been persuaded to take up with the opinions which, as we see, were condemned in these proceedings. These opinions it has been attempted by their promoters to force upon the minds of some of the brethren, by threatenings, as if from the Eastern Churches, that unless they adopted the said opinions, they would be formally condemnefl by those Churches. Observe, however, that no less than fourteen bishops of the Eastern Church,^ assembled in synod in the land where the Lord manifested His presence in the days of His flesh, refused to acquit Pelagius unless he condernned these opinions as opposed to the Catholic faith. Since, therefore, he was then acquitted because he anathematized such views, it follows beyond a doubt that the said opinions were condemned. This, indeed, will appear more clearly still, and on still stronger evidence, in the sequel.
CHAP. 26. — THE ACCUSATIONS IN THE SEVENTH ITEM, WHICH PELAGIUS CONFESSED.
Let US now see what were the two points out of all that were alleged which Pelagius was unwilling to anathematize, and admitted to be his own opinions, but to remove their offensive aspect explained m what sense he held them. " 'Hiat a man," says he, "is able to be without sin has been asserted already." Asserted no doubt, and we remember the assertion quite well; but still it was mitigated, and approved by the judges, in that God's grace was added, concerning which nothing was said in the original draft of his doctrine. Touching the second, however, of these points, we ought to pay careful attention to what he said in answer to the charge against him. " Concerning the fact, indeed," says he, " that before tlie Lord's coming there were persons without sin, we now again assert that pre- 1 vious to Christ's advent some men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures." He did not dare to say: " We now agam assert that i:)revious to Christ's advent there were persons without sin," although this had- been laid to his charge after the very words of Coelestius. For he perceived how dangerous such a statement was, and into what trouble it would bring him. So he reduced the sentence to these harmless dimensions: " We again assert that before the coming of Christ there were persons who led holy and righteous lives.'' Of course there were: wlio would deny it? But to say this is a very different thing from saying that they lived " without sin." Because, indeed, those ancient worthies lived holy and righteous lives, they could for that very reason belter confess: " If vve say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in ^ Aiigustin mentions their names in his work Cf^w/ra yj<.'/rt;.w;«, Book I. ch. V. i.iy).
I: Chap. 29 ] ON THE rROCEEDIXGS OF PELAGIUS.
us." ' In the present day, also, many men live | holy and righteous lives; but yet it is no untruth they utter when in their prayer they say: " Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debt- j ors." - This avowal was accordingly acceptable to the judges, in the sense in which Pelagius solemnly declared his belief; but certainly not in the sense which Coelestius, according to the original charge against him, was said to hold. We must now treat in detail of the topics which. still remain, to the best of our ability.
CHAP. 27 [Xll.] THE EIGHTH ITEM IN THE AC- CUSATION. I Pelagius was charged with having said: " That the Church here is without spot or wrinkle." It was on this point that the Donatists also were constandy at conflict with us in our conference. We used, in their case, to lay especial stress on the mixture of bad men with good, like that of the chaff with the wheat; and we were led to this idea by the similitude of the threshing-floor. We might apply the same illustration in answer to our present opponents, unless indeed they would have the Church consist only of good men, whom they assert to be without any sin whatever, that so the Church might be without spot or wrinkle. If this be their meaning, then I repeat the same words as I quoted just now; for how can they be members of the Church, of whom the voice of a truthful humility declares, " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?"' or how could the Church offer up that prayer which the Lord taught her to use, " Forgive us our debts," -if in this world the Church is without a spot or blemish? In short, they must themselves submit to be strictly catechised respecting themselves: do they really allow that they have any sins of their own? If their answer is in the negative, then they must be plainly told that they are deceiving themselves, and the truth is not in them. If, however, they shall acknowledge that they do commit sin, what is this but a confession of their own wrinkle and spot? They therefore are not members of the Church; because the Church is without spot and wrinkle, while they have both spot and wrinkle.
pelagius' reply TO ITEM OF ACCUSATION.
THE EIGHTH But to this objection he replied with a watchful caution such as the catholic judges no doubt approved. " It has," says he, " been asserted by me, — but in such a sense that the Church is by the laver cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and in this purity the Lord wishes her to continue." Whereupon the synod said: " Of ' I John i. 8.
