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 be- cause of his works, but in consequence of his faith, that I said the apostle was worthy of hav- ing 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." s Preach up, however, as much as you like, the works of un- believing men, we still know how true and invin- cible is the statement of this same apostle: " Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." ^ The very reason, indeed, why he so often declares that righteousness is imputed to us, not out of our works, but our faith, whereas faith rather works through love, is that no man should think that he arrives at faith itself through the merit of his works; for it is faith which is the begin- ning whence good works first proceed; since (as has already been stated) whatsoever comes not 3 Rom. xi. 6. 6 Rom. xiv. 23.
4 Rom. iv. 4.
5 Gal. V. e.
Chap. 36.]
ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS.
199 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." ' Although, therefore, faith procures the grace of producing good works, we certainly do not de- serve by any faith that we should have faith it- self; but, in its bestowal upon us, in order that we may follow the Lord by its help, " His mercy has prevented us." ^ \Vas it we ourselves that gave it to us? Did we ourselves make our- selves faithful? I must by all means say here, emphatically: " It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves." ^ 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." ■♦ 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; ' ^ 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, un- less grace had been first bestowed on him whilst unworthy of it. He says indeed: " 1 have fought a good fight; " ^ but then he also says: " Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord." ^ 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." ^ He says, moreover: " I have kept the faith; " but then it is he too who says again: " I know whom I have beheved, 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 coininendatiim, which yields a plainer sense.*' Now, what do we com- mend 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 ' Cant. iv. 8. 2 Ps. lix. lo.
* Rom. xii. 3. Si Cor. iv. 7.
9 2 Tim. i. 12. St. Paul's phrase, ttiv napaSriKriv fiov, has been taken in two senses, as (t) what God had entrusted to him; and (2) what the apostle had entrusted to God's keeping. St. Augustin, it will be seen, here lakes llie latter sense.
procure for the Apostle Peter by His prayer for him,'° of which He said, " I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not," " than that God would preserve his faith, that it should not fail by giving way to temptation? Therefore, blessed Paul, thou great preacher of grace, I will say it without fear of any man (for who will be less angry with me for so saying than thyself, who hast told us what to say, and taught us what to teach?)
— I will, I repeat, say it, and fear no man for the assertion: Their own crown is recompensed to their merits; but thy merits are the gifts of God!
CHAP. 36. — THE SAME CONTINUED. THE MONK PELAGIUS. GRACE IS CON.^ERRED ON THE UN- WORTHY.
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 wliich 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; '- he not only declares that he possessed no good deserts in himself why he should be made an apostle, but he even men- tions his own demerits, in order to manifest and preach the grace of God. " I am not meet," says he, " to be called an apostle; " '^ and what else does this mean than " I am not woriliy'''?
— as indeed several Latin copies read the phrase. Now this, to be sure, is the very gist of our ques- tion; for undoubtedly in this grace of apostle- ship 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 ex- cel 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 Ai)OS- tle 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 hon- ouring Paul, in a matter concerning Paul, dare to believe Pelagius in preference to Paul? I will '° There seems to be a corruption in the text here: " Q»'ti "l'"<f apostolo Fetro Doinhius covtnteitdavit oraitdo." Another readini; inserts lie before the word afostoio. Our version is rather of the apparent sense than of the words of the passage.
200 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. 37.
not do so; for if I did, I should only prove to be more onerous to myself than honouring to him.' Let us hear also why he is not worthy to be called an apostle: " Because," says he, " I persecuted the Church of God." ^ 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." ^ 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." ^ Whence however does he derive his proof, that " His grace be- stowed 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 him- self; for, after saying: " I laboured more abun- dantly 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 ex- alted 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 trial. 5 He told them that " on the occasion in question, whilst some were whispering, and remarking on Pelagius' statement, that ' without God's grace • This is a poor imitation of Augustin's playful words: "Me potius onerabo quani ilium hottorabo."
