OF THE APOSTLE; WHAT THE LAW OF SIN WAS TO THE APOSTLE.
Then, indeed, this statement, " I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind," refers to that very concupiscence which we are now speaking of — the law of sin in our sinful flesh. But when he said, " And bringing me into captivity to the law of sin," that is, to its own self, " which is in my members," he either meant " bringing me into captivity," in the sense of endeavouring to make me captive, that is, urging me to approve and accomplish evil desire; or rather (and this opens no controversy), in the sense of leading me captive according to the flesh, and, if this is not possessed by the carnal concupiscence which he calls the law of sin, no unlawful desire — such as our mind ought not to obey — would, of course, be there to excite and disturb. The fact, however, that the apostle does not say. Bringing my flesh into captivity, but " Bringing me into captivity," leads us to look out for ' Rom. vii. ig-2i. The punctuation of the passage in Latin difiers from that ordinarily used with us, and hence this sense results.
^ Rom. vii. 22, 23.
3 This sharing of joy with the law of God: " hia condelectatio legi Dei."
♦ 2 Cor. iv. 16.
some Other meaning for the phrase, and to understand the term " bringing me into captivity " as if he had said, endeavouring to make me cai)tive. But why, after all, might he not say, " Bringing me into captivity," and at the same time mean us to understand his flesh? Was it not spoken by one concerning Jesus, when His flesh was not found in the sepulchre: " They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him "? 5 Was Mary's then an improper (juestion, because she said, " My Lord," and not " My Lord's body " or " flesh "?
CHAP. 35 [XXXI.] THE FLESH, CARNAL AFFEC- TION.
But we have in the apostle's own language, a little before, a sufficiently clear proof that he might have meant his flesh when he said, " Bringing me into captivity." For after declaring, " I know that in me dwelleth no good thing," he at once added an explanatory sentence to this effect, "That is, in my flesh." ^ It is then the flesh, in which there dwells nothing good, that is brought into captivity to the law of sin. Now he designates that as the flesh wherein lies a certain morbid carnal affection, not the mere conformation of our bodily fabric whose members are not to be used as weapons for sin — that is, -.
for that very concupiscence which holds this flesh of ours captive. So far, indeed, as concerns this actual bodily substance and nature of ours, it is already God's temple in all faithful men, whether living in marriage or in continence. If, however, absolutely nothing of our flesh were in captivity, not even to the devil, because there has accrued to it the remission of sin, that sin be not imputed to it (and this is properly designated the law of sin); yet if under this law of sin, that is, under its own concupiscence, our flesh were not to some degree held captive, how could that be true which the apostle states, when he speaks of our " waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body "? ^ In so far, then, as there is now this waiting for the redemption of our body, there is also in some degree still existing something in us which is a captive to the law of sin. Accordingly he exclaims, " O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord." ** What are we to understand by such language, but that our body, which is undergoing corruption, weighs heavily on our soul? When, therefore, this very body of ours shall be restored to us in an incorrupt state, there shall be a full liberation from the body of this death; but there will be no such deliverance for them who shall rise again to condemnation. To the body of this death then is * Rom. vii. 18.
7 Rom. viii. 23.
[Book I.
understood to be owing the circvnnstance that there is in our members another law which wars against the law of the mind, so long as the flesh lusts against the spirit — without, however, subjugating the mind, inasmuch as on its side, too, the spirit has a concupiscence contrary to the flesh.' Thus, although the actual law of sin partly holds the flesh in captivity (whence comes its resistance to the law of the mind), still it has not an absolute empire in our body, notwithstanding its mortal state, since it refuses obedience to its desires.^ For in the case of hostile armies between whom there is an earnest conflict, even the side which is inferior in the fight usually holds a something which it has captured; and although in some such way there is somewhat in our flesh which is kept under the law of sin. yet it has before it the hope of redemption: and then there will remain not a particle of this corrupt concupiscence; but our flesh, healed of that diseased plague, and wholly clad in immortality, shall live for evermore in eternal blessedness.
CHAP. 36. EVEN NOW WHILE WE STILL HAVE CONCUPISCENCE WE MAY BE SAFE IN CHRIST.
But the apostle pursues the subject, and says, " So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin; " ^ which must be thus understood: " With my mind I serve the law of God," by refusing my consent to the law of sin; " with my flesh, however," I serve " the law of sin," by having the desires of sin, from which I am not yet entirely freed, although I yield them no assent. Then let us observe carefully what he has said after all the above: " There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." •* Even now, says he, when the law in my members keeps up its warfare against the law of my mind, and retains in captivity somewhat in the body of this death, there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. And listen why: " For the law of the spirit of Hfe in Christ Jesus," says he, " hath made me free from the law of sin and death." s How made me free, except by abolishing its sentence of guilt by the remission of all my sins; so that, though it still remains, only daily lessening more and more, it is nevertheless not imputed to me as sin?
