Grace
makes us lovers of the law; but the law itself, without grace, makes us
nothing but breakers of the law. And nothing else than this is shown us
by the words of our Lord when He says to His disciples, Ye have not
chosen me, but I have chosen you."[17] For if we first loved Him, in
order that by this merit He might love us, then we first chose Him that
we might deserve to be chosen by Him. He, however, who is the Truth says
otherwise, and flatly contradicts this vain conceit of men. "You have
not chosen me," He says. If, therefore, you have not chosen me,
undoubtedly you have not loved me (for how could they choose one whom
they did not love?). "But I," says He, "have chosen you." And then could
they possibly help choosing Him afterwards, and preferring Him to all
the blessings of this world ? But it was because they had been chosen,
that they chose Him; not because they chose Him that they were chosen.
There could be no merit in men's choice of Christ, if it were not that
God's grace was prevenient in His choosing them. Whence the Apostle Paul
pronounces in the Thessalonians this benediction: "The Lord make you to
increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men."[1]
This benediction to love one another He gave us, who had also given us a
law that we should love each other. Then, in another passage addressed
to the same church, seeing that there now existed in some of its members
the disposition which he had wished them to cultivate, he says, "We are
bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that
your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all
toward each other aboundeth."[2] This he said lest they should make a
boast of the great good which they were enjoying from God, as if they
had it of their own mere selves. Because, then, your faith has so great
a growth (this is the purport of his words), and the love of every one
of you all toward each other so greatly abounds, we ought to thank God
concerning you, but not to praise you, as if you possessed these gifts
of yourselves.

           CHAP. 39.--THE SPIRIT OF FEAR A GREAT GIFT

                             OF GOD.

    The apostle also says to Timothy, "For God hath not given to us the
spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."[3] Now
in respect of this passage of the apostle, we must be on our guard
against supposing that we have not received the spirit of the fear of
God, which is undoubtedly a great gift of God, and concerning which the
prophet Isaiah says, "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon thee, the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the
spirit of knowledge and piety, the spirit of the fear of the Lord."[4]
It is not the fear with which Peter denied Christ that we have received
the spirit of, but that fear concerning which Christ Himself says, "Fear
Him who hath power to destroy both soul and body in hell; yea, I say
unto you, Fear Him."[5] This, indeed, He said, lest we should deny Him
from the same fear which shook Peter; for such cowardice he plainly
wished to be removed from us when He, in the preceding passage, said,
"Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more
that they can do." [6] It is not of this fear that we have received the
spirit, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. And of this
spirit the same Apostle Paul discourses to the Romans: "We glory in
tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience,
experience; and experience, hope; and hope maketh not ashamed; because
the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is
given unto us." [7] Not by ourselves, therefore, but by the Holy Ghost
which is given to us, does it come to pass that, through that very love,
which he shows us to be the gift of God, tribulation does not do away
with patience, but rather produces it. Again, he says to the Ephesians,
"Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith."[8] Great blessings
these ! Let him tell us, however, whence they come. "From God the
Father," says he immediately afterwards, "and the Lord Jesus Christ."[9]
These great blessings, therefore, are nothing else than God's gifts to
us.

CHAP. 40 [XIX.]--THE IGNORANCE OF THE PELAGIANS IN MAINTAINING THAT THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW COMES FROM GOD, BUT THAT LOVE COMES FROM OURSELVES.

    It is no wonder that light shineth in darkness, and the darkness
comprehendeth it not.[9] In John's Epistle the Light declares," Behold
what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God."[10] And in the Pelagian writings the darkness
says, "Love comes to us of our own selves." Now, if they only possessed
the true, that is, Christian love, they would also know whence they
obtained possession of it; even as the apostle knew when he said, "But
we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of
God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of
God."[11] John says, "God is love."[12] And thus the Pelagians affirm
that they actually have God Himself, not from God, but from their own
selves! and although they allow that we have the knowledge of the law
from God, they will yet have it that love is from our very selves. Nor
do they listen to the apostle when he says, "Knowledge puffeth up, but
love edifieth." [13] Now what can be more absurd, nay, what more insane
and more alien from the very sacredness of love itself, than to maintain
that from God proceeds the knowledge which, apart from love, puffs us
up, while the love which prevents the possibility of this inflation of
knowledge springs from ourselves ? And again, when the apostle speaks of
"the love of Christ as surpassing knowledge,"[1] what can be more insane
than to suppose that the knowledge which must be subordinated to love
comes from God, while the love which surpasses knowledge comes from man
? The true faith, however, and sound doctrine declare that both graces
are from God; the Scripture says, "From His face cometh knowledge and
understanding;"[2] and another Scripture says, "Love is of God."[3] We
read of "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding."[4] Also of "the Spirit
of power, and of love, and of a sound mind?[5]  But love is a greater
gift than knowledge; for whenever a man has the gift of knowledge, love
is necessary by the side of it, that he be not puffed up. For "love
envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up."[6]

CHAP. 41 [XX.]--THE WILLS OF MEN ARE SO MUCH IN THE POWER OF GOD, THAT
HE CAN TURN THEM WHITHERSOEVER IT PLEASES HIM.

    I think I have now discussed the point fully enough in opposition to
those who vehemently oppose the grace of God, by which, however, the 
human will is not taken away, but changed from bad to good, and assisted
when it is good. I think, too, that I have so discussed the subject,
that it is not so much I myself as the inspired Scripture which has
spoken to you, in the clearest testimonies of truth; and if this divine
record be looked into carefully, it shows us that not only men's good
wills, which God Himself converts from bad ones, and, when converted by
Him, directs to good actions and to eternal life, but also those which
follow the world are so entirely at the disposal of God, that He turns
them whithersoever He wills, and whensoever He wills,--to bestow
kindness on some, and to heap punishment on others, as He Himself judges
right by a counsel most secret to Himself, indeed, but beyond all doubt
most righteous. For we find that some sins are even the punishment of
other sins, as are those "vessels of wrath" which the apostle describes
as "fitted to destruction;"[7] as is also that hardening of Pharaoh, the
purpose of which is said to be to set forth in him the power of God; [8]
as, again, is the flight of the Israelites from the face of the enemy
before the city of Ai, for fear arose in their heart so that they fled,
and this was done that their sin might be punished in the way it was
right that it should be; by reason of which the Lord said to Joshua the
son of Nun, "The children of Israel shall not be able to stand before
the face of their enemies."[9] What is the meaning of, "They shall not
be able to stand"? Now, why did they not stand by free will, but, with a
will perplexed by fear, took to flight, were it not that God has the
lordship even over men's wills, and when He is angry turns to fear
whomsoever He pleases? Was it not of their own will that the enemies of
the children of Israel fought against the people of God, as led by
Joshua, the son of Nun? And yet the Scripture says, "It was of the Lord
to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle,
that they might be exterminated," [10] And was it not likewise of his
own will that the wicked son of Gera cursed King David ? And yet what
says David, full of true, and deep, and pious wisdom ? What did he say
to him who wanted to smite the reviler? "What," said he, "have I to do
with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? Let him alone and let him curse, because
the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David. Who, then, shall say,
Wherefore hast thou done so?"[11] And then the inspired Scripture, as if
it would confirm the king's profound utterance by repeating it once
more, tells us: "And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants,
Behold, my son, which came forth from my bowels, seeketh my life: how
much more may this Benjamite do it ! Let him alone, and let him curse;
for the Lord hath hidden him. It may be that, the Lord will look on my
humiliation, and will: requite me good for his cursing this day."[12]
Now what prudent reader will fail to understand in what way the Lord
bade this profane man to curse David ? It was not by a command that He
bade him, in  which case his obedience would be praiseworthy; but He
inclined the man's will, which had become debased by his own
perverseness, to commit this sin, by His own just and secret judgment.
:Therefore it is said, "The Lord said unto him." Now if this person had
obeyed a command of God, he would have deserved to be praised rather
than punished, as we know he was afterwards punished for this sin. Nor
is the reason an obscure one why the Lord told him after this manner to
curse David. "It may be," said the humbled king, "that the Lord will
look on my humiliation, and will requite me good for his cursing this
day." See, then, what proof we have here that God uses the hearts of
even wicked men for the praise and assistance of the good. Thus did He
make use of Judas when betraying Christ; thus did He make use of the
Jews when they crucified Christ. And how vast the blessings which from
these instances He has bestowed upon the nations that should believe in
Him! He also uses our worst enemy, the devil himself, but in the best
way, to exercise and try the faith and piety of good men,--not for
Himself indeed, who knows all things before they come to pass, but for
our sakes, for whom it was necessary that such a discipline should be
gone through with us. Did not Absalom choose by his own will the counsel
which was detrimental to him ? And yet the reason of his doing so was
that the Lord had heard his father's prayer that it might be so.
Wherefore the Scripture says that "the Lord appointed to defeat the good
counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring all evils
upon Absalom."[1] It called Ahithophel's counsel "good," because it was
for the moment of advantage to his purpose. It was in favour of the son
against his father, against whom he had rebelled; and it might have
crashed him, had not the Lord defeated the counsel which Ahithophel had
given, by acting on the heart of Absalom so that he rejected this
counsel, and chose another which was not expedient for him.

CHAP. 45 [XXI]--GOD DOES WHATSOEVER HE WILLS IN THE HEARTS OF EVEN
WICKED MEN.

    Who can help trembling at those judgments of God by which He does in
the hearts of even wicked men whatsoever He wills, at the same time
rendering to them according to their deeds ? Rehoboam, the son of
Solomon, rejected the salutary counsel of the old men, not to deal
harshly with the people, and preferred listening to the words of the.
young men of his own age, by returning a rough answer to those to whom
he should have spoken gently. Now whence arose such conduct, except from
his own will ? Upon this, however, the ten tribes of Israel revolted
from him, and chose for themselves another king, even Jeroboam, that the
will of God in His anger might be accomplished which He had predicted
would come to pass.[2] For what says the Scripture ? "The king hearkened
not unto the people; for the turning was from the Lord, that He might
perform His saying, which the Lord spake to Ahijah the Shilonite
concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat."[3] All this, indeed, was done by
the will of man, although the turning was from the Lord. Read the books
of the Chronicles, and you will find the following passage in the second
book: "Moreover, the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the
Philistines, and of the Arabians, that were neighbours to the
Ethiopians; and they came up to the land of Judah, and ravaged it, and
carried away all the substance which was found in the king's house."[4]
Here it is shown that God stirs up enemies to devastate the countries
which He adjudges deserving of such chastisement. Still, did these
Philistines and Arabians invade the land of Judah to waste it with no
will of their own ? Or were their movements so directed by their own
will that the Scripture lies which tells us that "the Lord stirred up
their spirit" to do all this? Both statements to be sure are true,
because they both came by their own will, and yet the Lord stirred up
their spirit; and this may also with equal truth be stated the other
way: The Lord both stirred up their spirit, and yet they came of their
own will. For the Almighty sets in motion even in the innermost hearts
of men the movement of their will, so that He does through their agency
whatsoever He wishes to perform through them,--even He who knows not how
to will anything in unrighteousness. What, again, is the purport of that
which the man of God said to King Amaziah: "Let not the army of Israel
go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel, even with all the
children of Ephraim: for if thou shalt think to obtain with these, the
Lord shall put thee to flight before thine enemies: for God hath power
either to strengthen or to put to flight "?[5] Now, how does the power
of God help some in war by giving them confidence, and put others to
flight by injecting fear into them, except it be that He who has made
all things according to His own will, in heaven and on earth,[6] also
works in the hearts of men ? We read also what Joash, king of Israel,
said when he sent a message to Amaziah, king of Judah, who wanted to
fight with him. After certain other words, he added, "Now tarry at home;
why dost thou challenge me to thine hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even
thou, and Judah with thee ?"[7] Then the Scripture has added this
sequel: "But Amaziah would not hear; for it came of God, that he might
be delivered into their hands, because they sought after the gods of
Edom."[8] Behold, now, how God, wishing to punish the sin of idolatry,
wrought this in this man's heart, with whom He was indeed justly angry,
not to listen to sound advice, but to despise it, and go to the battle,
in which he with his army was routed. God says by the prophet Ezekiel,
"If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have
deceived that prophet: I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will
destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."[9] Then there is the
book of Esther, who was a woman of the people of Israel, and in the land
of their captivity became the wife of the foreign King Ahasuerus. In
this book it is written, that, being driven by necessity to interpose in
behalf of her people, whom the king had ordered to be slain in every
part of his dominions, she prayed to the Lord. So strongly was she urged
by the necessity of the case, that she even ventured into the royal
presence without the king's command, and contrary to her own custom. Now
observe what the Scripture says: "He looked at her like a bull in the
vehemence of his indignation; and the queen was afraid, and her colour
changed as she fainted; and she bowed herself upon the head of her
delicate maiden which went before her. But God turned the king, and
transformed his indignation into gentleness."[1] The Scripture says in
the Proverbs of Solomon, "Even as the rush of water, so is the heart of
a king in God's hand; He will turn it in whatever way He shall
choose."[2] Again, in the 104th Psalm, in reference to the Egyptians,
one reads what God did to them: "And He turned their heart to hate His
people, to deal subtilly with His servants."[3] Observe, likewise, what
is written in the letters of the apostles. In the Epistle of Paul, the
Apostle, to the Romans occur these words: "Wherefore God gave them up to
uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts;"[4] and a little
afterwards: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;"[5]
again, in the next passage: "And even as they did not like to retain God
in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient."[6] So also in his second Epistle to
the Thessalonians, the apostle says of sundry persons, "Inasmuch as they
received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; therefore
also God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie; that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness."[7]

CHAP. 43.--GOD OPERATES ON MEN'S HEARTS: TO INCLINE THEIR WILLS
WHITHERSOEVER HE PLEASES.

    From these statements of the inspired word, and from similar
passages which it would take too long to quote in full, it is, I think,
sufficiently clear that God works in the hearts of men to incline their
wills whithersoever He wills, whether to good deeds according to His
mercy, or to evil after their own deserts; His own judgment being
sometimes manifest, sometimes secret, but always righteous. This ought
to be the fixed and immoveable conviction of your heart, that there is
no unrighteousness with God. Therefore, whenever you read in the
Scriptures of Truth, that men are led aside, or that their hearts are
blunted and hardened by God, never doubt that some ill deserts of their
own have first occurred, so that they justly suffer these things. Thus
you will not run counter to that proverb of Solomon: "The foolishness of
a man perverteth his ways, yet he blameth God in his heart."[8] Grace,
however, is not bestowed according to men's deserts; otherwise grace
would be no longer grace.[9] For grace is so designated because it is
given gratuitously.[10] Now if God is able, either through the agency of
angels (whether good ones or evil), or in any other way whatever, to
operate in the hearts even of the wicked, in return for their
deserts,--whose wickedness was not made by Him, but was either derived
originally from Adam, or increased by their own will,--what is there to
wonder at if, through the Holy Spirit, He works good in the hearts of
the elect, who has wrought it that their hearts become good instead of
evil ?

CHAP. 44 [XXII.] -- GRATUITOUS GRACE EXEMPLIFIED IN INFANTS.

    Men, however, may suppose that there are certain good deserts which
they think are precedent to justification through God's grace; all the
while failing to see, when they express such an opinion, that they do
nothing else than deny grace. But, as I have already remarked, let them
suppose what they like respecting the case  of adults, in the case of
infants, at any rate, the  Pelagians find no means of answering the
difficulty. For these in receiving grace have no  will; from the
influence of which they can pretend to any precedent merit. We see,
moreover, how they cry and struggle when they are baptized, and feel the
divine sacraments. Such conduct would, of course, be charged against
them as a great impiety, if they already had free will in use; and
notwithstanding this, grace cleaves to them even in their resisting
struggles. But most certainly there is no prevenient merit, otherwise
the grace would be no longer grace. Sometimes, too, this grace is
bestowed upon the children of unbelievers, when they happen by some
means or other to fall, by reason of God's secret providence, into the
hands of pious persons; but, on the other hand, the children of
believers fail to obtain grace, some hindrance occurring to prevent the
approach of help to rescue them in their danger. These things, no doubt,
happen through the secret providence of God, whose judgments are
unsearchable, and His ways past finding out. These are the words of the
apostle; and you should observe what he had previously said, to lead him
to add such a remark. He was discoursing about the Jews and Gentiles,
when he wrote to the Romans--themselves Gentiles--to this effect: "For
as ye, in times past, have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy
through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed, that
through your mercy they also may obtain mercy; for God hath concluded
them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."[1] Now, after
he had thought upon what he said, full of wonder at the certain truth of
his own assertion, indeed, but astonished at its great depth, how God
concluded all in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all,--as if
doing evil that good might come,--he at once exclaimed, and said, "O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"[2]
Perverse men, who do not reflect upon these unsearchable judgments and
untraceable ways, indeed, but are ever prone to censure, being unable to
understand, have supposed the apostle to say, and censoriously gloried
over him for saying, "Let us do evil, that good may come!" God forbid
that the apostle should say so! But men, without understanding, have
thought that this was in fact said, when they heard these words of the
apostle: "Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound; but
where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."[3] But grace, indeed,
effects this purpose--that good works should now be wrought by those who
previously did evil; not that they should persevere in evil courses and
suppose that they are recompensed with good. Their language, therefore,
ought not to be: "Let us do evil, that good may come;" but: "We have
done evil, and good has come; let us henceforth do good, that in the
future world we may receive good for good, who in the present life are
receiving good for evil." Wherefore it is written in the Psalm, "I will
sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O Lord."[4] When the Son of man,
therefore, first came into the world, it was not to judge the world, but
that the world through Him might be saved.[5] And this dispensation was
for mercy; by and by, however, He will come for judgment--to judge the
quick and the dead. And yet even in this present time salvation itself
does not eventuate without judgment--although it be a hidden one;
therefore He says, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they
which see not may see, and that they which see may be made blind."[6]

CHAP. 45 [XXIII]--THE  REASON WAY ONE PERSON IS ASSISTED BY GRACE, AND
ANOTHER IS NOT HELPED, MUST BE REFERRED TO THE SECRET JUDGMENTS OF GOD.

    You must refer the matter, then, to the hidden determinations of
God, when you see, in one and the same condition, such as all infants
unquestionably have,--who derive their hereditary evil from Adam,--that
one is assisted so as to be baptized, and another is not assisted, so
that he dies in his very bondage; and again, that one baptized person is
left and forsaken in his present life, who God foreknew would be
ungodly, while another baptized person is taken away from this life,"
lest that wickedness should alter his understanding;"[7] and be sure
that you do not in such cases ascribe unrighteousness or unwisdom to
God, in whom is the very fountain of righteousness and wisdom, but, as I
have exhorted you from the commencement of this treatise, "whereto you
have already attained, walk therein,"[8] and "even this shall God reveal
unto you,"[9]--if not in this life, yet certainly in the next, "for
there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed."[10] When,
therefore, you hear the Lord say, "I the Lord have deceived that
prophet,"" and likewise what the apostle says: "He hath mercy on whom He
will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,"[12] believe that, in
the case of him whom He permits to be deceived and hardened, his evil
deeds have deserved the judgment; whilst in the case of him to whom He
shows mercy, you should loyally and unhesitatingly recognise the grace
of the God who "rendereth not evil for evil; but contrariwise
blessing."[13] Nor should you take away from Pharaoh free will, because
in several passages God says, "I have hardened Pharaoh ;" or," I have
hardened or I will harden Pharaoh's heart;"[14] for it does not by any
means follow that Pharaoh did not, on this account, harden his own
heart. For this, too, is said of him, after the removal of the
fly-plague from the Egyptians, in these words of the Scripture: "And
Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the
people go."[15] Thus it was that both God hardened him by His just
judgment, and Pharaoh by his own free will. Be ye then well assured that
your labour will never be in vain, if, setting before you a good
purpose, you persevere in it to the last. For God, who fails to render,
according to their deeds, only to those whom He liberates, will then
"recompense every man according to his works."[16] God will, therefore,
certainly recompense both evil for evil, because He is just; and good
for evil, because He is good; and good for good, because He is good and
just; only, evil for good He will never recompense, because He is not
unjust. He will, therefore, recompense evil for evil--punishment for
un-righteousness; and He will recompense good for evil--grace for
unrighteousness; and He will recompense good for good--grace for grace.

 CHAP. 46 [XXIV.] --UNDERSTANDING AND WISDOM

                    MUST BE SOUGHT FROM GOD.

    Peruse attentively this treatise, and if you understand it, give God
the praise; but where you fail to understand it, pray for understanding,
for God will give you understanding. Remember what the Scriptures say:
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given to him."[1] Wisdom
itself cometh down floral above, as the Apostle James himself tells
us.[2] There is, however, another wisdom, which you must repel from you,
and pray against its remaining in you; this the same apostle expressed
his detestation of when he said, "But if ye have bitter envying and
strife in your hearts, . . . this is not the wisdom which descendeth
from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For wherever there is
envying and strife, there is also confusion, and every evil work. But
the wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle,
and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good works, without
partiality, and without hypocrisy."[3] What blessing, then, will that
man not have who has prayed for this wisdom and obtained it of the Lord?
And from this you may understand what grace is; because if this wisdom
were of ourselves, it would not be from above; nor would it be an object
to be asked for of the God who created us. Brethren, pray ye for us
also, that we may live "soberly, righteously, and godly in this present
world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,"[4] to whom belong the honour, and the
glory, and the kingdom, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, for ever and
ever. Amen.

A TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE.

 EXTRACT FROM AUGUSTIN'S  "RETRACTATIONS,"

                       Book II. CHAP. 67,

                   ON THE FOLLOWING TREATISE,

                   "DE CORREPTIONE ET GRATIA."

    I wrote again to the same persons[1] another treatise, which I
entitled On Rebuke and Grace, because I had been told that some one
there had said that no man ought to be rebuked for not doing God's
commandments, but that prayer only should be made on his behalf, that he
may do them. This book begins on this wise, "I have read your letters,
dearly beloved brother Valentine."

 TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE.

             BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO;

                          In One BOOK,

             ADDRESSED TO VALENTINE, AND WITH HIM TO

                     THE MONKS OF ADRUMETUM.

                        A.D. 426 OR 427.

IN THE BEGINNING THE WRITER SETS FORTH WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH
CONCERNING LAW, CONCERNING FREE WILL, AND CONCERNING GRACE. HE TEACHES
THAT THE GRACE OF GOD BY JESUS CHRIST IS THAT BY WHICH ALONE MEN ARE
DELIVERED FROM EVIL, AND WITHOUT WHICH THEY DO ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD; AND
THIS NOT ONLY BY THE FACT THAT IT POINTS OUT WHAT IS TO BE DONE, BUT
THAT IT ALSO SUPPLIES THE MEANS OF DOING IT WITH LOVED SINCE GOD BESTOWS
ON MEN THE INSPIRATION OF A GOOD WILL AND DEED. HE TEACHES THAT THE
REBUKE OF EVIL MEN WHO HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS GRACE IS NEITHER
UNJUST--SINCE THEY ARE EVIL BY THEIR OWN WILL--NOR USELESS, ALTHOUGH IT
MUST BE CONFESSED THAT IT IS ONLY BY GOD'S AGENCY THAT IT CAN AVAIL.
THAT PERSEVERANCE IN GOOD IS TRULY A GREAT GIFT OF GOD, BUT THAT STILL
THE REBUKE OF ONE WHO HAS NOT PERSEVERED MUST NOT ON THAT ACCOUNT BE
NEGLECTED; AND THAT IF A MAN WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED THIS GIFT SHOULD
RELAPSE OF HIS OWN WILL iNTO SIN, HE IS NOT ONLY DESERVING OF REBUKE,
BUT IF HE SHOULD CONTINUE IN EVIL UNTIL HIS DEATH, HE IS MOREOVER WORTHY
OF ETERNAL DAMNATION. THAT IT IS INSCRUTABLE WHY ONE SHOULD RECEIVE THIS
GIFT AND ANOTHER SHOULD NOT RECEIVE IT. THAT OF THOSE WHO ARE
PREDESTINATED NONE CAN PERISH. AND THAT THE PERSEVERANCE, WHICH ALL DO
NOT RECEIVE WHO ARE HERE CALLED CHILDREN OF GOD, IS CONSTANTLY GIVEN TO
ALL THOSE WHO ARE TRULy CHILDREN BY GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE AND
PREDESTINATION. HE ANSWERS THE QUESTION WHICH SUGGESTS ITSELF CONCERNING
ADAM--IN WHAT WAY HE SINNED BY NOT PERSEVERING, SINCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE
PERSEVERANCE. HE SHOWS THAT SUCH ASSISTANCE WAS AT THE FIRST GIVEN TO
HIM, AS THAT WITHOUT IT HE COULD NOT CONTINUE IF HE WOULD, NOT AS THAT
WITH IT IT MUST RESULT THAT HE WOULD. BUT THAT NOW THROUGH CHRIST IS
GIVEN US NOT ONLY SUCH HELP AS THAT WITHOUT IT WE CANNOT CONTINUE EVEN
IF WE WILL, BUT MOREOVER SUCH AND SO GREAT AS THAT BY IT WE WILL. HE
PROVES THAT THE NUMBER OF THE PREDESTINATED, TO WHOM A GIFT OF THIS KIND
IS APPROPRIATED, IS CERTAIN, AND CAN NEITHER BE INCREASED NOR
DIMINISHED. AND SINCE IT IS UNKNOWN WHO BELONGS TO THAT NUMBER, AND WHO
DOES NOT, THAT MEDICINAL REBUKE MUST BE APPLIED TO ALL WHO SIN, LEST
THEY SHOULD EITHER THEMSELVES PERISH, OR BE THE RUIN OF OTHERS. FINALLY,
HE CONCLUDES THAT NEITHER IS REBUKE PROHIBITED BY GRACE, NOR IS GRACE
DENIED BY REBUKE.

		CHAP. 1 [i.]--INTRODUCTORY.

    I HAVE read your letter--Valentine, my dearly beloved brother, and
you who are associated with him in the service of God--which your Love
sent by brother Florus and those who came to us with him; and I gave God
thanks that I have known your peace in the Lord and agreement in the
truth and ardour in love, by your discourse delivered to us. But that an
enemy has striven among you to the subversion of some, has, by the mercy
of God and His marvellous goodness in turning his arts to the
advantage[1] of His servants, rather availed to this result, that while
none of you were cast down for the worse, some were built up for the
better. There is therefore no need to reconsider again and again all
that I have already transmitted to you, sufficiently argued out in a
lengthy treatise;[2] for your replies indicate how you have received
this. Nevertheless, do not in any wise suppose that, when once read, it
can have become sufficiently well known to you. Therefore if you desire
to have it exceedingly productive, do not count it a grievance by
re-perusal to make it thoroughly familiar; so that you may most
accurately[3] know what and what kind of questions they are, for the
solution and satisfaction of which there arises an authority not human
but divine, from which we ought not to depart if we desire to attain to
the point whither we are tending.

             CHAP. 2.--THE CATHOLIC FAITH CONCERNING

                   LAW, GRACE, AND FREE WILL.

    Now the Lord Himself not only shows us what evil we should shun, and
what good we should do, which is all that the letter of the law is able
to effect; but He moreover helps us that we may shun evil and do
good,[4] which none can do without the Spirit of grace; and if this be
wanting, the law comes in merely to make us guilty and to slay us. It is
on this account that the apostle says, "The letter killeth, but the
Spirit giveth life."[5] He, then, who lawfully uses the law learns
therein evil and good, and, not trusting in his own strength, flees to
grace, by the help of which he may shun evil and do good. But who is
there who flees to grace except when "the steps of a man are ordered by
the Lord, and He shall determine his way"?[6] And thus also to desire
the help of grace is the beginning of grace; of which, says he, "And I
said, Now I have begun; this is the change of the right hand of the Most
High."[7] It is to be confessed, therefore, that we have free choice to
do both evil and good; but in doing evil every one is free from
righteousness and a servant of sin, while in doing good no one can be
free, unless he have been made free by Him who said, "If the Son shall
make you free, then you shall be free indeed."[8] Neither is it thus,
that when any one has been made free from the dominion of sin, he no
longer needs the help of his Deliverer; but rather thus, that hearing
from Him, "Without me ye can do nothing,"[9] he himself also says to
Him, "Be thou my helper! Forsake me not."[10] I rejoice that I have
found in our brother Florus also this faith, which without doubt is the
true and prophetical and apostolical and catholic faith; whence those
are the rather to be corrected--whom indeed I now think to have been
corrected by the favour of God--who did not understand him.

              CHAP. 3 [II.]--WHAT THE GRACE OF GOD

                    THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.

    For the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord must be
apprehended,--as that by which alone men are delivered from evil, and
without which they do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or
will and affection, or in action; not only in order that they may know,
by the manifestation of that grace, what should be done, but moreover in
order that, by its enabling, they may do with love what they know.
Certainly the apostle asked for this inspiration of good will and work
on behalf of those to whom he said, "Now we pray to God that ye do no
evil, not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that
which is good."[11] Who can hear this and not awake and confess that we
have it from the Lord God that we turn aside from evil and do
good?--since the apostle indeed says not, We admonish, we teach, we
exhort, we rebuke; but he says, "We pray to God that ye do no evil, but
that ye should do that which is good."[11] And yet he was also in the
habit of speaking to them, and doing all those things which I have
mentioned,--he admonished, he taught, he exhorted, he rebuked. But he
knew that all these things which he Was doing in the way of planting and
watering openly[1] were of no avail unless He who giveth the increase in
secret should give heed to his prayer on their behalf. Because, as the
same teacher of the Gentiles says, "Neither is he that planteth
anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the
increase."[2]

             CHAP. 4--THE CHILDREN OF GOD ARE LED BY

                       THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

    Let those, therefore, not deceive themselves who ask, "Wherefore is
it preached and prescribed to us that we should turn away from evil and
do good, if it is not we that do this, but 'God who worketh in us to
will and to do it'?"[3] But let them rather understand that if they are
the children of God, they are led by the Spirit of God[4] to do that
which should be done; and when they have done it, let them give thanks
to Him by whom they act. For they are acted upon that they may act, not
that they may themselves do nothing; and in addition to this, it is
shown them what they ought to do, so that when they have done it as it
ought to be done--that is, with the love and the delight of
righteousness--they may rejoice in having received "the sweetness which
the Lord has given, that their[5] land should yield her increase.''[6]
But when they do not act, whether by not doing at all or by not doing
from love, let them pray that what as yet they have not, they may
receive. For what shall they have which they shall not receive? or what
have they which they have not received?[7]

               CHAP. 5 [III.]--REBUKE MUST NOT BE

                           NEGLECTED.

    "Then," say they, "let those who are over us only prescribe to us
what we ought to do, and pray for us that we may do it; but let them not
rebuke and censure us if we should not do it." Certainly let all be
done, since the teachers of the churches, the apostles, were in the
habit of doing all,--as well prescribing what things should be done, as
rebuking if they were not done, and praying that they might be done. The
apostle prescribes, saying, "Let all your things be done with love."[8]
He rebukes, saying, "Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you,
because ye have judgments among yourselves. For why do ye not rather
suffer wrong? Why are ye not rather defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong and
defraud; and that, your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
not possess the kingdom of God?"[9] Let us hear him also praying: "And
the Lord," says he, "multiply you, and make you to abound in love one
towards another and towards all men."[10] He prescribes, that love
should be maintained; he rebukes, because love is not maintained; he
prays, that love may abound. O man! learn by his precept what you ought
to have; learn by his rebuke that it is by your own fault that you have
it not; learn by his prayer whence you may receive what you desire to
have.

            CHAP. 6 [IV.] --OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF

                             REBUKE.

    "How," says he," "is it my fault that I have not what I have not
received from Him, when unless it is given by Him, there is no other at
all whence such and so great a gift can be had?" Suffer me a little, my
brethren, not as against you whose heart is right with God, but as
against those who mind earthly things, or as against those human modes
of thinking themselves, to contend for the truth, of the heavenly and
divine grace. For they who say this are such as in their wicked works
are unwilling to be rebuked by those who proclaim this grace. "Prescribe
to me what I shall do, and if I should do it, give thanks to God for me
who has given me to do it; but if I do it not, I must not be rebuked,
but He must be besought to give what He has not given; that is, that
very believing love of God and of my neighbour by which His precepts
are[12] observed. Pray, then, for me that I may receive this, and may by
its means do freely and with good will that which He commands. But I
should be justly rebuked if by my own fault I had it not; that is, if I
myself could give it to myself, or could receive it, and did not do so,
or if He should give it and I should be unwilling to receive it. But
since even the will itself is prepared[13] by the Lord, why dust thou
rebuke me because thou seeest me unwilling to do His precepts, and dust
not rather ask Him Himself to work in me the will also?"

            CHAP. 7 [V.]--THE NECESSITY AND ADVANTAGE

                           OF REBUKE.

    To this we answer: Whoever you are that do not the commandments of
God that are already known to you, and do not wish to be rebuked, you
must be rebuked even for that very reason that you do not wish to be
rebuked. For you do not wish that your faults should be pointed out to
you; you do not wish that they should be touched, and that such a useful
pain should be caused you that you may seek the Physician; you do not
desire to be shown to yourself, that, when you see yourself to be
deformed, you may wish for the Reformer, and may supplicate Him that you
may not continue in that repulsiveness. For it is your fault that you
are evil; and it is a greater fault to be unwilling to be rebuked
because you are evil, as if faults should either be praised, or regarded
with indifference so as neither to be praised nor blamed, or as if,
indeed, the dread, or the shame or the mortification of the rebuked man
were of no avail, or were of any other avail in healthfully stimulating,
except to cause that He who is good may be besought, and so out of evil
men who are rebuked may make good men who may be praised. For what he
who will not be rebuked desires to be done for him, when he says, "Pray
for me rather,"--he must be rebuked for that very reason that he may
himself also do for himself; because that mortification with which he is
dissatisfied with himself when he feels the sting of rebuke, stirs him
up to a desire for more earnest prayer,[1] that, by God's mercy, he may
be aided by the increase of love, and cease to do things which are
shameful and mortifying, and do things praiseworthy and gladdening. This
is the benefit of rebuke that is wholesomely applied, sometimes with
greater, sometimes with less severity, in accordance with the diversity
of sins; and it is then wholesome when the supreme Physician looks. For
it is of no profit unless when it makes a man repent of his sin. And who
gives this but He who looked upon the Apostle Peter when he denied,[2]
and made him weep? Whence also the Apostle Paul, after he said that they
were to be rebuked with moderation who thought otherwise, immediately
added, "Lest perchance God give them repentance, to the acknowledging of
the truth, and they recover themselves out of the snares of the
devil."[3]

             CHAP. 8.--FURTHER REPLIES TO THOSE WHO 

        OBJECT TO REBUKE.tO

But wherefore do they, who are unwilling be rebuked, say, "Only
prescribe to me, and pray for me that I may do what you prescribe?" Why
do they not rather, in accordance with their own evil inclination,
reject these things also, and say, "I wish you neither to prescribe to
me, nor to pray for me"? For what man is shown to have prayed for Peter,
that God should give him the repentance wherewith he bewailed the denial
of his Lord? What man instructed Paul in the divine precepts which
pertain to the Christian faith? When, therefore, he was heard preaching
the gospel, and saying, "For I certify you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it
from man, nor did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ,"[4]--would it be replied to him: "Why are you troubling us to
receive and to learn from you that which you have not received nor
learnt from man? He who gave to you is able also to give to us in like
manner as to you." Moreover, if they dare not say this, but suffer the
gospel to be preached to them by man, although it cannot be given to man
by man, let them concede also that they ought to be rebuked by those who
are set over them, by whom Christian grace is preached; although it is
not denied that God is able, even when no man rebukes, to correct whom
He will, and to lead him on to the wholesome mortification of repentance
by the most hidden and mighty power of His medicine. And as we are not
to cease from prayer on behalf of those whom we desire to be
corrected,--even although without any man's prayer on behalf of Peter,
the Lord looked upon him and caused him to bewail his sin,--so we must
not neglect rebuke, although God can make those whom He will to be
corrected, even when not rebuked. But a man then profits by rebuke when
He pities and aids who makes those whom He will to profit even without
rebuke. But wherefore these are called to be reformed in one way, those
in another way, and others in still another way, after different and
innumerable manners, be it far from us to assert that it is the business
of the clay to judge, but of the potter.

CHAP. 9 [VI]--WHY THEY MAY JUSTLY BE REBUKED WHO DO NOT OBEY GOD,
ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED THE GRACE OF OBEDIENCE.

