gave them up to the lusts of their own heart." ^ This, however, does not happen to the predesti- nated, 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." ** With regard, indeed, to the evil lusts which as- sail 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."^ 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 Pela- gius 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 him- self 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 an}thing themselves, they rule it rightly, since they themselves are ruled ^y Him who is right and good.
CHAP. 9. THE THIRD ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION J 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," '° concerning whom the apostle writes: " If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet 3 Rom. viii. 29. 6 Ps. ILx. 10.
'<= I Cor. iii. 12.
Chap, ii.]
ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS.
187 so as by fire." ' When, however, Pelagius re- sponded 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,' " - 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 ^ 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-ETER- NITY OF THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DEVIL AND THE DAMNED.
But what Pelagius added, " Who believes dif- ferently 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 pun- ished 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 blessed- ness. 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," -• 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 pres- ence," and so forth, as the Scripture describes, " He will say unto them in answer, I know you not,...all ye workers of iniquity."^ 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."'' 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 good works ' 1 Cor. iii. 15.
3 The bishops Heros and Lazarus 2 Matt. XXV. 46. see above, i [11.].
left hand, whose barrenness in all He will expose, will He condemn to everlasting fire.** 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 gar- ment, — and He orders them to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into outer darkness.'" 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 ha\'ing 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; " '^ whereas it is plain that, after the one was cast out and condemned, many still remained behind in the house. However, 5 Jas. ii. 13. * Luke xiii. 25-27. ^ Luke xix. 27.
* Matt. XXV. 33. 9 Luke xix. 20-24. '° Matt. xxii. 11-13.
" Matt. XXV, i-io. '- Matt. xxii. 14.
i88 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. 12.
it would occupy us too long to discuss all these questions to the full. This brief remark, how- ever, 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 de- servings preserved in the rewards and punish- ments. Touching the particular point, indeed, which we have before us at present, it is suffi- cient 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? " ' 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 judg- ment 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.
CH.\P. 1 2 [iV.] — THE FOURTH ITEM IN THE AC- CUSATION; 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! " - But after all, the phrase about '■'■ not entering into the thoughts''' of righteous and holy men is not quite a com- mendable 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 ' Prov. XX. 9.
Coi r. xiu. 5.
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 cen- sure 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 ACCU- SATION; and pelagius' answer.
After the judges had accorded their approba- tion 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 dis- parage the Old Testament, deny this. I, how- ever, 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 phr,\se "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? Cer- tainly 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 con- joined with the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; whereas the Jerusa- lem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all." •♦ Now, inasmuch as the Old Testa- ment 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," s 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 3 Dan. vii. i8.
* Gal. iv. 21-26.
5 GaL iv. 30.
Chap. 15.]
ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS.
189 our ordinary use of words, to designate all those Scriptures of the law and the proi)hets which were given previous to the Lord's incarnation, and arc embraced together by canonical authority, under the name and title of the Old Testa/nciii, what man who is ever so moderately informed in ecclesiastical lore can be ignorant that the kingdom of heaven could be quite as well prom- ised in those early Scriptures as even the New Testament itself, to which the kingdom of heaven belongs? At all events, in those ancient Scrip- tures it is most distinctly written: " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will consum- mate 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." ' 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." - For by these words he foretold the merit not of the Old, but of the New Testa- ment. In the same manner did the same proph- ets foretell that Christ Himself would come, in whose biood 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." ^ In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised. Ac- cordingly 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 bless- ings which appertain to the New Testament; but yet the man who lives under God's law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is pre- cisely 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 bless- ings are there figuratively set forth as appertain- ing 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 chil- dren of the flesh to the Old, and to the New ' Jer. xxxL 31, 32.
2 Dan. vii. i8.
3 3 Cor. iii. 6.
the children of the promise: "They," says he, "^vhich are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."-* 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 that appertain to the earthly, and who to the heavenly kingdom. But then the liappy persons, who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinc- tion 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 appro- priated 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 prom- ise, 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 pro[)het 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 ac- cording to the distinction which shows that the earthly promises of Mount Sinai are the proper characteristics of the Old Testament; nor in- deed was the decision an improper one, con- sidering that mode of speech which designates all the canonical Scriptures which were given to men before the Lord's coming in the flesh by * Rom. ix. 8.
i Gal. iv. 35, 36.
190 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. 16.
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.