CHAP. 37 [XXXII.] — THE LAW OF SIN WITH ITS GUILT IN UNBAPTIZED INFANTS. BY ADAM'S SIN THE HUMAN RACE HAS BECOME A " WILD OLIVE TREE."
Until, then, this remission of sins takes place in the offspring, they have within them the law of sin in such manner, that it is really imputed 2 Rom. vi. 12. 5 Rom. viii. 2.
3 Rom. vii. 25.
to them as sin; in other words, with that law there is attaching to them its sentence of guilt, which holds them debtors to eternal condemnation. For what a parent transmits to his carnal offspring is the condition of his own carnal birth, not that of his spiritual new birth. For, that he was born in the flesh, although no hindrance after the remission of his guilt to his fruit, still remains hidden, as it were, in the seed of the olive, even though, because of the remission of his sins, it in no respect injures the oil — that is, in plain language, his life which he lives, " righteous by faith," ^ after Christ, whose very name comes from the oil, that is, from the anointing.' That, however, which in the case of a regenerate parent, as in the seed of the pure olive, is covered without any guilt, which has been remitted, is still no doubt retained in the case of his offspring, which is yet unregenerate, as in the wild olive, with all its guilt, until here also it be remitted by the self-same grace. When Adam sinned, he was changed from that pure olive, which had no such corrupt seed whence should spring the bitter issue of the wild olive, into a wild olive tree; and, inasmuch as his sin was so great, that by it his nature became commensurately changed for the worse, he converted the entire race of man into a wild olive stock.
The effect of this change we see illustrated, as has been said above, in the instance of these very trees. Whenever God's grace converts a sapling into a good olive, so that the fault of the first birth (that original sin which had been derived and contracted from the concupiscence of the flesh) is remitted, covered, and not imputed, there is still inherent in it that nature from which is born a wild olive, unless it, too, by the same grace, is by the second birth changed into a good olive.
CHAP. 38 [XXXIII.] TO BAPTISM MUST BE RE- FERRED ALL REMISSION OF SINS, AND THE COM- PLETE HEALING OF THE RESURRECTION. DAILY CLEANSING.
Blessed, therefore, is the olive tree " whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; " blessed is it *' to which the Lord hath not imputed sin." ** But this, which has received the remission, the covering, and the acquittal, even up to the complete change into an eternal immortality, still retains a secret force which furnishes seed for a wild and bitter olive tree, unless the same tillage of God prunes it also, by remission, covering, and acquittal. There will, however, be left no corruption at all in even carnal seed, when the same regeneration, which ' Rom j. 17.
"> An allusion, of course, to the me.ining of the word " Christ," from C/irisma, and meaning " the Anointed One." ^ Ps. xxxiii. I, 2.
Chap. 40.]
is now effected through the sacred laver, purges and heals all man's evil to the very end. By its means the very same flesh, through which the carnal mind was formed, shall become si)iritual, — no longer having that carnal lust which resists the law of the mind, no longer emitting carnal seed. For in this sense must be understood that which the apostle whom we have so often quoted says elsewhere: " Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word; that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not ha\-ing spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." ' It must, I say, be understood as implying, that by this laver of regeneration and word of sanctification all the evils of regenerate men of whatever kind are cleansed and healed, — not the sins only which are all now remitted in baptism, but those also which after baptism are committed by human ignorance and frailty; not, indeed, that baptism is to be repeated as often as sin is repeated, but that by its one only ministration it comes to pass that pardon is secured to the faithful of all their sins both before and after their regeneration. For of what use would repentance be, either before baptism, \ if baptism did not follow; or after it, if it did ; not precede? Nay, in the Lord's Prayer itself, I which is our daily cleansing, of what avail or i advantage would it be for that petition to be 1 uttered, "Forgive us our debts," ^ unless it be by such as have been baptized? And in like manner, how great soever be the liberality and kindness of a man's alms, what, I ask, would they profit him towards the remission of his sins if he had not been baptized? In short, on whom but on the baptized shall be bestowed the very felicities of the kingdom of heaven; where the Church shall have no spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; where there shall be nothing blameworthy, nothing unreal; where there shall be not only no guilt for sin, but no concupiscence to excite it?
CHAP. 39 [XXXIV.] — BY THE HOLINESS OF BAP- TISM, NOT SINS ONLY, BUT ALL EVILS WHATSO- EVER, HAVE TO BE REMOVED. THE CHURCH IS NOT YET FREE FROM ALL STAIN.