    "The apostle says," say they, "'For who maketh thee to differ? And
what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now also if thou hast
received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?'[5]
Why, then, are we rebuked, censured, reproved, accused? What do we do,
we who have not received?" They who say this wish to appear without
blame in respect of their not obeying God, because assuredly obedience
itself is His gift; and that gift must of necessity be in him in whom
dwells love, which without doubt is of God,[6] and the Father gives it
to His children. "This," say they, "we have not received. Why, then, are
we rebuked, as if we were able to give it to ourselves, and of our own
choice would not give it?" And they do not observe that, if they are not
yet regenerated, the first reason why, when they are reproached because
they are disobedient to God, they ought to be dissatisfied with
themselves is, that God made man upright from the beginning of the human
creation,[7] and there is no unrighteousness with God.[8] And thus the
first depravity, whereby God is not obeyed, is of man, because, falling
by his own evil will from the rectitude in which God at first made him,
he became depraved. Is, then, that depravity not to be rebuked in a man
because it is not peculiar to him who is rebuked, but is common to all?
Nay, let that also be rebuked in individuals, which is common to all.
For the circumstance that none is altogether free from it is no reason
why it should not attach to each man. Those original sins, indeed, are
said to be the sins of others, because individuals derived them from
their parents; but they are not unreasonably said to be our own also,
because in that one, as the apostle says, all have sinned.[1] Let, then,
the damnable source be rebuked, that from the mortification of rebuke
may spring the will of regeneration,--if, indeed, he who is rebuked is a
child of promise,--in order that, by the noise of the rebuke sounding
and lashing from without, God may by His hidden inspiration work in him
from within to will also. If, however, being already regenerate and
justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he
cannot say, "I have not received," because of his own free choice to
evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received. And if, stung
with compunction by rebuke, he wholesomely bewails, and returns to
similar good works, or even better, certainly here most manifestly
appears the advantage of rebuke. But yet for rebuke by the agency of man
to avail, whether it be of love or not, depends only upon God.

            CHAP. 10--ALL PERSEVERANCE IS GOD'S GIFT.

    Is such an one as is unwilling to be rebuked still able to say,
"What have I done,--I who have not received?" when it appears plainly
that he has received, and by his own fault has lost that which he has
received? "I am able," says he, "I am altogether able,--when you reprove
me for having of my own will relapsed from a good life into a bad
one,--still to say, What have I done,--I who have not received? For I
have received faith, which worketh by love, but I have not received
perseverance therein to the end. Will any one dare to say that this
perseverance is not the gift of God, and that so great a possession as
this is ours in such wise that if any one have it the apostle could not
say to him, 'For what hast thou which thou hast not received?'[2] since
he has this in such a manner as that he has not received it?" To this,
indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing
even to the end, is also a great gift of God; and that it exists not
save it come  from Him of whom it is written, "Every best gift and every
perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights."[3]
But the rebuke of him who has not persevered must not on that account be
neglected, "lest God perchance give unto him repentance, and he recover
from the snares of the devil;"[4] since to the usefulness of rebuke the
apostle has subjoined this decision, saying, as I have above mentioned,
"Rebuking with moderation those that think differently, lest at any time
God give them repentance."[4] For if we should say that such a
perseverance, so laudable and so blessed, is man's in such wise as that
he has it not from God, we first of all make void that which the Lord
says to Peter: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not."[5] For
what did He ask for him, but perseverance to the end? And assuredly, if
a man could have this from man, it should not have been asked from God.
Then when the apostle says, "Now we pray to God that ye do no evil,"[6]
beyond a doubt he prays to God on their behalf for perseverance. For
certainly he does not "do no evil" who forsakes good, and, not
persevering in good, turns to the evil, from which he ought to turn
aside.[7] In that place, moreover, where he says, "I thank my God in
every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all
making quest with joy for your fellowship[8] in the gospel from the
first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has
begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus
Christ,"[9]--what else does he promise to them from the mercy of God
than perseverance in good to the end? And again where he says, "Epaphras
saluteth you, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, always
striving for you in prayer, that you may stand perfect and fulfilled in
all the will of God,"[10]--what is "that you may stand" but "that you
may persevere"? Whence it was said of the devil, "He stood not in the
truth;"[11] because he was there, but he did not continue. For assuredly
those were already standing in the faith. And when we pray that he who
stands may stand, we do not pray for anything else than that he may
persevere. Jude the apostle, again, when he says, "Now unto Him that is
able to keep you without offence, and to establish you before the
presence of His glory, immaculate in joy,"[12] does he not most
manifestly show that perseverance in good unto the end is God's gift?
For what but a good perseverance does He give who preserves without
offence that He may place before the presence of His glory immaculate in
joy ? What is it, moreover, that we read in the Acts of the Apostles:
"And when the Gentiles heard, they rejoiced and received the word of the
Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed"?[1] Who
could be ordained to eternal life save by the gift of perseverance? And
when we read, "He that shall persevere unto the end shall be saved;"[2]
with what salvation but eternal? And when, in the Lord's Prayer, we say
to God the Father, "Hallowed be Thy name,"[3] what do we ask but that
His name may be hallowed in us? And as this is already accomplished by
means of the layer of regeneration, why is it daily asked by believers,
except that we may persevere in that which is already done in us? For
the blessed Cyprian also understands this in this manner, inasmuch as,
in his exposition of the same prayer, he says: "We say, 'Hallowed be Thy
name,' not that we wish for God that He may be hallowed by our prayers,
but that we ask of God that His name may be hallowed in us. But by whom
is God hallowed; since He Himself hallows? Well, because He said, 'Be ye
holy, since I also am holy;'[4] we ask and entreat that we who have been
hallowed in baptism may persevere in that which we have begun to be."[5]
Behold the most glorious martyr is of this opinion, that what in these
words Christ's faithful people are daily asking is, that they may
persevere in that which they have begun to be. And no one need doubt,
but that whosoever prays from the Lord that he may persevere in good,
confesses thereby that such perseverance is His gift.

CHAP. 11 [VII.]--THEY WHO HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE,
AND HAVE RELAPSED INTO MORTAL SIN AND HAVE DIED THEREIN, MUST
RIGHTEOUSLY BE CONDEMNED.

    If, then, these things be so, we still rebuke those, and reasonably
rebuke them, who, although they were living well, have not persevered
therein; because they have of their own will been changed from a good to
an evil life, and on that account are worthy of rebuke; and if rebuke
should be of no avail to them, and they should persevere in their ruined
life until death, they are also worthy of divine condemnation for ever.
Neither shall they excuse themselves, saying,--as now they say,
"Wherefore are we rebuked?"--so then, "Wherefore are we condemned, since
indeed, that we might return from good to evil, we did not receive that
perseverance by which we should abide in good?" They shall by no means
deliver themselves by this excuse from righteous condemnation. For if,
according to the word of truth, no one is delivered from the
condemnation which was incurred through Adam except through the faith of
Jesus Christ, and yet from this condemnation they shall not deliver
themselves who shall be able to say that they have not heard the gospel
of Christ, on the ground that "faith cometh by hearing,"[6] how much
less shall they deliver themselves who shall say, "We have not received
perseverance!" For the excuse of those who say, "We have not received
hearing," seems more equitable than that of those who say, "We have not
received perseverance;" since it may be said, O man, in that which thou
hadst heard and kept, in that thou mightest persevere if thou wouldest;
but in no wise can it be said, That which thou hadst not heard thou
mightest believe if thou wouldest.

CHAP. 12.--THEY WHO HAVE NOT RECEIVED PERSEVERANCE ARE NOT DISTINGUISHED
FROM THE MASS OF THOSE THAT ARE LOST.

    And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and
those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have
not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have
refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe on Him, since He Himself
says, "No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,"[7]
and those who by their tender age were unable to believe, but might be
absolved from original sin by the sole layer of regeneration, and yet
have not received this laver, and have perished in death: are not made
to differ from that lump which it is plain is condemned, as all go from
one into condemnation. Some are made to differ, however, not by their
own merits, but by the grace of the Mediator; that is to say, they are
justified freely in the blood of the second Adam. Therefore, when we
hear, "For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou hast
not received? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if
thou hadst not received it?"[8] we ought to understand that from that
mass of perdition which originated through the first Adam, no one can be
made to differ except he who has this gift, which whosoever has, has
received by the grace of the Saviour. And this apostolical testimony is
so great, that the blessed Cyprian writing to Quirinus put it in the
place of a title, when he says, "That we must boast in nothing, since
nothing is our own."[9]

CHAP. 13.--ELECTION IS OF GRACE, NOT OF MERIT.

    Whosoever, then, are made to differ from that original condemnation
by such bounty of divine grace, there is no doubt but that for such it
is provided that they should hear the gospel, and when they hear they
believe, and in the faith which worketh by love they persevere unto the
end; and if, perchance, they deviate from the way, when they are rebuked
they are amended and some of them, although they may not be rebuked by
men, return into the path which they had left; and some who have
received grace in any age whatever are withdrawn from the perils of this
life by swiftness of death. For He work-eth all these things in them who
made them vessels of mercy, who also elected them in His Son before the
foundation of the world by the election of grace: "And if by grace, then
is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace."[1] For they
were not so called as not to be elected, in respect of which it is said,
"For many are called but few are elected;"[2] but because they were
called according to the purpose, they are of a certainty also elected by
the election, as it is said, of grace, not of any precedent merits of
theirs, because to them grace is all merit.

            CHAP. 14.--NONE OF THE ELECT AND PREDES-

                       TINATED CAN PERISH.

    Of such says the apostle, "We know that to those that love God He
worketh together all things for good, to them who are called according
to His purpose; because those whom He before foreknew, He also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be
the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate,
them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and
whom He justified, them He also glorified."[3] Of these no one perishes,
because all are elected. And they are elected because they were called
according to the purpose--the purpose, however, not their own, but
God's; of which He elsewhere says, "That the purpose of God according to
election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said
unto her that the elder shall serve the younger."[4] And in another
place he says, "Not according to our works, but according to His own
purpose and grace."[5] When, therefore, we hear," Moreover, whom He did
predestinate, them He also called,"[6] we ought to acknowledge that they
were called according to His purpose; since He thence began, saying, "He
worketh together all things for good to those who are called  according
to His purpose," and then added, "Because those whom He before foreknew,
He also did predestinate, to be conformed to the  image of His Son, that
He might be the first-born among many brethren And to these promises He
added, "Moreover, whom, He did predestinate, them He also called." He
wishes these, therefore, to be understood whom He called according to
His purpose, lest any among them should be thought to be called and not
elected, on account of that sentence of the Lord's: "Many the called but
few are elected."[2] For whoever are elected are without doubt also
called; but not whosoever are called are as a consequence elected.
Those, then, are elected, as has often been said, who are called
according to the purpose, who also are predestinated and foreknown. If
any one of these perishes, God is mistaken; but none of them perishes,
because God is not mistaken. If any one of these perish, God is overcome
by human sin; but none of them perishes, because God is overcome by
nothing. Moreover, they are elected to reign with Christ, not as Judas
was elected, to a work for which he was fitted. Because he was chosen by
Him who well knew how to make use even of wicked men, so that even by
his damnable deed that venerable work, for the sake of which He Himself
had come, might be accomplished. When, therefore, we hear, "Have not I
chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"[7] we ought to understand
that the rest were elected by mercy, but he by judgment; those to obtain
His kingdom, he to shed His blood!

CHAP. 15.--PERSEVERANCE IS GIVEN TO THE END.

    Rightly follows the word to the kingdom of the elect: "If God be for
us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered
Him up for us all, how has He not also with Him given us all things? Who
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? God who justifieth? Who
condemneth? Christ who died? yea, rather who rose again also, who is at
the right hand of God, who also soliciteth on our behalf?"[8] And of how
stedfast a perseverance even to the end they have received the gift, let
them follow on to say: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness,
or peril, or sword? As it is written, Because for thy sake we are killed
all the day long, we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. But in
all these things we are more than conquerors, through Him that hath
loved us. For I am certain, that neither death, nor life, nor angel, nor
principality, nor things present, nor things to come, nor power, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us
from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."[9]

 CHAP. 16.--WHOSOEVER DO NOT PERSEVERE ARE NOT DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
MASS OF PERDITION BY PREDESTINATION.

    Such as these were they who were signified to Timothy, where, when
it had been said that Hymenaeus and Philetus had subverted the faith of
some, it is presently added, "Nevertheless the foundation of God
standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord has known them that are
His."[1] The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does
not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored
before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is
done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them. But
they who are not to persevere, and who shall so fall away from Christian
faith and conduct that the end of this life shall find them in that
case, beyond all doubt are not to be reckoned in the number of these,
even in that season wherein they are living well and piously. For they
are not made to differ from that mass of perdition by the foreknowledge
and predestination of God, and therefore are not called according to
God's purpose, and thus are not elected; but are called among those of
whom it was said, "Many are called," not among those of whom it was
said, "But few are elected." And yet who can deny that they are elect,
since they believe and are baptized, and live according to God?
Manifestly, they are called elect by those who are ignorant of what they
shall be, but not by Him who knew that they would not have the
perseverance which leads the elect forward into the blessed life, and
knows that they so stand, as that He has foreknown that they will fall.

CHAP. 17 [VIII.]--WHY PERSEVERANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ONE AND NOT
ANOTHER IS INSCRUTABLE.

    Here, if I am asked why God should not have given them perseverance
to whom He gave that love by which they might live Christianly, I answer
that I do not know. For I do not speak arrogantly, but with
acknowledgment of my small measure, when I hear the apostle saying, "O
man, who art thou that repliest against God?"[2] and, "O the depth of
the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His
judgments, and His ways untraceable!"[3] So far, therefore, as He
condescends to manifest His judgments to us, let us give thanks; but so
far as He thinks fit to conceal them, let us not murmur against His
counsel, but believe that this also is the most wholesome for us. But
whoever you are that are hostile to His grace, and thus ask, what do you
yourself say? it is well that you do not deny yourself to be a Christian
and boast of being a catholic. If, therefore, you confess that to
persevere to the end in good is God's gift, I think that equally with me
you are ignorant why one man should receive this gift and another should
not receive it; and in this case we are both unable to penetrate the
unsearchable judgments of God. Or if you say that it pertains to man's
free will--which you defend, not in accordance with God's grace, but in
opposition to it--that any one should persevere in good, or should not
persevere, and it is not by the gift of God if he persevere, but by the
performance of human will, why will you strive against the words of Him
who says, "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not"?[4]
Will you dare to say that even when Christ prayed that Peter's faith
might not fail, it would still have failed if Peter had willed it to
fail; that is, if he had been unwilling that it should continue even to
the end? As if Peter could in any measure will otherwise than Christ had
asked for him that he might will. For who does not know that Peter's
faith would then have perished if that will by which he was faithful
should fail, and that it would have continued if that same will should
abide? But because "the will is prepared by the Lord,"[5] therefore
Christ's petition on his behalf could not be a vain petition. When,
then, He prayed that his faith should not fail, what was it that he
asked for, but that in his faith he should have a most free, strong,
invincible, persevering will! Behold to what an extent the freedom of
the will is defended in accordance with the grace of God, not in
opposition to it; because the human will does not attain grace by
freedom, but rather attains freedom by grace, and a delightful
constancy, and an insuperable fortitude that it may persevere.

           CHAP. 18.--SOME INSTANCES OF GOD'S AMAZING

                           JUDGMENTS.

    It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at,
that to some of His own children--whom He has regenerated in Christ--to
whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance
also, when to children of another He forgives such wickedness, and, by
the bestowal of His grace, makes them His own children. Who would not
wonder at this? Who would not be exceedingly astonished at this? But,
moreover, it is not less marvellous, and still true, and so manifest
that not even the enemies of God's grace can find any means of denying
it, that some children of His friends, that is, of regenerated and good
believers, departing this life as infants without baptism,although He
certainly might provide the grace of this layer if He willed, since in
His power are all things,--He alienates from His kingdom into which He
introduces their parents; and some children of His enemies He causes to
come into the hands of Christians, and by means of this layer introduces
into the kingdom, from which their parents are aliens; although, as well
to the former infants there is no evil deserving, as to the latter there
is no good, of their own proper will. Certainly, in this case the
judgments of God, because they are righteous and deep, may neither be
blamed nor penetrated. Among these also is that concerning perseverance,
of which we are now discoursing. Of both, therefore, we may exclaim, "O
the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
unsearchable are His judgments!"[1]

             CHAP. 19.--GOD'S WAYS PAST FINDING OUT.

    Nor let us wonder that we cannot trace His unsearchable ways. For,
to say nothing of innumerable other things which are given by the Lord
God to some men, and to others are not given, since with Him is no
respect of persons; such things as are not conferred on the merits of
will, as bodily swiftness, strength, good health, and beauty of body,
marvellous intellects and mental natures capable of many arts, or such
as fall to man's lot from without, such as are wealth, nobility,
honours, and other things of this kind, which it is in the power of God
alone that a man should have; not to dwell even on the baptism of
infants (which none of those objectors can say does not pertain, as
might be said of those other matters, to the kingdom of God), why it is
given to this infant and not given to that, since both of them are
equally in God's power, and without that sacrament none can enter into
the kingdom of God;--to be silent, then, on these matters, or to leave
them on one  side, let men consider those very special cases of which we
are treating. For we are discoursing of such as have not perseverance in
goodness,  but die in the decline of their good will from good to evil.
Let the objectors answer, if they can, why, when these were living
faithfully and piously, God did not then snatch them from the perils of
this life, "lest wickedness should change their understanding, and lest
deceit should beguile their souls"?[2] Had He not this in His power, or
was He ignorant of their future sinfulness? Assuredly, nothing of this
kind is said, except most perversely and insanely. Why, then, did He not
do this? Let them reply who mock at us when in such matters we exclaim,
"How inscrutable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"[1]
For either God giveth this to whom He will, or certainly that Scripture
is wrong which says concerning the immature death of the righteous man,
"He was taken away test wickedness should change his understanding, or
lest deceit should beguile his soul."[2] Why, then, does God give this
so great benefit to some, and not give it to others, seeing that in Him
is no unrighteousness[3] nor acceptance of persons,[4] and that it is in
His power how long every one may remain in this life, which is called a
trial upon earth?[5] As, then, they are constrained to confess that it
is God's gift for a man to end this life of his before it can be changed
from good to evil, but they do not know why it is given to some and not
given to others, so let them confess with us that perseverance in good
is God's gift, according to the Scriptures, from which I have already
set down many testimonies; and let them condescend with us to be
ignorant, without a murmur against God, why it is given to some and not
given to others.

CHAP. 20 [IX.]--SOME ARE CHILDREN OF GOD ACCORDING TO GRACE TEMPORALLY
RECEIVED, SOME ACCORDING TO GOD'S ETERNAL FOREKNOWLEDGE.

    Nor let it disturb us that to some of His children God does not give
this perseverance. Be this far from being so, however, if these were of
those who are predestinated and called according to His purpose,--who
are truly the children of the promise. For the former, while they live
piously, are called children of God; but because they will live
wickedly, and die in that impiety, the foreknowledge of God does not
call them God's children. For they are children of God whom as yet we
have not, and God has already, of whom the Evangelist John says, "that
Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that
also He should gather together in one the children of God which were
scattered abroad;"[6] and this certainly they were to become by
believing, through the preaching of the gospel. And yet before this had
happened they had already been enrolled as sons of God with unchangeable
stedfastness in the memorial of their Father. And, again, there are some
who are called by us children of God on account of grace received even
in temporal things, yet are not so called by God; of whom the same John
says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us, because if they
had been of us they would, no doubt, have continued with us."[7] He does
not say, "They went out from us, but because they did not abide with us
they are no longer now of us;" but he says, "They went out from us, but
they were not of us,"--that is to say, even when they appeared among us,
they were not of us. And as if it were said to him, Whence do you prove
this? he says, "Because if they had been of us, they would assuredly
have continued with us."[1] It is the word of God's children; John is
the speaker, who was ordained to a chief place among the children of
God. When, therefore, God's children say of those who had not
perseverance, "They went out from us, but they were not of us," and add,
"Because if they had been of us, they would assuredly have continued
with us," what else do they say than that they were not children, even
when they were in the profession and name of children? Not because they
simulated righteousness, but because they did not continue in it. For he
does not say, "For if they had been of us, they would assuredly have
maintained a real and not a feigned righteousness with us;" but he says,
"If they had been of us, they would assuredly have continued with us."
Beyond a doubt, he wished them to continue in goodness. Therefore they
were in goodness; but because they did not abide in it,--that is, they
did not persevere unto the end,--he says, They were not of us, even when
they were with us,--that is, they were not of the number of children,
even when they were in the faith of children; because they who are truly
children are foreknown and predestinated as conformed to the image of
His Son, and are called according to His purpose, so as to be elected.
For the son of promise does not perish. but the son of perdition.[2]

            CHAP. 21.--WHO MAY BE UNDERSTOOD AS GIVEN

                           TO CHRIST.

    Those, then, were of the multitude of the called, but they were not
of the fewness of the elected. It is not, therefore, to His
predestinat-ed children that God has not given perseverance for they
would have it if they were in that number of children; and what would
they have which they had not received, according to the apostolical and
true judgment?[3] And thus such children would be given to Christ the
Son just as He Himself says to the Father, "That all that Thou hast
given me may not perish, but have eternal life."[4] Those, therefore,
are understood to be given to Christ who are ordained to eternal life.
These are they who are predestinated and called according to the
purpose, of whom not one perishes. And therefore none of them ends this
life when he has changed from good to evil, because he is so ordained,
and for that purpose given to Christ, that he may not perish, but may
have eternal life. And again, those whom we call His enemies, or the
infant children of His enemies, whomever of them He will so regenerate
that they may end this life in that faith which worketh by love, are
already, and before this is done, in that predestination His children,
and are given to Christ His Son, that they may not perish, but have
everlasting life.

            CHAP. 22.--TRUE CHILDREN OF GOD ARE TRUE

                      DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

    Finally, the Saviour Himself says, "If ye continue in my word, ye
are indeed my disciples."[5]] Is Judas, then, to be reckoned among them,
since he did not continue in His word? Are they to be reckoned among
them of whom the gospel speaks in such wise, where, when the Lord had
commanded His flesh to be eaten and His blood to be drunk, the
Evangelist says, "These things said He in the synagogue as He taught in
Capernaum. Many, therefore, of His disciples, when they had heard this,
said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in
Himself that His disciples were murmuring at it, said to them, Doth this
offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He
was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth
nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life. But
there are some of you who believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning
who were the believing ones, and who should betray Him; and He said,
Therefore said I unto you, that no man cometh unto me except it were
given of my Father. From this time many of His disciples went away back
from Him, and no longer walked with Him.''[6] Are not these even in the
words of the gospel called disciples? And yet they were not truly
disciples, because they did not continue in His word, according to what
He says: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye indeed my
disciples."[5] Because, therefore, they possessed not perseverance, as
not being truly disciples of Christ, so they were not truly children of
God even when they appeared to be so, and were so called. We, then, call
men elected, and Christ's disciples, and God's children, because they
are to be so called whom, being regenerated, we see to live piously; but
they are then truly what they are called if they shall abide in that on
account of which they are so called. But if they have not
perseverance,--that is, if they continue not in that which they have
begun to be,--they are not truly called what they are called and are
not; for they are not this in the sight of Him to whom it is known what
they are going to be,--that is to say, from good men, bad men.

CHAP. 23.--THOSE WHO ARE CALLED ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE ALONE ARE
PREDESTINATED.

    For this reason the apostle, when he had said, "We know that to
those who love God He work- eth all things together for good,"--knowing
that some love God, and do not continue in that good way unto the
end,--immediately added, "to them who are the called according to His
purpose."[1] For these in their love for God continue even to the end;
and they who for a season wander from the way return, that they may
continue unto the end what they had begun to be in good. Showing,
however, what it is to be called according to His purpose, he presently
added what I have already quoted above, "Because whom He did before
foreknow, He also predestinated 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," to wit, according to His
purpose; "and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He
justified, them He also glorified."[2] All those things are already
done: He foreknew, He predestinated, He called, He justified; because
both all are already foreknown and predestinated, and many are already
called and justified; but that which he placed at the end, "them He also
glorified" (if, indeed, that glory is here to be understood of which the
same apostle says, "When Christ your life shall appear, then shall ye
also appear with Him in glory"[3]), this is not yet accomplished.
Although, also, those two things--that is, He called, and He
justified--have not been effected in all of whom they are said,--for
still, even until the end of the world, there remain many to be called
and justified,--nevertheless, He used verbs of the past tense, even
concerning things future, as if God had already arranged from eternity
that they should come to pass. For this reason, also, the prophet Isaiah
says concerning Him, "Who has made the things that shall be."[4]
Whosoever, therefore, in God's most providential ordering, are
foreknown, predestinated, called, justified, glorified,--I say not, even
although not yet born again, but even although not yet born at all, are
already children of God, and absolutely cannot perish. These truly come
to Christ, because they come in such wise as He Himself says, "All that
the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will
not cast out;"[5] and a little after He says, "This is the will of the
Father who hath sent me, that of all that He hath given me I shall lose
nothing."[6] From Him, therefore, is given also perseverance in good
even to the end; for it is not given save to those who shall not perish,
since they who do not persevere shall perish.

CHAP. 24.--EVEN THE SINS OF THE ELECT ARE TURNED BY GOD TO THEIR
ADVANTAGE.

    To such as love Him, God co-worketh with all things for good; so
absolutely all things, that even if any of them go astray, and break out
of the way, even this itself He makes to avail them for good, so that
they return more lowly and more instructed. For they learn that in the
right way[7] itself they ought to rejoice with trembling; not with
arrogation to themselves of confidence of abiding as if by their own
strength; not with saying, in their abundance, "We shall not be moved
for ever."[8] For which reason it is said to them, "Serve the Lord in
fear, and rejoice unto Him with trembling, lest at any time the Lord
should be angry, and ye perish from the right way."[9] For He does not
say, "And ye come not into the right way;" but He says, "Lest ye perish
from the right way." And what does this show, but that those who are
already walking in the right way are reminded to serve God in fear; that
is, "not to be high-minded,  but to fear"?[10] which signifies, that
they should not be haughty, but humble. Whence also He says in another
place, "not minding high things, but consenting with the lowly;"[11] let
them rejoice in God, but with trembling; glorying in  none, since
nothing is ours, so that he who glori-eth may glory in the Lord, lest
they perish from the right way in which they have already begun to walk,
while they are ascribing to themselves their very presence in it. These
words also the apostle made use of when he says, "Work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling." [12] And setting forth why with fear
and trembling, he says, "For it is God that worketh in you, both to will
and to do for His good pleasure."[13] For he had not this fear and
trembling who said in his abundance, "I shall not be moved for ever."[8]
But because he was a child of the promise, not of perdition, he
experienced in God's desertion for a little while what he himself was:
"Lord," said he, "in Thy favour Thou gavest strength to my honour; Thou
turnedst away Thy face from me, and I became troubled."[14] Behold how
much better instructed, and for this reason also more humble, he held on
his way, at length seeing and confessing that by His will God had
endowed his honour with strength; and this he had attributed to himself
and presumed to be from himself, in such abundance as God had afforded
it, and not from Him who had given it, and so had said, "I shall not be
moved for ever!" Therefore he became troubled so that he found himself,
and being lowly minded learnt not only of eternal life, but, moreover,
of a pious conversation and perseverance in this life, as that in which
hope should be maintained. This might moreover be the word of the
Apostle Peter, because he also had said in his abundance, "I will lay
down my life for Thy sake;"[1] attributing to himself, in his eagerness,
what was afterwards to be bestowed on him by his Lord. But the Lord
turned away His face from him, and be became troubled, so that in his
fear of dying for Him he thrice denied Him. But the Lord again turned
His face to him, and washed away his sin with his tears. For what else
is, "He turned and looked upon him,"[2] but, He restored to him the face
which, for a little while, He had turned away from him? Therefore he had
become troubled; but because he learned not to be confident concerning
himself, even this was of excellent profit to him, by His agency who
co-works for good with all things to those who love Him; because he had
been called according to the purpose, so that no one could pluck him out
of the hand of Christ, to whom he had been given.

CHAP. 25.--THEREFORE REBUKE IS TO BE USED.

    Let no one therefore say that a man must not be rebuked when he
deviates from the right way, but that his return and perseverance must
only be asked for from the Lord for him. Let no considerate and
believing man say this. For if such an one is called according to the
purpose, beyond all doubt God is co-working for good to him even in the
fact of his being rebuked. But since he who rebukes is ignorant whether
he is so called, let him do with love what he knows ought to be done;
for he knows that such an one ought to be rebuked. God will show either
mercy or judgment; mercy, indeed, if be who is rebuked is "made to
differ" by the bestowal of grace from the mass of perdition, and is not
found among the vessels of wrath which are completed for destruction,
but among the vessels of mercy which God has prepared for glory;[3] but
judgment, if among the former he is condemned, and is not predestinated
among the latter.

            CHAP. 26 [X.]--WHETHER ADAM RECEIVED THE

                      GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE.

    Here arises another question, not reasonably to be slighted, but to
be approached and solved in the help of the Lord in whose hand are both
we and our discourses.[4] For I am asked, in respect of this gift of God
which is to persevere  in good to the end, what I think of the first 
man himself, who assuredly was made upright  without any fault. And I do
not say: If he  had not perseverance, how was he without fault,  seeing
that he was in want of so needful a gift of God? For to this
interrogatory the answer is easy, that he had not perseverance, because
he did not persevere in that goodness in which he was without sin; for
he began to have sin from the point at which he fell; and if he began,
certainly he was without sin before he had begun. For it is one thing
not to have sin, and it is another not to abide in that goodness in
which there is no sin. Because in that very fact, that he is not said
never to have been without sin, but he is said not to have continued 
without sin, beyond all doubt it is demonstrated that he was without
sin, seeing that he is blamed for not having continued in that goodness.
But it should rather be asked and discussed with greater pains in what
way we can answer those who say, "If in that uprightness in which he was
made without sin he had perseverance, beyond all doubt he persevered in
it; and if he persevered, he certainly did not sin, and did not forsake
that his uprightness. But that he did  sin, and was a forsaker of
goodness, the Truth declares. Therefore he had not perseverance in that
goodness; and if he had it not, he certainly received it not. For how
should he have both received perseverance, and not have persevered?
Further, if he had it not because he did not receive it, what sin did he
commit by not persevering, if he did not receive perseverance? For it
cannot be said that he did not receive it, for the reason that he was
not separated by the bestowal of grace from the mass of perdition.
Because that mass of perdition did not as yet exist in the human race
before he had sinned from whom the corrupted source was derived."

                     CHAP. 27.--THE ANSWER.

    Wherefore we most wholesomely confess what we most correctly
believe, that the God and Lord of all things, who in His strength
created all things good, and foreknew that evil things would arise out
of good, and knew that it pertained to His most omnipotent goodness even
to do good out of evil things rather than not to allow evil things to be
at all, so ordained the life of angels and men that in it He might first
of all show what their free will was capable of, and then what the
kindness of His grace and the judgment of His righteousness was capable 
of. Finally, certain angels, of whom the chief is he who is called the
devil, became by free will outcasts from the Lord God. Yet although they
fled from His goodness, wherein they had been blessed, they could not
flee from His judgment, by which they were made most wretched. Others,
however, by the same free will stood fast in the truth, and merited the
knowledge of that most certain truth that they should never fall.[5] For
if from the Holy Scriptures we have been able to attain the knowledge
that none of the holy angels shall fall evermore, how much more have
they themselves attained this knowledge by the truth more sublimely
revealed to them! Because to us is promised a blessed life without end,
and equality with the angels,[1] from which promise we are certified
that when after judgment we shall have come to that life, we shall not
fall from it; but if the angels are ignorant of this truth concerning
themselves, we shall not be their equals, but more blessed than they.
But the Truth has promised us equality with them. It is certain, then,
that they have known this by sight, which we have known by faith, to
wit, that there shall be now no more any fall of any holy angel. But the
devil and his angels, although they were blessed before they fell, and
did not know that they should fall unto misery,--there was still
something which might be added to their blessedness, if by free will
they had stood in the truth, until they should receive that fulness of
the highest blessing as the reward of that continuance; that is, that by
the great abundance of the love of God, given by the Holy Spirit, they
should absolutely not be able to fall any more, and that they should
know this with complete certainty concerning themselves. They had not
this plenitude of blessedness; but since they were ignorant of their
future misery, they enjoyed a blessedness which was less, indeed, but
still without any defect. For if they had known their future fall and
eternal punishment, they certainly could not have been blessed; since
the fear of so great an evil as this would compel them even then to be
miserable.

CHAP. 28.--THE FIRST MAN HIMSELF ALSO MIGHT HAVE STOOD BY HIS FREE WILL.

    Thus also He made man with free will; and although ignorant of his
future fall, yet therefore happy, because he thought it was in his own
power both not to die and not to become miserable. And if he had willed
by his own free will to continue in this state of uprightness and
freedom from sin, assuredly without any experience of death and of
unhappiness he would have received by the merit of that continuance the
fulness of blessing with which the holy angels also are blessed; that
is, the impossibility of falling any more, and the knowledge of this
with absolute certainty. For even he himself could not be blessed
although in Paradise, nay, he would not be there, where it would not
become him to be miserable, if the foreknowledge of his fall had made
him wretched with the dread of such a disaster. But because he forsook
God of his free will, he experienced the just judgment of God, that with
his whole race, which being as yet all placed in him had sinned with
him, he should be condemned. For as mary of this race as are delivered
by God's grace are certainly delivered from the condemnation in which
they are already held bound. Whence, even if none should be delivered,
no one could justly blame the judgment of God. That, therefore, in
comparison of those that perish few, but in their absolute number many,
are delivered, is effected by grace,[2] is effected freely:[2] thanks
must be given, because it is effected, so that no one may be lifted up
as of his own deservings, but that every mouth may be stopped,[3] and he
that glorieth may glory in the Lord.[4]

CHAP. 29 [XI.]--DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE GRACE GIVEN BEFORE AND AFTER THE
FALL.

    What then? Did not Adam have the grace of God? Yes, truly, he had it
largely, but of a different kind. He was placed in the midst of benefits
which he had received from the goodness of his Creator; for he had not
procured those benefits by his own deservings; in which benefits he
suffered absolutely no evil. But saints in this life, to whom pertains
this grace of deliverance, are in the midst of evils out of which they
cry to God, "Deliver us from evil."[5] He in those benefits needed not
the death of Christ: these, the blood of that Lamb absolves from guilt,
as well inherited as their own. He had no need of that assistance which
they implore when they say, "I see another law in my members warring
against the law of my mind, and making  me captive in the law of sin
which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me
from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our
Lord."[6] Because in them the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the
spirit against the flesh, and as they labour and are imperilled in such
a contest, they ask that by the grace of Christ the strength to fight
and to conquer may be given them. He, however, tempted and disturbed in
no such conflict concerning himself against himself, in that position of
blessedness enjoyed his peace with himself.

CHAP. 30.--THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD.

    Hence, although these do not now require a grace more joyous for the
present, they nevertheless need a more powerful grace; and what grace is
more powerful than the only-begotten Son of God, equal to the Father and
co-eternal, made man for them, and, without any sin of His own, either
original or actual, crucified by men who were shiners? And although He
rose again on the third day, never to die any more, He yet bore death
for men and gave life to the dead, so that redeemed by His blood, having
received so great and such a pledge, they could say, "If God be for us,
who is against us? He who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up
for us all, how has He not with Him also given to us all things?"[1] God
therefore took upon Him our nature--that is, the rational soul and flesh
of the man Christ--by an undertaking singularly marvellous, or
marvellously singular; so that with no preceding merits of His own
righteousness He might in such wise be the Son of God from the
beginning, in which He had begun to be man, that He, and the Word which
is without beginning, might be one person. For there is no one blinded
by such ignorance of this matter and the Faith as to dare to say that,
although born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary the Son of man, yet
of His own free will by righteous living and by doing good works,
without sin, He deserved to be the Son of God; in opposition to the
gospel, which says, "The Word was made flesh."[2] For where was this
made flesh except in the Virginal womb, whence was the beginning of the
man Christ? And, moreover, when the Virgin asked how that should come to
pass which was told her by the angel, the angel answered "The Holy Ghost
shall come over on to thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee, therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God."[3] "Therefore," he said; not because of works of
which certainly of a yet unborn infant there are none; but "therefore,"
because "the Holy Ghost shall come over on to thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee, that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God." That nativity, absolutely
gratuitous, conjoined, in the unity of the person, man to God, flesh to
the Word! Good works followed that nativity; good works did not merit
it. For it was in no wise to be feared that the human nature taken up by
God the Word in that ineffable manner into a unity of person, would  sin
by free choice of will, since that taking up itself was such that the
nature of man so taken  up by God would admit into itself no movement of
an evil will. Through this Mediator God  makes known that He makes those
whom He redeemed by His blood from evil, everlastingly good; and Him He
in such wise assumed that He never would be evil, and, not being made
out of evil, would always be good.[4]

CHAP. 31.--THE FIRST MAN HAD RECEIVED THE GRACE NECESSARY FOR HIS
PERSEVERANCE, BUT ITS EXERCISE WAS LEFT IN HIS FREE CHOICE.

