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 i 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.
CH.\P. 7 [hi.] — 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,' 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,^ he is at once set down as a Coeles- 1 He cas Florus "most holy father " elsewhere (sec T/w Uhfinished Work, iv. 5). This man, to whom Jiiliainis dedicated his work, is called a colleague or fellow-bishop of Julianus by Augustin (The Unfinished Work, iii. 187).
2 Conditor nascentium, i.e. the Maker of all men's births.
tian 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; ^ the poor brutes are not gifted with reason, and so they are thrust all together by a vain panic into a real destruction." ■♦ 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 a.scribe 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; " ^ 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." ^ 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^ in judgment." And so runs the Church's canticle "mercy and judgment." > 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 Ccelestian and a Pelagian; " '° 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 den)- that infants I have any need of one to redeem them from the ' power of the devil: tliat 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 3 For a description of this curious mode of capture, see Dr. Smith's Creek and Roman Antiquities, s. v. Rktr.
9 Ps. ci. I. '° See The Unfinished Work, iii. loi.
[Book II.
for doing good without God's help, and that infants undergo no such change as being " delivered from the j)o\ver of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God; " ' and because you say so, you are Ccelestians and Pelagians. \\'hy, 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 INIanicheans?"
CHAl*. 9. — THE CATHOLICS MAINTAIN THE DOC- TRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN, AND THUS ARE FAR FROM BEING MANICHE.\NS.
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 ISIaniclieans afifirm, 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 Ccelestians 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 jNIanicheans it says: " Have ye not read that He wliich 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 wnfe; and they twain shall be one flesli? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." ^ 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." ^ 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: ' I'hey that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick..'"* Now, as it happens, the Manichean, who says that man has evil mixed in his nature, must wish his good soul 2 Matt. xix. 4-6.
3 Luke xix. 10.
at any rate to be saved by Christ; whereas you contend that there is in infants nothing to be saved by Christ, since they are already safe.s 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 ^ 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 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 ADVER- SARY'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 endeavoui-s 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 S The words " in body" are added here in the text of the Benedictine edition, though it is found in almost none of the MSS., because it is found in the passage as quoted in the Uitfinished Work, iii. 138.
*> This clause alludes to the Imperial edicts which Honorius issued, enacting penalties against the Pelagian heretics.
Chap. 13.]
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 hini.
CHAP. II. — THE DEVIL THE AITTHOR, 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 SACR-AMENT 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,' 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." ^ 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." ^ 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 ' Gen. ii. 22, 23. ^ Gen. iii. 20, margin.
3 Compare Eph. v. 32 with Gen. ii. 24.
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.' " ■♦ 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." ^ 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 Ccelestius, 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.' ^ It is again the voice of God which says, ' Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.' ■♦ Or is it, perchance, their fertility? But this is the very reason why matrimony was instituted."
* For once a difficulty occurs (for which, however,?t. Augustin is not responsible) in the construction of the original. The ob.scure passage is here translated in accordance with a suggestion in some of the editions. It stands in the original thus: " tjuorum tamen eflScientije potentia operationis inter\'enit omne quod est ea.idministrans virtute qua condidit." Some editors suggest "■potentia (nominative) Dei operationis intervenit; " but there is no MS. authority for the Vet.
7 Gen. ii. 24.
[Book II.
CH.A.P. 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; " ' and " of this world " the devil is said to be " the prince." ^ 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 " ^ — 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 whi*h 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 ' I John ii. 16, 2 John xiv. 30, 3 Gen. iii. 7.
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." ^ 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 selfsame 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 * Rom. V. 12.
5 Ambrose On Isaiah; see also his Epistle (8i) to Siricius.
Chap. 17.]
such a man of God your taunts and jibes. And yet your heresiarch Pelagius commcntls 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 yet 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 IManicheans. But let us now see what comes next.
CH.\P. 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: ' " 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 wellpleasing, 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." ^ 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, ' This is the Benedictine reading; but another reading has "he answers," which seems to suit the context. See the following: 'again he answers."
- I John ii. 16.
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. 1 7 [VII.] THE PELAGIANS ARE NOT ASHAMED TO EULOGIZE COXCUPISCFNCE, AL- THOUGH 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 obsen^e 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 o£-lusL? 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 you 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." •* 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