BT 20 .A938 
 Augustine, 
 
 Three anti-pelagian treaties 
 of S. Augustine Viz 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/threeantipelagiaOOaugu 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 'i 
 
 «'* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 #1 
 
 
 
 . - M, 
 
 *• 
 
 
 
THREE ANTI-PELAGIAN TREATISES 
 
 OF 
 
 S. AUGUSTINE. 
 
THREE 
 
 Anti-Pelagian Treatises 
 
 OF 
 
 S. AU.GUSTINE 
 
 VIZ. 
 
 DE SPIRITU ET LITTERA, DE NATURA ET GRATIA 
 AND DE GESTIS PELAGII 
 
 TRANSLATED 
 
 WITH ANALYSES 
 
 BY 
 
 y 
 
 F. H. WOODS, B.D. 
 
 Lecturer in Theology and late Fellow of St. John's College , Oxford 
 
 AND 
 
 / 
 
 J. O. JOHNSTON, M.A. 
 
 Lecturer in Theology at Lincoln and Merton Colleges, Oxford 
 
 LONDON 
 
 DAVID NUTT 
 
 1887 
 
BEDFORD : 
 
 ARTHUR RANSOM, PRINTER, HIGH STREET 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The treatises of S. Augustine here translated are those 
 which are appointed to be studied in connexion with the 
 Doctrine of Grace, in the Oxford Honour School of 
 Theology. 
 
 As a rule, the text of the Benedictine edition has been 
 followed ; most of the variations from it are noted in the 
 margin. Where the text permits, Scripture quotations are 
 rendered in the familiar words of the Authorized Version, 
 and an uniform translation is adopted for each passage 
 wherever it occurs. 
 
 It is hoped that the short introductions and analyses may 
 be of some use in shewing the course of the argument. 
 
 The translators wish to take this opportunity of thanking 
 several friends for suggestions and kind assistance. 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 INTR OD l T CTION. 
 
 The object of this treatise was to prove that man’s justification, or the 
 attainment of righteousness, is the work of the Spirit acting in the 
 heart and inspiring love for God and His commandments ; and not of 
 the law which kills by promoting transgression, and so was designed 
 by God to lead men to grace ; nor of free choice, which of itself is 
 powerless not only to effect righteousness, but even belief. 
 
 The immediate occasion of writing it was the necessity of defending 
 a statement previously made in a work written to Marcellinus, that 
 sinlessness was possible even though there is no instance of it in the 
 whole of human history. This statement S. Augustine defends by 
 saying that sinlessness is God’s work, and therefore possible through 
 the Spirit without an instance. From this he goes on to contrast, 
 in various ways, the work of the Spirit with the work of the moral law, 
 laying the foundation of the contrast in the words of 2 Cor. iii. 6, 
 but proving his point chiefly by discussions on passages from the 
 Epistle to the Romans and one from Jeremiah. This leads him to 
 investigate the action of the human will in the process of justification. 
 Throughout the treatise he refers to the false tenets of Pelagius and 
 his supporters, though he never mentions him by name. 
 
 GENERAL DIVISIONS .* 
 
 A. 1-7. Introductory, explaining occasion and object of the work. 
 
 B. 8-32.. Contrast between the work of the letter or moral law and 
 
 that of the Spirit shewn :— 
 
 i. by a discussion (in whole or part) of 
 
 a. 9-12. Rom. v. 20—vi. 11. 
 
 b. 13. Rom. ii. 17-29. 
 
 c. 14-22. Rom. iii. 20-27. 
 
 * The arrangement of this subject by S. Augustine seems due rather to the 
 natural sequence of thought, than to any predetermined plan. Any attempt, 
 therefore, to divide the book into headings of this sort must necessarily be imperfect 
 and more or less artificial. 
 
 Object. 
 
 Occasion. 
 
 Method. 
 
VI 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 ii. 23-25. by proofs that the letter which killeth is 
 
 the moral, not the ceremonial law, 
 
 iii. 26-32. and especially by contrast between the Olcl 
 
 Covenant and the New with respect to the law. 
 
 C. 33-42. This contrast between the Old Covenant and the New 
 
 enlarged upon by discussion of the prophecy of Jeremiah 
 (xxxi. 31-34). 
 
 D. 43-49. This contrast not contradicted but confirmed by either 
 
 of the two interpretations of Rom. ii. 14, 15. 
 
 E. 50-51. Re-statement of what has been already proved. 
 
 F. 52-60. Discussion on the relation of the human will to Divine grace. 
 
 G. 61-66. Conclusion, recapitulating the occasion and aims of the 
 
 treatise, with further discussions of the nature of Appen¬ 
 dices in 64 and 65. 
 
 ANAL YS 1 S. 
 
 A. 1. The statement that sinlessness in man is possible, although 
 there is no instance of it, is not absurd ; because Scripture gives many 
 examples of things being possible which have never happened. 
 