    The first man had not that grace by which he should never will to be
evil; but assuredly he had that in which if he willed to abide he would
never be evil, and without which, moreover, he could not by free will be
good, but which, nevertheless, by free will he could forsake. God,
therefore, did not will even him to be without His grace, which He left
in his free will; because free will is sufficient for evil, but is too
little s for good, unless it is aided by Omnipotent Good. And if that
man had not forsaken that assistance of his free will, he would always
have been good; but he forsook it, and he was forsaken. Because such was
the nature of the aid, that he could forsake it when he would, and that
he could continue in it if he would; but not such that it could be
brought about that he would. This first is the grace which was given to
the first Adam; but more powerful than this is that in the second Adam.
For the first is that whereby it is affected that a man may have
righteousness if he will; the second, therefore, can do more than this,
since by it is even effected that he will, and will so much, and love
with such ardour, that by the will of the Spirit he overcomes the will
of the flesh, that lusteth in opposition to it.[6] Nor was that, indeed.
a small grace by which was demonstrated even the power of free will,
because man was so assisted that without this assistance he could not
continue in good, but could forsake this assistance if he would. But
this latter grace is by so much the greater, that it is too little for a
man by its means to regain his lost freedom; it is too little, finally,
not to be able without it either to apprehend the good or to continue in
good if he will, unless he is also made to will.

             CHAP. 32.--THE GIFTS OF GRACE CONFERRED

                      ON ADAM IN CREATION.

    At that time, therefore, God had given to man a good will,[7]
because in that will He had made him, since He had made him upright. He
had given help without which he could not continue therein if he would;
but that he should will, He left in his free will. He could therefore
continue if he would, because the help was not wanting whereby he could,
and without which he could not, perseveringly hold fast the good which
he would. But that he willed not to continue is absolutely the fault of
him whose merit it would have been if he had willed to continue; as the
holy angels did, who, while others fell by free will, themselves by the
same free will stood, and deserved to receive the due reward of this
continuance--to wit, such a fulness of blessing that by it they might
have the fullest certainty of always abiding in it. If, however, this
help had been wanting, either to angel or to man when they were first
made, since their nature was not made such that without the divine help
it could abide if it would, they certainly would not have fallen by
their own fault, because the help would have been wanting without which
they could not continue. At the present time, however, to those to whom
such assistance is wanting, it is the penalty of sin; but to those to
whom it is given, it is given of grace, not of debt; and by so much the
more is given through Jesus Christ our Lord to those to whom it has
pleased God to give it, that not only we have that help without which we
cannot continue even if we will, but, moreover, we have so great and
such a help! as to will. Because by this grace of God there is caused in
us, in the reception of good and in the persevering hold of it, not only
to be able to do what we will, but even to will to do what we are able.
But this was not the case in the first man; for the one of these things
was in him, but the other was not. For he did not need grace to receive
good, because he had not yet lost it; but he needed the aid of grace to
continue in it, and without this aid he could not do this at all; and he
had received the ability if he would, but he had not the will for what
he could; for if he had possessed it, he would have persevered. For he
could persevere if he would; but that he would not was the result of
free will, which at that time was in such wise free that he was capable
of willing well and ill. For what shall be more free than free will,
when it shall not be able to serve sin? and this should be to man also
as it was made to the holy angels, the reward of deserving. But now that
good deserving has been lost by sin, in those who are delivered that has
become the gift of grace which would have been the reward of deserving.

CHAP. 33 [XII.]--WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ABILITY NOT TO SIN,
TO DIE, AND FORSAKE GOOD, AND THE INABILITY TO SIN, TO DIE, AND TO
FORSAKE GOOD?

    On which account we must consider with diligence and attention in
what respect those pairs differ from one another,--to be able not to
sin, and not to be able to sin; to be able not to die, and not to be
able to die; to be able not to forsake good, and not to be able to
forsake good. For the first man was able not to sin, was able not to
die, was able not to forsake good. Are we to say that he who had such a
free will could not sin? Or that he to whom it was said, "If thou shalt
sin thou shalt die by death," could not die? Or that he could not
forsake good, when he would forsake this by sinning, and so die?
Therefore the first liberty of the will was to be able not to sin, the
last will be much greater, not to be able to sin; the first immortality
was to be able not to die, the last will be much greater, not to be able
to die; the first was the power of perseverance, to be able not to
forsake good--the last will be the felicity of perseverance, not to be
able to forsake good. But because the last blessings will be preferable
and better, were those first ones, therefore, either no blessings at
all, or trifling ones?

CHAP. 34.--THE AID WITHOUT WHICH A THING DOES NOT COME TO PASS, AND THE
AID WITH WHICH A THING COMES TO PASS.

    Moreover, the aids themselves are to be distinguished. The aid
without which a thing does not come to pass is one thing, and the aid by
which a thing comes to pass is another. For without food we cannot live;
and yet although food should be at hand, it would not cause a man to
live who should will to die. Therefore the aid of food is that without
which it does not come to pass that we live, not that by which it comes
to pass that we live. But, indeed, when the blessedness which a man has
not is given him, he becomes at once blessed. For the aid is not only
that without which that does not happen, but also with which that does
happen for the sake of which it is given. Wherefore this is an
assistance both by which it comes to pass, and without which it does not
come to pass; because, on the one hand, if blessedness should be given
to a man, he becomes at once blessed; and, on the other, if it should
never be given he will never be so. But food does not of necessity cause
a man to live, and yet without it he cannot live. Therefore to the first
man, who, in that good in which he had been made upright, had received
the ability not to sin, the ability not to die, the ability not to
forsake that good itself, was given the aid of perseverance,--not that
by which it should be brought about that he should persevere, but that
without which he could not of free will persevere. But now to the saints
predestinated to the kingdom of God by God's grace, the aid of
perseverance that is given is not such as the former, but such that to
them perseverance itself is bestowed; not only so that without that gift
they cannot persevere, but, moreover, so that by means of this gift they
cannot help persevering. For not only did He say, "Without me ye can do
nothing,"[1] but He also said, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen
you, and ordained you that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that
your fruit should remain."[2] By which words He showed that He had given
them not only righteousness, but perseverance therein. For when Christ
thus ordained them that they should go and bring forth fruit, and that
their fruit should remain, who would dare to say, It shall not remain?
Who would dare to say, Perchance it will not remain? "For the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance;"[1]  but the calling is of those
who are called according to the purpose. When Christ intercedes,
therefore, on behalf of these, that their faith should not fail,
doubtless it will not fail unto the end. And thus it shall persevere
even unto the end; nor shall the end of this life find it anything but
continuing.

CHAP. 35.--THERE IS A GREATER FREEDOM NOW IN THE SAINTS THAN THERE WAS
BEFORE IN ADAM.

    Certainly a greater liberty is necessary in the face of so many and
so great temptations, which had no existence in Paradise,--a liberty
fortified and confirmed by the gift of perseverance, so that this world,
with all its loves, its fears, its errors, may be overcome: the
martyrdoms of the saints have taught this. In fine, he [Adam], not only
with nobody to make him afraid, but, moreover, in spite of the authority
of God's fear, using free will, did not stand in such a state of
happiness, in such a facility[2] of [not] sinning. But these [the
saints], I say, not trader the fear of the world, but in spite of the
rage of the world lest they should stand, stood firm in the faith; while
he could see the good things present which he was going to forsake, they
could not see the good things future which they were going to receive.
Whence is this, save by the gift of Him from whom they obtained mercy to
be faithful; from whom they received the spirit, not of fear, whereby
they would yield to the persecutors, but of power, and of love, and of
continence, in which they could overcome all  threatenings, all
seductions, all torments? To him, therefore, without any sin, was given
the free will with which he was created; and he made it to serve sin.
But although the will of these had been the servant of sin, it was
delivered by Him who said, "If the Son shall make you free, then shall
ye be free indeed."[3] And by that grace they receive so great a
freedom, that although as long as they live here they are fighting
against sinful lusts, and some sins creep upon them unawares, on account
of which they daily say, "Forgive us our debts,"[4] yet they do not any
more obey the sin which is unto death, of which the Apostle John says,
"There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."[5]
Concerning which sin (since it is not expressed) many and different
notions may be entertained. I, however, say, that sin is to forsake even
unto death the faith which worketh by love. This sin they no longer
serve who are not in the first condition, as Adam, free; but are freed
by the grace of God through the second Adam, and by that deliverance
have that free will which enables them to serve God, not that by which
they may be made captive by the devil. From being made free from sin
they have become the servants of righteousness,[6] in which they will
stand till the end, by the gift to them of perseverance from Him who
foreknew them, and predestinated them, and called them according to His
purpose, and justified them, and glorified them, since He has even
already formed those things that are to come which He promised
concerning them. And when He promised, "Abraham believed Him, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness."[7] For "he gave glory to God, most
fully believing," as it is written, "that what He has promised He is
able also to perform."[7]

CHAP. 36.--GOD NOT ONLY FOREKNOWS THAT MEN WILL BE GOOD, BUT HIMSELF
MAKES THEM SO.

    It is He Himself, therefore, that makes those men good, to do good
works. For He did not promise them to Abraham because He foreknew that
of themselves they would be good. For if this were the case, what He
promised was not His, but theirs. But it was not thus that Abraham
believed, but "he was not weak in faith, giving glory to God;" and "most
fully believing that what He has promised He is able also to
perform."[8] He does not say, "What He foreknew, He is able to promise;"
nor "What He fore told, He is able to manifest;" nor "What He promised,
He is able to foreknow:" but "What He promised, He is able also to do."
It is He, therefore, who makes them to persevere in good, who makes them
good. But they who fall and perish have never been in the number of the
predestinated. Although, then, the apostle might be speaking of all
persons regenerated and living piously when he said, "Who art thou that
judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or
falleth;" yet he at once had regard to the predestinated, and said, "But
he shall stand;" and that they might not arrogate this to themselves, he
says, "For God is able to make him stand."[9] It is He Himself,
therefore, that gives perseverance, who is able to establish those who
stand, so that they may stand fast with the greatest perseverance; or to
restore those who have fallen, for "the Lord setteth up those who are
broken down."[10]

 CHAP. 37.--TO A SOUND WILL IS COMMITTED THE  POWER OF PERSEVERING OR OF
NOT PERSEVERING.

    As, therefore, the first man did not receive this gift of God,--that
is, perseverance in good,but it was left in his choice to persevere or
not to persevere, his will had such strength,--inasmuch as it had been
created without any sin, and there was nothing in the way of
concupis-cence of himself that withstood it,--that the choice of
persevering could worthily be entrusted to such goodness and to such
facility m living well. But God at the same time foreknew what he would
do in unrighteousness; foreknew, however, but did not compel him to
this; but at the same time He knew what He Himself would do in
righteousness concerning him. But now, since that great freedom has been
lost by the desert of sin, our weakness has remained to be aided by
still greater gifts. For it pleased God, in order most effectually to
quench the pride of human presumption, "that no flesh should glory in
His presence"--that is, "no man."[1] But whence should flesh not glory
in His presence, save concerning its merits? Which, indeed, it might
have had, but lost; and lost by that very means whereby it might have
had them, that is, by its free will; on account of which there remains
nothing to those who are to be delivered, save the grace of the
Deliverer. Thus, therefore, no flesh glories in His presence. For the
unrighteous do not glory, since they have no ground of glory; nor the
righteous, because they have a ground from Him, and have no glory of
theirs, but Himself, to whom they say, "My glory, and the lifter up of
my head."[2] And thus it is that what is written pertains to every man, 
"that no flesh should glory in His presence." To the righteous, however,
pertains that Scripture: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord."[3] For this the apostle most manifestly showed, when, after
saying "that no flesh should glory in His presence," lest the saints
should suppose that they had been left without any glory, he presently
added, "But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us

wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that,
according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord."[4] Hence it is that in this abode of miseries, where trial is the
life of man upon the earth, "strength is made perfect in weakness."[5]
What strength, save "that he that glorieth should glory in the Lord"?

CHAP. 38.--WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE THAT IS NOW
GIVEN TO THE SAINTS.

    And thus God willed that His saints should not--even concerning
perseverance in goodness itself--glory in their own strength, but in
Himself, who not only gives them aid such as He gave to the first man,
without which they cannot persevere if they will, but causes in them
also the will; that since they will not persevere unless they both can
and will, both the capability anti the will to persevere should be
bestowed on them by the liberality of divine grace. Because by the Holy
Spirit their will is so much enkindled that they therefore can, because
they so will; and they therefore so will because God works in them to
will. For if in so much weakness of this life (in which weakness,
however, for the sake of checking pride, strength behoved to be
perfected) their own will should be left to themselves, that they might,
if they willed, continue in the help of God, without which they could
not persevere, and God should not work m them to will, in the midst of
so many and so great weaknesses their will itself would give way, and
they would not be able to persevere, for the reason that failing from
infirmity they would not will, or in the weakness of will they would not
so will that they would be able. Therefore aid is brought to the
infirmity of human will, so that it might be unchangeably and
invincibly[6] influenced by divine grace; and thus, although weak, it
still might not fail, nor be overcome by any adversity. Thus it happens
that man's will, weak and incapable, in good as yet small, may persevere
by God's strength; while the will of the first man, strong and
healthful, having the power of free choice, did not persevere in a
greater good; because although God's help was not wanting, without which
it could not persevere if it would, yet it was not such a help as that
by which God would work in man to will. Certainly to the strongest He
yielded and permitted to do what He willed; to those that were weak He
has reserved that by His own gift they should most invincibly will what
is good, and most invincibly refuse to forsake this. Therefore when
Christ says, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,"[7] we may
understand that it was said to him who is built upon the rock. And thus
the man of God, not only because he has obtained mercy to be faithful,
but also because faith itself does not fail, if he glories, must glory
in the Lord.

CHAP. 39 [XIII.]--THE NUMBER OF THE PREDESTINATED IS CERTAIN AND
DEFINED.

    I speak thus of those who are predestinated to the kingdom of God,
whose number is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor
taken from them; not of those who, when He had announced and spoken,
were multiplied beyond number. For they may be said to be called but not
chosen, because they are not called according to the purpose. But that
the number of the elect is certain, and neither to be increased nor
diminished,--although it is signified by John the Baptist when he says,
"Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance: and think not to
say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for God is able of
these stones to raise up children to Abraham,"[1] to show that they were
in such wise to be cut off if they did not produce fruit, that the
number which was promised to Abraham would not be wanting,is yet more
plainly declared in the Apocalypse: "Hold fast that which thou hast,
lest another take thy crown."[2] For if another would not receive unless
one should have lost, the number is fixed.

CHAP. 40.--NO ONE IS CERTAIN AND SECURE OF HIS OWN PREDESTINATION AND
SALVATION.

    But, moreover, that such things as these are so spoken to saints who
will persevere, as if it were reckoned uncertain whether they will
persevere, is a reason that they ought not otherwise to hear these
things, since it is well for them "not to be high-minded, but to
fear."[3] For who of the multitude of believers can presume, so long as
he is living in this mortal state, that he is in the number of the
predestinated? Because it is necessary that in this condition that
should be kept hidden; since here we have to beware so much of pride,
that even so great an apostle was buffetted by a messenger of Satan,
lest he should be lifted up.[4] Hence it was said to the apostles, "If
ye abide in me;"[5] and this He said who knew for a certainty that they
would abide; and through the prophet, "If ye shall be willing, and will
hear me,"[6] although He knew in whom He would work to will also. And
many similar things are said. For on account of the usefulness of this
secrecy, lest, perchance, any one should be lifted up, but that all,
even although they are running well, should fear, in that it is not
known who may attain,--on account of the usefulness of this secrecy, it
must be believed that some of the children of perdition, who have not
received the gift of perseverance to the end, begin to live in the faith
which worketh by love, and live for some time faithfully and
righteously, and afterwards fall away, and are not taken away from this
life before this happens to them. If this had happened to none of these,
men would have that very wholesome fear, by which the sin of presumption
is kept down, only so long as until they should attain to the grace of
Christ by which to live piously, and afterwards would for time to come
be secure that they would never fall away from Him. And such presumption
in this condition of trials is not fitting, where there is so great
weakness, that security may engender pride. Finally, this also shall be
the case; but it shall be at that time, in men also as it already is in
the angels, when there cannot be any pride. Therefore the number of the
saints, by God's grace predestinated to God's kingdom, with the gift of
perseverance to the end bestowed on them, shall be guided thither in its
completeness, and there shall be at length without end preserved in its
fullest completeness, most blessed, the mercy of their Saviour still
cleaving to them, whether in their conversion, in their conflict, or in
their crown!

             CHAP. 41.--EVEN IN JUDGMENT GOD'S MERCY

                    WILL BE NECESSARY TO US.

    For the Holy Scripture testifies that God's mercy is then also
necessary for them, when the Saint says to his soul concerning the Lord
its God, "Who crowneth thee in mercy and compassion."[7] The Apostle
James also says: "He shall have judgment without mercy who hath showed
no mercy;"[8] where he sets forth that  even in that judgment in which
the righteous are crowned and the unrighteous are condemned, some will
be judged with mercy, others without mercy. On which account also the
mother of the Maccabees says to her son, "That in that mercy I may
receive thee with thy brethren."[9] "For when a righteous king," as it
is written, "shall sit on the throne, no evil thing shall oppose itself
to him. Who will boast that he has a pure heart? or who will boast that
he is pure from sin?[10] And thus God's mercy is even then necessary, by
which he is made "blessed to whom the Lord has not imputed sin."[11] But
at that time even mercy itself shall be allotted in righteous judgment
in accordance with the merits of good works. For when it is said,
"Judgment without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy," it is plainly
shown that in those in whom are found the good works of mercy, judgment
shall be executed with mercy; and thus even that mercy itself shall be
returned to the merits of good works. It is not so now; when not only no
good works, but many bad works precede, His mercy anticipates a man so
that he is delivered from evils,--as well from evils which he has done,
as from those which he would have done if he were not controlled by the
grace of God; and from those, too, which he would have suffered for ever
if he were not plucked from the power of darkness, and transferred into
the kingdom of the Son of God's love.[12] Nevertheless, since even that
life eternal itself, which, it is certain, is given as due to good
works, is called by so great an apostle the grace of God, although grace
is not rendered to works, but is given freely, it must be confessed
without any doubt, that eternal life is called grace for the reason that
it is rendered to those merits which grace has conferred upon man.
Because that saying is rightly understood which in the gospel is read,
"grace for grace,"[1]--that is, for those merits which grace has
conferred.

CHAP. 42.--THE REPROBATE ARE TO BE PUNISHED FOR MERITS OF A DIFFERENT
KIND.

    But those who do not belong to this number of the predestinated,
whom--whether that they have not yet any free choice of their will, or
with a choice of will truly free, because freed by grace itself--the
grace of God brings to His kingdom,--those, then, who do not belong to
that most certain and blessed number, are most righteously judged
according to their deservings. For either they lie under the sin which
they have inherited by original generation, and depart hence with that
inherited debt which is not put away by regeneration, or by their free
will have added other sins besides; their will, I say, free, but not
freed,-- free from righteousness, but enslaved to sin, by which they are
tossed about by divers mischievous lusts, some more evil, some less, but
all evil; and they must be adjudged to diverse punishments, according to
that very diversity. Or they receive the grace of God, but they are only
for a season, and do not persevere; they forsake and are forsaken. For
by their free will, as they have not received the gift of perseverance,
they are sent away by the righteous and hidden judgment of God.

            CHAP. 43 [XIV.]--REBUKE AND GRACE DO NOT

                     SET ASIDE ONE ANOTHER.

    Let men then suffer themselves to be rebuked when they sin, and not
conclude against grace from the rebuke itself, nor from grace against
rebuke; because both the righteous penalty of sin is due, and righteous
rebuke belongs to it, if it is medicinally applied, even although the
salvation of the ailing man is uncertain; so that if he who is rebuked
belongs to the number of the predestinated, rebuke may be to him a
wholesome medicine; and if he does not belong to that number, rebuke may
be to him a penal infliction. Under that very uncertainty, therefore, it
must of love be applied, although its result is unknown; and prayer must
be made on his behalf to whom it is applied, that he may be healed. But
when men either come or return into the way of righteousness by means of
rebuke, who is it that worketh salvation in their hearts but that God
who giveth the increase, whoever plants and waters, and whoever labours
on the fields or shrubs,--that God whom no man's will resists when He
wills to give salvation? For so to will or not to will is in the power
of Him who willeth or willeth not, as not to hinder the divine will nor
overcome the divine power. For even concerning those who do what He
wills not, He Himself does what He will.

            CHAP. 44.--IN WHAT WAY GOD WILLS ALL MEN

                          TO BE SAVED.

    And what is written, that "He wills all men' to be saved,"[2] while
yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which
I have mentioned in other writings[3] of mine; but here I will say one
thing: "He wills all men to be saved," is so said that all the
predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is
among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, "Ye tithe every
herb;"[4] where the expression is only to be understood of every herb
that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found
throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it
was said, "Even as I also please all men in all things."[5] For did he
who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he
pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ,
whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced
into it.

CHAP. 45.--SCRIPTURAL INSTANCES WHEREIN IT IS PROVED THAT GOD HAS MEN'S
WILLS MORE IN HIS POWER THAN THEY THEMSELVES HAVE.

    It is not, then, to be doubted that men's wills cannot, so as to
prevent His doing what he wills, withstand the will of God, "who hath
done all things whatsoever He pleased in heaven and in earth,"[6] and
who also "has done those things that are to come;"[7] since He does even
concerning the wills themselves of men what He will, when He will.
Unless, perchance (to mention some things among many), when God willed
to give the kingdom to Saul, it was so in the power of the Israelites,
as it certainly was placed in their will, either to subject themselves
or not to the man in question, that they could even prevail to withstand
God. God, however, did not do this, save by the will of the men
themselves, because he beyond doubt had the most omnipotent power of
inclining men's hearts whither it pleased Him. For thus it is written:
"And Samuel sent the people away, and every one went away unto his own
place. And Saul went away to his house in Gibeah: and there went away
with Saul mighty men, whose hearts the Lord touched. And pestilent
children said, Who shall save us? This man? And they despised him, and
brought him no presents."[1] Will any one say that any of those whose
hearts the Lord touched to go with Saul would not have gone with him, or
that any of those pestilent fellows, whose hearts He did not touch to do
this, would have gone? Of David also, whom the Lord ordained to the
kingdom in a more prosperous succession, we read thus: "And David
continued to increase, and was magnified, and the Lord was with him."[2]
This having been premised, it is said a little afterwards, "And the
Spirit clothed Amasai, chief of the thirty, and he said, We are thine, 0
David, and we will be with thee, 0 son of Jesse: Peace, peace be unto
thee, and peace be to thy helpers; because the Lord has helped thee."[3]
Could he withstand the will of God, and not rather do the will of Him
who wrought in his heart by His Spirit, with which he was clothed, to
will, speak, and do thus? Moreover, a little afterwards the same
Scripture says, "All these warlike men, setting the battle in array,
came with a peaceful heart to Hebron to establish David over all
Israel." [4] By their own will, certainly, they appointed David king.
Who cannot see this? Who can deny it? For they did not do it under
constraint or without good-will, since they did it; with a peaceful
heart. And yet He wrought this in them who worketh what He will in the
hearts of men. For which reason the Scripture premised, "And David
continued to increase, and was magnified, and the Lord Omnipotent was
with him." And thus the Lord Omnipotent, who was with him, induced these
men to appoint him king. And how did He induce them? Did He constrain
thereto by any bodily fetters? He wrought within; He held their hearts;
He stirred their hearts, and drew them by their own wills, which He
Himself wrought in them. If, then, when God wills to set up kings in the
earth, He has the wills of men more in His power than they themselves
have, who else causes rebuke to be wholesome and correction to result in
the heart of him that is rebuked, that he may be established in the
kingdom of heaven?

CHAP. 46 [XV.]--REBUKE MUST BE VARIED ACCORDING TO THE VARIETY OF
FAULTS. THERE IS NO PUNISHMENT IN THE CHURCH GREATER

THAN EXCOMMUNICATION.

    Therefore, let brethren who are subject be rebuked by those who are
set over them, with rebukes that spring from love, varied according to
the diversity of faults, whether smaller or greater. Because that very
penalty that is called condemnation,[5] which episcopal judgment
inflicts, than which there is no greater punishment in the Church, may,
if God will, result and be of advantage for most wholesome rebuke. For
we know not what may happen on the coming day; nor must any one be
despaired of before the end of this life; nor can God be contradicted,
that He may not look down and give repentance, and receive the sacrifice
of a troubled spirit and a contrite heart, and absolve from the guilt of
condemnation, however just, and so Himself not condemn the condemned
person. Yet the necessity of the pastoral office requires, in order that
the terrible contagion may not creep through the many, that the diseased
sheep should be separated from the sound ones; perchance, by that very
separation, to be healed by Him to whom nothing is impossible. For as we
know not who belongs to the number of the predestinated, we ought in
such wise to be influenced by the affection of love as to will all men
to be saved. For this is the case when we endeavour to lead every
individual to that point where they may meet with those agencies by
which we may prevail, to the accomplishment of the result, that being
justified by faith they may have peace with God,[6]-- which peace,
moreover, the apostle announced when he said, "Therefore, we discharge
an embassage for Christ, as though God were exhorting by us, we pray you
in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God."[7] For what is "to be
reconciled" to Him but to have peace with Him? For the sake of which
peace, moreover, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said to His disciples,
"Into whatsoever house ye enter first, say, Peace be to this house; and
if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it; but if not,
it shall return to you again."[8] When they preach the gospel of this
peace of whom it is predicted, "How beautiful are the feet of those that
publish peace, that announce good things!"[9] to us, indeed, every one
then begins to be a son of peace who obeys and believes this gospel, and
who, being justified by faith, has begun to have peace towards God; but,
according to God's predestination, he was already a son of peace. For it
was not said, Upon whomsoever your peace shall rest, he shall become a
son of peace; but Christ says, "If the son of peace be there, your peace
shall rest upon that house." Already, therefore, and before the
announcement of that peace to him, the son of peace was there, as he had
been known and foreknown, by--not the evangelist, but--God. For we need
not fear lest we should lose it, if in our ignorance he to whom we
preach is not a son of peace, for it will return to us again--that is,
that preaching will profit us, and not him; but if the peace proclaimed
shall rest upon him, it will profit both us and him.

CHAP. 47.--ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PASSAGE, "WHO WILL
HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED."

    That, therefore, in our ignorance of who shall be saved, God
commands us to will that all to whom we preach this peace may be saved,
and Himself works this in us by diffusing that love in our hearts by the
Holy Spirit who is given to us,--may also thus be understood, that God
wills all men to be saved, because He makes us to will this; just as "He
sent the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father;" ' that is, making us
to cry, Abba, Father. Because, concerning that same Spirit, He says in
another place, "We have received the Spirit of adoption, in whom we cry,
Abba, Father! "[2] We therefore cry, but He is said to cry who makes us
to cry. If, then, Scripture tightly said that the Spirit was crying by
whom we are made to cry, it rightly also says that God wills, when by
Him we are made to will. And thus, because by rebuke we ought to do
nothing save to avoid departure from that peace which is towards God, or
to induce return to it of him who had departed, let us do in hope what
we do. If he whom we rebuke is a son of peace, our peace shall rest upon
him; but if not, it shall return to us again.

                CHAP. 48.--THE PURPOSE OF REBUKE.

    Although, therefore, even while the faith of some is subverted, the
foundation of God standeth sure, since the Lord knoweth them that are
His, still, we ought not on that account to be indolent and negligent in
rebuking those who should be rebuked. For not for nothing was it said,
"Evil communications corrupt good manners;" [3] and, "The weak brother
shall perish in thy knowledge, on account of whom Christ died."[4] Let
us not, in opposition to these precepts, and to a wholesome fear,
pretend to argue, saying, "Well, let evil communications corrupt good
manners, and let the weak brother perish. What is that to us? The
foundation of God standeth sure, and no one perishes but the son of
perdition." [XVI.] Be it far from us to babble in this wise, and think
that we ought to be secure in this negligence. For it is true that no
one perishes except the son of perdition, but God says by the mouth of
the prophet Ezekiel:[5] "He shall surely die in his sin, but his blood
will I require at the hand of the watchman."

                     CHAP. 49.--CONCLUSION.

    Hence, as far as concerns us, who are not able to distinguish those
who are predestinated from those who are not, we ought on this very
account to will all men to be saved. Severe rebuke should be medicinally
applied to all by us that they perish not themselves, or that they may
not be the means of destroying others. It belongs to God, however, to
make that rebuke useful to them whom He Himself has foreknown and
predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. For, if at any
time we abstain from rebuking, for fear lest by rebuke a man should
perish, why do we not also rebuke, for fear lest a man should rather
perish by our withholding it? For we have no greater bowels of love than
the blessed apostle who says, "Rebuke those that are unruly; comfort the
feeble-minded; support the weak; be patient towards all men. See that
none render to any man evil for evil"[6] Where it is to be understood
that evil is then rather rendered for evil when one who ought to be
rebuked is not rebuked, but by a wicked dissimulation is neglected. He
says, moreover, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may
fear;"[7] which must be received concerning those sins which are not
concealed, lest he be thought to have spoken in opposition to the word
of the Lord. For He says, "If thy brother shall sin against thee, rebuke
him between thee and him."[8] Notwithstanding, He Himself carries out
the severity of rebuke to the extent of saying, "If he will not hear the
Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."[9] And
who has more loved the weak than He who became weak for us all, and of
that very weakness was crucified for us all? And since these things are
so, grace neither restrains rebuke, nor does rebuke restrain grace; and
on this account righteousness is so to be prescribed that we may ask in
faithful prayer, that, by God's grace, what is prescribed may be done;
and both of these things are in such wise to be done that righteous
rebuke may not be neglected. But let all these things be done with love,
since love both does not sin, and does cover the multitude of sins.

A TREATISE ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS.

 A TREATISE ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS,

                 BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO.

                           THE FIRST BOOK.[1]

                   ADDRESSED TO PROSPER AND HILARY.[2]

                             AD. 428 OR 429.

WHEREIN THE TRUTH OF PREDESTINATION AND GRACE IS DEFENDED AGAINST THE
SEMI-PELAGIANS,--THOSE PEOPLE TO WIT, WHO BY NO MEANS WITHDRAW
ALTOGETHER FROM THE PELAGIAN HERESY, IN THAT THEY CONTEND THAT THE
BEGINNING OF SALVATION AND OF FAITH IS OF OURSELVES; SO THAT IN VIRTUE,
AS IT WERE, OF THIS PRECEDENT MERIT, THE OTHER GOOD GIFTS OF GOD ARE
ATTAINED. AUGUSTIN SHOWS THAT NOT ONLY THE INCREASE, BUT THE VERY
BEGINNING ALSO OF FAITH IS IN GOD'S GIFT. ON THIS MATTER HE DOES NOT
DISAVOW THAT HE ONCE THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT IN SOME SMALL WORKS,
WRITTEN BEFORE HIS EPISCOPATE, HE WAS IN ERROR, AS IN THAT EXPOSITION,
WHICH THEY OBJECT TO HIM, OF PROPOSITIONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS. BUT HE POINTS OUT THAT HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONVINCED CHIEFLY BY
THIS TESTIMONY, "BUT WHAT HAST THOU THAT THOU HAST NOT RECEIVED ?" WHICH
HE PROVES IS TO BE TAKEN AS A TESTIMONY CONCERNING FAITH ITSELF ALSO. HE
SAYS THAT FAITH IS TO BE COUNTED AMONG OTHER WORKS, WHICH THE APOSTLE
DENIES TO ANTICIPATE GOD'S GRACE WHEN HE SAYS, "NOT OF WORKS" HE
DECLARES THAT THE HARDNESS OF THE HEART IS TAKEN AWAY BY GRACE, AND THAT
ALL COME TO CHRIST WHO ARE TAUGHT TO COME BY THE FATHER; BUT THAT THOSE
WHOM HE TEACHES, HE TEACHES IN MERCY, WHILE THOSE WHOM HE TEACHES NOT,
IN JUDGMENT HE TEACHES NOT. THAT THE PASSAGE FROM HIS HUNDRED AND SECOND
EPISTLE, QUESTION 2, "CONCERNING THE TIME OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION"
WHICH IS ALLEGED BY THE SEMI-PELAGIANS, MAY RIGHTLY BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT
DETRIMENT TO THE DOCTRINE OF GRACE AND PREDESTINATION. HE TEACHES WHAT
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRACE AND PREDESTINATION. FURTHER, HE SAYS
THAT GOD IN HIS PREDESTINATION FOREKNEW WHAT HE HAD PURPOSED TO DO. HE
MARVELS GREATLY THAT THE ADVERSARIES OF PREDESTINATION, WHO ARE SAID TO
BE UNWILLING TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE UNCERTAINTY OF GOD'S WILL, PREFER
RATHER TO TRUST THEMSELVES TO THEIR OWN WEAKNESS THAN TO THE STRENGTH OF
GOD'S PROMISE. HE CLEARLY POINTS OUT THAT THEY ABUSE THIS AUTHORITY, IF
THOU BELIEVEST, THOU SHALT BE SAVED."  THAT THE TRUTH OF GRACE AND
PERSEVERANCE SHINES FORTH IN THE CASE OF INFANTS THAT ARE SAVED, WHO ARE
DISTINGUISHED BY NO MERITS OF THEIR OWN FROM OTHERS WHO PERISH.FOR THAT
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM ARISING FROM THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF
MERITS WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE HAD IF THEY HAD LIVED LONGER. THAT
TESTIMONY IS WRONGFULLY REJECTED BY THE ADVERSARIES AS BEING
UNCANONICAL, WHICH HE ADDUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION, " HE
WAS TAKEN AWAY LEST WICKEDNESS,"ETC. THAT THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS INSTANCE
OF PREDESTINATION AND GRACE IS THE SAVIOUR HIMSELF, IN WHOM A MAN
OBTAINED THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE SAVIOUR AND THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF
GOD, THROUGH BEING ASSUMED INTO ONENESS OF PERSON BY THE WORD CO-ETERNAL
WITH THE FATHER, ON ACCOUNT OF NO PRECEDENT MERITS, EITHER OF WORKS OR
OF FAITH. THAT THE PREDESTINATED ARE CALLED BY SOME CERTAIN CALLING
PECULIAR TO THE ELECT, AND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ELECTED BEFORE THE
FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD; NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE FOREKNOWN AS MEN WHO
WOULD BELIEVE AND WOULD BE HOLY, BUT IN ORDER THAT BY MEANS OF THAT VERY
ELECTION OF GRACE THEY MIGHT BE SUCH, ETC.

    CHAP.	1 [I.]--INTRODUCTION.

    WE know that in the Epistle to the Philippians the apostle said, "To
write the same things to you to me indeed is not grievous but for you it
is safe;"[1] yet the same apostle writing to the Galatians when he saw
that he had done enough among them of what he regarded as being needful
for them, by the ministry of his preaching, said, "For the rest let no
man cause me labour"[2] or as it is read in many codices "Let no one be
troublesome to me." But although I confess that it causes me trouble
that the divine word in which the grace of God is preached (which is
absolutely no grace if it is given according to our merits), great and
manifest as it is, is not yielded to, nevertheless my dearest sons,
Prosper and Hilary your zeal and brotherly affection-which makes you so
reluctant to see any of the brethren in error, as to wish that, after so
many books and letters of mine on this subject, I  should write again
from here--I love more than I can tell, although I do not dare to say 
that I love it as much as I ought. Wherefore, behold, I write to you
again. And although not with you, yet through you I am still doing what
I thought I had done sufficiently.

CHAP. 2.--TO WHAT EXTENT THE MASSILIANS[3] WITHDRAW FROM THE PELAGIANS.

    For on consideration of your letters, I seem to see that those
brethren on whose behalf you exhibit a pious care that they may not hold
the poetical opinion in which it is affirmed, '' Every one is a hope for
himself,"[4] and so fall under that condemnation which is, not
poetically, but prophetically, declared, "Cursed is every man that hath
hope in man,"[5] must be treated in that way wherein the apostle dealt
with those to whom he said, "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded,
God shall reveal even this unto you."[6] For as yet they are in darkness
on the question concerning the predestination of the saints, but they
have that whence, "if in anything they are otherwise minded, God will
reveal even this unto them," if they are walking in that to which they
have attained. For which reason the apostle, when he had said, "If ye
are in anything otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you,"
says," Nevertheless whereunto we have attained, let us walk in the
same."[7] And those brethren of ours, on whose behalf your pious love is
solicitous, have attained with Christ's Church to the belief that the
human race is born obnoxious to the sin of the first man, and that none
can be delivered from that evil save by the righteousness of the Second
Man. Moreover,  they have attained to the confession that men's wills
are anticipated by God's grace; and to the agreement that no one can
suffice to himself either for beginning or for completing any good work.
These things, therefore, unto which they have attained, being held fast,
abundantly distinguish them from the error of the Pelagians. Further, if
they walk in them, and beseech Him who giveth understanding, if in
anything concerning predestination they are otherwise minded, He will
reveal even this unto them. Yet let us also spend upon them the
influence of our love, and the misery of our discourse, according to His
gift, whom we have asked that in these letters we might say what should
be suitable[1] and profitable to them. For whence do we know whether by
this our service, wherein we are serving them in the free love of
Christ, our God may not perchance will to effect that purpose ?

                 CHAP. 3 [II.]--EVEN THE BEGINNING OF FAITH

                              IS OF GOD'S GIFT.

