Now to say that " a man is by the knowledge of the law assisted towards not sinning," is a different assertion from saying that " a man cannot be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law." We see, for example, that corn-floors may be threshed without threshingsledges, — however much these may assist the operation if we have them; and that boys can find their way to school without the pedagogue, — however valuable for this may be the office of pedagogues; and that many persons recover from sickness without physicians, — although the doctor's skill is clearly of greatest use; and that men sometimes live on other aliments besides bread, — however valuable the use of bread must needs be allowed to be; and many other illus» trations may occur to the thoughtful reader, without oar prompting. From which examples we are undoubtedly reminded that there are two sorts of aids. Some are indispensable, and without their help the desired result could not be attained. Without a ship, for instance, no man could take a voyage; no man could speak without a voice; without legs no man could walk; without light nobody could see; and so on in numl)erless instances. Amongst them this also may be reckoned, that without God's grace no man can live rightly. But then, again, there are other helps, which render us assistance in such a way that we might in some other way effect the object to which they are ordinarily auxiliary in their absence. Such are those which I have I Isa.
already mentioned, — the threshing-sledges for threshing corn, the pedagogue for conducting the child, medical art applied to the recovery of health, and other like instances. We have therefore to inquire to which of these two classes belongs the knowledge of the law, — in other words, to consider in what way it helps us towards the avoidance of sin. If it be in the sense of indispensable aid without which the end cannot be attained; not only was Pelagius' answer before the judges true, but what he wrote in his book was true also. If, however, it be of such a character that it helps mdeed if it is present, but even if it be absent, then the result is still possible to be attained by some other means, — his answer to the judges was still true, and not unreasonably did it find favour with the bishops that " man is assisted not to sin by the knowledge of the law;" but what he wrote in his book is not true, that " there is no man without sin except him who has acquired a knowledge of the law," — a statement which the judges left undiscussed, as they were ignorant of the Latin language, and were content with the confession of the man who was pleading his cause before them, especially as no one was present on the other side who could oblige the interpreter to expose his meaning by an explanation of the words of his book, and to show why it was that the brethren were not groundlessly disturbed. For but very few persons are thoroughly acquainted with the law. The mass of the members of Christ, who are scattered abroad everywhere, being ignorant of the very profound and complicated contents of the law, are commended by the piety of simple faith and unfailing hope in God, and sincere love. Endowed with such gifts, they trust that by the grace of God they may be purged from their sins through our Lord Jesus Christ.
CHAP. 4 [11.] — THE SAME CONTINUED.
If Pelagius, as he possibly might, were to say in reply to this, that that very thing was what he meant by " the knowledge of the law, without which a man is unable to be free from sins," which is communicated by the teaching of faith to converts and to babes in Christ, and in which candidates for baptism are catechetically instructed with a view to their knowing the creed, certainly this is not what is usually meant when any one is said to have a knowledge of the law. This phrase is only applied to such persons as are skilled in the law. But if he persists in describing the knowledge of the law by the words in question, which, however few in number, are great in weight, and are used to designate all who are faithfully baptized according to the prescribed rule of the Churches; and if he maintains that it was of this that he said, •' Xo Chap. 6.J one is without sin, but the man who has acquired the knowledge of the law," — a knowledge which must needs be conveyed to believers before they attain to the actual remission of sins, — even in such case there would crowd around him a countless multitude, not indeed of angry disputants, but of crying baptized infants, who would exclaim, — not, to be sure, in words, but in the very truthfulness of innocence, — " What is it, O what is it that you have written: ' He only can be without sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law? ' See here are we, a large flock of lambs, without sin, and yet we have no knowledge of the law." Now surely they with their silent tongue would compel him to silence, or, perhaps, even to confess that he was corrected of his great perverseness; or else (if you will), that he had already for some time entertained the opinion which he acknowledged before his ecclesiastical examiners, but that he had failed before to express his opinion in words of sufficient care, — that his faith, therefore, should be approved, but this book revised and amended.