And thus not only all the sins, but all the ills of men of what kind soever, are in course of removal by the holiness of that Christian laver whereby Christ cleanses His Church, that He may present it to Himself, not in this world, but in that which is to come, as not having spot, or WTinkle, or any such thing. Now there are some who maintain that such is the Church even now, and yet they are in it. Well then, since they confess that they have some sins themselves, if ' Eph. V. 25.
* Matt. vi. 13.
they say the truth in this (and, of course, they do, as they are not free from sins), then the Church has " a spot " in them; whilst if they tell an untruth in their confession (as speaking from a double heart), then the Church has in them " a wrinkle." If, however, they assert that it is themselves, and not the Church, which has all this, they then as good as acknowledge that they are not its members, nor belong to its body, so that they are even condemned by their own confession.
CHAP. 40 [.XXXV.] — REFUTATION OF THE PELA- GIANS BY THE AUTHORITY OF ST. AMBROSE, WHOM THEY QUOTE TO SHOW THAT THE DE- SIRE OF THE FLESH IS A N.4.TURAL GOOD.
In respect, however, to this concupiscence of the flesh, we have striven in tliis lengthy discussion to distinguish it accurately from the goods of marriage. This we have done on account of our modern heretics, who cavil whenever concupiscence is censured, as if it involved a censure of marriage. Their object is to praise concupiscence as a natural good, that so they may defend their own baneful dogma, which asserts that those who are bom by its means do not contract original sin. Now the blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan, by whose priestly ofiice I received the washing of regeneration, briefly spoke on this matter, when, expounding the prophet Isaiah, he gathered from him the nativity of Christ in the flesh: " Thus," says the bishop, " He was both tempted in all points as a man,3 and in the likeness of man He bare all things; but inasmuch as He was born of the Spirit, He kept Himself from sin. For every man is a liar; and there is none without sin but God alone. It has, therefore, been ever firmly maintained, that it is clear that no man from husband and wife, that is to say, by means of that conjunction of their persons, is free from sin. He who is free from sin is also free from conception of this kind." Well now, what is it which St.
Ambrose has here condemned in the true doctrine of this deliverance? — is it the goodness of marriage, or not rather the worthless opinion of these heretics, although they had not then come upon the stage? I have thought it worth while to adduce this testimony, because Pelagius mentions Ambrose with such commendation as to say: " The blessed Bishop Ambrose, in whose writings more than anywhere else the Roman faith is clearly stated, has flourished like a beautiful flower among the Latin wTiters. His fidelity and extremely pure perception of the sense of Scripture no opponent even has ever ventured to impugn." ^ I hope he may regret having entertained opinions opposed to Ambrose, but 3 Heb. iv. 15.
* Pro libera arbitrio, lib. 3.
28o [Chap. 31.
not that he has bestowed this praise on that holy man.
Here, then, you have my book, which, owing to its tedious length and difficult subject, it has i been as troublesome for me to compose as for 'you to read, in those little snatches of time in which you have been able (or at least, as I suppose, have been able) to find yourself at leisure. Although it has been indeed drawn up with considerable labour amidst my ecclesiastical duties, as God has vouchsafed to give me His help, I should hardly have intruded it on your notice, with all your public cares, if I had not been informed by a godly man, who has an intimate knowledge of you, that you take such pleasure in reading as to He awake by the hour, night after night, spending the precious time in your favourite pursuit.
PRELIMINARY NOTES ON THE SECOND BOOK.
(i) FROM THE PREFACE OF AUGUSTIN'S "UNFINISHED WORK AGAINST JULIANUS."
I WROTE a treatise, under the title On Marriage and Conaipisceitce, and addressed it to the Count Valerius, on learning that he had been informed of the Pelagians that they charge us with condemning marriage. Now in that treatise I showed the distinction, as critically and accurately as I was able, between the good of marriage and the evil of carnal concupiscence, — an evil which is well used by conjugal chastity. On receiving my treatise, the illustrious man whom I have named sent me in a short paper ' a few sentences culled from a work of Julianus,^ a Pelagian heretic. In this work he has thought fit to extend to four books his answer to the beforementioned treatise of mine, which is limited to one book only, Oji Marriage and Concupiscence. I do not know to whom we were indebted for the said extracts: he confined his selection, evidently on purpose, to the first book of Julianus' work. At the request of Valerius, I lost no time in drawing up my answer to the extracts. And thus it happened that I have written a second book also under the same title; and in reply to this, Julianus has drawn up eight books, in the excess of his loquacious powers.