    Therefore I ought flint to show that the faith by which we are
Christians is the gift of God if I can do that more thoroughly than I
have already done in so many and so large volumes. But I see that I must
now reply to those who say that the divine testimonies which I have
adduced concerning this matter are of avail for this purpose, to assure
us that we have faith itself of ourselves, but that its increase is of
God; as if faith were not given to us by Him, but were only increased in
us by Him, on the ground of the merit of its having begun from us. Thus
there is here no departure from that opinion which Pelagius himself was
constrained to condemn in the judgment of the bishops of Palestine, as
is testified in the same Proceedings, "That the grace of God is given
according to our merits,"[2] if it is not of God's grace that we begin
to believe, but rather that on account of thin beginning an addition is
made to us of a more full and perfect belief; and so we first give the
beginning of our faith to God, that His supplement may also be given to
us again, and whatever else we faithfully ask.

                  CHAP. 4.--CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING.

    But why do we not in opposition to this, rather hear the words, "Who
hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed to him again ? since
of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things "[3] And from whom,
then, is that very beginning of our faith if not from Him ? For this is
not excepted when other things are spoken of as of Him; but "of Him, and
through Him, and in Him, are all things." But who can say that he who
has already begun to believe deserves nothing from Him in whom he has
believed? Whence it results that, to him who already deserves, other
things are said to be added by a divine retribution, and thus that God's
grace is given according to our merits. And this assertion when put
before him, Pelagius himself condemned, that he might not be condemned.
Whoever, then, wishes on every side to avoid this condemnable opinion,
let him understand that what the apostle says is said with entire
truthfulness, "Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to
believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake."[4] He shows that both
are the gifts of God, because he said that both were given. And he does
not say, "to believe on Him more fully and perfectly," but, "to believe
on Him." Neither does he say that he himself had obtained mercy to be
more faithful, but "to be faithful"[5] because he knew that he had not
first given the beginning of his faith to God, and had its increase
given back to him again by Him; but that he had been made faithful by
God, who also had made him an apostle. For the beginnings of his faith
are recorded, and they are very well known by being read in the church
on an occasion calculated to distinguish them:[6] how, being turned away
from the faith which he was destroying, and being vehemently opposed to
it, he was suddenly by a more powerful grace converted to it, by the
conversion of Him, to whom as One who would do this very thing it was
said by the prophet, "Thou wilt turn and quicken us;"[7] so that not
only from one who refused to believe he was made a willing believer,
but, moreover, from being a persecutor, he suffered persecution in
defence of that faith which he persecuted. Because it was given him by
Christ "not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake."

                    CHAP. 5.--TO BELIEVE IS TO THINK WITH

                                   ASSENT.

    And, therefore, commending that grace which is not given according
to any merits, but is the cause of all good merits, he says, "Not that
we are sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency
is of God."[8] Let them give attention to the, and well weigh these
words, who think that the beginning of faith is of ourselves, and the
supplement of faith is of God. For who cannot see that thinking is prior
to believing? For no one believes anything unless he has first thought
that it is to be believed. For however suddenly, however rapidly, some
thoughts fly before the will to believe, and this presently follows in
such wise as to attend them, as it were, in closest conjunction, it is
yet necessary that everything which is believed should be believed after
thought has preceded; although even belief itself is nothing else titan
to think with assent. For it is not every one who thinks that believes,
since many think in order that they may not believe; but everybody who
believes, thinks,--both thinks in believing and believes in thinking.
Therefore in what pertains to religion and piety (of which the apostle
was speaking), if we are not capable of thinking anything as of
ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, we are certainly not capable
of believing anything as of ourselves, since we cannot do this without
thinking; but our sufficiency, by which we begin to believe, is of God.
Wherefore, as no one is sufficient for himself, for the beginning or the
completion of any good work whatever,--and this those brethren of yours,
as what you have written intimates, already agree to be true, whence, as
well in the beginning as in the carrying out of every good work, our
sufficiency is of God,--so no one is sufficient for himself, either to
begin or to perfect faith; but our sufficiency is of God. Because if
faith is not a matter of thought, it is of no account; and we are not
sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of
God.

CHAP. 6.--PRESUMPTION AND ARROGANCE TO BE AVOIDED.

    Care must be taken, brethren, beloved of God, that a man do not lift
himself up in opposition to God, when he says that he does what God has
promised. Was not the faith of the nations promised to Abraham, "and he,
giving glory to God, most fully believed that what He promised He is
able also to perform "?[1] He therefore makes the faith of the nations,
who is able to do what He has promised. Further, if God works our faith,
acting in a wonderful manner in our hearts so that we believe, is there
any reason to fear that He cannot do the whole; and does man on that
account arrogate to himself its first elements, that he may merit to
receive its last from God ? Consider if in such a way any other result
be gained than that the grace of God is given in some way or other,
according to our merit, and so grace is no more grace. For on this
principle it is rendered as debt, it is not given gratuitously; for it
is due to the believer that his faith itself should be increased by the
Lord, and that the increased faith should be the wages of the faith
begun; nor is it observed when this is said, that this wage is assigned
to believers, not of grace, but of debt. And I do not at all see why the
whole should not be attributed to man,--as he who could originate  for
himself what he had not previously, can himself increase what he had
originated,--except that it is impossible to withstand the most manifest
divine testimony by which faith, whence piety takes its beginning, is
shown also to be the gift of God: such as is that testimony that" God
hath dealt to every man the measure of faith; "[2] and that one, "Peace
be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father, and the
Lord Jesus Christ,"[3] and other similar passages. Man, therefore,
unwilling to resist such clear testimonies as these, and yet desiring
himself to have the merit of believing, compounds as it were with God to
claim a portion of faith for himself, and to leave a portion for Him;
and, what is still more arrogant, he takes the first portion for himself
and gives the subsequent to Him; and so in that which he says belongs to
both, he makes himself the first, and God the second !

CHAP. 7 [III.]--AUGUSTIN CONFESSES THAT HE HAD FORMERLY BEEN IN ERROR
CONCERNING THE GRACE OF GOD.

    It was not thus that pious and humble teacher thought--I speak of
the most blessed Cyprian--when he said "that we must boast in nothing,
since nothing is our own."[4] And in order to show the, he appealed to
the apostle as a witness, where he said, "For what hast thou that thou
hast not received ? And if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as
if thou hadst not received it?"[5] And it was chiefly by this testimony
that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking
that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is
in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby
we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I
did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its
means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we
could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but
that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was
our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is
sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my
episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your
letters[6] wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the
Epistle to the Romans. Eventually, when I was retracting all my small
works, and was committing that retractation to writing,of which task I
had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy
letters,--when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of
this book, I then spoke thus:--"Also discussing, I say, 'what God could
have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder
should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He
could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic
testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, "Jacob have
I loved, and Esau have I hated,"'[7] I carried out my reasoning to the
point of saying: ' God did not therefore choose the works of any one in
foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the
faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom
He foreknew would believe on Him,--to whom He would give the Holy
Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.'
I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the
nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, ' A remnant
are saved according to the election of grace.'[1] Which assuredly is not
grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to
grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely
given. And what I next subjoined: ' For the same apostle says, "The same
God which worketh all in all;"[2] but it was never said, God believeth
all in all ;' and then added, ' Therefore what we believe is our own,
but what good thing we do is of Him who giveth the Holy Spirit to them
that believe: ' I certainly could not have said, had I already known
that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given
by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice
of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love, For
faith is not alone but as it is written, ' Love with faith, from God the
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.'[3] And what I said a little after, '
For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those
who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy
Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,'--is true indeed; but
by the same rule both are also God's, because God prepares the will; and
both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good
wills. And thus what I subsequently said also: ' Because we are not able
to Will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would
will, our willing is not sufficiently nor our running, unless God gives
strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;' and
thereupon added: ' It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we
do good works'--this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little
concerning the calling itself, which is according to God's purpose; for
not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect.
Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ' For as in those whom God
elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good
works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and
impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment
itself they do evil works'--I spoke most truly. But that even the merit
itself of faith was God's gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor
did I say. And in another place I say: 'For whom He has mercy upon, He
makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil
works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and
that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.' And this indeed is
true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of
faith does not come from God's mercy,--that is, whether that mercy is
manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also
manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostles words:
' I obtained mercy to be a believer.'[4] He does not say, ' Because I
was a believer.' Therefore although it is given to the believer, yet it
has been given also that he may be a believer. Therefore also, in
another place in the same book I most truly said: ' Because, if it is of
God's mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may
believe and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy
must not be grudged to the heathen;'--although I there discoursed less
carefully about that calling which is given according to God's
purpose."[5]

CHAP. 8 [IV.]--WHAT AUGUSTIN WROTE TO SIMPLICIANUS, THE SUCCESSOR  OF
AMBROSE, BISHOP OF MILAN.

    You see plainly what was at that time my opinion concerning faith
and works, although I was labouring in commending God's grace; and in
this opinion I see that those brethren of ours now are, because they
have not been as careful to make progress with me in my writings as they
were in reading them. For if they had been so careful, they would have
found that question solved in accordance with the truth of the divine
Scriptures in the first book of the two which I wrote in the very
beginning of my episcopate to Simplicianus, of blessed memory, Bishop of
the Church of Milan, and successor to St. Ambrose.  Unless, perchance,
they may not have known these books; in which case, take care that they
do know them. Of this first of those two books, I first spoke in the
second book of the Retractations; and what I said is as follows: "Of the
books, I say, on which, as a bishop, I have laboured, the first two are
addressed to Simplicianus, president of the Church of Milan, who
succeeded the most blessed Ambrose,concerning divers questions, two of
which I gathered into the first book from the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Romans. The former of them is about what is written: '
What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? By no means;'[6] as far as the
passage where he says, ' Who shall deliver me from the body of this
death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' And therein I
have expounded those words of the apostle:[1] The law is spiritual; but
I am carnal,'[2] and others in which the flesh is declared to be in
conflict against the Spirit in such a way as if a man were there
described as still under law, and not yet established under grace. For,
long afterwards, I perceived that those words might even be (and
probably were) the utterance of a spiritual man. The latter question in
this book is gathered from that passage where the apostle says, ' And
not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one act of
intercourse, even by our father Isaac,'[3] as far as that place where he
says, ' Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should be as
Sodoma, and should have been like unto Gomorrah.'[4] In the solution of
this question I laboured indeed on behalf of the free choice of the
human will, but God's grace overcame, and I could only reach that point
where the apostle is perceived to have said with the most evident truth,
' For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou hast not
received ? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou
receivedst it not?'[5] And this the martyr Cyprian was also desirous of
setting forth when he compressed the whole of it in that title: 'That we
must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.' "[6] This is why I
previously said that it was chiefly by this apostolic testimony that I
myself had been convinced, when I thought otherwise concerning this
matter; and this God revealed to me as I sought to solve this question
when I was writing, as I said, to the Bishop Simplicianus. This
testimony, therefore, of the apostle, when for the sake of repressing
man's conceit he said, "For what hast thou which thou hast not
received?"[5] does not allow any believer to say, I have faith which I
received not. All the arrogance of this answer is absolutely repressed
by these apostolic words. Moreover, it cannot even be said, "Although I
have not a perfected faith, yet I have its beginning, whereby I first of
all believed in Christ" Because here also answered: "But what hast thou
that thou hast not received? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost
thou glory as if thou receivedst it, not ?"

                  CHAP. 9 [V.]--THE PURPOSE OF THE APOSTLE

                               IN THESE WORDS.

    The notion, however, which they entertain, "that these words, 'What
hast thou that thou hast not received ?' cannot be said of this faith,
because it has remained in the same nature, although corrupted, which at
first was endowed with health and perfection,"[7] is perceived to have
no force for the purpose that they desire if it be considered why the
apostle said these words. For he was concerned that no one should glory
in man, because dissensions had sprung up among the Corinthian
Christians, so that every one was saying, "I, indeed, am of Paul, and
another, I am of Apollos, and another, I am of Cephas;"[8] and thence he
went on to say: " God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to
confound the strong things; and God hath chosen the ignoble things of
the world, and contemptible things, and those things which are not, to
make of no account things which are; that no flesh should glory before
God."[9] Here the intention of the apostle is of a certainty
sufficiently plain against the pride of man, that no one should glory in
man; and thus, no one should glory in himself. Finally, when he had said
"that no flesh should glory before God," in order to show in what man
ought to glory, he immediately added, "But it is of Him that ye are in
Christ Jesus, who is made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness,
and sanctification, and redemption: that according as it is written, He
that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."[10] Thence that intention of
his progressed, till afterwards rebuking them he says, "For ye are yet
carnal; for whereas there are among you envying and contention, are ye
not carnal, and walk according to man ? For while one saith I am of
Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not men ? What, then, is
Apollos, and what Paul? Ministers by whom you believed; and to every one
as the Lord has given. I have planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave
the increase. Therefore, neither is he that planteth anything, nor he
that watereth, but God that giveth the increase."[11] Do you not see
that the sole purpose of the apostle is that man may be humbled, and God
alone exalted ? Since in all those things, indeed, which are planted and
watered, he says that not even are the planter and the waterer anything,
but God who giveth the increase: and the very fact, also, that one
plants and another waters he attributes not to themselves, but to God,
when he says, "To every one as the Lord hath given; I have planted,
Apollos watered." Hence, therefore, persisting in the same intention he
comes to the point of saying, "Therefore let no man glory in man,"[12]
for he had already said, "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
After these and some other matters which are associated therewith, that
same intention of his is carried on in the words: "And these things,
brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for
your sakes, that ye might learn in us that no one of you should be
puffed up for one against another above that which is written. For who
maketh thee to differ? And what hast thou which thou hast not received ?
Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst
it not?"[1]

CHAP. 10.--IT IS GOD'S GRACE WHICH SPECIALLY DISTINGUISHES ONE MAN FROM
ANOTHER.

    In this the apostle's most evident intention, in which he speaks
against human pride, so that none should glory in man but in God, it is
too absurd, as I think, to suppose God's natural gifts, whether man's
entire and perfected nature itself as it was bestowed on him in his
flint state, or the remains, whatever they may be, of his degraded
nature. For is it by such gifts as these, which are common to all men,
that men are distinguished from men ? But here he flint said, "For who
maketh thee to differ?" and then added, "And what hast thou that thou
hast not received?" Because a man, puffed up against another, might say,
"My faith makes me to differ," or "My righteousness," or anything else
of the kind. In reply to such notions, the good teacher says, "But what
hast thou that thou hast not received ?" And from whom but from Him who
maketh thee to differ from another, on whom He bestowed not what He
bestowed on thee ? "Now if," says he, "thou hast received it, why dost
thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?" Is he concerned, I ask, about
anything else save that he who glorieth should glory in the Lord? But
nothing is so opposed to this feeling as for any one to glory concerning
his own merits in such a way as if he himself had made them for himself,
and not the grace of God,--a grace, however, which makes the good to
differ from the wicked, and is not common to the good and the wicked.
Let the grace, therefore, whereby we are living and reasonable
creatures, and are distinguished from cattle, be attributed to nature;
let that grace also by which, among men themselves, the handsome are
made to differ from the ill-formed, or the intelligent from the stupid,
or anything of that kind, be ascribed to nature. But he whom the apostle
was rebuking did not puff himself up as contrasted with cattle, nor as
contrasted with any other man, in respect of any natural endowment which
might be found even in the worst of men. But he ascribed to himself, and
not to God, some good gift which pertained to a holy life, and was
puffed up therewith when he deserved to hear the rebuke, "Who hath made
thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?" For though
the capacity to have faith is of nature, is it also of nature to have
it? "For all men have not faith,"[2] although all men have the capacity
to have faith. But the apostle does not say, "And what hast thou
capacity to have, the capacity to have which thou receivedst not?" but
he says, "And what hast thou which thou receivedst not?" Accordingly,
the capacity to have faith,[3] as the capacity to have love, belongs to
men's nature; but to have faith, even as to have love, belongs to the
grace of believers. That nature, therefore, in which is given to us the
capacity of having faith, does not distinguish man from man, but faith
itself makes the believer to differ from the unbeliever. And thus, when
it is said, "For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou
receivedst not?" if any one dare to say, "I have faith of mystic I did
not, therefore, receive it," he directly contradicts this most manifest
truth,--not because it is not in the choice of man's will to believe or
not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the
Lord. Thus, moreover, the passage, "For who maketh thee to differ? and
what hast thou that thou receivedst not?" refers to that very faith
which is in the will of man.

           CHAP. II  [VI.]--THAT SOME MEN ARE ELECTED

                       IS OF GOD'S MERCY.

    " Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others
contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not
will." Who does not know this ? Who can deny this ? But since in some
the win is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must
assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what
from His judgment. "What Israel sought for," says the apostle, "he hath
not obtained, but the election hath obtained it; and the rest were
blinded, as it is written, God gave to them the spirit of
compunction,--eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should
not hear, even to this day. And David said, Let their table be made a
snare, a retribution, and a stumblingblock to them; let their eyes be
darkened, that they may not see; and bow down their back always." [4]
Here is mercy and judgment,--mercy towards the election which has
obtained the righteousness of God, but judgment to the rest which have
been blinded. And yet the former, because they willed,[1] believed; the
latter, because they did not will believed not. Therefore mercy and
judgment were manifested in the very wills themselves. Certainly such an
election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, "So,
therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the
election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works;
otherwise grace is no more grace."[2] Therefore the election obtained
what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which
they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved
them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly
declared, it was done in recompense. "All the paths of the Lord are
mercy and truth."[3] But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy
by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously
judges, are equally unsearchable.

CHAP. 12 [VII.]--WHY THE APOSTLE SAID THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND
NOT BY WORKS

    But perhaps it may be said: "The apostle distinguishes faith from
works; he says, indeed, that grace is not of works, but he does not say
that it is not of faith." This, indeed, is true. But Jesus says that
faith itself also is the work of God, and commands us to work it. For
the Jews said to Him, "What shall we do that we may work the work of
God? Jesus answered, and said unto them, This is the work of God, that
ye believe on Him whom He hath sent."[4] The apostle, therefore,
distinguishes faith from works, just as Judah is distinguished from
Israel in the two kingdoms of the Hebrews, although Judah is Israel
itself. And he says that a man is justified by faith and not by works,
because faith itself is first given, from which may be obtained other
things which are specially characterized as works, in which a man may
live righteously. For he himself also says, "By grace ye are saved
through faith; and this not of yourselves; but it is the gift of
God,"[5]--that is to say, "And in saying 'through faith,' even faith
itself is not of yourselves, but is God's gift." "Not of works," he
says, "lest any man should be lifted up." For it is often said, "He
deserved to believe, because he was a good man even before he believed."
Which may be said of Cornelius[6] since his alms were accepted and his
prayers head before he had believed on Christ; and yet without some
faith he neither gave alms nor prayed. For how did he call on him on
whom he had not believed? But if he could have been saved without the
faith of Christ the Apostle Peter would not have been sent as an
architect to build him up; although, "Except the Lord build the house,
they labour in vain who build it."[7] And we are told, Faith is of
ourselves; other things which pertain to works of righteousness are of
the Lord; as if faith did not belong to the building,--as if, I say, the
foundation did not belong to the building. But if this primarily and
especially belongs to it, he labours in vain who seeks to build up the
faith by preaching, unless the Lord in His mercy builds it up from
within. Whatever, therefore, of good works Cornelius performed, as well
before he believed in Christ as when he believed and after he had
believed, are all to be ascribed to God, lest, perchance any man be
lifted up.

CHAP. 13 [VIII.] --THE EFFECT OF DIVINE GRACE.

    Accordingly, our only Master and Lord Himself, when He had said what
I have above mentioned,--"This is the work of God, that ye believe on
Him whom He hath sent,"--says a little afterwards in that same discourse
of His, "I said unto you that ye also have seen me and have not
believed. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me."[8] What is
the meaning of "shall come to me," but, "shall believe in me "? But it
is the Father's gift that this may be the case. Moreover, a little after
He says, "Murmur not among yourselves. No one can come to me, except the
Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last
day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all teachable[9]
of God. Every man that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned,
cometh unto me."[10] What is the meaning of, "Every man that hath heard
from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me," except that there is
none who hears from the Father, and learns, who cometh not to me? For if
every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes,
certainly every one who does not come has not heard from the Father; for
if he had heard and learned, he would come. For no one has heard and
learned, and has not come; but every one, as the Truth declares, who has
heard from the Father, and has learned, comes. Far removed from the
senses of the flesh is this teaching in which the Father is heard, and
teaches to come to the Son. Engaged herein is also the Son Himself,
because He is His Word by which He thus teaches; and He does not do this
through the ear of the flesh, but of the heart. Herein engaged, also, at
the same time, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; and He, too,
teaches, and does not teach separately, since we have learned that the
workings of the Trinity are inseparable. And that is certainly the same
Holy Spirit of whom the apostle says, "We, however, having the same
Spirit of faith."[1] But this is especially attributed to the Father,
for the reason that of Him is begotten the Only Begotten, and from Him
proceeds the Holy Spirit, of which it would be tedious to argue more
elaborately; and I think that my work in fifteen books on the Trinity
which God is, has already reached you. Very far removed, I say, from the
senses of the flesh is this instruction wherein God is heard and
teaches. We see that many come to the Son because we see that many
believe on Christ, but when and how they have heard this from the
Father, and have learned, we see not. It is true that that grace is
exceedingly secret, but who doubts that it is grace? This grace,
therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine
gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of
first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father
is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes
away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the
declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them
children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.

CHAP. 14.--WHY THE FATHER DOES NOT TEACH ALL THAT THEY MAY COME TO
CHRIST.

    Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ,
except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those
whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not ? Since, "On whom He
will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth."[2] But He has mercy
when He gives good things. He hardens when He recompenses what is
deserved. Or if, as some would prefer to distinguish them, those words
also are his to whom the apostle says, "Thou sayest then unto me," so
that he may be regarded as having said, "Therefore hath He mercy on whom
He will, and whom He will He hardeneth," as well as those which
follow,--to wit, "What is it that is still complained of? for who
resists His will?" does the apostle answer, "O man, what thou hast said
is false ?" No; but he says, "O man, who art thou that repliest against
God ? Doth the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou
made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump?
"[3] and what follows, which you very well know. And yet in a certain
sense the Father teaches all men to come to His Son. For it was not in
vain that it was written in the prophets, "And they shall all be
teachable of God."[4] And when He too had premised this testimony, He
added, "Every man, therefore, who has heard of the Father, and has
learned, cometh to me." As, therefore, we speak justly when we say
concerning any teacher of literature who is alone in a city, He teaches
literature here to everybody,--not that all men learn, but that there is
none who learns literature there who does not learn from him,--so we
justly say, God teaches all men to come to Christ, not because all come,
but because none comes in any other way. And why He does not teach all
men the apostle explained, as far as he judged that it was to be
explained, because, "willing to show His wrath, and to exhibit His
power, He endured with much patience the vessels of wrath which were
perfected for destruction; and that He might make known the riches of
His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory."[5]
Hence it is that the "word of the cross is foolishness to them that
perish; but unto them that are saved it is the power of God."[6] God
teaches all such to come to Christ, for He wills alI such to be saved,
and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And if He had willed to teach
even those to whom the word of the cross is foolishness to come to
Christ beyond all doubt these also would have come. For He neither
deceives nor is deceived when He says, "Every  one that hath heard of
the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me." Away, then, with the
thought that any one cometh not, who has heard of the Father and has
learned.

           CHAP. 15.--IT IS BELIEVERS THAT ARE TAUGHT

                             OF GOD.

    "Why," say they, "does He not teach all men?" If we should say that
they whom He does not teach are unwilling to learn, we shall be met with
the answer: And what becomes of what id said to Him, "O God, Thou writ
turn us again, and quicken us" ?[7] Or if God does not make men willing
who were not willing, on what principle does the Church pray, according
to the Lord's commandment, for her persecutors? For thus also the
blessed Cyprian[8] would have it to be understood that we say, "Thy will
be done, as in heaven so in earth,"--that is, as in those who have
already believed, and who are, as it were, heaven, so also in those who
do not believe, and on this account are still the earth. What, then, do
we pray for on behalf of those who are unwilling to believe, except that
God would work in them to will also? Certainly the apostle says,
"Brethren, my heart's good will, indeed, and my prayer to God for them,
is for their salvation."[9] He prays for those who do not believe,-- for
what, except that they may believe? For in no other way do they obtain
salvation. If, then, the faith of the petitioners precede the grace of
God, does the faith of them on whose behalf prayer is made that they may
believe precede the grace of God?--since this is the very thing that is
besought for them, that on them that believe not--that is, who have not
faith--faith itself may be bestowed ? When, therefore, the gospel is
preached, some believe, some believe not; but they who believe at the
voice of the preacher from without, hear of the Father from within, and
learn; while they who do not believe, hear outwardly, but inwardly do
not hear nor learn;--that is to say, to the former it is given to
believe; to the latter it is not given. Because "no man," says He,
"cometh to me, except the Father which sent me draw him."[1] And this is
more plainly said afterwards. For after a little time, when He was
speaking of eating his flesh and drinking His blood, and some even of
His disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it? Jesus,
knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at this, said unto them,
Doth this offend you?"[2] And a little after He said, "The words that I
have spoken unto you are spirit and life; but there are some among you
which believe not."[3] And immediately the evangelist says, "For Jesus
knew from the beginning who were the believers, and who should betray
Him; and He said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto
me except it were given him of my Father." Therefore, to be drawn to
Christ by the Father, and to hear and learn of the Father in order to
come to Christ, is nothing else than to receive from the Father the gift
by which to believe in Christ. For it was not the hearers of the gospel
that were distinguished from those who did not hear, but the believers
from those who did not believe, by Him who said, "No man cometh to me
except it were given him of my Father."

CHAP. 16.--WHY THE GIFT OF FAITH IS NOT GIVEN TO ALL.

    Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's
gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to
resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some,
while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not
to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a
condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none
were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault
with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be
delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would
be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own
merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in
the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,--" His judgments
are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out."[4] For it is better in
this case for us to hear or to say, "O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?"[5] than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has
chosen to be kept secret. Since, moreover, He could not will anything
unrighteous.

CHAP. 17 [IX.]--HIS ARGUMENT IN HIS LETTER AGAINST PORPHYRY, AS TO WHY
THE GOSPEL CAME SO LATE INTO THE WORLD.

    But that which you remember my saying in a certain small treatise of
mine against Porphyry, under the title of The Time of the Christian
Religion, I so said for the sake of escaping this more careful and
elaborate argument about grace; although its meaning, which could be
unfolded elsewhere or by others, was not wholly omitted, although I had
been unwilling in that place to explain it. For, among other matters, I
spoke thus in answer to the question proposed, why it was after so long
a time that Christ came: "Accordingly, I say, since they do not object
to Christ that all do not follow His teaching (for even they themselves
feel that this could not be objected at all with any justice, either to
the wisdom of the philosophers or even to the deity of their own gods),
what will they reply, if--leaving out of the question that depth of
God's wisdom and knowledge where perchance some other divine plan is far
more secretly hidden, without prejudging also other causes, which cannot
be traced out by the wise--we say to them only this, for the sake of
brevity in the arguing of this question, that Christ willed to appear to
men, and that His doctrine should be preached among them, at that time
when He knew, and at that place where He knew, that there were some who
would believe on Him. For at those times, and in those places, at which
His gospel was not preached, He foreknew that all would be in His
preaching such as, not indeed all, but many were in His bodily presence,
who would not believe on Him, even when the dead were raised by Him;
such as we see many now, who, although the declarations of the prophets
concerning Him are fulfilled by such manifestations, are still unwilling
to believe, and prefer to resist by human astuteness, rather than yield
to divine authority so dear and perspicuous, and so lofty, and sublimely
made known, so long as the human understanding is small and weak in its
approach to divine truth. What wonder is it, then, if Christ knew the
world in former ages to be so full of unbelievers, that He should
reasonably refuse to appear, or to be preached to them, who, as He
foreknew, would believe neither His words nor His miracles? For it is
not incredible that all at that time were such as from His coming even
to the present time we marvel that so many have been and are. And yet
from the beginning of the human race, sometimes more hiddenly, sometimes
more evidently, even as to Divine Providence the times seemed to be
fitting, there has neither been a failure of prophecy, nor were there
wanting those who believed on Him; as well from Adam to Moses, as in the
people of Israel itself which by a certain special mystery was a
prophetic people; and in other nations before He had come in the flesh.
For as some are mentioned in the sacred Hebrew books, as early as the
time of Abraham,--neither of his fleshly race nor of the people of
Israel nor of the foreign society among the people of Israel,--who were,
nevertheless, sharers in their sacrament, why may we not believe that
there were others elsewhere among other people, here and there, although
we do not read any mention of them in the same authorities ? Thus the
salvation of this religion, by which only true one true salvation is
truly promised, never failed him who was worthy of it; and whoever it
failed was not worthy of it. And from the very beginning of the
propagation of man, even to the end, the gospel is preached, to some for
a reward, to some for judgment; and thus also those to whom the faith
was not announced at all were foreknown as those who would not believe;
and those to whom it was announced, although they were not such as would
believe, are set forth as an example for the former; while those to whom
it is announced who should believe, are prepared for the kingdom of
heaven, and the company of the holy angels."[1]

            CHAP. 18.--THE PRECEDING ARGUMENT APPLIED

                      TO THE PRESENT  TIME.

    Do you not see that my desire was, without any prejudgment of the
hidden counsel of God, and of other reasons, to say what might seem
sufficient about Christ's foreknowledge, to convince the unbelief of the
pagans who had brought forward this question? For what is more true than
that Christ foreknew who should believe on Him, and at what times and
places they should believe ? But whether by the preaching of Christ to
themselves by themselves they were to have faith, or whether they would
receive it by God's gift,--that is, whether God only foreknew them, or
also predestinated them, I did not at that time think it necessary to
inquire or to discuss. I Therefore what I said, "that Christ willed to
appear to men at that time, and that His doctrine should be preached
among them when He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who
would believe on Him," may also thus be said, "That Christ willed to
appear to men at that time, and that His gospel should be preached among
those, whom He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who had
been elected in Himself before the foundation of the word." But since,
if it were so said, it would make the reader desirous of asking about
those things which now by the warning of Pelagian errors must of
necessity be discussed with greater copiousness and care, it seemed to
me that what at that time was sufficient should be briefly said, leaving
to one side, as I said, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God,
and without prejudging other reasons, concerning which I thought that we
might more fittingly argue, not then, but at some other time.

CHAP. 19 [X]--IN WHAT RESPECTS PREDESTINATION AND GRACE DIFFER.

    Moreover, that which I said, "That the salvation of this religion
has never been lacking to him who was worthy of it, and that he to whom
it was lacking was not worthy,"--if it be discussed and it be asked
whence any man can be worthy there are not wanting those who say--by
human will. But we say, by divine grace or predestination. Further,
between grace and predestination there is only this difference, that
predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace is the donation
itself. When, therefore the apostle says, "Not of works, lest any man
should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in
good works,"[2] it is grace; but what follows--"which God hath prepared
that  we should walk in them "--is predestination, which cannot exist
without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without
predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things
which He was about to do, whence it was said, "He made those things that
shah be."[3] Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which He
does not Himself do,--as all sins whatever. Because, although there are
some which are in such wise sins as that they are also the penalties of
sins, whence it is said, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do
those things which are not convenient,"[4] it is not in such a case the
sin that is God's, but the judgment. Therefore God's predestination of
good is, as I have said, the preparation of grace; which grace is the
effect of that predestination. Therefore when God promised to Abraham in
his seed the faith of the nations, saying, "I have established thee a
father of many nations,"(1) whence the apostle says, "Therefore it is of
faith, that the promise, according to grace, might be established to all
the seed,"(2) He promised not from the power of our will but from His
own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what
men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain
to God's worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it
is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the
fulfilment of God's promises would not be in the power of God, but in
that of men; and thus what was promised by God to Abraham would be given
to Abraham by men themselves. Abraham, however, did not believe thus,
but "he believed, giving glory to God, that what He promised He is able
also to do."(3) He does not say, "to foretell"--he does not say, "to
foreknow;" for He can foretell and foreknow the doings of strangers
also; but he says, "He is able also to do;" and thus he is speaking not
of the doings of others, but of His own.

CHAP. 20.--DID GOD PROMISE THE GOOD WORKS OF THE NATIONS AND NOT THEIR
FAITH, TO ABRAHAM?

    Did God, perchance, promise to Abraham in his seed the good works of
the nations, so as to promise that which He Himself does, but did not
promise the faith of the Gentiles, which men do for themselves; but so
as to promise what He Himself does, did He foreknow that men would
effect that faith? The apostle, indeed, does not speak thus, because God
promised children to Abraham, who should follow the footsteps of his
faith, as he very plainly says. But if He promised the works, and not
the faith of the Gentiles certainly since they are not good works unless
they are of faith (for "the righteous lives of faith," (4) and, "
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," (5) and, "Without faith it is
impossible to please"[6]), it is nevertheless in man's power that God
should fulfil what He has promised. For unless man should do what
without the gift of God pertains to man, he will not cause God to
give,--that is, unless man have faith of himself. God does not fulfil
what He has promised, that works of righteousness should be given by
God. And thus that God should be able to fulfil His promises is not in
God's power, but  man's. And if truth and piety do not forbid our
believing this, let us believe with Abraham, that what He has promised
He is able also to perform. But He promised children to Abraham; and
this men cannot be unless they have faith, therefore He gives faith
also.

CHAP. 21.--IT IS TO BE WONDERED AT THAT MEN SHOULD RATHER TRUST TO THEIR
OWN WEAKNESS THAN TO GOD'S STRENGTH.

    Certainly, when the apostle says, "Therefore it is of faith that the
promise may be sure according to grace,"(2) I marvel that men would
rather entrust themselves to their own weakness, than to the strength of
God's promise. But sayest thou, God's will concerning myself is to me
uncertain? What then? Is thine own will concerning thyself certain to
thee? and dost thou not fear,--"Let him that thinketh he standeth take
heed lest he fall"?(7) Since, then, both are uncertain, why does not man
commit his faith, hope, and love to the stronger will rather than to the
weaker?

                CHAP. 22.--GOD'S PROMISE IS SURE.

    "But," say they, "when it is said, ' If thou believest, thou shalt
be saved, (1) one of these things is required; the other is offered.
What is required is in man's power; what is offered is in God's."[8] Why
are not both in God's, as well what He commands as what He offers? For
He is asked to give what He commands. Believers ask that their faith may
be increased;  they ask on behalf of those who do not believe, that
faith may be given to  them; therefore both in its increase and in its
beginnings, faith is the gift of God. But it is said thus: "If thou
believest, thou shalt be saved," in the same way that it is said, "If by
the Spirit ye shall mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live." (9)
For in this case also, of these two things one is required, the other is
offered. It is said, "If by the Spirit ye shall mortify the deeds of the
flesh, ye shall live." Therefore, that we mortify the deeds of the flesh
is required, but that we may live is offered. Is it, then, fitting for
us to say, that to mortify the deeds of the flesh is not a gift of God,
and not to confess it to be a gift of God, because we hear it required
of us, with the offer of life as a reward if we shall do it? Away with
this being approved by the partakers and champions of grace! This is the
condemnable error of the Pelagians, whose mouths the apostle immediately
stopped when he added," For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,
they are the sons of God;"(10) lest we should believe that we mortify
the deeds of the flesh, not by God's Spirit, but by our own. And of this
Spirit of God, moreover, he was speaking in that place where he says,
"But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing unto
every man what is his own, as He will;"(11) and among all these things,
as you know, he also named faith. As, therefore, although it is the gift
of God to mortify the deeds of the flesh, yet it is required of us, and
life is set before us as a reward; so also faith is the gift of God,
although when it is said, "If thou believest, thou shalt be saved,"
faith is required of us, and salvation is proposed to us as a reward.
For these things are both commanded us, and are shown to be God's gifts,
in order that we may understand both that we do them, and that God makes
us to do them, as He most plainly says by the prophet Ezekiel. For what
is plainer than when He says," I will cause you to do"?(1) Give heed to
that passage of Scripture, and you will see that God promises that He
will make them to do those things which He commands to be done. He truly
is not silent as to the merits but as to the evil deeds, of those to
whom He shows that He is returning good for evil, by the very fact that
He causeth them thenceforth to have good works, in causing them to do
the divine commands.

CHAP. 23 [XII.] --REMARKABLE ILLUSTRATIONS OF GRACE AND PREDESTINATION
IN INFANTS, AND IN CHRIST.

    But all this reasoning, whereby we maintain that the grace of God
through Jesus Christ our Lord is truly grace, that is, is not given
according to our merits, although it is most manifestly asserted by the
witness of the divine declarations, yet, among those who think that they
are withheld from all zeal for piety unless they can attribute to
themselves something, which they first give that it may be recompensed
to them again, involves somewhat of a difficulty in respect of the
condition of grown-up people, who are already exercising the choice of
will. But when we come to the case of infants, and to the Mediator
between God and man Himself, the man Christ Jesus, there is wanting all
assertion of human merits that precede the grace of God, because the
former are not distinguished from others by any preceding good merits
that they should belong to the Deliverer of men; any more than He
Himself being Himself a man, was made the Deliverer of men by virtue of
any precedent human merits.

CHAP. 24.--THAT NO ONE IS JUDGED ACCORDING TO WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE IF
HE HAD LIVED LONGER.

