9 2 Tim. i. 12. St. Paul's phrase, ttiv napaSriKriv fiov, has been taken in two senses, as (t) what God had entrusted to him; and (2) what the apostle had entrusted to God's keeping. St. Augustin, it will be seen, here lakes llie latter sense.
procure for the Apostle Peter by His prayer for him,'° of which He said, " I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not," " than that God would preserve his faith, that it should not fail by giving way to temptation? Therefore, blessed Paul, thou great preacher of grace, I will say it without fear of any man (for who will be less angry with me for so saying than thyself, who hast told us what to say, and taught us what to teach?)
— I will, I repeat, say it, and fear no man for the assertion: Their own crown is recompensed to their merits; but thy merits are the gifts of God!
CHAP. 36. — THE SAME CONTINUED. THE MONK PELAGIUS. GRACE IS CON.^ERRED ON THE UN- WORTHY.
His due reward, therefore, is recompensed to the apostle as worthy of it; but still it was grace which bestowed on him the apostleship itself, which was not his due, and of wliich he was not worthy. Shall I be sorry for having said this? God forbid! For under his own testimony shall I find a ready protection from such reproach; nor will any man charge me with audacity, unless he be himself audacious enough to charge the apostle with mendacity. He frankly says, nay he protests, that he commends the gifts of God within himself, so that he glories not in himself at all, but in the Lord; '- he not only declares that he possessed no good deserts in himself why he should be made an apostle, but he even mentions his own demerits, in order to manifest and preach the grace of God. " I am not meet," says he, " to be called an apostle; " '^ and what else does this mean than " I am not woriliy'''?
— as indeed several Latin copies read the phrase. Now this, to be sure, is the very gist of our question; for undoubtedly in this grace of apostleship all those graces are contained. For it was neither convenient nor right that an apostle should not possess the gift of prophecy, nor be a teacher, nor be illustrious for miracles and the gifts of healings, nor furnish needful helps, nor provide governments over the churches, nor excel in diversities of tongues. All these functions the one name of apostleship embraces. Let us, therefore, consult the man himself, nay listen wholly to him. Let us say to him: " Holy Ai)OStle Paul, the monk Pelagius declares that thou wast worthy to receive all the graces of thine apostleship. What dost thou say thyself? " He answers: " I am not worthy to be called an apostle." Shall I then, under pretence of honouring Paul, in a matter concerning Paul, dare to believe Pelagius in preference to Paul? I will '° There seems to be a corruption in the text here: " Q»'ti "l'"<f apostolo Fetro Doinhius covtnteitdavit oraitdo." Another readini; inserts lie before the word afostoio. Our version is rather of the apparent sense than of the words of the passage.
[Chap. 37.
not do so; for if I did, I should only prove to be more onerous to myself than honouring to him.' Let us hear also why he is not worthy to be called an apostle: " Because," says he, " I persecuted the Church of God." ^ Now, were we to follow up the idea here expressed, who would not judge that he rather deserved from Christ condemnation, instead of an apostolic call? Who could so love the preacher as not to loathe the persecutor? Well, therefore, and truly does he say of himself: " I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God." As thou wroughtest then such evil, how camest thou to earn such good? Let all men hear his answer: " But by the grace of God, I am what I am." Is there, then, no other way in which grace is commended, than because it is conferred on an unworthy recipient? " And His grace," he adds, " which was bestowed on me was not in vain." ^ He says this as a lesson to others also, to show the freedom of the will, when he says: " We then, as workers together with Him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." ^ Whence however does he derive his proof, that " His grace bestowed on himself was not in vain," except from the fact which he goes on to mention: " But I laboured more abundantly than they all? "3 So it seems he did not labour in order to receive grace, but he received grace in order that he might labour. And thus, when unworthy, he gratuitously received grace, whereby he might become worthy to receive the due reward. Not that he ventured to claim even his labour for himself; for, after saying: " I laboured more abundantly than they all," he at once subjoined: " Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." 3 O mighty teacher, confessor, and preacher of grace! What meaneth this: " I laboured more, yet not I? " Where the will exalted itself ever so little, there piety was instantly on the watch, and humility trembled, because weakness recognised itself.
CHAP. 37. — THE SAME CONTINUED. JOHN, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, AND HIS EXAMINATION.