 2. The objection that these Scripture example's refer to works which 
 God only can do is true, but the sinlessness of man, though manifested 
 in human action, is also a work of God only. 
 
 3. It would not, however, be a serious error to maintain that there 
 have been instances of sinlessness in this life, if (1) these instances can 
 be alleged, and (2) the texts of Scripture, which seem to assert the 
 contrary, can be fairly explained otherwise. 
 
 4. But it would be a most serious error to assert that such sinlessness 
 was attained, either (1) without God’s help by sheer force of will, or 
 (2) with God’s help only in the sense that free choice and the moral 
 law that guides it, are His gifts. 
 
 5. The help of God means beyond these that He gives the Holy- 
 Spirit, Who works in the soul delight in, and love for, God the perfect 
 good. Free choice is useless without knowing the way of truth, and 
 that again is useless without the Holy Spirit to enable us to love it. 
 
 6. The moral teaching without love is “ the letter that killeth,” but 
 it is the Spirit Which giveth life. (For to this 2 Cor. iii. 6 refers, and 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 Vll 
 
 not only to the fact that in some cases we should reject the literal, in 
 favour of the mystical, meaning of Scripture.) For the law, although 
 good, by forbidding man’s sinful desire increases its force, until by 
 sinful action it kills him, unless the Spirit change such desire into love. 
 
 7. A fuller consideration will show that this is the better interpreta¬ 
 tion of this passage (2 Cor. iii. 6), and we shall then see that a good 
 life is the work of God, although He does not exclude the co-operation 
 of man’s will; and that, as being in His power, a good life is possible, 
 although in His wisdom He has allowed no instance of it. 
 
 B. 8. This passage must be understood in the light of the epistle 
 to the Romans. 
 
 I. a. 9. First proof from Rom. v. 20—vi. 11. The law was given that 
 sin might abound, i.e., to make man conscious of his sickness, that 
 he might be ready to accept the healing power of God. 
 
 10. This help is described mystically under the terms of our Lord’s 
 Suffering and Resurrection, and is obtained through faith in Him. 
 
 II. This thought does not lead to the fatal sin of self-confidence, but 
 to trust in God, the fountain of all life and righteousness. 
 
 12. Such trust is the great characteristic of S. Paul who, out of 
 gratitude for God’s mercy to himself and fearless of being misunder¬ 
 stood, always insisted upon it, especially in the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 b. 13. Again in Rom. ii. 17-29 he describes the condition of those under 
 the law, in contrast with that of those under grace, as being a state of 
 boasting in self and of wrath, in contrast with a state of boasting in 
 God for spiritual health derived from Him. 
 
 c. 14. Again in Rom. iii. 20 sqcj. S. Paul begins by forestalling the 
 objection that men do truly praise God as their justifier, when they 
 recognise Him as the giver of the law, and says that the law justifies 
 no one. 
 
 15. Then, anticipating the reply that, although the law does not 
 justify, we are justified by free choice in keeping the law, S. Paul goes 
 on to speak of the righteousness of God (by which he means God’s gift 
 to man and not the work of free choice), as manifested without any 
 help from the law, and conferred on the believer through grace. 
 
 16. Parenthetical. This uselessness of the law as regards justifying 
 is shown by an examination of the apparent paradox in 1 Tim. i. 8-9. 
 
Vlll 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 The law is of use to an unrighteous man to make him ask for grace, and 
 is only used by one who has been made righteous by grace for the 
 purpose of warning others. 
 
 17. Therefore, as S. Paul says, by the law of faith all boasting is 
 excluded in both senses which the expression bears. 
 
 18-20. Parenthetical. This belief is the basis of true godliness, i.e., 
 the gratitude of the soul to God for His gifts ; whereas the spirit of 
 ingratitude, which attributes these gifts to itself, has already been the 
 ruin of great men, as shewn in Rom. i. 14-23 ; where, after describing 
 righteousness as the gift of God to faith, S. Paul proceeds to shew how 
 ungodliness, i.e., the failure to glorify, and give thanks to, God, caused 
 many to lose the truth and become idolaters. They shew that their 
 knowledge of the Creator without acknowledging Plim was of as little 
 use to them as the knowledge of the moral law without submission to 
 God’s righteousness. 
 
 21. The difference between the law of works and the law of faith in 
 Rom. iii. 27 does not lie in the fact that the former is (1) ceremonial, 
 (2) forbids sin, for (1) is only partly true of either, and (2) is true of both. 
 
 22. The real difference is that the latter by faith obtains with prayer 
 and thanksgiving what the former enjoins by threats. 
 