    For who can hear that infants, baptized in the condition of mere
infancy, are said to depart from this life by reason of their future
merits, and that others not baptized are said to die in the same age
because their future merits are foreknown,--but as evil; so that God
rewards or condemns in them not their good or evil life, but no life at
all?(2) The apostle, indeed, fixed a limit which man's incautious
suspicion, to speak gently, ought not to transgress, for he says, "We
shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may
receive according to the things which he has done by means of the body,
whether it be good or evil."(3) "Has done," he said; and he did not add,
"or would have done." But I know not whence this thought should have
entered the minds of such men, that infants' future merits (which shall
not be) should be punished or honoured. But why is it said that a man is
to be judged according to those things which he has done by means of the
body, when many things are done by the mind alone, and not by the body,
nor by any member of the body; and for the most part things of such
importance, that a most righteous punishment would be due to such
thought, such as,--to say nothing of others,--that "The fool hath said
in his heart there is no God"?(4) What, then, is the meaning of,
"According to those things that he hath done by means of the body,"
except according to those things which he has done during that time in
which he was in the body, so that we may understand "by means of the
body" as meaning "throughout the season of bodily life "? But after the
body, no one will be in the body except at the last resurrection,--not
for the purpose of establishing any claims of merit, but for the sake of
receiving recompenses for good merits, and enduring punishments for evil
merits. But in this intermediate period between the putting off and the
taking again of the body, the souls are either tormented or they are in
repose, according to those things which they have done during the period
of the bodily life. And to this period of the bodily life moreover
pertains, what the Pelagians deny, but Christ's Church confesses,
original sin; and according to whether this is by God's grace loosed, or
by God's judgment not loosed, when infants die, they pass, on the one
hand, by the merit of regeneration from evil to good, or on the other,
by the merit of their origin from evil to evil. The catholic faith
acknowledges this, and even some heretics, without any contradiction,
agree to this. But in the height of wonder and astonishment I am unable
to discover whence men, whose intelligence your letters show to be by no
means contemptible, could entertain the opinion that any one should be
judged not according to the merits that he had as long as he was in the
body, but according to the merits which he would have had if he had
lived longer in the body; and I should not dare to believe that there
were such men, if I could venture to disbelieve you. But I hope that God
will interpose, so that when they are admonished they may at once
perceive, that if those sins which, as is said, would have been, can
rightly be punished by God's judgment in those who are not baptized,
they may alo be rightly remitted by God's grace in those who are
baptized. For whoever says that future sins can only be punished by
God's judgment, but cannot be pardoned by God's mercy, ought to consider
how great a wrong he is doing to God and His grace; as if future sin
could be foreknown, and could not be foregone.[1] And if this is absurd,
it is the greater reason that help should be afforded to those who would
be sinners if they lived longer, when they die in early life, by means
of that laver wherein sins are washed away.

CHAP. 25 [XIII.]--POSSIBLY THE BAPTIZED INFANTS WOULD HAVE REPENTED IF
THEY HAD LIVED, AND THE UNBAPTIZED NOT.

    But if, perchance, they say that sins are re-remitted to penitents,
and that those who die in infancy are not baptized because they are
foreknown as not such as would repent if they should live, while God has
foreknown that those who are baptized and die in infancy would have
repented if they had lived, let them observe and see that if it be so it
is not in this case original sins which are punished in infants that die
without baptism, but what would have been the sins of each one had he
lived; and also in baptized infants, that it is not original sins that
are washed away, but their own future sins if they should live, since
they could not sin except in more mature age; but that some were
foreseen as such as would repent, and others as such as would not
repent, therefore some were baptized, and others departed from this life
without baptism. If the Pelagians should dare to say this, by their
denial of original sin they would thus be relieved of the necessity of
seeking, on behalf of infants outside of the kingdom of God, for some
place of I know not what happiness of their own; especially since they
are convinced that they cannot have eternal life because they have not
eaten the flesh nor drank the blood of Christ; and because in them who
have no sin at all, baptism, which is given for the remission of sins,
is falsified. For they would go on to say that there is no original sin,
but that those who as infants are released are either baptized or not
baptized according to their future merits if they should live, and that
according to their future merits they either receive or do not receive
the body and blood of Christ, without which they absolutely cannot have
life; and are baptized for the true remission of sins although they
derived no sins from Adam, because the sins are remitted unto them
concerning which God foreknew that they would repent. Thus with the
greatest ease they would plead and would win their cause, in which they
deny that there is any original sin, and contend that the grace of God
is only given according to our merits. But that the future merits of
men, which merits will never come into existence are beyond all doubt no
merits at all, it is certainly most easy to see: for this reason even
the Pelagians were not able to say this; and much rather these ought not
to say it. For it cannot be said with what pain I find that they who
with us on catholic authority condemn the error of those heretics, have
not seen this, which the Pelagians themselves have seen to be most false
and absurd.

CHAP.	26 [XIV]--REFERENCE TO CYPRIAN'S TREATISE "ON THE MORTALITY."

    Cyprian wrote a work On the Mortality,(2) known with approval to
many and almost all who love ecclesiastical literature, wherein he says
that death is not only not disadvantageous to believers, but that it is
even found to be advantageous, because it withdraws men from the risks
of sinning, and establishes them in a security of not sinning. But
wherein is the advantage of this, if even future sins which have not
been committed are punished? Yet he argues most copiously and well that
the risks of sinning are not wanting in this life, and that they do not
continue after this life is done; where also he adduces that testimony
from the book of Wisdom: "He was taken away, lest wickedness should
alter his understanding."(3) And this was also adduced by me, though you
said that those brethren of yours had rejected it on the ground of its
not having been brought forward from a canonical book; as if, even
setting aside the attestation of this book, the thing itself were not
clear which I wished to be taught therefrom. For what Christian would
dare to deny that the righteous man, if he should be prematurely laid
hold of by death, will be in repose? Let who will, say this, and what
man of sound faith will think that he can withstand it? Moreover, if he
should say that the righteous man, if he should depart from his
righteousness in which he has long lived, and should die in that impiety
after having lived in it, I say not a year, but one day, will go hence
into the punishment due to the wicked, his righteousness having no power
in the future to avail him,--will any believer contradict this evident
truth? Further, if we are asked whether, if he had died then at the time
that he was righteous, he would have incurred punishment or repose,
shall we hesitate to answer, repose? This is the whole reason why it is
said,--whoever says it,--" He was taken away lest wickedness should
alter his understanding." For it was said in reference to the risks of
this life, not with reference to the foreknowledge of God, who foreknew
that which was to be, not that which was not to be--that is, that He
would below on him an untimely death in order that he might be withdrawn
from the uncertainty of temptations; not that he would sin, since he was
not to remain in temptation. Because, concerning this life, we read in
the book of Job, "Is not the life of man upon earth a temptation?"(1)
But why it should be granted to some to be taken away from the perils of
this life while they are righteous, while others who are righteous until
they fall from righteousness are kept in the same risks in a more
lengthened life,--who has known the mind of the Lord? And yet it is
permitted to be understood from this, that even those righteous people
who maintain good and pious characters, even to the maturity of old age
and to the last day of this life, must not glory in their own merits,
but in the Lord. since He who took away the righteous man from the
shortness of life, lest wickedness should alter his understanding,
Himself guards the righteous man in any length of life, that wickedness
may not alter his understanding. But why He should have kept the
righteous man here to fall, when He might have withdrawn him
before,--His judgments, although absolutely righteous, are yet
unsearchable.

CHAP. 27.--THE BOOK OF WISDOM OBTAINS IN THE CHURCH THE AUTHORITY OF
CANONICAL SCRIPTURE.

    And since these things are so, the judgment of the book of Wisdom
ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course of years that
book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of
the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians,
from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and
catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority. For
assuredly, if, from those who have been before me in commenting on the
divine Scriptures, I should bring forward a defence of this judgment,
which we are now called upon to defend more carefully and copiously than
usual against the new error of the Pelagians,--that is, that God's grace
is not given according to our merits, and that it is given freely to
whom it is given, because it is neither of him that willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy; but that by righteous
judgment it is not given to whom it is not given, because there is no
unrighteousness with God;--if, therefore, I should put forth a defence
of this opinion from catholic commentators on the divine oracles who
have preceded us, assuredly these brethren for whose sake I am now
discoursing would acquiesce, for this you have intimated in your
letters. What need is there, then, for us to look into the writings of
those who, before this heresy sprang up, had no necessity to be
conversant in a question so difficult of solution as this, which beyond
a doubt they would have done if they had been compelled to answer such
things? Whence it arose that they touched upon what they thought of
God's grace briefly in some passages of their writings, and cursorily;
but on those matters which they argued against the enemies of the
Church, and in exhortations to every virtue by which to serve the firing
and true God for the purpose of attaining eternal life and true
happiness, they dwelt at length. But the grace of God, what it could do,
shows itself artlessly by its frequent mention in prayers; for what God
commands to be done would not be asked for from God, unless it could be
given by Him that it should be done.

CHAP. 28.--CYPRIAN'S TREATISE "ON THE MORTALITY."

    But if any wish to be instructed in the opinions of those who have
handled the subject, it behoves them to prefer to all commentators the
book of Wisdom, where it is read," He was taken away, that wickedness
should not alter his understanding;" because illustrious commentators,
even in the times nearest to the apostles, preferred it to themselves,
seeing that when they made use of it for a testimony they believed that
they were making use of nothing but a divine testimony; and certainly it
appears that the most blessed Cyprian, in order to commend the advantage
of an earlier death, contended that those who end this life, wherein sin
is possible, are taken away from the risks of sins. In the same
treatise, among other things, he says, "Why, when you are about to be
with Christ, and are secure of the divine promise, do you not embrace
being called to Christ, and rejoice that you are free from the
devil?"(2) And in another he says, "Why do we not hasten and run, that
we may see our country, that we may hail our relatives? A great number
of those who are dear to us are expecting us there,--a dense and
abundant crowd of parents, brethren, sons, are longing for us; already
secure of their own safety, but still anxious about our salvation."(2)
By these and such like sentiments, that teacher sufficiently and plainly
testifies, in the clearest light of the catholic faith, that perils of
sin and trials are to be feared even until the putting off of this body,
but that afterwards no one shall suffer any such things. And even if he
did not testify thus, when could any manner of Christian be in doubt on
this matter? How, then, should it not have been of advantage to a man
who has lapsed, and who finishes his life wretchedly in that same state
of lapse, and passes into the punishment due to such as he,--how, I say,
should it not have been of the greatest and highest advantage to such an
one to be snatched by death from this sphere of temptations before his
fall?

CHAP. 29.--GOD'S DEALING DOES NOT DEPEND UPON ANY CONTINGENT MERITS OF
MEN.

    And thus, unless we indulge in reckless disputation, the entire
question is concluded concerning him who is taken away lest wickedness
should alter his understanding. And the book of Wisdom, which for such a
series of years has deserved to be read in Christ's Church, and in which
this is read, ought not to suffer injustice because it withstands those
who are mistaken on behalf of men's merit, so as to come in opposition
to the most manifest grace of God: and this grace chiefly appears in
infants, and while some of these baptized, and some not baptized, come
to the end of this life, they sufficiently point to God's mercy and His
judgment,--His mercy, indeed, gratuitous, His judgment, of debt. For if
men should be judged according  to the merits of their life, which
merits they have been prevented by death from actually having, but would
have had if they had lived, it would be of no advantage to him who is
taken away lest wickedness should alter his understanding; it would be
of no advantage to those who die in a state of lapse if they should die
before. And this no Christian will venture to say. Wherefore our
brethren, who with us on behalf of the catholic faith assail the pest of
the Pelagian error, ought not to such an extent to favour the Pelagian
opinion, wherein they conceive that God's grace is given according to
our merits, as to endeavour (which they cannot dare) to invalidate a
true sentiment, plainly and from ancient times Christian,--"He was token
away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding;" and to build up
that which we should think, I do not say, no one would believe, but no
one would dream,-to wit, that any deceased person would be judged
according to those things which he would have done if he had lived for a
more lengthened period. Surely thus what we say manifests itself clearly
to be incontestable,--that the grace of God is not given according to
our merits; so that ingenious men who contradict this truth are
constrained to say things which must be rejected from the ears and from
the thoughts of all men.

CHAP. 30 [XV.]--THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS INSTANCE OF PREDESTINATION IS
CHRIST JESUS.

    Moreover, the most illustrious Light of predestination and grace is
the Saviour Himself,--the Mediator Himself between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus. And, pray, by what preceding merits of its own, whether of
works or of faith, did the human nature which is in Him procure for
itself that it should be this? Let this have an answer, I beg. That man,
whence did He deserve this--to be assumed by the Word co-eternal with
the Father into unity of person, and be the only-begotten Son of God?
Was it because any kind of goodness in Him preceded? What did He do
before? What did He believe? What did He ask, that He should attain to
this unspeakable excellence? Was it not by the act and the assumption of
the Word that that man, from the time He began to be, began to be the
only Son of God? Did not that woman, full of grace, conceive the only
Son of God? Was He not born the only Son of God, of the Holy Spirit and
the Virgin Mary,--not of the lust of the flesh, but by God's peculiar
gift? Was it to be feared that as age matured  this man, He would sin of
free will? Or was the will in Him not free on that account? and was it
not so much the more free in proportion to the greater impossibility of
His becoming the servant of sin? Certainly, in Him human nature--that is
to say, our nature--specially received all those specially admirable
gifts, and any others that may most truly be said to be peculiar to Him,
by virtue of no preceding merits of its own. Let a man here answer to
God if he dare, and say, Why was it not I also? And if he should heal "O
than, who art thou that repliest against God?"(1) let him not at this
point restrain himself, but increase his impudence and say, "How is it
that I heal Who art thou, O man? since I am what I hear,--that is, a
than, and He of whom I speak is but the same? Why should not I also be
what He is? For it is by grace that He is such and so great; why is
grace different when nature is common? Assuredly, there is no respect of
persons with God." I say, not what Christian man, but what madman will
say this?

            CHAP. 31.--CHRIST PREDESTINATED TO BE THE

                           SON OF GOD.

    Therefore in Him who is our Head let there appear to be the very
fountain of grace, whence, according to the measure of every man, He
diffuses Himself through all His members. It is by that grace that every
man from the beginning of his faith becomes a Christian, by which grace
that one man from His beginning became Christ. Of the same Spirit also
the former is born again of which the latter was born. By the same
Spirit is effected in us the remission of sins, by which Spirit it was
effected that He should have no sin. God certainly foreknew that He
would do these things. This, therefore, is that same predestination of
the saints which most especially shone forth in the Saint of saints; and
who is there of those who rightly understand the declarations of the
truth that can deny this predestination? For we have learned that the
Lord of glory Himself was predestinated in so far as the man was made
the Son of God. The teacher of the Gentiles exclaims, in the beginning
of his epistles, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an
apostle, separated unto the gospel of God (which He had promised afore
by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures) concerning His Son, which was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated
the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification by
the resurrection of the dead."' Therefore Jesus was predestinated, so
that He who was to be the Son of David according to the flesh should yet
be in power the Son of God, according to the Spirit of sanctification,
because He was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. This is
that ineffably accomplished sole taking up of man by God the Word, so
that He might truly and properly be called at the same time the Son of
God and the Son of man,--Son of man on account of the man taken up, and
the Son of God on account of the God only-begotten who took Him up, so
that a Trinity and not a Quaternity might be believed in. Such a
transporting of human nature was predestinated, so great, so lofty, and
so sublime that there was no exalting it more highly,--just as on our
behalf that divinity had no possibility of more humbly putting itself
off, than by the assumption of man's nature with the weakness of the
flesh, even to the death of the cross. As, therefore, that one man was
predestinated to be our Head, so we being many are predestinated to be
His members. Here let human merits which have perished through Adam keep
silence, and let that grace of God reign which reigns through Jesus
Christ our Lord, the only Son of God, the one Lord. Let whoever can find
in our Head the merits which preceded that peculiar generation,  seek in
us His members for those merits which  preceded our manifold
regeneration. For that  generation was not recompensed to Christ, but 
given; that He should be born, namely, of the  Spirit and the Virgin,
separate from all entanglement of sin. Thus also our being born again of
water and the Spirit is not recompensed to us for any merit, but freely
given; and if faith has brought us to the layer of regeneration, we
ought not therefore to suppose that we have first given anything, so
that the regeneration of salvation should be recompensed to us again;
because He made us to believe in Christ, who made for us a Christ on
whom we believe. He makes in men the beginning and the completion of the
faith in Jesus who made the man Jesus the beginner and finisher of
faith;(2) for thus, as you know, He is called in the epistle which is
addressed to the Hebrews.

              CHAP. 32 [XVI.]--THE TWOFOLD CALLING.

    God indeed calls many predestinated children of His, to make them
members of His only predestinated Son,--not with that calling with which
they were called who would not come to the marriage, since with that
calling were called also the Jews, to whom Christ crucified is an
offence, and the Gentiles, to whom Christ crucified is foolishness; but
with that calling He calls the predestinated which the apostle
distinguished when he said that he preached Christ, the wisdom of God
and the power of God, to them that were called, Jews as well as Greeks.
For thus he says "But unto them which arc called,"(3) in order to show
that there were some who were not called; knowing that there is a
certain sure calling of those who are called according to God's purpose,
whom He has foreknown and predestinated before to be conformed to the
image of His Son. And it was this calling he meant when he said, "Not of
works, but of Him that calleth; it was said unto her, That the elder
shall serve the younger."(4) Did he say, "Not of works, but of him that
believeth"? Rather, he actually took this away from man, that he might
give the whole to God. Therefore he said, "But of Him that
calleth,"--not with any sort of calling whatever, but with that calling
wherewith a man is made a believer.

CHAP. 33.--IT IS IN THE POWER OF EVIL MEN TO SIN; BUT TO DO THIS OR THAT
BY MEANS

     Moreover, it was this that he had in view when he said, "The gifts
and calling of God are without repentance."(5) And in that saying also
consider for a little what was its purport. For when he had said, "For I
would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, that ye
may not be wise in yourselves, that blindness in part is happened to
Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel
should be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion one who
shall deliver, and turn away impiety from Jacob: and this is the
covenant to them from me, when I shall take away their sins;"(1) he
immediately added, what is to be very carefully understood, "As
concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
concerning the election, they are beloved for their fathers' sake."(2)
What is the meaning of, "as concerning the gospel, indeed, they are
enemies for your sake," but that their enmity wherewith they put Christ
to death was, without doubt, as we see, an advantage to the gospel? And
he shows that this came about by God's ordering, who knew how to make a
good use even of evil things; not that the vessels of wrath might be of
advantage to Him, but that by His own good use of them they might be of
advantage to the vessels of mercy. For what could be said more plainly
than what is actually said, "As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are
enemies for your sakes"? It is, therefore, in the power of the wicked to
sin; but that in sinning they should do this or that by that wickedness
is not in their power, but in God's, who divides the darkness and
regulates it; so that hence even what they do contrary to God's will is
not fulfilled except it be God's will. We read in the Acts of the
Apostles that when the apostles had been sent away by the Jews, and had
come to their own friends, and shown them what great things the priests
and elders said to them, they all with one consent lifted up their
voices to the Lord and said, "Lord, thou art God, which hast made
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein; who, by
the mouth of our father David, thy holy servant, hast said, Why did the
heathen rage, and the peoples imagine vain things ? The kings of the
earth stood up, and the princes were gathered together against the Lord,
and against His Christ. For in truth, there have assembled together in
this city against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, Herod
and Pilate, and the people of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and
counsel predestinated to be done."(3) See what is said: "As concerning
the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sakes." Because God's hand
and counsel predestinated such things to be done by the hostile Jews as
were necessary for the gospel, for our sakes. But what is it that
follows? "But as concerning the election, they are beloved for their
fathers' sakes." For are those enemies who perished in their enmity and
those of the same people who still perish in their opposition to
Christ,--are those chosen and beloved? Away with the thought! Who is so
utterly foolish as to say this? But both expressions, although contrary
to one another--that is, "enemies" and "beloved"--are appropriate,
though not to the same men, yet to the same Jewish people, and to the
same carnal seed of lsrael, of whom some belonged to the falling away,
and some to the blessing of Israel himself. For the apostle previously
explained this meaning more dearly when he said, "That which lsrael
wrought for, he hath not obtained; but the election hath obtained in and
the rest were blinded?(4) Yet in both cases it was the very same Israel.
Where, therefore, we hear, "lsrael hath not obtained," or, "The rest
were blinded," there are to be understood the enemies for our sakes; but
where we hear, "that the election hath obtained it," there are to be
understood the beloved for their father's sakes, to which fathers those
things were assuredly promised; because "the promises were made to
Abraham and his seed,"(5) whence also in that olive-tree is grafted the
wild olive-tree of the Gentiles. Now subsequently we certainly ought to
fall in with the election, of which he says that it is according to
grace, not according to debt, because "there was made a remnant by the
election of grace" (6) This election obtained it, the rest bring
blinded. As concerning this election, the Israelites were beloved for
the sake of their fathers. For they were not called with that calling of
which it is said, "Many are called," but with that whereby the chosen
are called. Whence also after he had said, "But as concerning the
election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes," he went on to add
those words whence this discussion arose: "For the gifts and calling of
God are without repentance,"--that is, they are firmly established
without change. Those who belong to this calling are alI teachable by
God; nor can any of them say, "I believed in order to bring thus
called," because the mercy of God anticipated him, because he was so
called in order that he might believe. For all who are teachable of God
come to the Son because they have heard and learned from the Father
through the Son, who most clearly says, "Every one who has heard of the
Father, and has learned, cometh unto me."(7) But of such as these none
perishes, because "of all that the Father hath given Him, He will lose
honed."(8) Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor
was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, "They
went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of
us, they would certainly have continued with us."(9)

CHAP. 34 [XVII.]--THE SPECIAL CALLING OF THE ELECT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY
HAVE BELIEVED, BUT IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE.

          Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become
elected,--not those who are elected because they have believed, but who
are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also
sufficiently explains this calling when He says, "Ye have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you."(1) For if they had been elected because they had
believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by
believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected. But He
takes away this supposition altogether when He says "Ye have not chosen
me, but I have chosen you." And yet they themselves, beyond a doubt,
chose Him when they believed on Him. Whence it is not for any other
reason that He says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,"
than because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He
chose them that they might choose Him; because His mercy preceded them
according to grace, not according to debt. Therefore He chose them out
of the word while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already
chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world. This is the
changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it
that the apostle says, "As He hath chosen us in Himself before the
foundation of the world"?(2) And assuredly, if this were said because
God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make
them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that
when He says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;" when God
should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would
have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him.
Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that
predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they
were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled
that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also
called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose.
Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also
called; nor other, but those whom He so called, them He also justified;
nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them
He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God
elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because
they were already so. The Apostle James says: "Has not God chosen the
poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God
hath promised to them that love Him?"(3) By choosing them, makes them
heirs of the kingdom; because He is rightly said to choose that in them,
in order to make which in them He chose them. I ask, who can hear the
Lord saying, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," and can
dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are
rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be
found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, "Ye have not
chosen me, but I have chosen 'you"?(4)

CHAP. 35 [XVIII.]--ELECTION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLINESS.

    Who can hear the apostle saying, "Blessed be the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in
the heavens in Christ; as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without spot in His sight; in
love predestinating us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
Himself according to the good pleasure of His will, wherein He hath
shown us favour in His beloved Son; in whom we have redemption through
His blood, the remission of sins according to the riches of His grace,
which hath abounded to us in all wisdom and prudence; that He might show
to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He
hath purposed in Himself, in the dispensation of the fulness of times,
to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven, and in the earth,
in Him: in whom also we have obtained a share, being predestinated
according to the purpose; who worketh all things according to the
counsel of His will, that we should be to the praise of his
glory;"(5)--who, I say, can hear these words with attention and
intelligence, and can venture to have any doubt concerning a truth so
dear as this which we are defending ? God chose Christ's members in Him
before the foundation of the world; and how should He choose those who
as yet did not exist, except by predestinating them? Therefore He chose
us by predestinating us. Would he choose the unholy and the unclean? Now
if the question be proposed, whether He would choose such, or rather the
holy and unstained, who can ask which of these he may answer, and not
give his opinion at once in favour of the holy and pure?

CHAP. 36.--GOD CHOSE THE RIGHTEOUS; NOT THOSE WHOM HE FORESAW AS BEING
OF THEMSELVES, BUT THOSE WHOM HE PREDESTINATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
SO.

          "Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy
and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected
them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of
His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected
them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children
whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. Certainly He did not make
them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they
would be so." Let us, then, look into the words of the apostle and see
whether He chose us before the foundation of the world because we were
going to be holy and immaculate, or in order that we might be so.
"Blessed," says he, "be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; even
as He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy and unspotted."(1) Not, then, because we were to be
so, but that we might be so. Assuredly it is certain,--assuredly it is
manifest. Certainly we were to be such for the reason that He has chosen
us, predestinating us to be such by His grace. Therefore "He blessed us
with spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ Jesus, even as He chose
us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
immaculate in His sight, order that we might not in so great a benefit
of grace glory concerning the good pleasure of our will. "In which,"
says he, "He hath shown us favour in His beloved Son,"--in which,
certainly, His own will, He hath shown us favour. Thus, it is said, He
hath shown us grace by grace, even as it is said, He has made us
righteous by righteous . "In whom," he says, "we have redemption through
His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches is His
grace, which has abounded to us in all was according to His own
pleasure, should aid it to become so. But when he had said, "According
to His good pleasure," he added, "which  He purposed in Him," that is,
in His beloved  Son, "in the dispensation of the fulness of times to
restore all things in Christ, which are  in heaven, and which are in
earth, in Him in  whom also we too have obtained a lot, being 
predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things according
to the counsel of His will; that we should be to the praise of His
glory." 

CHAP. 37.--WE WERE ELECTED AND PREDESTINATED, NOT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING
TO BE HOLY, BUT IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT BE SO.

  It would be too tedious to argue about the several points. But you see
without doubt, you see with what evidence of apostolic declaration this
grace is defended, in opposition to which human merits are set up, as if
man should first give something for it to be recompensed to him again.
Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world,
predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going
to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated
us that we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good
pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own
will, but about God's will towards himself. He did this according to the
riches of His grace, according to His good-will, which He purposed in
His beloved Son; in whom we have obtained a share, being predestinated
according to the purpose, not ours, but His, who worketh all things to
such an extent as that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He
worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the
praise of His glory.(2) For this reason it is that we cry that no one
should glory in man, and, thus, not in himself; but whoever glorieth let
him glory in the Lord, that he may be for the praise of His glory.
Because He Himself worketh according to His purpose that we may be to
the praise of His glory, and, of course, holy and immaculate, for which
purpose He called us, predestinating us before the foundation of the
world. Out of  this, His purpose, is that special calling of the ellect
for whom He co-worketh with all things for good, because they are called
according to His purpose, and "the gifts and calling of God are without
repentance."[3]

CHAP. 38 [XIX]--WHAT IS THE VIEW OF THE PELAGIANS, AND WHAT OF THE
SEMI-PELAGIANS, CONCERNING PREDESTINATION.

    But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are
now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this
apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ
and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we
should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that
"having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our
free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God
foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and
predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although
the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be
such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His
grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore,
He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy
and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this
testimony. "But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything
as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He
chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order
that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But
let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have
obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh
all things.(1) He, therefore, worketh the beginning of our belief who
worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling
of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without
repentance;"(2) and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that
calleth"(3) (although He might have said, "of Him that believeth"); and
the election which the Lord signified when He said: "Ye have not chosen
me, but I have chosen you."(4) For He chose us, not because we believed,
but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen
Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think
possible), "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Neither are
we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that
calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through
that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said
concerning this matter need not to be repeated.

CHAP. 39--THE BEGINNING OF FAITH IS GOD'S GIFT.

  Finally, also, in what follows this testimony, the apostle gives
thanks to God on behalf of those who have believed;--not, certainly,
because the gospel has been declared to them, but because they have
believed. For he says, "In whom also after ye had heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after that ye
believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the
pledge of our inheritance, to the redemption of the purchased possession
unto the praise of His glory. Wherefore I also, after I had heard of
your faith in Christ Jesus and with reference to all the saints, cease
not to give thanks to you."(5)

Their faith was new and recent on the preaching of the gospel to them,
which faith when he hears of, the apostle gives thanks to God on their
behalf. If he were to give thanks to man for that which he might either
think or know that man had not given, it would be called a flattery or a
mockery, rather than a giving of thanks. "Do not err, for God is not
mocked;"(6) for His gift is also the beginning of faith, unless the
apostolic giving of thanks be rightly judged to be either mistaken or
fallacious. What then? Does that not appear as the beginning of the
faith of the Thessalonians, for which, nevertheless, the same apostle
gives thanks to God when he says, "For this cause also we thank God
without ceasing, because when ye had received from us the word of the
heating of God, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in
truth the word of God, which effectually worketh in you and which ye
believed"?(7) What is that for which he here gives thanks to God?
Assuredly it is a vain and idle thing if He to whom he gives thanks did
not Himself do the thing. But, since this is not a vain and idle thing,
certainly God, to whom he gave thanks concerning this work, Himself did
it; that when they had received the word of the heating of God, they
received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of
God. God, therefore, worketh in the hearts of men with that calling
according to His purpose, of which we have spoken a great deal, that
they should not hear the gospel in vain, but when they heard it, should
be converted and believe, receiving it not as the word of men, but as it
is in truth the word of God.

CHAP. 40[XX]--APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY TO THE BEGINNING OF FAITH BEING GOD'S
GIFT.

  Moreover, we are admonished that the beginning of men's faith is God's
gift, since the apostle signifies this when, in the Epistle to the
Colossians, he says, "Continue in prayer, and watch in the same in
giving of thanks. Withal praying also for us that God would open unto us
the door of His word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which also  I
am bonds, that I may so to make it manifest as  ought to speak."(8) How
is the door of His word opened, except when the sense of the hearer is
opened so that he may believe, and, having made a beginning of faith,
may admit those things which are declared and reasoned, for the purpose
of building up wholesome doctrine, lest, by a heart closed through
unbelief, he reject and repel those things which are spoken? Whence,
also, he says to the Corinthians: "But I will tarry at Ephesus until
Pentecost. For a great and evident door is opened unto me, and there are
many adversaries."(1) What else can be understood here, save that, when
the gospel had been first of all preached there by him, many had
believed, and there had appeared many adversaries of the same faith, in
accordance with that saying of the Lord, "No one cometh unto me, unless
it were given him of my Father;"(2) and, "To you it is given to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given"?(3)
Therefore, there is an open door in those to whom it is given, but there
are many adversaries among those to whom it is not given.

            CHAP. 41.--FURTHER APOSTOLIC TESTIMONIES.

    And again, the same apostle says to the same people, in his second
Epistle: "When I had come to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and a door
had been opened unto me in the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because
I found not Titus, my brother: but, making my farewell to them, I went
away into Macedonia,"(4) To whom did he bid farewell but to those who
had believed,--to wit, in whose hearts the door was opened for his
preaching of the gospel? But attend to what he adds, saying, "Now thanks
be unto God, who always causes us to triumph in Christ, and maketh
manifest the savour of His knowledge by us in every place: because we
are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them who are saved, and in them
who perish: to some, indeed, we are the savour of death unto death, but
to some the savour of life unto life."(5) See concerning what this most
zealous soldier and invincible defender of grace gives thanks. See
concerning what he gives thanks,--that the apostles are a sweet savour
of Christ unto God, both in those who are saved by His grace, and in
those who perish by His judgment. But in order that those who little
understand these things may be less enraged, he himself gives a warning
when he adds the words: "And who is sufficient for these things?"(6) But
let us return to the opening of the door by which the apostle signified
the beginning of faith in his hearers. For what is the meaning of,
"Withal praying also for us that God would open unto us a door of the
word,"(7) unless it is a most manifest demonstration that even the very
beginning of faith is the gift of God? For it would not be sought for
from Him in prayer, unless it were believed to be given by Him. This
gift of heavenly grace had descended to that seller of purple(8) for
whom, as Scripture says in the Acts of the Apostles, "The Lord opened
her heart, and she gave heed unto the things which were said by Paul;"
for she was so called that she might believe. Because God does what He
will in the hearts of men, either by assistance or by judgment; so that,
even through their means, may be fulfilled what His hand and counsel
have predestinated to be done.

              CHAP. 42.--OLD TESTAMENT TESTIMONIES,

    Therefore also it is in vain that objectors have alleged, that what
we have proved by Scripture testimony from the books of Kings and
Chronicles is not pertinent to the subject of which we are
discoursing:(9) such, for instance, as that when God wills that to be
done which ought only to be done by the wiling men, their hearts are
inclined to will this,--inclined, that is to say, by His power, who, in
a marvellous and ineffable manner, worketh in us also to will. What else
is this than to say nothing, and yet to contradict? Unless perchance,
they have given some reason to you for the view that they have taken,
which reason you have preferred to say nothing about in your letters.
But what that reason can be I do not know. Whether, possibly, since we
have shown that God has so acted on the hearts of men, and has induced
the wills of those whom He pleased to this point, that Saul or David
should be established as king,--do they not think that these instances
are appropriate to this subject, because to reign in this world
temporally is not the same thing as to reign eternally with God? And so
do they suppose that God inclines the wills of those whom He pleases to
the attainment of earthly kingdoms, but does not incline them to the
attainment of a heavenly kingdom? But I think that it was in reference
to the kingdom of heaven, and not to an earthly kingdom, that it was
said, "Incline my heart unto Thy testimonies;(10) or, "The steps of a
man are ordered by the Lord, and He will will His way;"(11))or, "The
will is prepared by the Lord;"(12) or, "Let our Lord be with us as with
our fathers; let Him not forsake us, nor turn Himself away from us; let
Him incline our hearts unto Him, that we may walk in all His ways;"(13)
or, "I will give them a heart to know me, and earn that hear;"(14) or,
"I will give them another heart, and a new spirit will I give them."(15)
Let them also hear this, "I will give my Spirit within you, and I will
cause you to walk in my righteousness; and ye shall observe my
judgments,, and do them."(16) Let them heal "Man's goings are directed
by the Lord, and how can a man understand His ways?"(17) Let them hear,
"Every man seemeth right to himself, but the Lord directeth the
hearts."(18) Let them hear, "As many as were ordained to eternal life
be- lieved."(1) Let them hear these passages, and whatever others of the
kind I have not mentioned in which God is declared to prepare and to
convert men's wills, even for the kingdom of heaven and for eternal
life. And consider what sort of a thing it is to believe that God
worketh men's wills for the foundation of earthly kingdoms, but that men
work their own wills for the attainment of the kingdom of heaven.

                  CHAP. 43 [XXI.]--CONCLUSION.

    I have said a great deal, and, perchance, I could long ago have
persuaded you what I wished, and am still speaking this to such
intelligent minds as if they were obtuse, to whom even what is too much
is not enough. But let them pardon me, for a new question has compelled
me to this. Because, although in my former little treatises I had proved
by sufficiently appropriate proofs that faith also was the gift of God,
there was found this ground of contradiction, viz., that those
testimonies were good for this purpose, to show that the increase of
faith was God's gift, but that the beginning of faith, whereby a man
first of all believes in Christ, is of the man himself, and is not the
gift of God,--but that God requires this, so that when it has of God;
and that none of them is given freely, although in them God's grace is
declared, which is not grace except as being gratuitous. And you see how
absurd all this is. Wherefore I determined, as far as I could, to set
forth that this very beginning also is God's gift. And if I have done
this at a greater length than perhaps those on whose account I did it
might wish, I am prepared to be reproached for it by them, so long as
they nevertheless confess that, although at greater length than they
wished, although with the disgust and weariness of those that
understand, I have done what I have done: that is, I have taught that
even the beginning of faith, as continence, patience, righteousness,
piety, and the rest, concerning which there is no dispute with them, is
God's gift. Let this, therefore, be the end of this treatise, lest too
great length in this one may give offence.

 A TREATISE ON THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE, (1)

             BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO.

                      BEING THE SECOND BOOK

OF THE TREATISE "ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS."

                ADDRESSED TO PROSPER AND HILARY.

                        A.D. 428 OR 429.

