CHAP. 46 [XLII.] — PELAGIUS PROFESSES TO RE- SPECr 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 o])inions as we have reviewed are " ignorant of God's righteousness, and desire to establish their own," ' and are far off from " the righteousness which we have of God"^ and not of ourselves; and this they ought to have discovered and recognised in the very holy canonical Scriptures. Forasmuch, how- ever, as they read these Scriptures in a sense of their own, they of course fail to observe even the most obvious truths therein. \\'ould that they would but turn their attention in no care- less 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 Rom.
X. 3.
a Phil. iii. 9.
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 re- cently 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.
"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.^ This, however, is not the question before us. We are at present discussing that assistance of grace which lielps us towards avoiding sin, and leading holy ii\es.
CHAP. 48 [XLIV]. — AMBROSE IS NOT IX 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,* 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 thus 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 under- take, 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,^' treating of the two debtors of a certain creditor: " Accord- ing to men's opinions, he i)erhaps 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 ol)tains grace." See how the catholic doctor most plainly declares that the very love which prompts every 3 See On Nature and Grace, above, ch. 74. < Book ii. c. 84,011 Luke iii. 22. Compare W^a/«.s^ T-mo Letters of the Pflngians, below, iv. ch. 30.
234 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
man to an ampler love appertains to the kindly gift of grace.
CHAP. 49 [XLV.] AINIBROSE 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: ' " 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 con- sider 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,^ and down in the hall,^ sitting at one time with the servants at the fire,'^ at another time stand- ing,5 as the most accurate and consistent narra- tive 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," ^ 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 man- ner 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: ^ " Now if Peter fell, who said, ' Though all men shall be offended, yet will I never be offended,' who else shall rightly presume con- cerning himself? David, indeed, because he had said, ' In my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved,' confesses how injurious his confi- dence had proved to himself: 'Thou didst turn away Thy face,' he says, ' and I was troubled.' " ^ Pelagius ought to listen to the teaching of so eminent a man, and should follow his faith, since 1 " In the ninth book of the same work," says St. Augustin. The reference, however, is to book x. of the editions, c. 89, on Luke xxii. 61.
he has commended his teaching and faith. Let him listen humbly; let him follow with fidelity; let him indulge no longer in obstinate presump- tion, lest lie perish. Why does Pelagius choose to be sunk in that sea whence Peter was rescued by the Rock? 9 CHAP. 5 I [XLVI.] AMBROSE TEACHES THAT IT IS GOD THAT DOES FOR MAN WHAT PELAGIUS AT- TRIBUTES TO FREE WILL.
Let him lend an ear also to the same godly bishop, who says, in the sixth book of this same book: '° " The reason why they would not re- ceive Him is mentioned by the evangelist him- self in these words, ' Because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem.' " But His disciples had a strong wish that He should be received into the Samaritan town. God, how- ever, calls whomsoever He deigns, and whom He wills He makes religious." What wise in- sight 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; " '^ and the apos- tle's deduction therefrom: " So then," says he, " it is not of him thut willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." '3 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?" ■* 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, say- ing, " 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?
9 It is impossible to preserve the paronomasia of the original, which plays on the meaning of the names Pelagiits {pelago, sea) and Petrus {petra, rock).
'° It is the seventh book in the editions, c. 27, on Luke ix. 53.
*■< J Cor. vi. 17. These are the words of Pelagius, which have been already quoted above, in ch. 24.
Chap. 54.]
ON THE GRACE OF CHRIST.
235 CHAP. 52 [XLVII.] IF PELAGIUS AGRKES 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 pro- fess 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." ' If, then, he has come round to an agreement with us, then not the " capacity " alone in man, even if he neither wills nor per- forms 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 approljation, — 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; ^ 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 state- ment 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.
' See above, ch. 4. ' Ambrose on St. Luke, Book i. c. 17.
Such a Standard Zacharias and his wife Elisa- beth 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 spot- less purity. The Apostle Paul, indeed, has told us that he was " blameless, as touching the righteousness which is of the law; " * 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,' and which we ought to " hunger and thirst after," '' 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 vener- able bishop, when he is expounding the Prophet Isaiah,** and says that " no man in this world can be without sin." Now nobody can pretend to say that by the phrase " /« 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 unfold- ing 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.' '° 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 quali- fied sense, probable, indeed, but not expressed with minute accuracy; or if the holy and lowlyminded author did think that Zacharias and Elisabeth lived according to the highest and abso- 3 Luke i. 6; compare De Perfect. Just. ch. 38 5 Phil. lii. 8.
^ Malt. V. 6.
8 This work of Ambrose is no longer extant. It is again q^uoted by Augustin in his work, De Pccrato Ori^iiiali, c. 47 [xli ]; in his De Ntiptiis et Concupisc. i. 40 [xxxv.]; in his Contra JulinnHin, i. II [iv.J, ii. 24 [viii. 1; and in his Contra diias Efiist. Pciagiano- rum, c. 30 [xi.]. Ambrose himself mentions this work of his in his Exposition 0/ Luke, Book ii. c. 56, on Luke ii. 19.