For, as the Scripture says: " There is that slippeth in his speech, but not in his heart." ' Now if he would only admit this, or were already saying it, who would not most readily forgive those words which he had committed to writing with too great heedlessness and neglect, especially on his declining to defend the opinion which the said words contain, and affirming that to be his proper view which the truth approves? This we must suppose would have been in the minds of the pious judges themselves, if they could only have duly understood the contents of his Latin book, thoroughly interpreted to them, as they understood his reply to the synod, which was spoken in Greek, and therefore quite intelligible to them, and adjudged it as not alien from the Church, cases.
Let us go on to consider the other CHAP. 5 [hi.] THE SECOND ITEM IN THE ACCU- SATION; AND PELAGIUS' ANSWER.
The synod of bishops then proceeded to say: "Let another section be read." Accordingly there was read the passage in the same book wherein Pelagius had laid down the position that " all men are ruled by their own will." On this being read, Pelagius said in answer: " This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will." Upon hearing this, the bishops exclaimed: " Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church." For who indeed could condemn or deny the freedom of the will, when God's help is associated with ' Ecclus. xix. 16.
it? His opinion, thefefore, as thus explained in his answer, was, with good reason, deemed satisfactory by the bishops. And yet, after all, the statement made in his book, " AH men are ruled by their own will," ought without doubt to have deeply disturbed the brethren, who had discovered what these men are accustomed to dispute against the grace of God. For it is said, " All men are ruled by their own will," as if God rules no man, and the Scripture says in vain, " Save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance; rule them, and lift them up for ever." ^ They would not, of course, stay, if they are ruled only by their own will without God, even as sheep which have no shepherd: which, God forbid for us. For, unquestionably to be led is something more compulsory than to be ruled. He who is ruled at the same time does something himself, — indeed, when ruled by God, it is with the express view that he should also act rightly; whereas the man who is led can hardly be understood to do any thing himself at all. And yet the Saviour's helpful grace is so much better than our own wills and desires, that the apostle does not hesitate to say: " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." 3 And our free will can do nothing better for us than to submit itself to be led by Him who can do nothing amiss; and after doing this, not to doubt that it was helped to do it by Him of whom it is said in the psalm, " He is my God, His mercy shall go before me." ■* CHAP. 6. pelagius' ANSWER EXAMINED.
Indeed, in this verv book whicli contains these statements, after laying down tlie position, '' All men are governed by their own will, and every one is submitted to his own desire," Pelagius goes on to adduce the testimony of Scripture, from which it is evident enough that no man ought to trust to himself for direction. For on this very subject the Wisdom of Solomon declares: " I myself also am a mortal man like unto all; and the offspring of him that was first made of the earth," s — with other similar words to the conclusion of the paragraph, where we read: " For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out therefrom: wherefore I prayed and understanding was given to me; I called, and the Spirit of Wisdom came into me." ^ Now is it not clearer than light itself, how that this man, on duly considering the wretchedness of human frailty, did not dare to commit himself to his own direction, but prayed, and understanding was given to him, concerning which the apostle says: " But we have the understanding of the Lord; " 7 and called, and the Spirit of ^ Ps. xxviii. 9. 5 Wisd. vii. 1.
•♦ Ps. lix. lo. 7 I Cor. ii. 16.
i86 [Chap. 7.
AVisdom entered into hiiia? Now it is by this Spirit, and not by the strength of their own will, that they who are God's children are governed and led.
As for the passage from the psalm, " He loved cursing, and it shall come uj)on him; and he willed not blessing, so it shall be far removed from him," ' which he quoted in the same book of Chapters, as if to prove that " all men are ruled by their own will," who can be ignorant that this is a fault not of nature as God created it, but of human w-ill which departed from God?