With great propriety, as the proceedings show, did John, the holy overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, employ the authority of this same passage of the apostle, as he himself told our brethren the bishops who were his assessors at that trial, on their asking him what proceedings had taken place before him previous to the trial. 5 He told them that " on the occasion in question, whilst some were whispering, and remarking on Pelagius' statement, that ' without God's grace • This is a poor imitation of Augustin's playful words: "Me potius onerabo quani ilium hottorabo."
5 In a conference held at Jerusalem at the end of July iu the verir 415, as described by Orusius in his Apology.
man was able to attain perfection' (that is, as he had previously expressed it, ' man was able to be without sin '), he censured the statement, and reminded them besides, that even the Apostle Paul, after so many labours — not indeed in his own strength, but by the grace of God — said: ' I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me; ' ^ and again: ' It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy; ' ^ and again: ' Except the Lord build the house, they labour but in vain who build it.' ^ And," he added, "we quoted several other like passages out of the Holy Scriptures. When, however, they did not receive the quotations which we made out of the Holy Scriptures, but continued their murmuring noise, Pelagius said: * This is what I also believe; let him be anathema, who declares that a man is able, without God's help, to arrive at the perfection of all virtues.' " Bishop John narrated all this in the hearing of Pelagius; but he, of course, might respectfully say: " Your holiness is in error; you do not accurately remember the facts. It was not in reference to the passages of Scripture which you have quoted that I uttered the words: ' Tliis is what I also believe.' Because this is not my opinion of them. I do not understand them to say, that God's grace so co-operates with man, that his abstinence from sin is due, not to ' him that vvilleth, nor to him that runneth, but to God that showeth mercy.' " ^ CHAP. 39 [XVI.] — THE SAME CONTINUED. HEROS AND LA2.ARUS; OROSIUS.
Now there are some expositions of Paul's Epistle to the Romans which are said to have been written by Pelagius himself,** — in which he asserts, that the passage: " Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," was " not said in Paul's own person; but that he therein employed the language of questioning and refutation, as if such a statement ought not to be made." No safe conclusion, therefore, can be drawn, although the bishop John plainly acknowledged the passage in question as conveying the mind of the apostle, and mentioned it for the very purpose of hindering Pelagius from thinking that any man can avoid sin without God's grace, and declared that Pelagius said in answer: "This is what / also believe," and did not, upon hearing all this, repudiate his admission by replying: " This is not my belief." He ought, indeed, either to deny altogether, or unhesitatingly to correct and amend <> Rom. ix. 16. ' Ps. cxxvii. i.
* See the treatise De Peccaiorum Mefiiis, iii. i.
Chap. 41.]
Chap. 41.]
this perverse exposition, in which he would have it, that the apostle must not be regarded as entertaining the sentiment,' but rather as refuting it. Now, whatever Bishop John said of our brethren who were absent — whether our brother bishops Heros and Lazarus, or the presbyter Orosius, or any others whose names are not there registered,-— I am sure that he did not mean it to operate to their prejudice. For, had they been present, they might possibly ( I am far from saying it absolutely) have convicted him of untruth; at any rate they might perhaps have reminded him of something he had forgotten, or something in which he might have been deceived by the Latin interpreter — not, to be sure, for the purpose of misleading him by untruth, but at least, owing to some difficulty occasioned by a foreign language, only imperfectly understood; especially as the question was not treated in the Proceedings,^ which were drawn up for the useful purpose of preventing deceit on the part of evil men, and of preser\ing a record to assist the memory of good men. If, however, any man shall be disposed by this mention of our brethren to introduce any question or doubt on the subject, and summon them before the Episcopal judgment, they will not be wanting to themselves, as occasion shall serve. Why need we here pursue the point, when not even the judges themselves, after the narrative of our brother bishop, were inclined to pronounce any definite sentence in consequence of it?
CHAP. 40 [XVII.] — THE SAME CONTIXUED.
Since, then, Pelagius was present when these passages of the Scriptures were discussed, and by his silence acknowledged having said that he entertained the same view of their meaning, how happens it, that, after reconsidering the apostle's testimony, as he had just done, and finding that he said: " I am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God; but by the grace of God I am what I am," ■♦ he did not perceive that it was improper for him to say, respecting the question of the abundance of the graces which the said apostle received, that he had shown himself " worthy to receive them," when the apostle himself not only confessed, but added a reason to prove, that he was tanvor^hy of them — and by this very fact set forth grace as grace indeed? If he could not for some reason or other consider or recollect the narrative of his holiness the bishop John, which he had heard some time before, he might surely have respected his ow^n very recent answer at the synod, ' Rom. ix. 16.