236 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book 1.
lutely perfect righteousness, which was incapable of increase or addition, he certainly corrected his opinion on a minuter examination of it.
CHAP. 5 5 [l.] AMBROSE WITNESSES THAT PER- FECT PURITY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HUMAN NATURE.
He ondit, 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 im- possibility to human nature." ' In this sentence the venerable Ambrose does undoubtedly predi- cate feebleness and infirmity of that natural " capacity," which Pelagius refuses faithfully to regard as corrupted by sin, and therefore boast- fully 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 ' See Augustin, above, De Naturd et Gratid, c. 75 [bdii.J.
Others." ^ 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 Al- mighty Physician, succours it. Now, since we have already prolonged this work too far in treat- ing 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-* — 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 suffi- cient, in opposition to those persons who have broken out into violent and open error, contrary to the truth here stated.
* Rom. viii. 28.
4 I John iv. iq.
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 FOL- LOWER CCELESTIUS, 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 [l.] — CAUTION NEEDED IN ATTENDING ' TO PELAGIUS' DELIVERANCES ON INFANT BAP- TISM.
Next I beg of you,' 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 laver 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 pres- ence, 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 bap- tized with the same formula of sacramental words as adults." ^ 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 peru- sal of their plain assertions, in which they deny that infants inherit original sin, and contend that all persons are born free from all corrup- tion?
CHAP. 2 [ll.] — CCELESTIUS, 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,^ 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 trans- gression." •♦ 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." Con- cerning the ecclesiastical proceedings at Carthage we copy the following account of his words.
CHAP. 3 [ill.] — PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE AGAINST CCELESTIUS.
"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, Coilestius said: ' I said that I was in doubt about the transmission of sin,5 but so as to yield assent ' For the persons addressed, see above, in Book i. c. i, of On the Grace of Christ.
* See above, On the Grace of Christ, ch. 35.
3 See Concerning the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 23.
* Pelagius, at Diospolis, condemned this position of Coelestius. Hence the comparative restraint of Pelagius, and the greater freedom in holding ihe error which is here attributed 10 Ccelestius.
5 De traduce teccati, the technical phrase to express the con- veyance by birth of original sin.
238 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book If.
to any man whom God has gifted with the grace of knowledge; for I have heard different opin- ions from those who liave been even appointed presbyters in the Catholic Church.' The deacon Paulinus ' said: * Tell us their names.' Coeles- tius answered: ' The holy presbyter Rufinus,^ who lived at Rome with the holy Pammachius. I have heard him declare that there is no trans- mission of sin.' The deacon Paulinus then asked: * Is there any one else? ' Coelestius re- plied: ' I have heard more say the same.' The deacon Paulinus rejoined: 'Tell us theirnames.' Ccelestius 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; ' and they read to the very end of the brief accu- sation 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 trans- gression?' Ccelestius answered: 'Let him ex- plain 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 transgres- sion"'' The deacon Paulinus then said: 'You must deny ever having taught this.' The bishop Aurelius said: ' I ask, What conclusion I have on ray 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,' an- swered the deacon Paulinus. Then the bishop Aurelius said: ' As regards the condition of infants before baptism at the present day, the ' This Paulinus, according to Mercator {Commonit. super notni- ne Ceelestii), was the deacon of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and the author of his biography, which he wrote at the instance of Augustin, According to his own showing, he lived in Africa, and wrote the L(fe of Ambrose when John was pretorian prefect, i.e. either in the year 412, or 413, or 422. The trial mentioned in the text took place about the commencement of the year 412, according to Augustin's letter to Pope Innocent (See Augustin's letter, 175, 1.6). See above, in the treatise On the Proceedings of Pclagiits, 23.
2 M creator {Commonit. adv. H ceres. Pelagii) informs us that a certain Syrian called Rufinus mtroduced the discussion against origi- nal sin and its transmission into Rome in the pontificate of Anastasius. According to some, this was the Rufinus of Aquileia, whom Jerome {in Epist. ad Ctesiphont.) notices as the precursor of Pclagius in his error about the sinless nature of man; according, however, to others, it is the other Rufinus, mentioned by Jerome in his 66th Epis- tle, who is possibly the same as he who rejects the transmission of original sin in a treatise On Faith, which J. Sismondi published as the work of Rufinus, a presbyter of the province of Palestine. It is, at any rate, hardly possible to suppose that the Aquileian Rufinus either went to Rome, or lodged there with Pammachius, in the time of Pope Anastasius.
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.' Cceles- tius 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. — ■CCELESTIUS CONCEDES BAPTISM FOR IN- FANTS, WITHOUT AFFIRMING ORIGINAL SIN.
You, of course, see that Coelestius here con- ceded baptism for infants only in such a manner as to be unwilling to confess that the sin of the first man, which is washed away in the laver of regeneration, passes over to them, although at the same time he did not venture to deny this; and on account of this doubt he refused to con- demn 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 trans- gression."
CHAP. 5 [v.] — ccelestius' BOOK WHICH WAS PRO- DUCED 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 pro- fessed to be in doubt about. For these are his words: ^ " 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 per- sons; •♦ 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 bap- tized 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.