(2) FROM AUGUSTIN'S EPISTLE TO CLAUDIUS [ccvii.].
"Whoever has perused this second book of mine, addressed (as the first was) to the Count Valerius, and drawn up (as, indeed, both were) for his use, will have discovered that there are some points in which I have not answered Julianus, but that I meant my work rather for him who made the extracts from that writer's books, and who did not arrange them in the order in which he found them. He deemed some considerable alteration necessary in his arrangement, very probably with the view of appropriating by this method as his own the thoughts which evidently were another person's."
* In chartula.
2 [This able and learned man was much the most formidable of the Pelagian writers. Besides this book, Augustin wrote three large works against him, the treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, and the two treatises Against 'Julian, the last of which is usually called The Unfitiishea Work from the circumstance that Augustin left it incomplete at his death. Julian was a son of a dear friend of Augustin, and was himself much loved by him. He became a " lector" in 404, and was ordained bishop by Innocent I. about 417. Under Zosimus' vacillating policy he took strong ground on the Pelagian side, and, refusing to sign Zosimus' Tractoria, was exiled with his seventeen fellow-recusants, and passed his long life in vain endeavours to obtain recognition for the Pelagian party. His writings included two letters to Zosimus, a Confession of Faith, the two letters answered in Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (though he seems to have repudiated the former of these), and two large books against Augustin, the first of which was his four books against the first book of the present treatise, against extracts from which the second book was written, whilst Augustin's Against Julian, in six books, traverses the whole work. To this second book Julian replied in a rejoinder addressed to Florus. and consisting of eight books.
Augustin's Unfinished Work is a reply to this. Julian's character was as noble as his energy was great and his pen acute. He stands out among his fellow-Pelagians as the sufferer for conscience' sake. A full account of his works may be read in'the Benedictine Preface to Augustin's Unfinished Work, with which may be compared the article on him in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography. — W.J BOOK II.'
AUGUSTIN, IN THIS LATTER BOOK, REFUTES SUNDRY SENTENCES WHICH HAD BEEN CULLED BY SOME UNKNOWN AUTHOR FROM THE FIRST OF FOUR BOOKS THAT JULIANUS HAD PUBLISHED IN OPPOSITION TO THE FORMER BOOK OF HLS TREATISE "ON MARRIAGE AND CONCUPISCENCE;" WHICH SENTENCES HAD BEEN FORWARDED TO HIM AT THE INSTANCE OF THE COUNT VALERIUS. HE VINDICATES THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN FROM HIS OPPONENT'S CAVILS AND SUB-TLETIES, AND PARTICULARLY SHOWS HOW DIVERSE IT IS FROM THE INFAMOUS HERESY OF THE MANICHEANS.
CHAP. I [l.] — INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.
I CANNOT tell you, dearly loved and honoured son Valerius, how great is the pleasure which my heart receives when I hear of your warm and earnest interest in the testimony of the word of God against the heretics; and this, too, amidst your military duties and the cares vvhicli devolve on you in the eminent position you so justly occupy, and the pressing functions, moreover, of your poHtical life, x^fter reading the letter of your Eminence, in which you acknowledge the book which I dedicated to you, I was roused to write this also; for you request me to attend to the statement, which my brother and fellowbishop Alypius is commissioned to make to me, about the discussion which is being raised by the heretics over sundry passages of my book. Not only have I received this information from the narrative of my said brother, but I have also read the extracts which he produced, and which you had yourself forwarded to Rome, after his departure from Ravenna. On discovering the boastful language of our adversaries, as I could easily do in these extracts, I determined, with the help of the Lord, to reply to their taunts with all the truthfulness and scriptural authority that I could command.
CHAP. 2 [ll.] — IN THIS AND THE FOUR NEXT CHAPTERS HE ADDUCES THE GARBLED EXTRACTS HE HAS TO CONSIDER.
The paper which I now answer starts with this title: " Headings out of a book written by Augustin, in reply to which I have cjilled a few passages otit of books.^^ I perceive from this that the person who forwarded these written pa"pers to your Excellency wanted to make his extracts out of the books he does not name, ' Written a.d. 420.
with a view, so far as I can judge, to getting a quicker answer, in order that he might not delay your urgency. Now, after considering what books they were which he meant, I suppose that it must have been those which Julianus mentioned in the Epistle he sent to Rome,- a copy of which found its way to me at the same time. For he there says: " They go so far as to allege that marriage, now in dispute, was not instituted by God, — a declaration which may be read in a work of Augustin's, to which I have lately replied in a treatise of four books." These are the books, as I believe, from which the extracts were taken. It would, then, have been perhaps the better course if I had set myself deliberately to disprove and refute that entire work of his,^ which he spread out into four volumes. But I was most unwilling to delay my answer, even as you yourself lost no time in forwarding to me the written statements which I was requested to reply to.