The fact indeed is, that even if he had not loved cursing, and had willed blessing, he would in this very case, too, deny that his will had received any assistance from God; in his ingratitude and impiety, moreover, he would submit himself to be ruled by himself, until he found out by his penalties that, sunk as he was into ruin, without God to govern him he was utterly unable to direct his own self. In like manner, from the passage which he quoted in the same book under the same head, " He hath set fire and water before thee; stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt; before man are good and evil, life and death, and whichever he liketh shall be given to him," ^ it is manifest that, if he applies his hand to fire, and if evil and death please him, his human will effects all this; but if, on the contrary, he loves goodness and life, not alone does his will accomplish the happy choice, but it is assisted by divine grace. The eye indeed is sufficient for itself, for not seeing, that is, for darkness; but for seeing, it is in its own light not sufficient for itself unless the assistance of a clear external light is rendered to it. God forbid, however, that they who are *' the called according to His purpose, whom He also foreknew, and predestinated to be conformed to the likeness of His Son," ^ should be given up to their own desire to perish. This is suffered only by " the vessels of wrath," * who are perfected for perdition; in whose very destruction, indeed, God " makes known the riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy." 5 Now it is on this account that, after saying, " He is my God, His mercy shall go before me," ^ he immediately adds, " My God will show me vengeance upon my enemies."^ That therefore happens to them which is mentioned in Scripture, " God gave them up to the lusts of their own heart." ^ This, however, does not happen to the predestinated, who are ruled by the Spirit of God, for not in vain is their cry: " Deliver me not, O Lord, to the sinner, according to my desire." ** With regard, indeed, to the evil lusts which assail them, their prayer has ever assumed some such shape as this: " Take away from me the concupiscence of the belly; and let not the desire of lust take hold of me."^ 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.
This being the case, how must God's children, who have learned the truth of all this and rejoice at being ruled and led by the Spirit of God, have been affected when they heard or read that Pelagius had declared in writing that " all men are governed by their own will, and that every one is submitted to his own desire? " And yet, when questioned by the bishops, he fully perceived what an evil impression these words of his might produce, and told them in answer that " he had made such an assertion in the interest of free will," — adding at once, "God is its helper whenever it chooses good; whilst man is himself in fault when he sins, as being under the influence of a free will." Although the pious judges approved of this sentiment also, they were unwilling to consider or examine how incautiously he had written, or indeed in what sense he had employed the words found in his book. They thought it was enough that he had made such a confession concerning free will, as to admit that God helped the man who chose the good, whereas the man who sinned was himself to blame, his own will sufficing for him in this direction. According to this, God rules those whom He assists in their choice of the good. So far, then, as they rule 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.]
so as by fire." ' When, however, Pelagius responded that " he had made his assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ' These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal,' " - 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 differently is an Origenist," was approved by the judges, because in very deed the Church most justly abominates the opinion of Origen, that even they whom the Lord says are to be punished with everlasting punishment, and the devil himself and his angels, after a time, however protracted, will be purged, and released from their penalties, and shall then cleave to the saints who reign with God in the association of blessedness. This additional sentence, therefore, the synod pronounced to be "not opposed to the Church," — not in accordance with Pelagius, but rather in accordance with the Gospel, that such ungodly and sinful men shall be consumed by eternal fires as the Gospel determines to be worthy of such a punishment; and that he is a sharer in Origen's abominable opinion, who affirms that their punishment can possibly ever come to an end, when the Lord has said it is to be eternal. Concerning those sinners, however, of whom the apostle declares that " they shall be saved, yet so as by fire, after their work has been burnt up," -• inasmuch as no objectionable opinion in reference to them was manifestly charged against Pelagius, the synod determined nothing. Wherefore he who says that the ungodly and sinner, whom the truth consigns to eternal punishment, can ever be liberated therefrom, is not unfitly designated by Pelagius as an " Origenist.'' But, on the other hand, he who supposes that no sinner whatever deserves mercy in the judgment of God, may be designated by whatever name Pelagius is disposed to give to him, only it must at the same time be quite understood that this error is not received as truth by the Church. " For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy." 5 CHAP. II. — THE SAME CONTINUED.
But how this judgment is to be accomplished, it is not easy to understand from Holy Scripture; for there are many modes therein of describing that which is to come to pass only in one mode. In one place the Lord declares that He will "shut the door" against those whom He does not admit into His kingdom; and that, on their clamorously demanding admission, " Open unto us,...we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence," and so forth, as the Scripture describes, " He will say unto them in answer, I know you not,...all ye workers of iniquity."^ 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 garment, — 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 [Chap. 12.