IN THE FIRST PART OF THE BOOK HE PROVES THAT THE PERSEVERANCE BY WHICH A
MAN PERSEVERES IN CHRIST TO THE END IS GOD'S GIFT; FOR THAT IT IS A
MOCKERY TO ASK OF GOD THAT WHICH IS NOT BELIEVED TO BE GIVEN BY GOD.
MOREOVER, THAT IN THE LORD'S PRAYER SCARCELY ANYTHING IS ASKED FOR BUT
PERSEVERANCE, ACCORDING TO THE EXPOSITION OF THE MARTYR CYPRIAN, BY
WHICH EXPOSITION THE ENEMIES TO THIS GRACE WERE CONVICTED BEFORE THEY
WERE BORN. HE TEACHES THAT THE GRACE OF PERSEVERANCE IS NOT GIVEN
ACCORDING TO THE MERITS OF THE RECEIVERS, BUT TO SOME IT IS GIVEN BY
GOD'S MERCY; TO OTHERS IT IS NOT GIVEN, BY HIS RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT. THAT
IT IS INSCRUTABLE WHY, OF ADULTS, ONE RATHER THAN ANOTHER SHOULD BE
CALLED; JUST AS, MOREOVER, OF TWO INFANTS IT IS INSCRUTABLE WHY THE ONE
SHOULD BE TAKEN, THE OTHER LEFT. BUT THAT IT IS STILL MORE INSCRUTABLE
WHY, OF TWO PIOUS PERSONS, TO ONE IT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO PERSEVERE, TO
THE OTHER IT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN; BUT THAT THIS IS MOST CERTAIN, THAT
THE FORMER IS OF THE PREDESTINATED, THE LATTER IS NOT. HE OBSERVES THAT
THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION IS SET FORTH IN OUR LORD'S WORDS
CONCERNING THE PEOPLE OF TYRE AND SIDON, WHO WOULD HAVE REPENTED IF THE
SAME MIRACLES HAD BEEN DONE AMONG THEM WHICH HAD BEEN DONE IN CHORAZIN.
HE SHOWS THAT THE CASE OF INFANTS IS OF FORCE TO CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF
PREDESTINATION AND GRACE IN OLDER PEOPLE; AND HE ANSWERS THE PASSAGE OF
HIS THIRD BOOK ON FREE WILL, UNSOUNDLY ALLEGED ON THIS POINT BY HIS
ADVERSARIES. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE SECOND PART OF THIS WORK, HE REBUTS
WHAT THEY SAY,--TO WIT, THAT THE DEFINITION OF PREDESTINATION IS OPPOSED
TO THE USEFULNESS OF EXHORTATION AND REBUKE. HE ASSERTS, ON THE OTHER
HAND, THAT IT IS ADVANTAGEOUS TO PREACH PREDESTINATION, SO THAT MAN MAY
NOT GLORY IN HIMSELF, BUT IN THE LORD. AS TO THE OBJECTIONS, HOW- EVER,
WHICH THEY MAKE AGAINST PREDESTINATION, HE SHOWS THAT THE SAME
OBJECTIONS MAY BE TWISTED IN NO UNLIKE MANNER EITHER AGAINST GOD'S
FOREKNOWLEDGE OR AGAINST THAT GRACE WHICH THEY ALL AGREE TO BE NECESSARY
FOR OTHER GOOD THINGS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BEGINNING OF FAITH AND
THE COMPLETION OF PERSEVERANCE). FOR THAT THE PREDESTINATION OF THE
SAINTS IS NOTHING ELSE THAN GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREPARATION FOR HIS
BENEFITS, BY WHICH WHOEVER ARE DELIVERED ARE MOST CERTAINLY DELIVERED.
BUT HE BIDS THAT PREDESTINATION SHOULD BE PREACHED IN A HARMONIOUS
MANNER, AND NOT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO SEEM TO AN UNSKILFUL MULTITUDE AS IF
IT WERE DISPROVED BY ITS VERY PREACHING. LASTLY, HE COMMENDS TO US JESUS
CHRIST, AS PLACED BEFORE OUR EYES, AS THE MOST EMINENT INSTANCE OF
PREDESTINATION.

CHAP. I [I.]--OF THE NATURE OF THE PERSEVERANCE HERE  DISCOURSED  OF..

    I HAVE now to consider the subject of perseverance with greater
care; for in the former book also I said some things on this subject
when I was discussing the beginning of faith. I assert, therefore, that
the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the
gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life
wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain
whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For
if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have
persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to
have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? For if
any one have continence, and fall away from that virtue and become
incontinent,--or, in like manner, if he have righteousness, if patience,
if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these
virtues and to have them no longer; for he was continent, or he was
righteous, or he was patient, or he was believing, as long as he was so;
but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. But how should
he who Has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only
by persevering that any one shows himself persevering,--and this he has
not done? But lest any one should object to this, and say, If from the
time at which any one became a believer he has lived--for the sake of
argument--ten years, and in the midst of them has fallen from the faith,
has he not persevered for five years? I am not contending about words.
If it be thought that this also should be called perseverance, as it
were for so long as it lasts, assuredly he is not to be said to have had
in any degree that perseverance of which we are now discoursing, by
which one perseveres in Christ even to the end. And the believer of one
year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has
lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than
the believer of many years' standing, if a little time before his death
he has fallen away from the stedfastness of his faith.

CHAP. 2 [II.]--FAITH IS THE BEGINNING OF A CHRISTIAN MAN. MARTYRDOM FOR
CHRIST'S SAKE IS HIS BEST ENDING,

    This matter being settled, let us see whether this perseverance, of
which it was said, "He that persevereth unto the end, the same shall be
saved,"(1) is a gift of God. And if it be not, how is that saying of the
apostle true: "Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to
believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake"?(2) Of these things,
certainly, one has respect to the beginning, the other to the end. Yet
each is the gift of God, because both are said to be given; as, also, I
have already said above. For what is more truly the beginning for a
Christian than to believe in Christ? What end is better than to suffer
for Christ? But so far as pertains to believing in Christ, whatever kind
of contradiction has been discovered, that not the beginning but the
increase of faith should be called God's gift,--to this opinion, by
God's gift, I have answered enough, and more than enough. But what
reason can be given why perseverance to the end should not be given in
Christ to him to whom it is given to suffer for Christ, or, to speak
more distinctly, to whom it is given to die for Christ? For the Apostle
Peter, showing that this is the gift of God, says, "It is better, if the
will of God be so, to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing."(3)
When he says, "If the will of God be so," he shows that this is divinely
given, and yet not to all saints, to suffer for Christ's sake. For
certainly those whom the will of God does not will to attain to the
experience and the glory of suffering, do not fail to attain to the
kingdom of God if they persevere in Christ to the end. But who can say
that this perseverance is not given to those who die in Christ from any
weakness of booty, or by any kind of accident, although a far more
difficult perseverance is given to those by whom even death itself is
undergone for Christ's sake? Because perseverance is much more difficult
when the persecutor is engaged in preventing a man's perseverance; and
therefore he is sustained in his perseverance unto death. Hence it is
more difficult to have the former perseverance,--easier to have the
latter; but to Him to whom nothing is difficult it is easy to give both.
For God has promised this, saying, "I will put my fear in their hearts,
that they may not depart from me."(1) And what else is this than, "Such
and so great shall be my fear that I will put into their hearts that
they will perseveringly cleave to me"?

          CHAP. 3.--GOD IS BESOUGHT FOR IT, BECAUSE IT

                          IS HIS GIFT.

    But why is that perseverance asked for from God if it is not given
by God? Is that, too, a mocking petition, when that is asked from Him
which it is known that He does not give, but, though He gives it not, is
in man's power; just as that giving of thanks is a mockery, if thanks
are given to God for that which He did not give nor do? But what I have
said there,(2) I say also here again: "Be not deceived," says the
apostle, "God is not mocked."(3) O man, God is a witness not only of
your words, but also of your thoughts. If you ask anything in truth and
faith of one who is so rich, believe that you receive from Him from whom
you ask, what you ask. Abstain from honouring Him with your lips and
extolling yourself over Him in your heart, by believing that you have
from yourself what you are pretending to beseech from Him. Is not this
perseverance, perchance, asked for from Him? He who says this is not to
be rebuked by any arguments, but must be overwhelmed(4) with the prayers
of the saints. Is there any of these who does not ask for himself from
God that he may persevere in Him, when in that very prayer which is
called the Lord's--because the Lord taught it--when it is prayed by the
saints, scarcely anything else is understood to be prayed for but
perseverance?

           CHAP. 4.--THREE LEADING POINTS OF THE PELA-

                         GIAN DOCTRINE.

    Read with a little more attention its exposition in the treatise of
the blessed martyr Cyprian, which he wrote concerning this matter, the
title of which is, On the Lord's Prayer; and see how many years ago, and
what sort of an antidote was prepared against those poisons which the
Pelagians were one day to use. For there are three points, as you know,
which the catholic Church chiefly maintains against them. One of these
is, that the grace of God is not given according to our merits; because
even every one of the merits of the righteous is God's gift, and is
conferred by God's grace. The second is, that no one lives in this
corruptible body, however righteous he may be, without sins of some
kind. The third is, that man is born obnoxious to the first man's sin,
and bound by the chain of condemnation, unless the guilt which is
contracted by generation be loosed by regeneration. Of these three
points, that which I have placed last is the only one that is not
treated of in the above-named book of the glorious martyr; but of the
two others the discourse there is of such perspicuity, that the
above-named heretics, modern enemies of the grace of Christ, are found
to have been convicted long before they were born. Among these merits of
the saints, then, which are no merits unless they are the gifts of God,
he says that perseverance also is God's gift, in these words: "We say,
'Hallowed be Thy name;' not that we ask for God that He may be hallowed
by our prayers, but that we beseech of Him that His name may be hallowed
in us. But by whom is God sanctified, since He Himself sanctifies? Well,
because He says, Be ye holy because I also am holy, we ask and entreat
that we, who were sanctified in baptism, may persevere in that which we
have begun to be."(5) And a little after, still arguing about that
self-same matter, and teaching that we entreat perseverance from the
Lord, which we could in no wise rightly and truly do unless it were His
gift, he says: "We pray that this sanctification may abide in us; and
because our Lord and Judge warns the man that was healed and quickened
by Him to sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto him, we make this
supplication in our constant prayers; we ask this, day and night, that
the sanctification and quickening which is received from the grace of
God may be preserved by His protection."(6) That teacher, therefore,
understands that we are asking from Him for perseverance in
sanctification, that is, that we should persevere in sanctification,
when we who are sanctified say," Hallowed be Thy name." For what else is
it to ask for what we have already received, than that it be given to us
also not to cease from its possession? As, therefore, the saint, when he
asks God that he may be holy, is certainly asking that he may continue
to be holy, so certainly the chaste person also, when he asks that he
may be chaste, the continent that he may be continent, the righteous
that he may be righteous, the pious that he may be pious, and the
like,--which things, against the Pelagians, we maintain to be God's
gifts,--are asking, without doubt, that they may persevere in those good
things which they have acknowledged that they have received. And if they
receive this, assuredly they also receive perseverance itself, the great
gift of God, whereby His other gifts are preserved.

           CHAP. 5.--THE SECOND PETITION IN THE LORD'S

                             PRAYER.

    What, when we say, "Thy kingdom come," do we ask else, but that that
should also come to us which we do not doubt will come to all saints?
And therefore here also, what do they who are already holy pray for,
save that they may persevere in that holiness which has been given them?
For no otherwise will the kingdom of God come to them; which it is
certain will come not to others, but to those who persevere to the end.

CHAP. 6 [III.]--THE THIRD PETITION. HOW HEAVEN AND EARTH ARE UNDERSTOOD
IN THE LORD'S PRAYER.

    The third petition is, "Thy will be done in heaven and in earth;"
or, as it is read in many codices, and is more frequently made use of by
petitioners, "As in heaven, so also in earth," which many people
understand, "As the holy angels, so also may we do thy will." That
teacher and martyr will have heaven and earth, however, to be understood
as spirit and flesh, and says that we pray that we may do the will of
God with the full concord of both. He saw in these words also another
meaning, congruous to the soundest faith, of which meaning I have
already spoken above,--to wit, that for unbelievers, who are as yet
earth, bearing in their first birth only the earthly man, believers are
understood to pray, who, being clothed with the heavenly man, are not
unreasonably called by the name of heaven; where he plainly shows that
the beginning of faith also is God's gift, since the holy Church prays
not only for believers, that faith may be increased or may continue in
them, but, moreover, for unbelievers, that they may begin to have what
they have not had at all, and against which, besides, they were
indulging hostile feelings. Now, however, I am arguing not concerning
the beginning of faith, of which. I have already spoken much in the
former book, but of that perseverance which must be had even to the
end,--which assuredly even the saints, who do the will of God, seek when
they say in prayer, "Thy will be done." For, since it is already done in
them, why do they still ask that it may be done, except that they may
persevere in that which they have begun to be? Nevertheless, it may here
be said that the saints do not ask that the will of God may be done in
heaven, but that it may be done in earth as in heaven,--that is to say,
that earth may imitate heaven, that is, that man may imitate the angel,
or that an unbeliever may imitate a believer; and thus that the saints
are asking that that may be which is not yet, not that that which is may
continue. For, by whatever holiness men may be distinguished, they are
not yet equal to the angels of God; not yet, therefore, is the will of
God done in them as it is in heaven. And if this be so, in that portion
indeed in which we ask that men from unbelievers may become believers,
it is not perseverance, but beginning, that seems to be asked for; but
in that in which we ask that men may be made equal to the angels of God
in doing God's will,--where the saints pray for this, they are found to
be praying for perseverance; since no one attains to that highest
blessedness which is in the kingdom, unless he shall persevere unto the
end in that holiness which he has received on earth.

               CHAP. 7 [IV.]--THE FOURTH PETITION.

    The fourth petition is, "Give us this day our daily bread,"(1) where
the blessed Cyprian shows how here also perseverance is understood to be
asked for. Because he says, among other things, "And we ask that this
bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily
receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not by the
interposition of some heinous sin be separated from Christ's body by
being withheld from communicating and prevented from partaking of the
heavenly bread."(2) These words of the holy man of God indicate that the
saints ask for perseverance directly from God, when with this intention
they say, "Give us this day our daily bread," that they may not be
separated from Christ's body, but may continue in that holiness in which
they allow no crime by which they may deserve to be separated from it.

CHAP. 8 [V.]--THE FIFTH PETITION. IT IS AN ERROR OF THE PELAGIANS THAT
THE RIGHTEOUS ARE FREE FROM SIN.

    In the fifth sentence of the prayer we say, "Forgive us our debts,
as we also forgive our debtors,"(3) in which petition alone perseverance
is not found to be asked for. For the sins which we ask to be forgiven
us are past, but perseverance, which saves us for eternity, is indeed
necessary for the time of this life; but not for the time which is past,
but for that which remains even to its end. Yet it is worth the labour
to consider for a little, how even already in this petition the heretics
who were to arise long after were transfixed by the tongue of Cyprian,
as if by the most invincible dart of truth. For the Pelagians dare to
say even this: that the righteous man in this life has no sin at all,
and that in such men there is even at the present time a Church not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing,(1) which is the one and only
bride of Christ; as if she were not His bride who throughout the whole
earth says what she has learnt from Him, "Forgive us our debts." But
observe how the most glorious Cyprian destroys these. For when he was
expounding that very clause of the Lord's Prayer, he says among other
things: "And how necessarily, how providently, and salutarily are we
admonished that we are sinners, since we are compelled to entreat for
our sins; and while pardon is asked for from God, the soul recalls its
own consciousness. Lest any one should flatter himself that he is
innocent, and by exalting himself should more deeply perish, he is
instructed and taught that he sins daily, in that he is bidden daily to
entreat for his sins. Thus, moreover, John also in his Epistle warns(2)
us, and says,(3) 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us.'"(4) And the rest, which it would be long to
insert in this place.

CHAP. 9.--WHEN PERSEVERANCE IS GRANTED TO A PERSON, HE CANNOT BUT
PERSEVERE.

    Now, moreover, when the saints say, "Lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil,"(5) what do they pray for but that they may
persevere in holiness? For, assuredly, when that gift of God is granted
to them,--which is sufficiently plainly shown to be God's gift, since it
is asked of Him,--that gift of God, then, being granted to them that
they may not be led into temptation, none of the saints fails to keep
his perseverance in holiness even to the end. For there is not any one
who ceases to persevere in the Christian purpose unless he is first of
all led into temptation. If, therefore, it be granted to him according
to his prayer that he may not be led, certainly by the gift of God he
persists in that sanctification which by the gift of God he has
received.

            CHAP. 10 [VI.]--THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE

                   CAN BE OBTAINED BY PRAYER.

    But you write that "these brethren will not have this perseverance
so preached as that it cannot be obtained by prayer or lost by
obstinacy."(6) In this they are little careful in considering what they
say. For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres
unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but
if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have
already sufficiently discussed above. Let not men say, then, that
perseverance is given to any one to the end, except when the end itself
has come, and he to whom it has been given has been found to have
persevered unto the end. Certainly, we say that one whom we have known
to be chaste is chaste, whether he should continue or not in the same
chastity; and if he should have any other divine endowment which may be
kept and lost, we say that he has it as long as he has it; and if he
should lose it, we say that he had it. But since no one has perseverance
to the end except he who does persevere to the end, many people may have
it, but none can lose it. For it is not to be feared that perchance when
a man has persevered unto the end, some evil will may arise in him, so
that he does not persevere unto the end. This gift of God, therefore,
may be obtained by prayer, but when it has been given, it cannot be lost
by contumacy. For when any one has persevered unto the end, he neither
can lose this gift, nor others which he could lose before the end. How,
then, can that be lost, whereby it is brought about that even that which
could be lost is not lost?

CHAP. II.--EFFECT OF PRAYER FOR PERSEVERANCE.

    But, lest perchance it be said that perseverance even to the end is
not indeed lost when it has once been given,--that is, when a man has
persevered unto the end,--but that it is lost, in some sense, when a man
by contumacy so acts that he is not able to attain to it; just as we say
that a man who has not persevered unto the end has lost eternal life or
the kingdom of God, not because he had already received and actually had
it, but because he would have received and had it if he had
persevered;--let us lay aside controversies of words, and say that some
things even which are not possessed, but are hoped to be possessed, may
be lost. Let any one who dares, tell me whether God cannot give what He
has commanded to be asked from Him. Certainly he who affirms this, I say
not is a fool, but he is mad. But God commanded that His saints should
say to Him in prayer, "Lead us not into temptation." Whoever, therefore,
is heard when he asks this, is not led into the temptation of contumacy,
whereby he could or would be worthy to lose perseverance in holiness.

CHAP. 12.--OF HIS OWN WILL A MAN FORSAKES GOD, SO THAT HE IS DESERVEDLY
FORSAKEN OF HIM.

    But, on the other hand, "of his own will a man forsakes God, so as
to be deservedly forsaken by God." Who would deny this? But it is for
that reason we ask not to be led into temptation, so that this may not
happen. And if we are heard, certainly it does not happen, because God
does not allow it to happen. For nothing comes to pass except what
either He Himself does, or Himself allows to be done. Therefore He is
powerful both to turn wills from evil to good, and to convert those that
are inclined to fall, or to direct them into a way pleasing to Himself.
For to Him it is not said in vain, "O God, Thou shalt turn again and
quicken us;"(1) it is not vainly said, "Give not my foot to be
moved;"(2) it is not vainly said, "Give me not over, O Lord, from my
desire to the sinner;"(3) finally, not to mention many passages, since
probably more may occur to you, it is not vainly said, "Lead us not into
temptation."(4) For whoever is not led into temptation, certainly is not
led into the temptation of his own evil will; and he who is not led into
the temptation of his own evil will, is absolutely led into no
temptation. For "every one is tempted," as it is written, "when he is
drawn away of his own lust, and enticed;"(5) "but God tempteth no
man,"(6) --that is to say, with a hurtful temptation. For temptation is
moreover beneficial by which we are not deceived or overwhelmed, but
proved, according to that which is said, "Prove me, O Lord, and try
me."(7) Therefore, with that hurtful temptation which the apostle
signifies when he says, "Lost by some means the tempter have tempted
you, and our labour be in vain,"(8)  "God tempteth no man," as I have
said,--that is, He brings or leads no one into temptation. For to be
tempted and not to be led into temptation is not evil,--nay, it is even
good; for this it is to be proved. When, therefore, we say to God, "Lead
us not into temptation," what do we say but, "Permit us not to be led"?
Whence some pray in this manner, and it is read in many codices, and the
most blessed Cyprian thus uses it: "Do not suffer us to be led into
temptation." In the Greek gospel, however, I have never found it
otherwise than, "Load us not into temptation." We live, therefore, more
securely if we give up the whole to God, and do not entrust ourselves
partly to Him and partly to ourselves, as that venerable martyr saw. For
when he would expound the same clause of the prayer, he says among other
things, "But when we ask that we may not come into temptation, we are
reminded of our infirmity and weakness while we thus ask, lest any
should insolently vaunt himself,--lest any should proudly and arrogantly
assume anything to himself,--lest any should take to himself the glory
either of confession or suffering as his own; since the Lord Himself,
teaching humility, said, 'Watch and pray, that ye enter not into
temptation; the Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' So
that when a humble and submissive confession comes first and all is
attributed to God, whatever is sought for suppliantly, with the fear of
God, may be granted by His own loving-kindness."(9)

          CHAP. 13 [VII.]--TEMPTATION THE CONDITION OF

                              MAN.

    If, then, there were no other proofs, this Lord's Prayer alone would
be sufficient for us on behalf of the grace which I am defending;
because it leaves us nothing wherein we may, as it were, glory as in our
own, since it shows that our not departing from God is not given except
by God, when it shows that it must be asked for from God. For he who is
not led into temptation does not depart from God. This is absolutely not
in the strength of free will, such as it now is; but it had been in man
before he fell. And yet how much this freedom of will availed in the
excellence of that primal state appeared in the angels; who, when the
devil and his angels fell, stood in the truth, and deserved to attain to
that perpetual security of not falling, in which we are most certain
that they are now established. But, after the fall of man, God willed it
to pertain only to His grace that man should approach to Him; nor did He
will it to pertain to aught but His grace that man should not depart
from Him.

CHAP. 14.--IT IS GOD'S GRACE BOTH THAT MAN COMES TO HIM, AND THAT MAN
DOES NOT DEPART FROM HIM.

    This grace He placed "in Him in whom we have obtained a lot, being
predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all
things."(10) And thus as He worketh that we come to Him, so He worketh
that we do not depart. Wherefore it was said to Him by the mouth of the
prophet, "Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, and upon the
Son of man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself, and we will not depart
from Thee."(11) This certainly is not the first Adam, in whom we
departed from Him, but the second Adam, upon whom His hand is placed, so
that we do not depart from Him. For Christ altogether with His members
is--for the Church's sake, which is His body--the fulness of Him. When,
therefore, God's hand is upon Him, that we depart not from God,
assuredly God's work reaches to us (for this is God's hand); by which
work of God we are caused to be abiding in Christ with God--not, as in
Adam, departing from God. For "in Christ we have obtained a lot, being
predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things." This,
therefore, is God's hand, not ours, that we depart not from God. That, I
say, is His hand who said, "I will put my fear in their hearts, that
they depart not from me."(12)

 CHAP. 15.--WHY GOD WILLED THAT HE SHOULD BE ASKED FOR THAT WHICH HE
MIGHT GIVE WITHOUT PRAYER.

    Wherefore, also He willed that He should be asked that we may not be
led into temptation, because if we are not led, we by no means depart
from Him. And this might have been given to us even without our praying
for it, but by our prayer He willed us to be admonished from whom we
receive these benefits. For from whom do we receive but from Him from
whom it is right for us to ask? Truly in this matter let not the Church
look for laborious disputations, but consider its own daily prayers. It
prays that the unbelieving may believe; therefore God converts to the
faith. It prays that believers may persevere; therefore God gives
perseverance to the end. God foreknew that He would do this. This is the
very predestination of the saints, "whom He has chosen in Christ before
the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and unspotted
before Him in love; predestinating them unto the adoption of children by
Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to
the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath shown them favour
in His beloved Son, in whom they have redemption through His blood, the
forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace, which has
abounded towards them in all wisdom and prudence; that He might show
them the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure which He
hath purposed in Him, in the dispensation of the fulness of times to
restore all things in Christ which are in heaven and which are in earth;
in Him, in whom also we have obtained a lot, being predestinated
according to His purpose who worketh all things."(1) Against a trumpet
of truth so clear as this, what man of sober and watchful faith can
receive any human arguments?

            CHAP. 16 [VIII.]--WHY IS NOT GRACE GIVEN

                       ACCORDING TO MERIT?

    But "why," says one, "is not the grace of God given according to
men's merits?" I answer, Because God is merciful. "Why, then," it is
asked, "is it not given to all?" And here I reply, Because God is a
Judge.(2) And thus grace is given by Him freely; and by His righteous
judgment it is shown in some what grace confers on those to whom it is
given. Let us not then be ungrateful, that according to the good
pleasure of His will a merciful God delivers so many to the praise of
the glory of His grace from such deserved perdition; as, if He should
deliver no one therefrom, He would not be unrighteous. Let him,
therefore, who is delivered love His  grace. Let him who is not
delivered acknowledge his due. If, in remitting a debt, goodness is
perceived, in requiring it, justice--unrighteousness is never found to
be with God.

CHAP. 17.--THE DIFFICULTY OF THE DISTINCTION MADE IN THE CHOICE OF ONE
AND THE REJECTION OF ANOTHER.

    "But why," it is said, "in one and the same case, not only of
infants, but even of twin children, is the judgment so diverse?" Is it
not a similar question, "Why in a different case is the judgment the
same?" Let us recall, then, those labourers in the vineyard who worked
the whole day, and those who toiled one hour. Certainly the case was
different as to the labour expended, and yet there was the same judgment
in paying the wages. Did the murmurers in this case hear anything from
the householder except, Such is my will? Certainly such was his
liberality towards some, that there could be no injustice towards
others. And both these classes, indeed, are among the good.
Nevertheless, so far as it concerns justice and grace, it may be truly
said to the guilty who is condemned, also concerning the guilty who is
delivered, "Take what thine is, and go thy way;"(3) "I will give unto
this one that which is not due;" "Is it not lawful for me to do what I
will? is thine eye evil because I am good?" And how if he should say,
"Why not to me also?" He will hear, and with reason, "Who art thou, O
man, that repliest against God?"(2) And although assuredly in the one
case you see a most benignant benefactor, and in your own case a most
righteous exactor, in neither case do you behold an unjust God. For
although He would be righteous even if He were to punish both, he who is
delivered has good ground for thankfulness, he who is condemned has no
ground for finding fault.

            CHAP. 18.--BUT WHY SHOULD ONE BE PUNISHED

                       MORE THAN ANOTHER?

    "But if," it is said, "it was necessary that, although all were not
condemned, He should still show what was due to all, and so He should
commend His grace more freely to the vessels of mercy; why in the same
case will He punish me more than another, or deliver him more than me?"
I say not this. If you ask wherefore; because I confess that I can find
no answer to make. And if you further ask why is this, it is because in
this matter, even as His anger is righteous and as His mercy is great,
so His judgments are unsearchable.

CHAP. 19.--WHY DOES GOD MINGLE THOSE WHO WILL PERSEVERE WITH THOSE WHO
WILL NOT?

    Let the inquirer still go on, and say, "Why is it that to some who
have in good faith worshipped Him He has not given to persevere to the
end?" Why except because he does not speak falsely who says, "They went
out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,
doubtless they would have continued with us."(1) Are there, then, two
natures of men? By no means. If there were two natures there would not
be any grace, for there would be given a gratuitous deliverance to none
if it were paid as a debt to nature. But it seems to men that all who
appear good believers ought to receive perseverance to the end. But God
has judged it to be better to mingle some who would not persevere with a
certain number of His saints, so that those for whom security from
temptation in this life is not desirable may not be secure. For that
which the apostle says, checks many from mischievous elation: "Wherefore
let him who seems to stand take heed lest he fall.''(2) But he who
falls, falls by his own will, and he who stands, stands by God's will.
"For God is able to make him stand;"(3) therefore he is not able to make
himself stand, but God. Nevertheless, it is good not to be high-minded,
but to fear. Moreover, it is in his own thought that every one either
fills or stands. Now, as the apostle says, and as I have mentioned in my
former treatise, "We are not sufficient to think anything of ourselves,
but our sufficiency is of God."(4) Following whom also the blessed
Ambrose ventures to say, "For our heart is not in our own power, nor are
our thoughts." And this everybody who is humbly and truly pious feels to
be most true.

            CHAP. 20.--AMBROSE ON GOD'S CONTROL OVER

                         MEN'S THOUGHTS.

    And when Ambrose said this, he was speaking in that treatise which
he wrote concerning Flight from the World, wherein he taught that this
world was to be fled not by the body, but by the heart, which he argued
could not be done except by God's help. For he says: "We hear frequent
discourse concerning fleeing from this world, and I would that the mind
was as careful and solicitous as the discourse is easy; but what is
worse, the enticement of earthly lusts constantly creeps in, and the
pouring out of vanities takes possession of the mind; so that what you
desire to avoid, this you think of and consider in your mind. And this
is difficult for a man to beware of, but impossible to get rid of.
Finally, the prophet bears witness that it is a matter of wish rather
than of accomplishment, when he says, 'Incline my heart to Thy
testimonies, and not to covetousness.'(5) For our heart and our thoughts
are not in our own power, and these, poured forth unexpectedly, confuse
our mind and soul, and draw them in a different direction from that
which you have proposed to yourself; they recall you to worldly things,
they interpose things of time, they suggest voluptuous things, they
inweave enticing things, and in the very moment when we are seeking to
elevate our mind, we are for the most part filled with vain thoughts and
cast down to earthly things."(6) Therefore it is not in the power of
men, but in that of God, that men have power to become sons of God.(7)
Because they receive it from Him who gives pious thoughts to the human
heart, by which it has faith, which worketh by love;(8) for the
receiving and keeping of which benefit, and for carrying it on
perseveringly unto the end, we are not sufficient to think anything as
of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God,(4) in whose power is our
heart and our thoughts.

           CHAP. 21 [IX.]--INSTANCES OF THE UNSEARCH-

                     ABLE JUDGMENTS OF GOD.

    Therefore, of two infants, equally bound by original sin, why the
one is taken and the other left; and of two wicked men of already mature
years, why this one should be so called as to follow Him that calleth,
while that one is either not called at all, or is not called in such a
manner,--the judgments of God are unsearchable. But of two pious men,
why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the
other it should not be given, God's judgments are even more
unsearchable. Yet to believers it ought to be a most certain fact that
the former is of the predestinated, the latter is not. "For if they had
been of us," says one of the predestinated, who had drunk this secret
from the breast of the Lord, "certainly they would have continued with
us."(1) What, I ask, is the meaning of, "They were not of us; for if
they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us"? Were
not both created by God--both born of Adam--both made from the earth,
and given from Him who said, "I have created all breath,"(9) souls of
one and the same nature? Lastly, had not both been called, and followed
Him that called them? and had not both become, from wicked men,
justified men, and both been renewed by the layer of regeneration? But
if he were to hear this who beyond all doubt knew what he was saying, he
might answer and say: These things are true. In respect of all these
things, they were of us. Nevertheless, in respect of a certain other
distinction, they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they
certainly would have continued with us. What then is this distinction?
God's books lie open, let us not turn away our view; the divine
Scripture cries aloud, let us give it a hearing. They were not of them,
because they had not been "called according to the purpose;" they had
not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had
not gained a lot in Him; they had not been predestinated according to
His purpose who worketh all things. For if they had been this, they
would have been of them, and without doubt they would have continued
with them.

CHAP. 22.--IT IS AN ABSURDITY TO SAY THAT THE  DEAD WILL BE JUDGED FOR
SINS WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE COMMITTED IF THEY HAD LIVED.

    For not to say how possible it may be for God to convert the wills
of men averse and opposed to His faith, and to operate on their hearts
so that they yield to no adversities, and are overcome by no temptation
so as to depart from: Him,--since He also can do what the apostle says,
namely, not allow them to be tempted above that which they are
able;--not, then, to say this, God foreknowing that they would fall, was
certainly able to take them away from this life before that fall should
occur. Are we to return to that point of still arguing how absurdly it
is said that dead men are judged even for those sins which God foreknew
that they would have committed if they had lived? which is so abhorrent
to the feelings of Christians, or even of human beings, that one is even
ashamed to rebut it. Why should it not be said that even the gospel:
itself has been preached, with so much labour still preached in vain, if
men could be even without hearing the gospel, according to the contumacy
or obedience which God foreknew that they would have had if they had
heard it? Tyre and Sidon would not have been condemned, although more
slightly than those cities in which, although they did not believe,
wonderful works were done by Christ the Lord; because if they had been
done in them, they would have repented in dust and ashes, as the
utterances of the Truth declare, in which words of His the Lord Jesus
shows to us the loftier mystery of predestination.

CHAP. 23.--WHY FOR THE PEOPLE OF TYRE AND SIDON, WHO WOULD HAVE
BELIEVED, THE MIRACLES WERE NOT DONE WHICH WERE DONE IN OTHER PLACES
WHICH DID NOT BELIEVE.

    For if we are asked why such miracles were done among those who,
when they saw them, would not believe them, and were not done among
those who would have believed them if they had seen them, what shall we
answer? Shall we say what I have said in that book(1) wherein I answered
some six questions of the Pagans, yet without prejudice of other matters
which the wise can inquire into? This indeed I said, as you know, when
it was asked why Christ came after so long a time: "that at those times
and in those places in which His gospel was not preached, He foreknew
that all men would, in regard of His preaching, be such as many were in
His bodily presence,--people, namely, who would not believe on Him, even
though the dead were raised by Him." Moreover, a little after in the
same book, and on the same question, I say, "What wonder, if Christ knew
in former ages that the world was so filled with unbelievers, that He
was, with reason, unwilling for His gospel to be preached to them whom
He foreknew to be such as would not believe either His words or His
miracles"? Certainly we cannot say this of Tyre and Sidon; and in their
case we recognise that those divine judgments had reference to those
causes of predestination, without prejudice to which hidden causes I
said that I was then answering such questions as those. Certainly it is
easy to accuse the unbelief of the Jews, arising as it did from their
free will, since they refused to believe in such great wonders done
among themselves. And this the Lord, reproaching them, declares when He
says, "Woe unto thee, Chorazin and Bethsaida, because if the mighty
works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which have been done in you, they
would long ago have repented in dust and ashes."(2) But can we say that
even the Tyrians and Sidonians would have refused to believe such mighty
works done among them, or would not have believed them if they had been
done, when the Lord Himself bears witness to them that they would have
repented with great humility if those signs of divine power had been
done among them? And yet in the day of judgment they will be punished;
although with a less punishment than those cities which would not
believe the mighty works done in them. For the Lord goes on to say,
"Nevertheless, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable  for Tyre and
Sidon in the day of judgment than for you."(3) Therefore the former
shall be punished with greater severity, the latter with less; but yet
they shall be punished. Again, if the dead are judged even in respect of
deeds which they would have done if they had lived, assuredly since
these would have been believers if the gospel had been preached to them
with so great miracles, they certainly ought not to be punished; but
they will be punished. It is therefore false that the dead are judged in
respect also of those things which they would have done if the gospel
had reached them when they were alive. And if this is false, there is no
ground for saying, concerning infants who perish because they die
without baptism, that this happens in their case deservedly, because God
foreknew that if they should live and the gospel should be preached to
them, they would hear it with unbelief. It remains, therefore, that they
are kept bound by original sin alone, and for this alone they go into
condemnation; and we see that in others in the same case this is not
remitted, except by the gratuitous grace of God in regeneration; and
that, by His secret yet righteous judgment--because there is no
unrighteousness with God--that some, who even after baptism will perish
by evil living, are yet kept in this life until they perish, who would
not have perished if bodily death had forestalled their lapse into sin,
and so come to their help. Because no dead man is judged by the good or
evil things which he would have done if he had not died, otherwise the
Tyrians and Sidonians would not have suffered the penalties according to
what they did; but rather according to those things that they would have
done, if those evangelical mighty works had been done in them, they
would  have obtained salvation by great repentance, and  by the faith of
Christ.

CHAP. 24 [X.]--IT MAY BE OBJECTED THAT THE  PEOPLE OF TYRE AND SIDON
MIGHT, IF THEY HAD HEARD, HAVE BELIEVED, AND HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY LAPSED
FROM THEIR FAITH.

    A certain catholic disputant of no mean reputation so expounded this
passage of the gospel as to say, that the Lord foreknew that the Tyrians
and Sidonians would have afterwards departed from the faith, although
they had believed the miracles done among them; and that in mercy He did
not work those miracles there, because they would have been liable to
severer punishment if they had forsaken the faith which they had once
held, than if they had at no time held it. In which opinion of a learned
and exceedingly acute man, why am I now concerned to say what is still
reasonably to be asked, when even this  opinion serves me for the
purpose at which I aim? For if the Lord in His mercy did not do mighty
works among them, since by these works they might possibly become
believers, so that they might not be more severely punished when they
should subsequently become unbelievers, as He foreknew that they
would,--it is sufficiently and plainly shown that no dead person is
judged for those sins which He foreknew that he would have done, if in
some manner he were not helped not to do them; just as Christ is said to
have come to the aid of the Tyrians and Sidonians, if that opinion be
true, who He would rather should not come to the faith at all, than that
by a much greater wickedness they should depart from the faith, as, if
they had come to it, He foresaw they would have done. Although if it be
said, "Why was it not provided that they should rather believe, and this
gift should be bestowed on them, that before they forsook the faith they
should depart from this life"? I am ignorant what reply can be made. For
he who says that to those who would forsake their faith it would have
been granted, as a kindness, that they should not begin to have what, by
a more serious impiety, they would subsequently forsake, sufficiently
indicates that a man is not judged by that which it is foreknown he
would have done ill, if by any act of kindness he may be prevented from
doing it. Therefore it is an advantage also to him who is taken away,
lest wickedness should alter his understanding. But why this advantage
should not have been given to the Tyrians and Sidonians, that they might
believe and be taken away, lest wickedness should alter their
understanding, he perhaps might answer who was pleased in such a way to
solve the above question; but, as far as concerns what I am discussing,
I see it to be enough that, even according to that very opinion, men are
shown not to be judged in respect of those things which they have not
done, even although they may have been foreseen as certain to have done
them. However, as I have said, let us think shame even to refute this
opinion, whereby sins are supposed to be punished in people who die or
have died because they have been foreknown as certain to do them if they
had lived; lest we also may seem to have thought it to be of some
importance, although we would rather repress it by argument than pass it
over in silence.