5 In a conference held at Jerusalem at the end of July iu the verir 415, as described by Orusius in his Apology.
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; ' ^ and again: ' It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy; ' ^ and again: ' Except the Lord build the house, they labour but in vain who build it.' ^ 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, with- out God's help, to arrive at the perfection of all virtues.' " Bishop John narrated all this in the hearing of Pelagius; but he, of course, might respect- fully 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: ' Tliis 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 vvilleth, nor to him that runneth, but to God that showeth mercy.' " ^ CHAP. 39 [XVI.] — THE SAME CONTINUED. HEROS AND LA2.ARUS; OROSIUS.
Now there are some expositions of Paul's Epistle to the Romans which are said to have been written by Pelagius himself,** — 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 lan- guage 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 hin- dering Pelagius from thinking that any man can avoid sin without God's grace, and declared that Pelagius said in answer: "This is what / 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 <> Rom. ix. 16. ' Ps. cxxvii. i.
* See the treatise De Peccaiorum Mefiiis, iii. i.
Chap. 41.]
ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS.
201 this perverse exposition, in which he would have it, that the apostle must not be regarded as enter- taining the sentiment,' 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,- — 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 abso- lutely) 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,^ which were drawn up for the useful purpose of preventing deceit on the part of evil men, and of preser\ing 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 narra- tive of our brother bishop, were inclined to pro- nounce any definite sentence in consequence of it?
CHAP. 40 [XVII.] — THE SAME CONTIXUED.
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," ■♦ 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 tanvor^hy of them — and by this very fact set forth grace as grace indeed? If he could not for some rea- son 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 ow^n very recent answer at the synod, ' Rom. ix. 16.
^ Avitus, perhaps, Passeriiis, and Dominus ex duce, whose names do not occur in the Acts of the Synod of Diospolis, but are mentioned by Orosius, Apol. 3.
^ Augustin here refers to the Proceedings of the conference at Jerusalem before its bishop John, which sat previous to the Council of Diospolis. See above, 37 (xiv.).
* 1 Cor..\v. 9, 10.
and remembered how he anathematized, but a short while before, the opinions which had been alleged against him out of Cojlestius. Now among these it was objected to him that Cceles- tius had said: "That the grace of God is be- stowed 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 subdety show that a man is worthy who has no merit? But neither Ccelestius, 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?"^ 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 cer- tainly 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 diffi- cult to determine whether he might be so desig- nated at all, or at least without some offence to an intelligent view of the subject.
S See above, 30 (xiv.).
*> See above, 32.
202 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. 42.
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 ' 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 dog- matic expression. The last remaining statements had such an effect on the judges, that they deemed them worthy of condemnation, without waiting for Pelagius' answer.
CIL\P. 42 [XVIII.] — THE TWELFTH ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION. OTHER HEADS OF CCELESTIUS' DOCTRINE ABJURED BY PELAGIUS.
For it was objected that m the sixth chapter of Ccelestius' 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."^ In the seventh chapter he makes this statement: " Forgetful- ness and ignorance have no connection with sin, as they do not happen through the will, but through necessity; " although David says: " Re- member not the sins of my youth, nor my sins of ignorance; " ^ although too, in the law, sacri- fices are offered for ignorance, as if for sin.^ 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," s 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 thir- teenth cha])ter 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."
1 We have preferred the reading gratis creatant to the obscure graiiatn creaiuram, 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 resj^onsible. 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 ac- cording to the judgment of this holy synod, pro- nouncing 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 re- ceived 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 Pela- gius' 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 deser\'edly ac- quitted, 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 indict- ment against him, and were quite unable to ex- Chap. 47.]
ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS.
203 amine him with diligence and care; but, in spite of this inabihty, they completely destroyed the heresy itself, as even the defenders of his per- verseness 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 eftbrts, or those who, to their joy, have escaped from his er- roneous 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; CCELESTIUS CONDEMNED AT CAR- THAGE.