it would occupy us too long to discuss all these questions to the full. This brief remark, however, I may make, without prejudice (as they say in pecuniary affairs) to some better discussion, that by the many descriptions which are scattered throughout the Holy Scriptures there is signified to us but one mode of final judgment, which is inscrutable to us, — with only''the variety of deservings preserved in the rewards and punishments. Touching the particular point, indeed, which we have before us at present, it is sufficient to remark that, if Pelagius had actually said that all sinners whatever without exception would be punished in an eternity of punishment by everlasting fire, then whosoever had approved of this judgment would, to begin with, have brought the sentence down on his own head. " For who will boast that he is pure from sins? " ' Forasmuch, however, as he did not say all, nor certain, but made an indefinite statement only, — and afterwards, in explanation, declared that his meaning was according to the words of the Gospel, — his opinion was affirmed by the judgment of the bishops to be true; but it does not even now appear what Pelagius really thinks on the subject, and in consequence there is no indecency in inquiring further into the decision of the episcopal judges.
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 commendable one, for this reason, that what enters the mind is commonly called a thought, even when assent to it does not follow. The thought, however, which contracts blame, and is justly forbidden, is never unaccompanied with assent. Possibly those men had an incorrect copy of Pelagius' writings, who thought it proper to object to him that he had used the words: " Evil ' 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 censure evil things, we cannot enunciate them in words, unless they have been thought. But, as we said before, that is termed a culpable thought of evil which carries with it assent.
chap. 13 [v.] — THE FIFTH ITEM OF THE ACCU- SATION; and pelagius' answer.
After the judges had accorded their approbation to this answer of Pelagius, another passage which he had written in his book was read aloud: "The kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament." Upon this, Pelagius remarked in vindication: " This can be proved by the Scriptures: but heretics, in order to disparage the Old Testament, deny this. I, however, simply followed the authority of the Scriptures when I said this; for in the prophet Daniel it is written: ' The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.' " 3 After they had heard this answer, the synod said: " Neither is this opposed to the Church's faith."
CHAP. 14. examination OF THIS POINT. THE 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? Certainly not. The fact is, that the phrase Old Testament is constantly employed in two different ways, — in one, following the authority of the Holy Scriptures; in the other, following the most common custom of speech. For the Apostle Paul says, in his Epistle to the Galatians: " Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman...Which things are an allegory: for these are the two testaments; the one which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and is conjoined with the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; whereas the Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all." •♦ Now, inasmuch as the Old Testament belongs to bondage, whence it is written, " Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac," 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.]
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 promised in those early Scriptures as even the New Testament itself, to which the kingdom of heaven belongs? At all events, in those ancient Scriptures it is most distinctly written: " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will consummate a new testament with the house of Israel and with the house of Jacob; not according to the testament that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt." ' 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 Testament. In the same manner did the same prophets 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. Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and gifts of a similar kind, are the promises of the Old Testament. And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament; but yet the man who lives under God's law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament, for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms of the Old Testament, as are the objects of his desire according to the condition of the old man. But whatever blessings are there figuratively set forth as appertaining to the New Testament require the new man to give them effect. And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical distinction of the bond-woman and the free, — attributing the children of the flesh to the Old, and to the New ' 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 distinction now set forth, were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament; although they continued with perfect fitness to administer the Old Testament to the ancient people of God, because it was divinely appropriated to that people in God's distribution of the times and seasons.
How then should there not be a feeling of just disquietude entertained by the children of promise, children of the free Jerusalem, which is eternal in the heavens, when they see that by the words of Pelagius the distinction which has been drawn by Apostolic and catholic authority is abolished, and Agar is supposed to be by some means on a par with Sarah? He therefore does injury to the scripture of the Old Testament with heretical impiety, who with an impious and sacrilegious face denies that it was inspired by the good, supreme, and very God, — as Marcion does, as Manichaeus does, and other pests of similar opinions. On this account (that I may put into as brief a space as I can what my own views are on the subject), as much injury is done to the New Testament, when it is put on the same level with the Old Testament, as is inflicted on the Old itself when men deny it to be the work of the supreme God of goodness. Now, when Pelagius in his answer gave as his reason for saying that even in the Old Testament there was a promise of the kingdom of heaven, the testimony of the 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 according to the distinction which shows that the earthly promises of Mount Sinai are the proper characteristics of the Old Testament; nor indeed was the decision an improper one, considering that