* Matt, vi, 12.
this also we approve." And who amongst us denies that in baptism the sins of all men are remitted, and that all believers come up spotless and pure from the laver of regeneration? Or what catholic Christian is there who wishes not, as his Lord also wishes, and as it is meant to be, that the Church should remain always without spot or wrinkle? For in very deed God is now in His mercy and truth bringing it about, that His holy Church should be conducted to that perfect state in which she is to remain without spot or wrinkle for evermore. But between the laver, where all past stains and deformities are removed, and the kingdom, where the Church will remain for ever without any spot or wTinkle, there is this present intermediate time of prayer, during which her cry must of necessity be: " Forgive us our debts." Hence arose the objection against them for saying that " the Church here on earth is without spot or wrinkle; " from the doubt whether by this opinion they did not boldly prohibit that prayer whereby the Church in her present baptized state entreats day and night for herself the forgiveness of her sins. On the subject of this intervening period between the remission of sins which takes place in baptism, and the perpetuity of sinlessness which is to be in the kingdom of heaven, no proceedings ensued with Pelagius, and no decision was pronounced by the bishops. Only he thought that some brief indication ought to be given that he had not expressed himself in the way which the accusation against him seemed to state. As to his saying, " Tins has been asserted by me, — but in such a sense," what else did he mean to convey than the idea that he had not in fact expressed himself in the same manner as he was supposed to have done by his accusers? That, however, which induced the judges to say that they were satisfied with his answer was baptism as the means of bemg washed from our sins; and the kingdom of heaven, in which the holy Church, which is now in process of cleansing, shall continue in a sinless st^te for ever: this is clear from the evidence, so far as I can form an opinion.
CHAP. 29 [XIII.J — THE ninth ITE.M OF THE AC- CUSATION; AND PELAGIUS' REPLY.
The next objections were urged out of the book of Coelestius, following the contents of each several chapter, but rather according to the sense than the words. These indeed he expatiates on rather fully; they, however, who presented the indictment against Pelagius said that the)' had been unable at the moment to adduce all the words. In the first chapter, then, of Coelestius' book they alleged that the following was written: " That we do more than is commanded us in the law and the gospel." To this [Ch,vp. 30.
Pelagius replied: " This they have set down as \ my statement. What we said, however, was in keeping with the apostle's assertion concerning virginity, of which Paul writes: ' I have no commandment of the Lord.' " ' Upon this the synod said: " This also the Church receives." I have read for myself the meaning which Coelestius gives to this in his book, — for he does not deny that the book is his. Now he made this statement obviously with the view of persuading us that we possess through the nature of free will so great an ability for avoiding sin, that we are able to do more than is commanded us; for a perpetual virginity is maintained by very many persons, and this is not commanded; whereas, in order to avoid sin, it is sufficient to fulfil what is connnanded. When the judges, however, accepted Pelagius' answer, they did not take it to convey the idea that those persons keep all the commandments of the law and the gospel who over and above maintain the state of virginity, which is not commanded, — but only this, that virginity, which is not commanded, is something more than conjugal chastity, which is commanded; so that to observe the one is of course more than to keep the other; whereas, at the same time, neither can be maintained without the grace of God, inasmuch as the apostle, in speaking of this very subject, says: " But I would that all men were even as I myself. Every man, however, hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." ^ And even the Lord Himself, upon the disciples remarking, " If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry " (or, as it may be better expressed in Latm, " it is not expedient to take a wife "),^ said to them: " All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." ^ This, therefore, is the doctrine which the bishops of the synod declared to be received by the Church, that the state of virginity, persevered in to the last, which is not commanded, is more than the chastity of married life, which is commanded. In what view Pelagius or Coelestius regarded this subject, the judges were not aware.
CHAP. 30 [XIV.] THE TENTH ITEM IN THE AC- CUSATION. THE MORE PROMINENT POINTS OF CfELESTIUS' WORK CONTINUED.
After this we find objected against Pelagius some other points of Coelestius' teaching, — prominent cfnes, and undouljtedly worthy of condemnation; such, indeed, as would certainly have involved Pelagius in condemnation, if he 3 This " better expression," " non expedit ducere" Augustin substitutes for the reading " non expedit 7iul'cre" as applied to a w:>r;!an's taking a husband. The original, ya/n^aat [not ya/ieiffSai), justifies Augustin's preference.