^ Avitus, perhaps, Passeriiis, and Dominus ex duce, whose names do not occur in the Acts of the Synod of Diospolis, but are mentioned by Orosius, Apol. 3.
^ Augustin here refers to the Proceedings of the conference at Jerusalem before its bishop John, which sat previous to the Council of Diospolis. See above, 37 (xiv.).
* 1 Cor..\v. 9, 10.
* 1 Cor..\v. 9, 10.
and remembered how he anathematized, but a short while before, the opinions which had been alleged against him out of Cojlestius. Now among these it was objected to him that Ccelestius had said: "That the grace of God is bestowed according to our merits." If, then, Pelagius truthfully anathematized this, why does he say that all those graces were conferred on the apostle because he deserved them? Is the phrase " worthy to receive " of different meaning from the expression " to receive according to merit"? Can he by any disputatious subdety show that a man is worthy who has no merit? But neither Ccelestius, nor any other, all of whose opinions he anathematized, has any intention to allow him to throw clouds over the phrase, and to conceal himself behind them. He presses home the matter, and plainly says: " And this grace has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it." If, then, a statement, wherein it is declared that " God's grace is given in proportion to our deserts, to such as are worthy," 5 was rightly and truly condemned by Pelagius, how could his heart permit him to think, or his mouth to utter, such a sentence as this: " We say that God gives to the person who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces?"^ Who that carefully considers all this can help feeling some anxiety about his answer or defence?
CHAP. 41. — AUGUSTIN INDULGENTLY SHOWS THAT THE JUDGES ACTED INCAUTIOUSLY IN THEIR OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF THE CASE OF PELAGIUS.
Why, then (some one will say), did the judges approve of this? I confess that I hardly even now understand why they did. It is, however, not to be wondered at, if some brief word or phrase too easily escaped their attention and ear; or if, because they thought it capable of being somehow interpreted in a correct sense, from seeming to have from the accused himself such clear confessions of truth on the subject, they decided it to be hardly worth while to excite a discussion about a word. The same feeling might have occurred to ourselves also, if we had sat with them at the trial. For if, instead of the term worthy, the word predestinated had been used, or some such word, my mind would certainly not have entertained any doubt, much less have been disquieted by it; and yet if it were asserted, that he who is justified by the election of grace is called worthy, through no antecedent merits of good indeed, but by destination, just as he is called "elect," it would be really difficult to determine whether he might be so designated at all, or at least without some offence to an intelligent view of the subject.
S See above, 30 (xiv.).
*> See above, 32.
[Chap. 42.
As for myself, indeed, I might readily pass on from the discussion on this word, were it not that the treatise which called forth my reply, and in which he says that there is no God's grace at all except our own nature gratuitously created ' with free will, made me suspicious and anxious about the actual meaning of Pelagius — whether he had procured the introduction of the term into the argument without any accurate intention as to its sense, or else as a carefully drawn dogmatic expression. The last remaining statements had such an effect on the judges, that they deemed them worthy of condemnation, without waiting for Pelagius' answer.
CIL\P. 42 [XVIII.] — THE TWELFTH ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION. OTHER HEADS OF CCELESTIUS' DOCTRINE ABJURED BY PELAGIUS.
For it was objected that m the sixth chapter of Ccelestius' work there was laid down this position: " Men cannot be called sons of God, unless they have become entirely free from all sin." It follows from this statement, that not even the Apostle Paul is a child of God, since he said: " Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect."^ In the seventh chapter he makes this statement: " Forgetfulness and ignorance have no connection with sin, as they do not happen through the will, but through necessity; " although David says: " Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my sins of ignorance; " ^ although too, in the law, sacrifices are offered for ignorance, as if for sin.^ In his tenth chapter he says: " Our will is free, if it needs the help of God; inasmuch as every one in the possession of his proper will has either something to do or to abstain from doing." In the twelfth he says: " Our victory comes not from God's help, but from our own free will." And this is a conclusion which he was said to draw in the following terms: " The victory is ours, seeing that we took up arms of our own will; just as, on the other hand, being conquered is our own, since it was of our own will that we neglected to arm ourselves." And, after quoting the phrase of the Apostle Peter, "partakers of the divine nature," s he is said to have made out of it this argument: " Now if our spirit or soul is unable to be without sin, then even God is subject to sin, since this part of Him, that is to say, the soul, is exposed to sin." In his thirteenth cha])ter he says: " That pardon is not given to penitents according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to their own merits and effort, since through repentance they have been worthy of mercy."