     CHAP. 25 [XI.]--GOD'S WAYS, BOTH IN MERCY AND JUDGMENT, PAST
FINDING OUT.

    Accordingly, as says the apostle, "It is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,"(1) who both
comes to the help of such infants as He will, although they neither will
nor run, since He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the
world as those to whom He intended to give His grace freely,--that is,
with no merits of theirs, either of faith or of works, preceding; and
does not come to the help of those who are more mature, although He
foresaw that they would believe His miracles if they should be done
among them, because He wills not to come to their help, since in His
predestination He, secretly indeed, but yet righteous]y, has otherwise
determined concerning them. For "there is no unrighteousness with
God;"(2) but "His judgments are un-searchable, and His ways are past
finding out; all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth."(3) Therefore
the mercy is past finding out by which He has mercy on whom He will, no
merits of his own preceding; and the truth is unsearchable by which He
hardeneth whom He will, even although his merits may have preceded, but
merits for the most part common to him with the man on whom He has
mercy. As of two twins, of which one is taken and the other left, the
end is unequal, while the deserts are common, yet in these the one is in
such wise delivered by God's great goodness, that the other is condemned
by no injustice of God's. For is there unrighteousness with God? Away
with the thought! but His ways are past finding out. Therefore let us
believe in His mercy in the case of those who are delivered, and in His
truth in the case of those who are punished, without any hesitation; and
let us not endeavour to look into that which is inscrutable, nor to
trace that which cannot be found out. Because out of the mouth of babes
and sucklings He perfects His praise,(1) so that what we see in those
whose deliverance is preceded by no good deservings of theirs, and in
those whose condemnation is only preceded by original sin, common alike
to both,--this we by no means shrink from as occurring in the case of
grown-up people, that is, because we do not think either that grace is
given to any one according to his own merits, or that any one is
punished except for his own merits, whether they are alike who are
delivered and who are punished, or have unequal degrees of evil; so that
he who thinketh he standeth may take heed lest he fall, and he who
glorieth may glory not in himself, but in the Lord.

CHAP. 26.--THE MANICHEANS DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE BOOKS OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT, AND OF THE NEW ONLY THOSE THAT THEY CHOOSE.

    But wherefore is "the case of infants not allowed," as you write,
"to be alleged as an example for their elders," by men who do not
hesitate to affirm against the Pelagians that there is original sin,
which entered by one man into the world, and that from one all have gone
into condemnation? (2) This, the Manicheans, too, do not receive, who
not only reject all the Scriptures of the Old Testament as of authority,
but even receive those which belong to the New Testament in such a
manner as that each man, by his own prerogative as it were, or rather by
his own sacrilege, takes what he likes, and rejects what he does not
like,--in opposition to whom I treated in my writings on Free Will,
whence they think that they have a ground of objection against me. I
have been unwilling to deal plainly with the very laborious questions
that occurred, lest my work should become too long, in a case which, as
opposed to such perverse men, I could not have the assistance of the
authority of the sacred Scriptures. And I was able,--as I actually did,
whether anything of the divine testimonies might be true or not, seeing
that I did not definitely introduce them into the
argument,--nevertheless, by certain reasoning, to conclude that God in
all things is to be praised, without any necessity of believing, as they
would have us, that there are two co-eternal, confounded substances of
good and evil.

             CHAP. 27.--REFERENCE TO THE " RETRACTA-

                             TIONS."

    Finally, in the first book of the Retractations,(3) which work of
mine you have not yet read, when I had come to the reconsidering of
those same books, that is, on the subject of Free Will, I thus spoke:
"In these books," I say, "many things were so discussed that on the
occurring of some questions which either I was not able to elucidate, or
which required a long discussion at once, they were so deferred as that
from either side, or from all sides, of those questions in which what
was most in harmony with the truth did not appear, yet my reasoning
might be conclusive for this, namely, that whichever of them might be
true, God might be believed, or even be shown, to be worthy of praise.
Because that discussion was undertaken for the sake of those who deny
that the origin of evil is derived from the free choice of the will, and
contend that God,--if He be so,--as the Creator of all natures, is
worthy of blame; desiring in that manner, according to the error of
their impiety (for they are Manicheans), to introduce a certain
immutable nature of evil co-eternal with God." Also, after a little
time, in another place I say: "Then it was said, From this misery, most
righteously inflicted on sinners, God's grace delivers, because man of
his own accord, that is, by free will, could fall, but could not also
rise. To this misery of just condemnation belong the ignorance and the
difficulty which every man suffers from the beginning of his birth, and
no one is delivered from that evil except by the grace of God. And this
misery the Pelagians will not have to descend from a just condemnation,
because they deny original sin; although even if the ignorance and
difficulty were the natural beginnings of man, God would not even thus
deserve to be reproached, but to be praised, as I have argued in the
same third book.(4) Which argument must be regarded as against the
Manicheans, who do not receive the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament,
in which original sin is narrated; and whatever thence is read in the
apostolic epistles, they contend was introduced with a detestable
impudence by the corrupters of the Scriptures, assuming that it was not
said by the apostles. But against the Pelagians that must be maintained
which both Scriptures commend, as they profess to receive them." These
things I said in my first book of Retractations, when I was
reconsidering the books on Free Will. Nor, indeed, were these things all
that were said by me there about these books, but there were many others
also, which I thought it would be tedious to insert in this work for
you, and not necessary; and this I think you also will judge when you
have read all. Although, therefore, in the third book on Free Will I
have in such wise argued concerning infants, that even if what the
Pelagians say were true,--that ignorance and difficulty, without which
no man is born, are elements, not punishments, of our nature,--still the
Manicheans would be overcome, who will have it that the two natures, to
wit, of good and evil; are co-eternal. Is, therefore, the faith to be
called in question or forsaken, which the catholic Church maintains
against those very Pelagians, asserting as she does that it is original
sin, the guilt of which, contracted by generation, must be remitted by
regeneration? And if they confess this with us, so that we may at once,
in this matter of the Pelagians, destroy error, why do they think that
it must be doubted that God can deliver even infants, to whom He gives
His grace by the sacrament of baptism, from the power of darkness, and
translate them into the kingdom of the Son of His love?(1) In the fact,
therefore, that He gives that grace to some, and does not give it to
others. why will they not stag to the Lord His mercy and judgment?(2)
Why, however, is it given to these, rather than to those,--who has known
the mind of the Lord? who is able to look into unsearchable things? who
to trace out that which is past finding out?

CHAP. 28 [XII.]--GOD'S GOODNESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS SHOWN IN ALL.

    It is therefore settled that God's grace is not given according to
the deserts of the recipients, but according to the good pleasure of His
will, to the praise and glory of His own grace; so that he who glorieth
may by no means glory in himself, but in the Lord, who gives to those
men to whom He will, because He is merciful, what if, however, He does
not give, He is righteous: and He does not give to whom He will not,
that He may make known the riches of His glory to the vessels of
mercy.(3) For by giving to some what they do not deserve, He has
certainly willed that His grace should be gratuitous, and thus genuine
grace; by not giving to all, He has shown what all deserve. Good in His
goodness to some, righteous in the punishment of others; both good in
respect of all, because it is good when that which is due is rendered,
and righteous in respect of all, since that which is not due is given
without wrong to any one.

CHAP. 29.--GOD'S TRUE GRACE COULD BE DEFENDED EVEN IF THERE WERE NO
ORIGINAL SIN, AS PELAGIUS MAINTAINS.

    But God's grace, that is, true grace without merits, is maintained,
even if infants, when baptized, according to the view of the Pelagians,
are not plucked out of the power of darkness, because they are held
guilty of no sin, as the Pelagians think, but are only transferred into
the Lord's kingdom: for even thus, without any good merits, the kingdom
is given to those to whom it is given; and without any evil merits it is
not given to them to whom it is not given. And this we are in the habit
of saying in opposition to the same Pelagians, when they object to us
that we attribute God's grace to fate, when we say that it is given not
in respect to our merits. For they themselves rather attribute God's
grace to fate in the case of infants, if they say that when there is no
merit it is fate.(4) Certainly, even according to the Pelagians
themselves, no merits can be found in infants to cause that some of them
should be admitted into the kingdom, and others should be alienated from
the kingdom. But now, just as in order to show that God's grace is not
given according to our merits, I preferred to maintain this truth in
accordance with both opinions,--both in accordance with our own, to wit,
who say that infants are bound by original sin, and according to that of
the Pelagians, who deny that there is original sin, and yet I cannot on
that account doubt that infants have what He can pardon them who saves
His people from their sins: so in the third book on Free Will, according
to both views, I have withstood the Manicheans, whether ignorance and
difficulty be punishments or elements of nature without which no man is
born; and yet I hold one of these views. There, moreover, it is
sufficiently evidently declared by me, that is not the nature of man as
he was ordained, but his punishment as condemned.

          CHAP. 30.--AUGUSTIN CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO GROW

                          IN KNOWLEDGE.

    Therefore it is in vain that it is prescribed to me from that old
book of mine, that I may not argue the case as I ought to argue it in
respect of infants; and that thence I may not persuade my opponents by
the light of a manifest truth, that God's grace is not given according
to men's merits. For if, when I began my books concerning Free Will as a
layman, and finished them as a presbyter, I still doubted of the
condemnation of infants not born again, and of the deliverance of
infants that were born again, no one, as I think, would be so unfair and
envious as to hinder my progress, and judge that I must continue in that
uncertainty. But it can more correctly be understood that it ought to be
believed that I did not doubt in that matter, for the reason that they
against whom my purpose was directed seemed to me in such wise to be
rebutted, as that whether there was a punishment of original sin in
infants, according to the truth, or whether there was not, as some
mistaken people think, yet in no degree should such a confusion of the
two natures be believed in, to wit, of good and evil, as the error of
the Manicheans introduces. Be it therefore far from us  so to forsake
the case of infants as to say to  ourselves that it is uncertain
whether, being regenerated in Christ, if they die in infancy they  pass
into eternal salvation; but that, not being regenerated, they pass into
the second death.  Because that which is written, "By one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all
men,"(1) cannot be rightly understood in any other manner; nor from that
eternal death which is most righteously repaid to sin does any deliver
any one, small or great, save He who, for the sake of remitting our
sins, both original and personal, died without any sin of His own,
either original or personal. But why some rather than others? Again and
again we say, and do not shrink from it "O man, who art thou that
repliest against God?"(2) " His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways
past finding out."(3) And let us add this, "Seek not out the things that
are too high for thee, and search not the things that are above thy
strength."(4)

CHAP. 31.-- INFANTS ARE NOT JUDGED ACCORDING

TO THAT WHICH THEY ARE FOREKNOWN AS LIKELY TO DO IF THEY SHOULD LIVE.

    For you see, beloved, how absurd it is, and how foreign from
soundness of faith and sincerity of truth, for us to say that infants,
when they die, should be judged according to those things which they are
foreknown to be going to do if they should live. For to this opinion,
from which certainly every human feeling, on however little reason it
may be founded, and especially every Christian feeling, revolts, they
are compelled to advance who have chosen in such wise to be withdrawn
from the error of the Pelagians as still to think that they must
believe, and, moreover, must profess in argument, that the grace of God,
through Jesus Christ our Lord,  by which alone after the fall of the
first man, in whom we all fell, help is afforded to us, is given
according to our merits. And this be lief Pelagius himself, before the
Eastern bishops as judges, condemned in fear of his own condemnation.
And if this be not said of the good or bad works of those who have died,
which they would have done if they bad lived,--and thus of no works, and
works that would never exist, even in the foreknowledge of God,--if
this, therefore, be not said, and you see under how great a mistake it
is said, what will remain but that we confess, when the darkness of
contention is removed, that the grace of God is not given according to
our merits, which position the catholic Church defends against the
Pelagian heresy; and that we see this in more evident truth especially
in infants? For God is not compelled by fate to come to the help of
these infants, and not to come to the help of those,--since the case is
alike to both. Or shall we think that human affairs in the case of
infants are not managed by Divine Providence, but by fortuitous chances,
when rational souls are either to be condemned or delivered, although,
indeed, not a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Father
which is in heaven?(5) Or must we so attribute it to the negligence of
parents that infants die without baptism, as that heavenly judgments
have nothing to do with it; as if they themselves who in this way die
badly had of their own will chosen the negligent parents for themselves
of whom they were born? What shall I say when an infant expires some
time before he can possibly be advantaged by the ministry of baptism?
For often when the parents are eager and the ministers prepared for
giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does
not choose; since He has not kept it in this life for a little while in
order that baptism might be given it. What, moreover, when sometimes aid
could be afforded by baptism to the children of unbelievers, that they
should not go into perdition, and could not be afforded to the children
of believers? In which case it is certainly shown that there is no
acceptance of persons with God; otherwise He would rather deliver the
children of His worshippers than the children of His enemies.

          CHAP. 32 [XIII.]--THE INSCRUTABILITY OF GOD'S

                         FREE PURPOSES.

    But now, since we are now treating of the gift of perseverance, why
is it that aid is afforded to the person about to die who is not
baptized, while to the baptized person about to fall, aid is not
afforded, so as to die before? Unless, perchance, we shall still listen
to that absurdity by which it is said that it is of no advantage to any
one to die before his fall, because he will be judged according to those
actions which God foreknew that he would have done if he had lived. Who
can hear with patience this perversity, so violently opposed to the
soundness of the faith? Who can bear it? And yet they are driven to say
this who do not confess that God's grace is not bestowed in respect of
our deservings. They, however, who will not say that any one who has
died is judged according to those things which God foreknew that he
would have done if he had lived, considering with how manifest a
falsehood and how great an absurdity this would be said, have no further
reason to say, what the Church condemned in the Pelagians, and caused to
be condemned by Pelagius himself,--that the grace of God, namely, is
given according to our merits,--when they see some infants not
regenerated taken from this life to eternal death, and others
regenerated, to eternal life; and those themselves that are regenerated,
some going hence, persevering even to the end, and others kept in this
life even until they fall, who certainly would not have fallen if they
had departed hence before their lapse; and again some falling, but not
departing from this life until they return, who certainly would have
perished if they had departed before their return.

CHAP. 33.--GOD GIVES BOTH INITIATORY AND PERSEVERING GRACE ACCORDING TO
HIS OWN WILL.

    From all which it is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace
of God, which both begins a man's faith and which enables it to
persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is
given according to His own most secret and at the same time most
righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated,
them He also called, (1) with that calling of which it is said, "The
gifts and calling of God are without repentance."(2) To which calling
there is no man that can be said by men with any certainty of
affirmation to belong, until he has departed from this world; but in
this life of man, which is a state of trial upon the earth,(3) he who
seems to stand must take heed lest he fall. (4) Since (as I have already
said before)(5) those who will not persevere are, by the most foreseeing
will of God, mingled with those who will persevere, for the reason that
we may learn not to mind high things, but to consent to the lowly, and
may "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God
that worketh in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure."(6) We
therefore will, but God worketh in us to will also. We therefore work,
but God worketh in us to work also for His good pleasure. This is
profitable for us both to believe and to say,--this is pious, this is
true, that our confession be lowly and submissive, and that all should
be given to God. Thinking, we believe; thinking, we speak; thinking, we
do whatever we do;(7) but, in respect of what concerns the way of piety
and the true worship of God, we are not sufficient to think anything as
of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God.(8) For "our heart and our
thoughts are not in our own power;" whence the same Ambrose who says
this says also: "But who is so blessed as in his heart always to rise
upwards? And how can this be done without divine help? Assuredly, by no
means. Finally," he says, "the same Scripture affirms above, 'Blessed is
the man whose help is of Thee; O Lord,(9) ascent is in his heart.'"(10)
Assuredly, Ambrose was not only enabled to say this by reading in the
holy writings, but as of such a man is to be without doubt believed, he
felt it also in his own heart. Therefore, as is said in the sacraments
of believers, that we should lift up our hearts to the Lord, is God's
gift; for which gift they to whom this is said are admonished by the
priest after this word to give thanks to our Lord God Himself; and they
answer that it is "meet and right so to do."(11) For, since our heart is
not in our own power, but is lifted up by the divine help, so that it
ascends and takes cognizance of those things which are above,(12) where
Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, and, not those things that
are upon the earth, to whom are thanks to be given for so great a gift
as this unless to our Lord God who doeth this,--who in so great kindness
has chosen us by delivering us from the abyss of this world, and has
predestinated us before the foundation of the world?

CHAP. 34 [XIV.]--THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION NOT OPPOSED TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF PREACHING.

    But they say that the "definition of predestination is opposed to
the advantage of preaching,"(13)--as if, indeed, it were opposed to the
preaching of the apostle! Did not that teacher of the heathen so often,
in faith and truth, both commend predestination, and not cease to preach
the word of God? Because he said, "It is God that worketh in you both to
will and to do for His good pleasure,"(1) did he not also exhort that we
should both will and do what is pleasing to God? or because he said, "He
who hath begun a good work in you shall carry it on even unto the day of
Christ Jesus,"(2) did he on that account cease to persuade men to begin
and to persevere unto the end? Doubtless, our Lord Himself commanded men
to believe, and said, "Believe in God, believe also in me:"(3) and yet
His opinion is not therefore false, nor is His definition idle when He
says, "No man cometh unto me "--that is, no man believeth in me--"except
it has been given him of my Father."(4) Nor, again, because this
definition is true, is the former precept vain. Why, therefore, do we
think the definition of predestination useless to preaching, to precept,
to exhortation, to rebuke,--all which things the divine Scripture
repeats frequently,--seeing that the same Scripture commends this
doctrine?

               CHAP. 35.--WHAT PREDESTINATION IS.

    Will any man date to say that God did not foreknow those to whom He
would give to believe, or whom He would give to His Son, that of them He
should lose none?(5) And certainly, if He foreknew these things, He as
certainly foreknew His own kindnesses, wherewith He condescends to
deliver us. This is the predestination of the saints,--nothing else; to
wit, the foreknowledge and the preparation of God's kindnesses, whereby
they are most certainly delivered, whoever they are that are delivered.
But where are the rest left by the righteous divine judgment except in
the mass of ruin, where the Tyrians and the Sidonians were left? who,
moreover, might have believed if they had seen Christ's wonderful
miracles. But since it was not given to them to believe, the means of
believing also were denied them. From which fact it appears that some
have in their understanding itself a naturally divine gift of
intelligence, by which they may be moved to the faith, if they either
hear the words or behold the signs congruous to their minds; and yet if,
in the higher judgment of God, they are not by the predestination of
grace separated from the mass of perdition, neither those very divine
words nor deeds are applied to them by which they might believe if they
only heard or saw such things. Moreover, in the same mass of ruin the
Jews were left, because they could not believe such great and eminent
mighty works as were done in their sight. For the gospel has not been
silent about the reason why they could not believe, since it says: "But
though He had done such great miracles before them, yet they believed
not on Him; that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled
which he spake,(6) Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath
the arm of the Lord been revealed? And, therefore, they could not
believe, because that Isaiah said again,(7) He hath blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor
understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal
them."(8) There fore the eyes of the Tyrians and Sidonians were not so
blinded nor was their heart so hardened, since they would have believed
if they had seen such mighty works, as the Jews saw. But it did not
profit them that they were able to believe, because they were not
predestinated by Him whose judgments are inscrutable and His ways past
finding out. Neither would inability to believe have been a hindrance to
them, if they had been so predestinated as that God should illuminate
those blind eyes, and should will to take away the stony heart from
those hardened ones. But what the Lord said of the Tyrians and Sidonians
may perchance be understood in another way: that no one nevertheless
comes to Christ unless it were given him, and that it is given to those
who are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, he confesses
beyond a doubt who hears the divine utterance, not with the deaf ears of
the flesh, but with the ears of the heart; and yet this predestination,
which is plainly enough unfolded even by the words of the gospels, did
not prevent the Lord's saying as well in respect of the commencement,
what I have a little before mentioned, "Believe in God; believe also in
me," as in respect of perseverance, "A man ought always to pray, and not
to faint."(9) For they hear these things and do them to whom it is
given; but they do them not, whether they hear or do not hear, to whom
it is not given. Because, "To you," said He, "it is given to know the
mystery of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."(10) Of
these, the one refers to the mercy, the other to the judgment of Him to
whom our soul cries, "I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O
Lord." (11)

CHAP. 36.--THE  PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL AND THE PREACHING OF
PREDESTINATION THE TWO PARTS OF ONE MESSAGE.

    Therefore, by the preaching of predestination, the preaching of a
persevering and progressive faith is not to be hindered; and thus they
may hear what is necessary to whom it is given that they should obey.
For how shall they hear without a preacher? Neither, again, is the
preaching of a progressive faith which continues even to the end to
hinder the preaching of predestination, so that he who is living
faithfully and obediently may not be lifted up by that very obedience,
as if by a benefit of his own, not received; but that he that glorieth
may glory in the Lord. For "we must boast in nothing, since nothing is
our own." And this, Cyprian most faithfully saw and most fearlessly
explained, and thus he pronounced predestination to be most assured.(1)
For if we must boast in nothing, seeing that nothing is our own,
certainly we must not boast of the most persevering obedience. Nor is it
so to be called our own, as if it were not given to us from above. And,
therefore, it is God's gift, which, by the confession of all Christians,
God foreknew that He would give to His people, who were called by that
calling whereof it was said, "The gifts and calling of God are without
repentance."(2) This, then, is the predestination which we faithfully
and humbly preach. Nor yet did the same teacher and doer, who both
believed on Christ and most perseveringly lived in holy obedience, even
to suffering for Christ, cease on that account to preach the gospel, to
exhort to faith and to pious manners, and to that very perseverance to
the end, because he said, "We must boast in nothing, since nothing is
our own;" and here he declared without ambiguity the true grace of God,
that is, that which is not given in respect of our merits;  and since
God foreknew that He would give it, predestination was announced beyond
a doubt by these words of Cyprian; and if this did not prevent Cyprian
from preaching obedience, it certainly ought not to prevent us.

CHAP. 37.--EARS TO HEAR  ARE  A  WILLINGNESS TO OBEY.

    Although, therefore, we say that obedience is the gift of God, we
still exhort men to it. But to those who obediently hear the exhortation
of truth is given the gift of God itself--that is, to hear obediently;
while to those who do not thus hear it is not given. For it was not some
one only, but Christ who said, "No man cometh unto me, except it were
given him of my Father;"(3) and, "To you it is given to know the mystery
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."(4) And
concerning continence He says, "Not all receive this saying, but they to
whom it is given."(5) And when the apostle would exhort married people
to conjugal chastity, he says, "I would that all men were even as I
myself; but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this
manner, another after that;"(6) where he plainly shows not only that
continence is a gift of God, but even the chastity of those who are
married. And although these things are true, we still exhort to them as
much as is given to any one of us to be able to exhort, because this
also is His gift in whose hand are both ourselves and our discourses.
Whence also says the apostle, "According to this grace of God which is
given unto me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation."(7) And
in another place he says, "Even as the Lord hath given to every man: I
have planted, Apollos has watered, but God has given the increase.
Therefore neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth,
but God that giveth the increase."(8) And thus as only he preaches and
exhorts rightly who has received this gift, so assuredly he who
obediently hears him who rightly exhorts and preaches is he who has
received this gift. Hence is what the Lord said, when, speaking to those
who had their fleshly ears open, He nevertheless told them, "He that
hath ears to hear let him hear;"(9) which beyond a doubt he knew that
not all had. And from whom they have, whosoever they be that have them,
the Lord Himself shows when He says, "I will give them a heart to know
me, and ears to hear."(10) Therefore, having ears is itself the gift of
obeying, so that they who had that came to Him, to whom "no one comes
unless it were given to him of His Father." Therefore we exhort and
preach, but they who have ears to hear obediently hear us, while in them
who have them not, it comes to pass what is written, that hearing they
do not hear,--hearing, to wit, with the bodily sense, they do not hear
with the assent of the heart. But why these should have ears to hear,
and those have them not,--that is, why to these it should be given by
the Father to come to the Son, while to those it should not be
given,--who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His
counsellor? Or who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Must that
which is manifest be denied, because that which is hidden cannot be
comprehended? Shall we, I say, declare that what we see to be so is not
so, because we cannot find out why it is so?

CHAP. 38 [XV.]--AGAINST THE PREACHING OF PREDESTINATION THE SAME
OBJECTIONS MAY BE ALLEGED AS AGAINST PREDESTINATION.

    But they say, as you write: "That no one can be aroused by the
incentives of rebuke if it be said in the assembly of the Church to the
multitude of hearers: The definite meaning of God's will concerning
predestination stands in such wise, that some of you will receive the
will to obey and will come out of unbelief unto faith, or will receive
perseverance and abide in the faith; but others who are lingering in the
delight of sins have not yet arisen, for the reason that the aid of
pitying grace has not yet indeed raised you up. But yet, if there are
any whom by His grace He has predestinated to be chosen, who are not yet
called, ye shall receive that grace by which you may will and be chosen;
and if any obey, if ye are predestinated to be rejected, the strength to
obey shall be withdrawn from you, so that you may cease to obey."
Although these things may be said, they ought not so to deter us from
confessing the true grace of God,-- that is, the grace which is not
given to us in respect of our merits,--and from confessing the
predestination of the saints in accordance therewith, even as we are not
deterred from confessing God's foreknowledge, although one should thus
speak to the people concerning it, and say: "Whether you are now living
righteously or unrighteously, you shall be such by and by as the Lord
has foreknown that you will be,-- either good, if He has foreknown you
as good, or bad, if He has foreknown you as bad." For if on the hearing
of this some should be turned to torpor and slothfulness, and from
striving should go headlong to lust after their own desires, is it
therefore to be counted that what has been said about the foreknowledge
of God is false? If God has foreknown that they will be good, will they
not be good, whatever be the depth of evil in which they are now engaged
? And if He has foreknown them evil, will they not be evil, whatever
goodness may now be discerned in them ? There was a man in our
monastery, who, when the brethren rebuked him for doing some things that
ought not to be done, and for not doing some things that ought to be
done, replied, "Whatever I may now be, I shall be such as God has
foreknown that I shall be." And this man certainly both said what was
true, and was not profiled by this truth for good, but so far made way
in evil as to desert the society of the monastery, and become a dog
returned to his vomit; and, nevertheless, it is uncertain what he is yet
to become. For the sake of souls of this kind, then, is the truth which
is spoken about God's foreknowledge either to be denied or to be kept
back,--at such times, for instance, when, if it is not spoken, other
errors are incurred?

CHAP. 39 [XVI]--PRAYER AND EXHORTATION.

    There are some, moreover, who either do not pray at all, or pray
coldly, because, from the Lord's words, they have learnt that God knows
what is necessary for us before we ask it of Him. Must the truth of this
declaration be given up, or shall we think that it should be erased from
the gospel because of such people? Nay, since it is manifest that God
has prepared some things to be given even to those who do not pray for
them, such as the beginning of faith, and other things not to be given
except to those who pray for them, such as perseverance even unto the
end, certainly he who thinks that he has this latter from himself does
not pray to have it. Therefore we must take care lest, while we are
afraid of exhortation growing lukewarm, prayer should be stifled and
arrogance stimulated.

CHAP. 40.--WHEN THE TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN, WHEN KEPT BACK.

    Therefore let the truth be spoken, especially when any question
impels us to declare it; and let them receive it who are able, lest,
perchance, while we are silent on account of those who cannot receive
it, they be not only defrauded of the truth but be taken captive by
falsehood, who are able to receive the truth whereby falsehood may be
avoided. For it is easy, nay, and it is useful, that some truth should
be kept back because of those who are incapable of apprehending it. For
whence is that word of our Lord: "I have yet many things to say unto
you, but ye cannot bear them now "?[1] And that of the apostle: "I could
not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal: as if unto
babes in Christ I have given you to drink milk, and not meat, for
hitherto ye were not able, neither yet indeed now are ye able" ?[2]
Although, in a certain manner of speaking, it might happen that what is
said should be both milk to infants and meat for grown-up persons. As
"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God,"[3] what Christian can keep it back? Who can receive it? Or
what in sound doctrine can be found more comprehensive? And yet this is
not kept back either from infants or from grown-up people, nor is it
hidden from infants by those who are mature. But the reason of keeping
back the truth is one, the necessity of speaking the truth is another.
It would be a tedious business to inquire into or to put down all the
reasons for keeping back the truth; of which, nevertheless, there is
this one,--lest we should make those who do not understand worse, while
wishing to make those who do understand more learned; although these
latter do not become more learned when we withhold any such thing on the
one hand, but also do not become worse. When, however, a truth is of
such a nature that he who cannot receive it is made worse by our
speaking it, and he who can receive it is made worse by our silence
concerning it, what do we think is to  be done? Must we not speak the
truth, that he who can receive it may receive it, rather than keep
silence, so that not only neither may receive it, but that even he who
is more intelligent should himself be made worse? For if he should hear
and receive it, by his means also many might learn. For in proportion as
he is more capable of learning, he is the more fitted for teaching
others. The enemy of grace presses on and urges in all ways to make us
believe that grace is given according to our deservings, and thus grace
is no more grace; and are we unwilling to say what we can say by the
testimony of Scripture? Do we fear, forsooth, to offend by our speaking
him who is not able to receive the truth? and are we not afraid lest by
our silence he who can receive the truth may be involved in falsehood?

CHAP. 41.--PREDESTINATION DEFINED AS ONLY GOD'S DISPOSING OF EVENTS IN
HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE.

    For either predestination must be preached, in the way and degree in
which the Holy Scripture plainly declares it, so that in the
predestinated the gifts and calling of God may be without repentance; or
it must be avowed that God's grace is given according to our
merits,--which is the opinion of the Pelagians; although that opinion of
theirs, as I have often said already, may be read in the Proceedings of
the Eastern bishops to have been condemned by the lips of Pelagius
himself.[1] Further, those on whose account I am discoursing are only
removed from the heretical perversity of the Pelagians, inasmuch as,
although they will not confess that they who by God's grace are made
obedient and so abide, are predestinated, they still confess,
nevertheless, that this grace precedes their will to whom it is given;
in such a way certainly as that grace may not be thought to be given
freely, as the truth declares, but rather according to the merits of a
preceding will, as the Pelagian error says, in contradiction to the
truth. Therefore, also, grace precedes faith; otherwise, if faith
precedes grace, beyond a doubt will also precedes it, because there
cannot be faith without will. But if grace precedes faith because it
precedes will, certainly it precedes all obedience; it also precedes
love, by which alone God is truly and pleasantly obeyed. And all these
things grace works in him to whom it is given, and in whom it precedes
all these things. [XVII.] Among these benefits there remains
perseverance unto the end, which is daily asked for in vain from the
Lord, if the Lord by His grace does not effect it in him whose prayers
He hears. See now how foreign it is from the truth to deny that
perseverance even to the end of this life is the gift of God; since He
Himself puts an end to this life when He wills, and if He puts an end
before a fall that is threatening, He makes the man to persevere even
unto the end. But more marvellous and more manifest to believers is the
largess of God's goodness, that this grace is given even to infants,
although there is no obedience at that age to which it may be given. To
whomsoever, therefore, God gives His gifts, beyond a doubt He has
foreknown that He will  bestow them on them, and in His foreknowledge He
has prepared them for them. Therefore, those whom He predestinated, them
He also called with that calling which I am not reluctant often to make
mention of, of which it is said, "The gifts and calling of God are
without repentance."[2] For the ordering of His future works in His
foreknowledge, which cannot be deceived and changed, is absolute, and is
nothing but, predestination. But, as he whom God has foreknown to be
chaste, although he may regard it as uncertain, so acts as to be chaste,
so he whom He has predestinated to be chaste, although he may regard
that as uncertain, does not, therefore, fail to act so as to be chaste
because he hears that he is to be what he will be by the gift of God.
Nay, rather, his love rejoices, and he is not puffed up as if he had not
received it. Not only, therefore, is he not hindered from this work by
the preaching of predestination, but he is even assisted to it, so that
although he glories he may glory in the Lord.

CHAP. 42.--THE ADVERSARIES CANNOT DENY PREDESTINATION TO THOSE GIFTS OF
GRACE WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE, AND THEIR EXHORTATIONS ARE NOT
HINDERED BY THIS PREDESTINATION NEVERTHELESS.

    And what I said of chastity, can be said also of faith, of piety, of
love, of perseverance, and, not to enumerate single virtues, it may be
said with the utmost truthfulness of all the obedience with which God is
obeyed. But those who place only the beginning of faith and perseverance
to the end in such wise in our power as not to regard them as God's
gifts, nor to think that God works on our thoughts and wills so as that
we may have and retain them, grant, nevertheless, that He gives other
things,--since they are obtained from Him by the faith of the believer.
Why are they not afraid that exhortation to these other things, and the
preaching of these other things, should be hindered by the definition of
predestination? Or, perchance, do they say that such things are not
predestinated? Then they are not given by God, or He has not known that
He would give them. Because, if they are both given, and He foreknew
that He would give them, certainly He predestinated them. As, therefore,
they themselves also exhort to chastity, charity, piety, and other
things which they confess to be God's gifts, and cannot deny that they
are also foreknown by Him, and therefore predestinated; nor do they say
that their exhortations are hindered by the preaching of God's
predestination, that is, by the preaching of God's foreknowledge of
those future gifts of His: so they may see that neither are their
exhortations to faith or to perseverance hindered, even although those
very things may be said, as is the truth, to be gifts of God, and that
those things are foreknown, that is, predestinated to be given; but let
them rather see that by this preaching of predestination only that most
pernicious error is hindered and overthrown, whereby it is said that the
grace of God is given according to our deservings, so that he who
glories may glory not in the Lord, but in himself.

              CHAP. 43.--FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE

                       FOREGOING ARGUMENT.

    And in order that I may more openly unfold this for the sake of
those who are somewhat slow of apprehension, let those who are endowed
with an intelligence that flies in advance bear with my delay. The
Apostle James says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who
giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given
him."[1] It is written  also in the Proverbs of Solomon, "Because the 
Lord giveth wisdom."[2] And of continency it is read in the book of
Wisdom, whose authority has been used by great and learned men who have
commented upon the divine utterances long before us; there, therefore,
it is read, "When I knew that no one can be continent unless God gives
it, and that this was of wisdom, to know whose gift this was."[3]
Therefore these are God's gifts,--that is, to say nothing of others,
wisdom and continency. Let those also acquiesce: for they are not
Pelagians, to contend against such a manifest truth as this with hard
and heretical perversity. "But," say they, "that these things are given
to us of God is obtained by faith, which has its beginning from us;" and
both to begin to have this faith, and to abide in it even to the end,
they contend is our own doing, as if we received it not from the Lord.
This, beyond a doubt, is in contradiction to the apostle when he says,
"For what hast thou that thou hast not received?"[4] It is in
contradiction also to the saying of the martyr Cyprian, "That we must
boast in nothing, since nothing is our own."[5] When we have said this,
and many other things which it is wearisome to repeat, and have shown
that both the commencement of faith and perseverance to the end are
gifts of God; and that it is impossible that God should not foreknow any
of His future gifts, as well what should be given as to whom they should
be given; and that thus those whom He delivers and crowns are
predestinated by Him; they think it well to reply, "that the assertion
of predestination is opposed to the advantage of preaching, for the
reason that when this is heard no one can be stirred up by the
incentives of rebuke." When they say this, "they are unwilling that it
should be declared to men, that coming to the faith and abiding in the
faith are God's gifts, lest despair rather than encouragement should
appear to be suggested, inasmuch as they who hear think that it is
uncertain to human ignorance on whom God bestows, or on whom He does not
bestow, these gifts." Why, then, do they themselves also preach with us
that wisdom and continency are God's gifts? But if, when these things
are declared to be God's gifts, there is no hindrance of the exhortation
with which we exhort men to be wise and continent; what is after all the
reason for their thinking that the exhortation is hindered wherewith we
exhort men to come to the faith, and to abide in it to the end, if these
also are said to be God's gifts, as is proved by the Scriptures, which
are His witnesses ?

            CHAP. 44.--EXHORTATION TO WISDOM, THOUGH

                      WISDOM IS GOD'S GIFT.