'■ Matt. xix. 10, II, had not anathematized them in the synod. Under his third head Ccelestius was alleged to have written: " That God's grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine." And again: " That God's grace is given in proportion to our deserts; because, were He to give it to sinful persons. He would seem to be unrighteous." And from these words he inferred that " therefore grace itself has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it. For if we do all things by grace, then wlienever we are overcome by sin, it is not 7ue who are overcome, but God's grace, which wanted by all means to help us, but was not able." And once more he says: " If, when we conquer sin, it is by the grace of God; then it is He who is in fault whenever we are conquered by sin, because He was either altogether unable or unwilling to keep us safe." To these charges Pelagius replied: " Whether these are really the opinions of Coelestius or not, is the concern of those who say that they are. For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views; on the contrary, I anathematize every one who does entertain them." Then the synod said: "This holy synod accepts you for your condemnation of these impious words." Now certainly there can be no mistake, in regard to these opinions, either as to the clear way in which Pelagius pronounced on them his anathema, or as to the absolute terms in which the bishops condemned them. Whether Pelagius or Coelestius, or both of them, or neither of them, or other persons with them or in their name, have ever held or still hold these sentiments, — may be doubtful or obscure; but nevertheless by this judgment of the bishops it has been declared plainly enough that they have been condemned, and that Pelagius would have been condemned along with them, unless he had himself condemned them too. Now, after this trial, it is certain that whenever we enter on a controversy touching opinions of this kind, we only discuss an already condemned heresy.
CH.^p. 31.
REMARKS ON THE TENTH ITEM.
I shall make my next remark with greater satisfaction. In a former section I expres.sed a fear 5 tliat, when Pelagius said that " a man was able by the help of God's grace to live without sin," he perhaps meant by the term "grace " the capability possessed by nature as created by God with a free will, as it is understood in that book which I received as his and to which I replied; ^ and that by these means he was deceiving the 5 See above, (20).
* He refers to Pelagius' work which Augustin received from Jacobus and limasius, and against which he wrote his treatise De Naturd €t Graiid.
Chap. 32.]
judges, who were ignorant of the circumstances. Now, however, since lie anathematizes tliose persons who hold that " God's grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine," it is quite evident that he really means the grace which is preached in the Church of Christ, and is conferred by the mmistration of the Holy Ghost for the purpose of helping us in our single actions, whence it is that we pray for needful and suitable grace that we enter not into any temptation. Nor, agani, have I any longer a fear that, when he said, " No man can be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law," and added this explanation of his words, that " he posited in the knowledge of the law, help towards the avoidance of sin," ' he at all meant the said knowledge to be considered as tantamount to the grace of God; for, observe, he anathematizes such as hold this opinion. See, too, how he revises to hold our natural free will, or the law and doctrine, as equivalent to that grace of God which helps us through our single actions What else then is 1 left to him but to understand that grace which the apostle tells us is given by "the supply of, the Spirit? " ^ and concerning which the Lord said: " Take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same, hour what ye shall sjieak. For it is not ye that ' speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." ^ Nor, again, need I be under any; apprehension that, when he asserted, " All men 1 are ruled by their own will," and afterwards ex- i plained that he had made that statement " m the, interest of the freedom of our will, of which God is the helper whenever it makes choice of good,"''! that he perhaps here also held God's helping ' grace as synonymous with our natural free will: and the teaching of the law. For inasmuch as, he rightly anathematized the persons who hold that God's grace or assistance is not given for single actions, but lies in the gift of free will, or ' in the law and doctrine, it follows, of course, that God's grace or assistance is given us for ' single actions, — free will, or the law and the doctrine, being left out of consideration; and thus through all the single actions of our life, when we act rightly, we are ruled and directed by God; nor is our prayer a useless one, wherein we say: " Order my steps according to Thy j word, and let not any iniquity have dominion over me." s fifth chapter of Coclcstius' book, that " they say that every individual has the ability to possess all powers and graces, thus taking away that ' di\ersity of graces ' which the apostle teaches," Pclagius replied: " We have certainly said so much; but yet they have laid against us and blundering charge a malignant CHAP. 32. — THE ELEVENTH ITEM OF THE ACCU- SATION.
But what comes afterwards again fills me with I anxiety. On its being objected to him, from the ' See above, (2). * See above, (5).
^ Matt. X. 19, 20.
We do not take away the diversity of graces, but we declare that (iod gives to the person, who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul." Hereujion the Synod said; '• You accordingly do yourself hold the doctrine of the Church touching the gift of the graces, which are collectively possessed by the apostle." Here some one may say, " Why then is he anxious? Do you on your side deny that all the powers and graces were combined in the apostle?" For my own part, indeed, if all those are to be understood which the apostle has himself mentioned together in one passage, — as, I suppose, the bishops understood Pelagius to mean when they appro\ed of his answer, and pronounced it to be in keeping with the sense of the Church, — then I do not doubt that the apostle had them all; for he says: " And God hath set some in the Church, first, apcstles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." "^^ What then? shall we say that tlie Apostle Paul did not possess all these gifts himself? Who would be bold enough to assert this? The very fact that he was an apostle showed, of course, that he possessed the grace of the aposiolate.