1 We have preferred the reading gratis creatant to the obscure graiiatn creaiuram, CHAP. 43 [XIX.] — THE ANSWER OF THE MONK PELAGIUS AND HIS PROFESSION OF FAITH.
After all these sentences were read out, the synod said: "■ What says the monk Pelagius to all these heads of opinion which have been read in his presence? For this holy synod condemns the whole, as does also God's Holy Catholic Church." Pelagius answered: " I say again, that these opinions, even according to their own testimony, are not mine; nor for them, as I have already said, ought I to be held resj^onsible. The opinions which I have confessed to be my own, I maintain are sound; those, however, which I have said are not my own, I reject according to the judgment of this holy synod, pronouncing anathema on every man who opposes and gainsays the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church. For I believe in the Trinity of the one substance, and I hold all things in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. If indeed any man entertains opinions different from her, let him be anathema."
CHAP. 44 [XX.] — THE ACQUITTAL OF PELAGIUS.
The synod said: " Now since we have received satisfaction on the points which have come before us touching the monk Pelagius, who has been present; since, too, he gives his consent to the pious doctrines, and even anathematizes everything that is contrary to the Church's faith, we confess him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church."
CHAP. 45 [XXI.] — PELAGIUS' ACQUITTAL BECOMES SUSPECTED.
If these are the proceedings by which Pelagius' friends rejoice that he was exculpated, we, on our part, — since he certainly took much pains to prove that we were well affected towards him, by going so far as to produce even our private letters to him, and reading them at the trial, — undoubtedly wish and desire his salvation in Christ; but as regards his exculpation, which is rather believed than clearly shown, we ought not to be in a hurry to exult. When I say this, indeed, I do not charge the judges either with negligence or connivance, or with consciously holding unsound doctrine — which they most certainly would be the very last to entertain. But although by their sentence Pelagius is held by those who are on terms of fullest and closest intimacy with him to have been deser\'edly acquitted, with the approval and commendation of his judges, he certainly does not appear to me to have been cleared of the charges brought against him. They conducted his trial as of one whom they knew nothing of, especially in the absence of those who had prepared the indictment against him, and were quite unable to ex- Chap. 47.]
Chap. 47.]
amine him with diligence and care; but, in spite of this inabihty, they completely destroyed the heresy itself, as even the defenders of his perverseness must allow, if they only follow the judgment through its particulars. As for those persons, however, who well know what Pelagius has been in the habit of teaching, or who have had to oppose his contentious eftbrts, or those who, to their joy, have escaped from his erroneous doctrine, how can they possibly help suspecting him, when they read the affected confession, wherein he acknowledges past errors, but so expresses himself as if he had never entertained any other opinion than those which he stated in his replies to the satisfaction of the judges?
CHAP. 46 [XXII.] — HOW PELAGIUS BECAME KNOWN TO AUGUSTIN; CCELESTIUS CONDEMNED AT CAR- THAGE.
Now, that I may especially refer to my own relation to him, I first became acquainted with Pelagius' name, along with great praise of him, at a distance, and when he was living at Rome. Afterwards reports began to reach us, that he disputed against the grace of God. This caused me much pain, for I could not refuse to believe the statements of my informants; but yet I was desirous of ascertaining information on the matter either from himself or from some treatise of his, that, in case I should have to discuss the question with him, it should be on grounds which he could not disown. On his arrival, however, in Africa, he was in my absence kindly received on our coast of Hippo, where, as I found from our brethren, nothing whatever of this kind was heard from him; because he left earlier than was expected. On a subsequent occasion, in- 1 deed, I caught a glimpse of him, once or twice, ' to the best of my recollection, when I was very much occupied in preparing for the conference which we were to hold with the heretical Dona-: tists; but he hastened away across the sea. Meanwhile the doctrines connected with his ' name were warmly maintained, and passed from mouth to mouth, among his reputed followers — to such an extent that Ccelestius found his way ' before an ecclesiastical tribunal, and reported opinions well suited to his perverse character. [ yVe thought it would be a better way of proceeding against them, if, without mentioning any names of individuals, the errors themselves were met and refuted; and the men might thus be brought to a right mind by the fear of a conde^nnation from the Church rather than be punished by the actual condemnation. And so both by books and by popular discussions we ceased not to oppose the evil doctrines in question.