The words which he has quoted and endeavoured to refute out of my book, which I sent to you, and with which you are very well acquainted, arc the following: " They are constantly affirming, in their excessive hatred of us, that we condemn marriage and that divine procedure by which God creates human beings by means of men and women, inasmuch as we maintain that they who are born of such a union contract original sin, and do not deny that, of whatever parents they are born, they are still under the devil's dominion unless they be born again in 3 This Augustin aftcnvards did by the publication of six books against Julianus, on receiving his entire work. Augustin tells us ( UiifinisheJ U'ork, i. 19) that he had long endeavoured to procure a copy of Julianus' books for the purpose of refuting them, and only succeeded in getting them after some difficulty and delay, 283 • [Book II.
283 • [Book II.
Christ." ' Now, in quoting these words of mine, he took care to omit the testimony of the apostle, which I adduced by the weighty significance of which he felt himself too hard pressed. For, after saying that men at their birth contract original sin, I at once introduced the apostle's words: " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all men sinned." ^ Well, as I have already mentioned, he omitted this passage of the apostle, and then closed up the other remarks of mine which have been now quoted. For he knew too well how acceptable to the hearts and consciences of all faithful catholics are these words of the apostle, which I had adopted, but which he omitted, — words which are so direct and so clear, that these new-fangled heretics use every effort in their dark and tortuous glosses to obscure and deprave their force.
But he has added other words of mine, where I have said: " Nor do they reflect that the good of marriage is no more impeachable by reason of the original evil which is derived therefrom, than the evil of adultery and fornication can be excused by reason of the natural good which is born of them. For as sin is the work of the devil, whether derived from this source or from that; so is man, whether bom of this or that, the work of God." Here, too, he has left out some words, ia which he was afraid of catholic ears. For to come to the words here quoted, it had previously been said by us: " Because, then, we affirm this doctrine, which is contained in the oldest and unvarying rule of the catholic faith, these propounders of novel and perverse dogmas, who deny that there is in infants any sin to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, in their unbelief or ignorance calumniate us as if we condemned marriage, and as if we asserted to be the devil's work what is God's own work, to wit, the human being which is bom of marriage." ^ All this passage he has passed over, and merely quoted the words which follow it, as given above. Now, in the omitted words he was afraid of the clause which suits all hearts in the catholic Church and appeals to the very faith which has been firmly established and transmitted from ancient times with unfaltering voice and excites their hostility most strongly against us. The clause is this: " They deny that there is in infants any sin to be washed away in the laver of regeneration." For all persons run to church with their infants for no other reason in the world than that the original sin which is contracted in them by their first and natural * See above, Book i. ch. i of this treatise.
* Rom. V. 12. 3 Book i. of this treatise, ch. i.
birth may be cleansed by the regeneration of their second birth.
He then retums ^ to our words, which were quoted before: " We maintain that they who are born of such a union contract original sin; and we do not deny that, of whatever parents they are born, they are still under the devil's dominion unless they be born again in Christ." Why he should again refer to these words of ours I cannot tell; he had already cited them a little before. He then proceeds to quote what we said of Christ: " Who willed not to be boiTi from the same union of the two sexes." But here again he quietly ignored the words which I placed just previous to these words; my entire sentence being this: "That by His grace they may be removed from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of Him who willed not to be born from the same union of the two sexes." Observe, I pray you, what my words were which he shunned, in the temper of one who is thoroughly opposed to that grace of God which comes through our " Lord Jesus Christ."
He knows well enough that it is the height of improbity and impiety to exclude infants from their interest in the apostle's words, where he said of God the Father: " Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear son." s This, no doubt, is the reason why he preferred to omit rather than quote these words.
CHAP. 6. — THE SAIME CONTINUED.
He has next adduced that passage of ours, wherein we said: " For there would have been none of this shame-producing concupiscence, which is impudently praised by impudent men, if man had not previously sinned; while as to marriage, it would still have existed, even if no man had sinned: for the procreation of children would have been effected without this disease." Up to this point he cited my words; but he shrank from adding what comes next — " in the body of that chaste life, although without it this cannot be done in ' the body of this death.' " He would not complete my sentence, but mutilated it somewhat, because he dreaded the apostle's exclamation, of which my words gave him a reminder: " O wretched "man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord." ^ For the body of this death existed not in paradise before sin; therefore did we say, "In the body of that chaste life," which was the hfe of paradise, " the procreation of children could have been effected without the disease, without 5 Col. i. 13.
Chap. 8.]