He possessed also that of prophecy; for was not that a prophecy of his in which he says: " In the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils? "7 He was, moreover, the Gentiles in faith and verity." ^ miracles also and cures; for he shook off from his hand, unhurt, the biting viper; ^ and the cripple stood upright on his feet at the apostle's word, and his strength was at once restored.'" It is not clear what he means by lielps, for the term is of very wide application: but who can say that he was wanting even in this grace, when through his labours such helps were manifestly afforded towards the salvation of mankind? Then as to his possessing the grace of ^'■government" what could be more excellent than his administration, when the Lord at that time governed so many churches by his personal agency, and governs them still in our day through his epistles? And in respect of the "diversities of tongues" what tongues could have been wanting to him, when he savs himself: " I thank mv God that I speak with tongues more than you all?" " " the teacher of He performed ^ I Tim. iv. 'o Acti xiv. £ 8 I Tim. ii 7 " I Cor. xiv iS [Chap. 3: It being thus inevitable to suppose that not one of these was wanting to the Apostle Paul, the judges approved of Pelagius' answer, wherein he said " that all graces were conferred upon him."
But there are other graces in addition to these which are not mentioned here. For it is not to be supposed, however greatly the Apostle Paul e.xcelled others as a member of Christ's body, that the very Head itself of the entire body did not receive more and ampler graces still, whether in His flesh or His soul as man; for such a created nature did the Word of God assume as His own into the unity of His Person, that He might be our Head, and we His body. And in very deed, if all gifts could be in each member, it would be evident that the similitude, whichis used to illustrate this subject, of the several members of our body is inapplicable; for some things are common to the members in general, such as Hfe and health, whilst other things are peculiar to the separate members, since the ear has no perception of colours, nor the eye of voices. Hence it is written: '•' If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? if the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?" ' Now this of course is not said as if it were impossible for God to impart to the ear the sense of seemg, or to the eye the function of hearing. However, what He does in Christ's body, which is the Church, and what the apostle meant by diversity of graces,' as if through the different members, there might be gifts proper even to every one separately, is clearly known. \^'hy, too, and on what ground they who raised the objection were so unwilling to have taken away all difference in graces, why, moreover, the bishops of the synod were able to approve of the answer given by Pelagius in deference to the Apostle Paul, in whom we admit the combination of all those graces which he mentioned in the one particular passage, is by this time clear also.
CHAP. 33. — DISCUSSION OF THE ELEVENTH ITEM CONTINUED.
What, then, is the reason why, as I said just now, I felt anxious on the subject of this head of his doctrine? It is occasioned by what Pelagius says in these words: " That God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul." Now, I should not have felt any anxiety about this answer of Pelagius, if it were not closely connected with the cause which we are bound to guard with the utmost care — even that God's grace may never be attacked, while we are silent or ' I Cor. xii. 17.
- Another re.iding has Ecclesiaruiii, instead of graiiarutn; g.d. " difference in churches."
dissembling in respect of so great an evil. As, therefore, he does not say, that God gives to whom He will, but that " God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all these graces," I could not help being suspicious, when I read such words. For the very name of grace, and the thing that is meant by it, is taken away, if it is not bestowed gratuitously, but he only receives it who is worthy of it. y\"i\\ anybody say that I do the apostle wrong, because I do not admit him to have been worthy of grace? Nay, I should indeed rather do him wrong, and bring on myself a punishment, if I refused to believe what he himself says. "Well, now, has he not pointedly so defined grace as to show that it is so called because it is bestowed gratuitously? These are his own very words: *• And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace." ^ In accordance with this, he says again: " Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." •♦ Whosoever, therefore, is worthy, to him it is due; and if it is thus due to him, it ceases to be grace; for grace is given, but a debt is paid. Grace, therefore, is given to those who are unworthy, that a debt may be paid to them when they become worthy. He, however, who has bestowed on the unworthy the gifts which they possessed not before, does Himself take care that they shall have whatever things He means to recompense to them when they become worthy.
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 because of his works, but in consequence of his faith, that I said the apostle was worthy of having 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 unbelieving men, we still know how true and invincible 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 beginning 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.]
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 deserve by any faith that we should have faith itself; 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 ourselves 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.
" 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, unless 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 commend 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.