    Now, to say nothing more of continency, and to argue in this place
of wisdom alone, certainly the Apostle James above mentioned says, "But
the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, modest,
easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, inestimable,
without simulation."[6] Do you not see, I beseech you, how this wisdom
descends from the Father of Lights, laden with many and great benefits?
Because, as the same apostle says, "Every excellent gift and every
perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of
Lights.''[6] Why, then--to set aside other matters--do we rebuke the
impure and contentious, to whom we nevertheless preach that the gift of
God is wisdom, pure and peaceable; and are not afraid that they should
be influenced, by the uncertainty of the divine will, to find in this
preaching more of despair than of exhortation; and that they should not
be stirred up by the incentives of rebuke rather against us than against
themselves, because we rebuke them for not having those things which we
ourselves say are not produced by human will, but are given by the
divine liberality ? Finally, why did the preaching of this grace not
deter the Apostle James from rebuking restless souls, and saying, "If ye
have bitter envying, and contentions are in your hearts, glory not, and
be not liars against the truth. This is not the wisdom that cometh down
from above, but is earthly, animal, devilish; for where envying and
contention are, there are inconstancy and every evil work"?[1] As,
therefore, the restless are to be rebuked, both by the testimony of the
divine declarations, and by those very impulses of ours which they have
in common with ourselves; and is it no argument against this rebuke that
we declare the peaceful wisdom, whereby the contentions are corrected
and healed, to be the gift of God; unbelievers are in such wise to be
rebuked, as those who do not abide in the faith, without any hindrance
to that rebuke from the preaching of God's grace, although that
preaching commends that very grace and the continuance in it as the
gifts of God. Because, although wisdom is obtained from faith, even as
James himself, when he had said," If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask
of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be
given,"[2] immediately added, "But let him ask in faith, nothing
wavering: "it is not, nevertheless, because faith is given before it is
asked for by him to whom it is given, that it must therefore be said not
to be the gift of God, but to be of ourselves, because it is given to us
without our asking for it! For the apostle very plainly says, "Peace be
to the brethren, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ."[3] From whom, therefore, are peace and love, from Him
also is faith; wherefore, from Him we ask not only that it may be
increased to those that possess it, but also that it may be given to
those that possess it not.

            CHAP. 45.--EXHORTATION TO OTHER GIFTS OF

                       GOD IN LIKE MANNER.

    Nor do those on whose account I am saying these things, who cry out
that exhortation is checked by the preaching of predestination and
grace, exhort to those gifts alone which they contend are not given by
God, but are from ourselves, such as are the beginning of faith, and
perseverance in it even to the end. This certainly they ought to do, in
such a way as only to exhort unbelievers to believe, and believers to
continue to believe. But those things which with us they do not deny to
be God's gifts, so as that with us they demolish the error of the
Pelagians, such as modesty, continence, patience, and other virtues that
pertain to a holy life, and are obtained by faith from the Lord, they
ought to show as needing to be prayed for, and to pray for only, either
for themselves or others; but they ought not to exhort any one to strive
after them and retain them. But when they exhort to these things,
according to their ability, and confess that men ought to be
exhorted,--certainly they show plainly enough that exhortations are not
hindered by that preaching, whether they are exhortations to faith or to
perseverance to the end, because we also preach that such things are
God's gifts, and are not given by any man to himself, but are given by
God.

             CHAP. 46.--A MAN WHO DOES NOT PERSEVERE

                     FAILS BY HIS OWN FAULT.

    But it is said, "It is by his own fault that any one deserts the
faith, when he yields and consents to the temptation which is the cause
of his desertion of the faith." Who denies it? But because of this,
perseverance in the faith is not to be said not to be a gift of God. For
it is this that a man daily asks for when he says, "Lead us not into
temptation; "[4] and if he is heard, it is this that he receives. And
thus as he daily asks for perseverance, he assuredly places the hope of
his perseverance not in himself, but in God. I, however, am loth to
exaggerate the case with my words, but I rather leave it to them to
consider, and see what it is of which they have persuaded themselves--to
wit, "that by the preaching of predestination, more of despair than of
exhortation is impressed upon the hearers." For this is to say that a
man then despairs of his salvation when he has learned to place his hope
not in himself, but in God, although the prophet cries, "Cursed is he
who has his hope in man."[5]

CHAP. 47.--PREDESTINATION IS SOMETIMES SIGNIFIED UNDER THE NAME OF
FOREKNOWLEDGE.

    These gifts, therefore, of God, which are given to the elect who are
called according to God's purpose, among which gifts is both the
beginning of belief and perseverance in the faith to the termination of
this life, as I have proved by such a concurrent testimony of reasons
and authorities,--these gifts of God, I say, if there is no such
predestination as I am maintaining, are not foreknown by God. But they
are foreknown. This, therefore, is the predestination which I maintain.
[XVIII.] Consequently sometimes the same predestination is signified
also under the name of foreknowledge; as says the apostle, "God has not
rejected His people whom He foreknew."[6] Here, when he says, "He
foreknew," the sense is not rightly understood except as "He
predestinated," as is shown by the context of the passage itself. For he
was speaking of the remnant of the Jews which were saved, while the rest
perished. For above he had said that the prophet had declared to Israel,
"All day long I have stretched forth my hands to an unbelieving and a
gainsaying people."[7] And as if it were answered, What, then, has
become of the promises of God to Israel? he added in continuation, "I
say, then, has God cast away His people? God forbid! for I also am an
Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Then he
added the words which I am now treating: "God hath not cast away His
people whom He foreknew." And in order to show that the remnant had been
left by God's grace, not by any merits of their works, he went on to
add, "Know ye not what the Scripture saith in Elias, in what way he
maketh intercession with God against Israel? "[1] and the rest. "But
what," says he, "saith the answer of God unto him?  `I have reserved to
myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee before Baal.'"[2]
For He says not, "There are left to me," or "They have reserved
themselves to me," but, "I have reserved to myself." "Even so, then, at
this present time also there is made a remnant by the election of grace.
And if of grace, then it is no more by works; otherwise grace is no more
grace." And connecting this with what I have above quoted, "What
then?"[3] and in answer to this inquiry, he says, "Israel hath not
obtained that which he was seeking for, but the election hath obtained
it, and the rest were blinded." Therefore, in the election, and in this
remnant which were made  so by the election of grace, he wished to be
understood the people which God did not reject, because He foreknew
them. This is that election by which He elected those, whom He willed,
in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy
and without spot in His sight, in love, predestinating them unto the
adoption of sons. No one, therefore, who understands these things is
permitted to doubt that, when the apostle says, "God hath not cast away
His people whom He foreknew," He intended to signify predestination. For
He foreknew the remnant which He should make so according to the
election of grace. That is, therefore, He predestinated them; for
without doubt He foreknew if He predestinated; but to have predestinated
is to have foreknown that which He should do.

           CHAP. 48 [XIX.] -- PRACTICE OF CYPRIAN AND

                            AMBROSE.

    What, then, hinders us, when we read of God's foreknowledge in some
commentators on God's word, and they are treating of the calling; of the
elect, from understanding the same predestination? For they would
perchance have rather used in this matter this word which, moreover, is
better understood, and which is not inconsistent with, nay, is in
accordance with, the truth which is declared concerning the
predestination of grace. This I know, that no one has been able to
dispute, except erroneously, against that predestination which I am
maintaining in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. Yet I think that
they who ask for the opinions of commentators on this matter ought to be
satisfied with men so holy and so laudably celebrated everywhere in the
faith and Christian doctrine as Cyprian and Ambrose, of whom I have
given such clear testimonies; and that for both doctrines--that is, that
they should both believe absolutely and preach everywhere that the grace
of God is gratuitous, as we must believe and declare it to be; and that
they should not think that preaching opposed to the preaching whereby we
exhort the indolent or rebuke the evil; because these celebrated men
also, although they were preaching God's grace in such a manner as that
one of them said, "That we must boast in nothing, because nothing is our
own; "[4] and the other, "Our heart and our thoughts are not in our own
power;"[5] yet ceased not to exhort and rebuke, in order that the divine
commands might be obeyed. Neither were they afraid of its being said to
them, "Why do you exhort us, and why do you rebuke us, if no good thing
that we have is from us, and if our hearts are not in our own power?"
These holy men could by no means fear that such things should be said to
them, since they were of the mind to understand that it is given to very
few to receive the teaching of salvation through God Himself, or through
the angels of heaven, without any human preaching to them; but that it
is given to many to believe in God through human agency. Yet, in
whatever manner the word of God is spoken to man, beyond a doubt for man
to hear it in such a way as to obey it, is God's gift.

            CHAP. 49.--FURTHER REFERENCES TO CYPRIAN

                          AND AMBROSE.

    Wherefore, the above-mentioned most excellent commentators on the
divine declarations both preached the true grace of God as it ought to
be preached,--that is, as a grace preceded by no human deservings,--and
urgently exhorted to the doing of the divine commandments, that they who
might have the gift of obedience should hear what commands they ought to
obey. For if any merits of ours precede grace, certainly it is the merit
of some deed, or word, or thought, wherein also is understood a good
will itself. But he very briefly summed up the kinds of all deservings
who said, "We must glory in nothing, because nothing is our own." And he
who says, "Our heart and our thoughts are not in our own power," did not
pass over acts and words also, for there is no act or word of man which
does not proceed from the heart and the thought. But what more could
that most glorious martyr and most luminous doctor Cyprian say
concerning this matter, than when he impressed upon us that it behoves
us to pray, in the Lord's Prayer, even for the adversaries of the
Christian faith, showing what he thought of the beginning of the faith,
that it also is God's gift, and pointing out that the Church of Christ
prays daily for perseverance unto the end, because none but God gives
that perseverance to those who have persevered? Moreover, the blessed
Ambrose, when he was expounding the passage where the Evangelist Luke
says, "It seemed good to me also,"[1] says, "What he declares to have
seemed good to himself cannot have seemed good to him alone. For not
alone by human will did it seem good, but as it pleased Him who speaks
in me, Christ, who effects that that which is good may also seem good to
us: for whom He has mercy on He also calls. And therefore he who
follows: Christ may answer, when he is asked why he wished to become a
Christian,  'It seemed good to me also.' And when he says this, he does 
not deny that it seemed good to God; for the  will of men is prepared by
God. For it is God's grace that God should be honoured by the saint."[2]
Moreover, in the same work,--that is, in the exposition of the same
Gospel, when he had come to that place where the Samaritans would not
receive the Lord when His face was as going to Jerusalem,--he says,
"Learn at the same time that He would not be received by those who were
not converted in simpleness of mind. For if He had been willing, He
would have made them devout who were undevout. And why they would not
receive Him, the evangelist himself mentioned, saying,  'Because His
face was as of one going towards Jerusalem.'[3] But the disciples
earnestly desired to be received into Samaria. But God calls those whom
He makes worthy, and makes religious whom He will."[4] What more
evident, what more manifest do we ask from commentators on God's word,
if we are pleased to hear from them what is clear in the Scriptures? But
to these two, who ought to be enough, let us add also a third, the holy
Gregory, who testifies that it is the gift of God both to believe in God
and to confess what we believe, saying, "I beg of you confess the
Trinity of one godhead; but if ye wish otherwise, say that it is of one
nature, and God  will be besought that a voice shall be given to you by
the Holy Spirit ;" that is, God will be besought to allow a voice to be
given to you by which you may confess what you believe. "For He will
give, I am certain, He who gave what is first, will give also what is
second."[5] He who gave belief, will also give confession.

             CHAP. 50.--OBEDIENCE NOT DISCOURAGED BY

                     PREACHING GOD'S GIFTS.

    Such doctors, and so great as these, when they say that there is
nothing of which we may boast as if of our own which God has not given
us, and that our very heart and our thoughts are not in our own power;
and when they give the whole to God, and confess that from Him we
receive that we are converted to Him in such wise as to continue,--that
that which is good appears also to us to be good, and we wish for
it,--that we honour God and receive Christ,--that from undevout people
we are made devout and religious,--that we believe in the Trinity
itself, and also confess with our voice what we believe:--certainly
attribute all these things to God's grace, acknowledge them as God's
gifts, and testify that they come to us from Him, and are not from
ourselves. But will any one say that they in such wise confessed that
grace of God as to venture to deny His foreknowledge,  which not only
learned but unlearned men also confess ? Again, if they had so known
that God gives these things that they were not ignorant that He foreknew
that He would give them, and could not have been ignorant to whom He
would give them: beyond a doubt they had known the predestination which,
as preached by the apostles, we laboriously and diligently maintain
against the modern heretics. Nor would it be with any manner of justice
said, nevertheless, to them because they preach obedience, and fervently
exhort, to the extent of the ability of each one, to its practice, "If
you do not wish that the obedience to which you are stirring us up
should grow cold in our heart, forbear to preach to us that grace of God
by which you confess that God gives what you are exhorting us to do."

             CHAP. 51  [XX.]--PREDESTINATION MUST BE

                            PREACHED.

    Wherefore, if both the apostles and the teachers of the Church who
succeeded them and imitated them did both these things,--that is, both
truly preached the grace of God which is not given according to our
merits, and inculcated by wholesome precepts a pious obedience,--what is
it which these people of our time think themselves rightly bound by the
invincible force of truth to say, "Even if what is said of the
predestination of God's benefits be true, yet it  must not be preached
to the people"?[1] It must absolutely be preached, so that he who has
ears to hear, may hear. And who has them if he has not received them
from Him who says, "I will give them a heart to know me, and ears to
hear "?[2] Assuredly, he who has not received may reject; while, yet, he
who receives may take and drink, may drink and live. For as piety must
be preached, that, by him who has ears to hear, God may be rightly
worshipped; modesty must be preached, that, by him who has ears to hear,
no illicit act may be perpetrated by his fleshly nature; charity must be
preached, that, by him who has ears to hear, God and his neighbours may
be loved;--so also must be preached such a predestination of God's
benefits that he who has ears to hear may glory, not in himself, but in
the Lord.

CHAP. 52.--PREVIOUS WRITINGS ANTICIPATIVELY REFUTED THE PELAGIAN HERESY.

    But in respect of their saying "that it was not necessary that the
hearts of so many people of little intelligence should be disquieted by
the uncertainty of this kind of disputation, since the catholic faith
has been defended for so many, years, with no less advantage, without
this definition of predestination, as well against others as especially
against the Pelagians, in so many books that have gone before, as well
of catholics and others as our own;"[3]--I much wonder that they should
say this, and not observe--to say nothing of other writings in this
place--that those very treatises of mine were both composed and
published before the Pelagians had begun to appear; and that they do not
see in how many passages of those treatises I was unawares cutting down
a future Pelagian heresy, by preaching the grace by which God delivers
us from evil errors and from our habits, without any preceding merits of
ours,--doing this according to His gratuitous mercy. And this I began
more fully to apprehend in that disputation which I wrote to
Simplicianus, the bishop of the Church of Milan, of blessed memory, in
the beginning of my episcopate, when, moreover, I both perceived and
asserted that the beginning of faith is God's gift.

              CHAP. 53.--AUGUSTIN'S "CONFESSIONS."

    And which of my smaller works has been able to be more generally and
more agreeably known than the books of my Confessions ? And although I
published them before the Pelagian heresy had come into existence,
certainly in them I said to my God, and said it frequently, "Give what
Thou commandest, and command what Thou willest."[4] Which words of mine,
Pelagius at Rome, when they were mentioned in his presence by a certain
brother and fellow bishop of mine, could not bear; and contradicting
somewhat too excitedly, nearly came to a quarrel with him who had
mentioned them. But what, indeed, does God primarily and chiefly
command, but that we believe on Him ? And this, therefore, He Himself
gives, if it is well said to Him, "Give what Thou commandest." And,
moreover, in those same books, in respect of what I have related
concerning my conversion, when God converted me to that faith which,
with a most miserable and raging talkativeness, I was destroying, do you
not remember that it was so narrated how I showed that I was granted to
the faithful and daily tears of my mother, that I should not perish ?[5]
Where certainly I declared that God by His grace converted to the true
faith the wills of men, which were not only averse to it, but even
adverse to it. Further, in what manner I besought God concerning my
growth in perseverance, you know, and you are able to review if you wish
it. Therefore, that all the gifts of God which m that work I either
asked for or praised, were foreknown by God that He would give, and that
He could never be ignorant of the persons to whom He would give them,
who can dare, I will not say to deny, but even to doubt? This is the
manifest and assured predestination of the saints, which subsequently
necessity compelled me more carefully and laboriously to defend when I
was already disputing against the Pelagians. For I learnt that each
special heresy introduced its own peculiar questions into the
Church--against which the sacred Scripture might be more carefully
defended than if no such necessity compelled their defence. And what
compelled those passages of Scripture in which predestination is
commended to be defended more abundantly and clearly by that labour of
mine, than the fact that the Pelagians say that God's grace is given
according to our merits; for what else is this than an absolute denim of
grace ?

              CHAP. 54 [XXI.]--BEGINNING AND END OF

                        FAITH IS OF GOD.

    Therefore that this opinion, which is unpleasing to God, and hostile
to those gratuitous benefits of God whereby we are delivered, may be
destroyed, I maintain that both the beginning of faith and the
perseverance therein, even to the end, are, according to the
Scriptures--of which I have already quoted many--God's gifts. Because if
we say that the beginning of faith is of ourselves, so that by it we
deserve to receive other gifts of God, the Pelagians conclude that God's
grace is given according to our merits. And this the catholic faith held
in such dread, that Pelagius himself, in fear of condemnation, condemned
it. And, moreover, if we say that our perseverance is of ourselves, not
of God, they answer that we have the beginning of our faith of ourselves
in such wise as the end, thus arguing that we have that beginning of
ourselves much more, if of ourselves we have the continuance unto the
end, since to perfect is much greater than to begin; and thus repeatedly
they conclude that the grace of God is given according to our merits.
But if both are God's gifts, and God foreknew that He would give these
His gifts (and who can deny this?), predestination must be
preached,--that God's true grace, that is, the grace which is not given
according to our merits, may be maintained with insuperable defence.

           CHAP. 55.--TESTIMONY OF HIS PREVIOUS WRIT-

                        INGS AND LETTERS.

    And, indeed, in that treatise of which the title is, Of Rebuke and
Grace,[1] which could not suffice for all my lovers, I think that I have
so established that it is the gift of God also to persevere to the end,
as I have either never before or almost never so expressly and evidently
maintained this in writing, unless my memory deceives me. But I have now
said this in a way in which no one before me has said it. Certainly the
blessed Cyprian, in the Lord's Prayer, as I have already shown, so
explained our petitions as to say that in its very first petition we
were asking for perseverance, asserting that we pray for it  when we
say, "Hallowed be Thy name,"[2] although we have been already hallowed
in baptism,--so that we may persevere in that which we have begun to be.
Let those, however, to whom, in their love for me, I ought not to be
ungrateful, who profess that they embrace, over and above that which
comes into the argument, all my views, as you write,--let those, I say,
see whether, in the latter portions of the first book of those two which
I wrote in the beginning of my episcopate, before the appearance of the
Pelagian heresy, to Simplicianus, the bishop of Milan,[3] there remained
anything whereby it might be called in question that God's grace is not
given according to our merits; and whether I have not there sufficiently
argued that even the beginning of faith is God's gift; and whether from
what is there said it does not by consequence result, although it is not
expressed, that even perseverance to the end is not given, except by Him
who has predestinated us to His kingdom and glory. Then, did not I many
years ago publish that letter which I had already written to the holy
Paulinus,[4] bishop of Nola, against the Pelagians, which they have
lately begun to contradict? Let them also look into that letter which I
sent to Sixtus, the presbyter of the Roman Church? when we contended in
a very sharp conflict against the Pelagians, and they will find it such
as is that one to Paulinus. Whence they may gather that the same sort of
things were already said and written several years ago against the
Pelagian heresy, and that it is to be wondered at that these should now
displease them; although I should wish that no one would so embrace all
my views as to follow me, except in those things in which he should see
me not to have erred. For I am now writing treatises in which I have
undertaken to retract my smaller works, for the purpose of demonstrating
that even I myself have not in all things followed myself; but I think
that, with God's mercy, I have written progressively, and not begun from
perfection; Since, indeed, I speak more arrogantly than truly, if even
now I say that I have at length in this age of mine arrived at
perfection, without any error in what I write. But the difference is in
the extent and the subject of an error, and in the facility with which
any one corrects it, or the pertinacity with which one endeavours to
defend his error. Certainly there is good hope of that man whom the last
day of this life shall find so progressing that whatever was wanting to
his progress may be added to him, and that he should be adjudged rather
to need perfecting than punishment.

CHAP. 56.--GOD GIVES MEANS AS WELL AS END.

    Wherefore if I am unwilling to appear ungrateful to men who have
loved me, because some advantage of my labour has attained to them
before they loved me, how much rather am I unwilling to be ungrateful to
God, whom we should not love unless He had first loved us and made us to
love Him ! since love is of Him,[6] as they have said whom He made not
only His great lovers, but also His great preachers. And what is more
ungrateful than to deny the grace of God itself, by saying that it is
given to us according to our merits ? And this the catholic faith
shuddered at in the Pelagians, and this it objected to Pelagius himself
as a capital crime; and this Pelagius himself condemned, not indeed from
love of God's truth, but yet for fear of his own condemnation. But
whoever as a faithful catholic is horrified to say that the grace of God
is given according to our merits, let him not withdraw faith itself from
God's grace, whereby he obtained mercy that he should be faithful; and
thus let him attribute also perseverance to the end to God's grace,
whereby he obtains the mercy which he daily asks for, not to be led into
temptation. But between the beginning of faith and the perfection of
perseverance there are those means whereby we live righteously, which
they themselves are agreed in regarding as given by God to us at the
prayer of faith. And all these things--the beginning of faith, to wit,
and His other gifts even to the end--God foreknew that He would bestow
on His called. It is a matter therefore, of too excessive
contentiousness to contradict predestination, or to doubt concerning
predestination.

CHAP. 57 [XXII.]--HOW PREDESTINATION MUST BE PREACHED SO AS NOT TO GIVE
OFFENCE.

    And yet this doctrine must not be preached to congregations in such
a way as to seem to an unskilled multitude, or a people of slower
understanding, to be in some measure confuted by that very preaching of
it. Just as even the foreknowledge of God, which certainly men cannot
deny, seems to be refuted if it be said to them, "Whether you run or
sleep, you shall be that which He who cannot be deceived has foreknown
you to be." And it is the part of a deceitful or an unskilled physician
so to compound even a useful medicament, that it either does no good or
does harm. But it must be said, "So run that you may lay hold ;[1] and
thus by your very running you may know yourselves to be foreknown as
those who should run lawfully:" and in whatever other manner the
foreknowledge of God may be so preached, that the slothfulness of man
may be repulsed.

           CHAP. 58.--THE DOCTRINE TO BE APPLIED WITH

                         DISCRIMINATION.

    Now, therefore, the definite determination of God's will concerning
predestination is of such a kind that some from unbelief receive the
will to obey, and are converted to the faith or persevere in the faith,
while others who abide in the delight of damnable sins, even if they
have been predestinated, have not yet arisen, because the aid of pitying
grace has not yet lifted them up. For if any are not yet called whom by
His grace He has predestinated to be elected, they will receive that
grace whereby they may will to be elected, and may be so; and if any
obey, but have not been predestinated to His kingdom and glory, they are
for a season, and will not abide in the same obedience to the end.
Although, then, these things are true, yet they must not be so said to
the multitude of hearers as that the address may be applied to
themselves also, and those words of those people may be said to them
which you have set down in your letter, and which I have above
introduced: "The definite determination of God's will concerning
predestination is of such a kind that some of you from unbelief shall
receive the will to obey, and come to the faith." What need is there for
saying, "Some of you "? For if we speak to God's Church, if we speak to
believers, why do we say that "some of them" had come to the faith, and
seem to do a wrong to the rest, when we may more fittingly say the
definite determination of the will of God concerning predestination is
of such a kind that from unbelief you shall receive the will to obey,
and come to the faith, and shall receive perseverance, and abide to the
end ?

                CHAP. 59.--OFFENCE TO BE AVOIDED.

    Neither is what follows by any means to be said,--that is, "But
others of you who abide in the delight of sins have not yet arisen,
because the aid of pitying grace has not yet lifted you up;" when it may
be and ought to be well and conveniently said, "But if any of you are
still delaying in the delightfulness of damnable sins, lay hold of the
most wholesome discipline; and yet when you have done this be not lifted
up, as if by your own works, nor boast as if you had not received this.
For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do for His good
will,[2] and your steps are directed by the Lord, so that you choose His
way.[3] But of your own good and righteous course, learn carefully that
it is attributable to the predestination of divine grace."

           CHAP. 60.--THE APPLICATION TO THE CHURCH IN

                            GENERAL.

    Moreover, what follows where it is said, "But yet if any of you are
not yet called, whom by his grace He has predestinated to be called, you
shall receive that grace whereby you shall will to be, and be, elected,"
is said more hardly than it could be said if we consider that we are
speaking not to men in general, but to the Church of Christ. For why is
it not rather said thus: "And if any of you are not yet called, let us
pray for them that they may be called. For perchance they are so
predestinated as to be granted to our prayers, and to receive that grace
whereby they may will, and be made elected "? For God, who fulfilled all
that He predestinated, has willed us also to pray for the enemies of the
faith, that we might hence understand that He Himself also gives to the
unbelievers the gift of faith, and makes willing men out of those that
were unwilling.

            CHAP. 61.--USE OF THE THIRD PERSON RATHER

                        THAN THE SECOND.

    But now I marvel if any weak brother among the Christian
congregation can hear in any way with patience what is connected with
these words, when it is said to them, "And if any of you obey, if you
are predestinated to be rejected, the power of obeying will be withdrawn
from you, that you may cease to obey." For what does saying this seem,
except to curse, or in a certain way to predict evils? But if, however,
it is desirable or necessary to say anything concerning those who do not
persevere, why is it not rather at least said in such a way as was a
little while ago said by me,--first of all, so that this should be said,
not of them who hear in the congregation, but about others to them; that
is, that it should not be said, "If any of you obey, if you are
predestinated to be rejected," but, "If any obey," and the rest, using
the third person of the verb, not the second ? For it is not to be said
to be desirable, but abominable, and it is excessively harsh and hateful
to fly as it were into the face of an audience with abuse, when he who
speaks to them says, "And if there are any of you who obey, and are
predestinated to be rejected, the power of obedience shall be withdrawn
from you, that you may cease to obey." For what is wanting to the
doctrine if it is thus expressed: "But if any obey, and are not 
predestinated to His kingdom and glory, they are only for a season, and
shall not continue in that obedience unto the end"? Is not the same
thing said both more truly and more fittingly, so that we may seem not
as it were to be desiring so much for them, as to relate of others the
evil which they hate, and think does not belong to them, by hoping and
praying for better things ? But in that manner in which they think that
it must be said, the same judgment may be pronounced almost in the same
words also of God's foreknowledge, which certainly they cannot deny, so
as to say, "And if any of you obey, if you are foreknown to be rejected
you shall cease to obey." Doubtless this is very true, assuredly it is;
but it is very monstrous, very inconsiderate, and very unsuitable, not
by its false declaration, but by its declaration not wholesomely applied
to the health of human infirmity.

CHAP. 62.--PRAYER TO BE INCULCATED, NEVERTHELESS.

    But I do not think that manner which I have said should be adopted
in the preaching of predestination ought to be sufficient for him who
speaks to the congregation, except he adds this, or something of this
kind, saying, "You, therefore, ought also to hope for that perseverance
in obedience from the Father of Lights, from whom cometh down every
excellent gift and every perfect gift,[1] and to ask for it in your
daily prayers; and in doing this ought to trust that you are not aliens
from the predestination of His people, because it is He Himself who
bestows even the power of doing this. And far be it from you to despair
of yourselves, because you are bidden to have your hope in Him, not in
yourselves. For cursed is every one who has hope in man;[2] and it is
good rather to trust in the Lord than to trust in man, because blessed
are all they that put their trust in Him.[3] Holding this hope, serve
the Lord in fear, and rejoice unto Him with trembling.[4] Because no one
can be certain of the life eternal which God who does not lie has
promised to the children of promise before the times of eternity,--no
one, unless that life of his, which is a state of trial upon the earth,
is completed.[5] But He will make us to persevere in Himself unto the
end of that life, since we daily say to Him, 'Lead us not into
temptation.'"[6] When these things and things of this kind are said,
whether to few Christians or to the multitude of the Church, why do we
fear to preach the predestination of the saints and the true grace of
God,--that is, the grace which is not given according to our merits,--as
the Holy Scripture declares it? Or, indeed, must it be feared that a man
should then despair of himself when his hope is shown to be placed in
God, and should not rather despair of himself if he should, in his
excess of pride and unhappiness, place it in himself ?

CHAP. 63 [XXIII.]--THE TESTIMONY OF THE WHOLE CHURCH IN HER PRAYERS.

    And I wish that those who are slow and weak of heart, who cannot, or
cannot as yet, understand the Scriptures or the explanations of them,
would so hear or not hear our arguments in this question as to consider
more carefully their prayers, which the Church has always used and will
use, even from its beginnings until this age shall be completed. For of
this matter, which I am now compelled not only to mention, but even to
protect and defend against these new heretics, the Church has never been
silent in its prayers, although in its discourses it has not thought
that it need be put forth, as there was no adversary compelling it. For
when was not prayer made in the Church for unbelievers and its opponents
that they should believe? When has any believer had a friend, a
neighbour, a wife, who did not believe, and has not asked on their
behalf from the Lord for a mind obedient to the Christian faith? And who
has there ever been who has not prayed for himself that he might abide
in the Lord? And who has dared, not only with his voice, but even in
thought, to blame the priest who invokes the Lord on behalf of
believers, if at any time he has said, "Give to them, O Lord,
perseverance in Thee to the end!" and has not rather responded, over
such a benediction of his, as well with confessing lips as believing
heart, "Amen"? Since in the Lord's Prayer itself the believers do not
pray for anything else, especially when they say that petition, "Lead us
not into temptation," save that they may persevere in holy obedience.
As, therefore, the Church has both been born and grows and has grown in
these prayers, so it has been born and grows and has grown in this
faith, by which faith it is believed that God's grace is not given
according to the merits of the receivers. For, certainly, the Church
would not pray that faith should be given to unbelievers, unless it
believed that God converts to Himself both the averse and adverse wills
of men. Nor would the Church pray that it might persevere in the faith
of Christ, not deceived nor overcome by the temptations of the world,
unless it believed that the Lord has our heart in His power, in such
wise as that the good which we do not hold save by our own will, we
nevertheless do not hold except He worketh in us to will also. For if
the Church indeed asks these things from Him, but thinks that the same
things are given to itself by itself, it makes use of prayers which are
not true, but perfunctory,--which be far from us ! For who truly groans,
desiring to receive what he prays for from the Lord, if he thinks that
he receives it from himself, and not from the Lord?

CHAP. 64.--IN WHAT SENSE THE HOLY SPIRIT SOLICITS FOR US, CRYING, ABBA,
FATHER.

    And this especially since "we know not what to pray for as we
ought," says the apostle, "but the Spirit Himself maketh intercession
for us with groanings that cannot be uttered; and He that searcheth the
hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh
intercession for the saints according to God."[1] What is "the Spirit
Himself maketh intercession," but, "causes to make intercession," "with
groanings that cannot be uttered," but "truthful," since the Spirit is
truth ? For He it is of whom the apostle says in another place, "God
hath sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, "crying, Abba,
Father!"[2] And here what is the meaning of "crying," but "making to
cry," by that figure of speech whereby we call a day that makes people
glad, a glad day? And this he makes plain elsewhere when he says, "For
you have not received the Spirit of bondage again in fear, but you have
received the Spirit of the adoption of sons, in whom we cry, Abba,
Father."[3] He there said, "crying," but here, "in whom we cry;" opening
up, that is to say, the meaning with which he said "crying,"--that is,
as I have already explained, "causing to cry," when we understand that
this is also itself the gift of God, that with a true heart and
spiritually we cry to God. Let them, therefore, observe how they are
mistaken who think that our seeking, asking, knocking is of ourselves,
and is not given to us; and say that this is the case because grace is
preceded by our merits; that it follows them when we ask and receive,
and seek and find, and it is opened to us when we knock. And they will
not understand that this is also of the divine gift, that we pray; that
is, that we ask, seek, and knock. For we have received the spirit of
adoption of sons, in which we cry, Abba, Father. And this the blessed
Ambrose also said.[4] For he says, "To pray to God also is the work of
spiritual grace, as it is written, No one says, Jesus is the Lord, but
in the Holy Spirit."

CHAP. 65.--THE CHURCH'S PRAYERS IMPLY THE CHURCH'S FAITH.

    These things, therefore, which the Church asks from the Lord, and
always has asked from the time she began to exist, God so foreknew that
He would give to His called, that He has already given them in
predestination itself; as the apostle declares without any ambiguity.
For, writing to Timothy, he says, "Labour along with the gospel
according to the power of God, who saves us, and calls us with His holy
calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose
and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of
eternity, but is now made manifest by the coming of our Saviour Jesus
Christ."[5] Let him, therefore, say that the Church at any time has not
had in its belief the truth of this predestination and grace, which is
now maintained with a more careful heed against the late heretics; let
him say this who dares to say that at any time it has not prayed, or not
truthfully prayed, as well that unbelievers might believe, as that
believers might persevere. And if the Church has always prayed for these
benefits, it has always believed them to be certainly God's gifts; nor
was it ever right for it to deny that they were foreknown by Him. And
thus Christ's Church has never failed to hold the faith of this
predestination, which is now being defended with new solicitude against
these modern heretics.

CHAP. 66 [XXIV.]--RECAPITULATION AND EXHORTATION.

    But what more shall I say? I think that I have taught sufficiently,
or rather more than sufficiently, that both the beginning of faith in
the Lord, and continuance in the Lord unto the end, are God's gifts. And
other good things which pertain to a good life, whereby God is rightly
worshipped, even they themselves on whose behalf I am writing this
treatise concede to be God's gifts. Further, they cannot deny that God
has foreknown all His gifts, and the people on whom He was going to
bestow them. As, therefore, other things must be preached so that he who
preaches them may be heard with obedience, so predestination must be
preached so that he who hears these things with obedience may glory not
in man, and therefore not in himself, but in the Lord; for this also is
God's precept, and to hear this precept with obedience--to wit, that he
who glories should glory in the Lord[1]--in like manner as the rest, is
God's gift. And he who has not this gift,--I shrink not from saying
it,--whatever others he has, has them in vain. That the Pelagians may
have this we pray, and that our own brethren may have it more
abundantly. Let us not, therefore, be prompt in arguments and indolent
in prayers. Let us pray, dearly beloved, let us pray that the God of
grace may give even to our enemies, and especially to our brethren and
lovers, to understand and confess that after that great and unspeakable
ruin wherein we have all fallen in one, no one is delivered save by
God's grace, and that grace is not repaid according to the merits of the
receivers as if it were due, but is given freely as true grace, with no
merits preceding.

CHAP. 67.--THE MOST EMINENT INSTANCE OF PREDESTINATION IS CHRIST JESUS.

    But there is no more illustrious instance of predestination than
Jesus Himself, concerning which also I have already argued in the former
treatise;[2] and in the end of this I have chosen to insist upon it.
There is no more eminent instance, I say, of predestination than the
Mediator Himself. If any believer wishes thoroughly to understand this
doctrine, let him consider Him, and in Him he will find himself also.
The believer, I say; who in Him believes and confesses the true human
nature that is our own however singularly elevated by assumption by God
the Word into the only Son of God, so that He who assumed, and what He
assumed, should be one person in Trinity. For it was not a Quaternity
that resulted from the assumption of man, but it remained a Trinity,
inasmuch as that assumption ineffably made the truth of one person in
God and man. Because we say that Christ was not only God, as the
Manichean heretics contend; nor only man, as the Photinian heretics
assert; nor in such wise man as to have less of anything which of a
certainty pertains to human nature,--whether a soul, or in the soul
itself a rational mind, or flesh not taken of the woman, but made from
the Word converted and changed into flesh,--all which three false and
empty notions have made the three various and diverse parties of the
Apollinarian heretics; but we say that Christ was true God, born of God
the Father without any beginning of time; and that He was also true or
very man, born of human mother in the certain fulness of time; and that
His humanity, whereby He is less than the Father, does not diminish
aught from His divinity, whereby He is equal to the Father. For both of
them are One Christ--who, moreover, most truly said in respect of the
God, "I and the Father are one;"[3] and most truly said in respect of
the man, "My Father is greater than I."[4] He, therefore, who made of
the seed of David this righteous man, who never should be unrighteous,
without any merit of His preceding will, is the same who also makes
righteous men of unrighteous, without any merit of their will preceding;
that He might be the head, and they His members. He, therefore, who made
that man with no precedent merits of His, neither to deduce from His
origin nor to commit by His will any sin which should be remitted to
Him, the same makes believers on Him with no preceding merits of theirs,
to whom He forgives all sin. He who made Him such that He never had or
should have an evil will, the same makes in His members a good will out
of an evil one. Therefore He predestinated both Him and us, because both
in Him that He might be our head, and in us that we should be His body,
He foreknew that our merits would not precede, but that His doings
should.

                     CHAP. 68.--CONCLUSION.

    Let those who read this, if they understand, give God thanks, and
let those who do not understand, pray that they may have the inward
Teacher, from whose presence comes knowledge and understanding.s But let
those who think that I am in error, consider again and again carefully
what is here said, lest perchance they themselves may be mistaken. And
when, by means of those who read my writings, I become not only wiser,
but even more perfect, I acknowledge God's favour to me; and this I
especially look for at the hands of the teachers of the Church, if what
I write comes into their hands, and they condescend to acknowledge it.

  PAGE  123