CHAP. 47 [XXIII.] — pelagius' BOOK, WHICH WAS SENT BY TIMASIUS AND JACOBUS TO AUGUSTIN, WAS ANSWERED BY THE LATTER IN HIS WORK "ON NATURE AND GI^CE."
But when there was actually placed in my hands, by those faithful servants of God and honourable men, Timasius and ' Jacobus, the treatise in which Pelagius dealt with the question of God's grace, it became very evident to me — too evident, indeed, to admit of any further doubt — how hostile to salvation by Christ was his poisonous perversion of the truth. He treated the subject in the shape of an objection started, as if by an opponent, in his own terms against himself; for he was already suffering a good deal of oblocjuy from his opinions on the question, which he now appeared to solve for himself in no other way than by simply describing the grace of God as nature created with a free will, occasionally combining therewith either the help of the law, or even the remission of sins; although these additional admissions were not ])lainly made, but only sparingly suggested by him. And yet, even under these circumstances, I refrained from inserting Pelagius' name in my work, wherein I refuted this book of his; for I still thought that I should render a prompter assistance to the truth if I continued to preserve a friendly relation to him, and so to spare his personal feelings, while at the same time I showed no mercy, as I was bound not to show it, to the productions of his pen. Hence, I must say, I now feel some annoyance, that in this trial he somewhere said: " I anathematize those who hold these opinions, or have at any time held them." He might have been contented with saying, " Those who hold these opinions,^' which we should have regarded in the light of a self-censure; but when he went on to say, " Or have at any ti??ie Jiehi them,''' in the first place, how could he dare to condemn so unjustly those harmless persons who no longer hold the errors, which they had learnt either from others, or actually from himself? And, in the second place, who among all those persons that were aware of the fact of his not only having held the opinions in question, but of his having taught them, could help suspecting, and not unreasonably, that he must have acted insincerely in condemning those who now hold those opinions, seeing that he did not hesitate to condemn in the same strain and at the same moment those also who had at any time previously held them, when they would be sure to remember that they had no less a person than himself as their instructor in these errors? There are, for instance, such persons as Timasius and Jacobus, to say nothing of any others. How can he with unblushing face look at them, his [Chap. 48.
dear friends (who have never relinquished their love of him) and his former disciples? These are the persons to whom I addressed the work in which I replied to the statements of his book. I think I ought not to pass over in silence the style and tone which they observed towards me in their correspondence, and I have here added a letter of theirs as a sample.
CHAP, 48 [XXIV.] — A LETTER WRITTEN BY TIMA- SIUS AND JACOBUS TO AUGUSTIN ON RECEIVING HIS TREATISE " ON NATURE AND GRACE."
" To his lordship, the truly blessed and deservedly venerable father. Bishop Augustin, Timasius and Jacobus send greeting in the Lord. We have been so greatly refreshed and strengthened by the grace of God, which your word has ministered to us, my lord, our truly blessed and justly venerated father, that we may with the utmost sincerity and propriety say, * He sent His word and healed them.' ' We have found, indeed, that your hohness has so thoroughly sifted the contents of his little book as to astonish us with the answers with which even the slightest points of his error have been confronted, whether it be on matters which every Christian ought to rebut, loathe, and avoid, or on those in which he is not with sufficient certainty found to have erred, — although even in these he has, with incredible subtlety, suggested his belief that God's grace should be kept out of sight.^ There is, however, one consideration which affects us under so great a benefit, — that this most illustrious gift of the grace of God has, however slowly, so fully shone out upon us. If, indeed, it has happened that some are removed from the influence of this clearest light of truth, whose blindness required its illumination, yet even to them, we doubt not, the same grace will find its steady way, however late, by the merciful favour of that God ' who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.' ^ As for ourselves, indeed, thanks to that loving spirit which is in you, we have, in consequence of your instruction, some time since thrown off our subjection to his errors; but we still have even now cause for continued gratitude in the fact that, as we have been informed, the false opinions which we formerly believed are now becoming apparent to others — a way of escape opening out to them in the extremely precious discourse of your holiness." Then, in another hand: " May the mercy of our God keep your blessedness in safety, and mindful of us, for His eternal glory."'* CHAP. 49 [XXV.] PELAGIUS' BEHAVIOUR CON- TRASTED WITH THAT OF THE WRITERS OF THE LETTER.