 II. 23. Though S.Paul sometimes means by “thelaw” the ceremonial 
 law which has passed away, yet the law which kills and cannot justify 
 is the moral law; (a) because the Decalogue is almost entirely moral 
 (and that by the “ letter that kills ” is meant the Decalogue may be 
 seen (1) by a comparison of 2 Cor. iii. 6 and Rom. vii. 7, n, 12, 
 
 24. (2) by the context of 2 Cor. iii. 6). 
 
 25. (b) Again the whole context of Rom. vii. 7 shews that the moral, 
 and not the ceremonial law, is the law which kills. 
 
 III. 26. Hence the moral law creates guilt, when known but not obeyed, 
 or, at least, not obeyed through love, the only souixe of good. But 
 faith causes the soul to delight in and love the moral law, and to be 
 gradually transformed into it by God’s grace. 
 
 27. That this grace of sanctification was designed to be hidden under 
 the old covenant and revealed in the new was implied in the symbolical 
 character of the commandment about the Sabbath, which signified the 
 sanctification by the Spirit. 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 IX 
 
 28. There is a great resemblance between the two Covenants, for (1) 
 the Spirit, Who is the source of grace and the fulfilment of the law, is 
 also the finger of God Who gave the law, and (2) several circumstances 
 in the giving of the Old Covenant point symbolically to the descent of 
 the Holy Spirit in the new. 
 
 29. There are, however, important differences; in the one case, 
 repelling awfulness, stony tables, its external character; in the other, 
 attractiveness, the human heart, its internal character. For the law is 
 love, and love is given by the Holy SpiCT But the works of love 
 enjoined without are the letter that k’lis, love given within is the life- 
 giving Spirit. 
 
 30. ji. The s^x.ic comparison is to be found in passages in 2 Cor. iii.-v. 
 
 32. This being the true Christian faith, it is impious to reduce grace 
 
 to the gift of the moral law. 
 
 C. 33. This contrast between the Old and New Covenants is pro¬ 
 phesied by Jeremiah in xxxi. 31-34, the only passage in the Old 
 Testament where the New Covenant is mentioned by name. 
 
 34. Here Jeremiah says that the Jews had not kept the Old Covenant. 
 That was not the fault of the law, which was good and a preparation 
 for faith, but the fault of the carnal mind. Therefore, he says, I will 
 complete a New Covenant, because it is fulfilled in the New. 35. The 
 one is called Old because of the guilt of the old man; the other New 
 because of the healing of that guilt by the newness of the Spirit. 
 
 The New Covenant, Jeremiah says, is to be written in their hearts. 
 This exactly agrees with S. Paul’s language in 2 Cor. iii. which is 
 evidently modelled on this prophecy. 
 
 36. For this New Covenant is the presence of the Holy Spirit, the 
 giver of love and the fulfilment of the law. The old law, although 
 containing commands of eternal obligation, only promised rewards of 
 earthly, though symbolical, good things : the new promises the true 
 and eternal good. 
 
 37. “ For God will be their God and they His people.” This 
 promise means eternal life, which is perfect knowledge and perfect love, 
 only partially realised here. 
 
 38. The contrast between the present and future stage of this 
 knowledge, S. Paul compares to the knowledge of a child as dis¬ 
 tinguished from that of a man. 
 
X 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 39. To this perfection hereafter the prophet alludes in the words, 
 “And they shall not teach every man his neighbour,” which cannot 
 apply to this present state of imperfect knowledge. 
 
 40. “All shall know me,” refers to all the house of the spiritual 
 Israel, all who are called according to His purpose. 
 
 41. They shall know Him hereafter, as described in I Cor. xiii. 8-9. 
 The meaning of the phrase “ from the less even unto the greater of 
 them ” is doubtful. 
 
 42. Nothing is said about the ceremonial law ; the only 
 
 difference is that the law will be A the hearts, and that God will be the 
 reward. In his last words therefore Jt/°miah prophesies the forgiveness 
 of sins which prevent that communion with God. 
 
 D. 43. S. Paul says, in Rom. ii. 14-15, that the Gentiles have by nature 
 the law written in their hearts. Are they not, then, not only better than 
 the Jews who had it on stones, but do they not also take precedence of 
 Christians since the Gentiles have it by nature ? 
 
 44. First Solution of this difficulty. Perhaps the Gentiles here 
 alluded to are the Gentiles of the New Covenant. This would appear 
 to be the case (1) from the whole context of the passages, and (2) 
 especially from a comparison of i. 16 and ii. 8. 
 
 45. In this case the words “ doers of the law shall be justified ” mean 
 that they have been made righteous that they may do the law. Or 
 “ justified ” may mean accounted righteous. 
 
 46. This description of Gentile Christians exactly agrees with 
 Jeremiah’s prophecy, and with S. Paul’s statement in the Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. 
 
 47. And the words “by nature ” mean that the work of the Spirit is 
 to restore man to his true nature, which has been lost through sin. 
 
 48. Seco?id Solution. The text may refer to heathens who, in virtue 
 of the uneffaced traces of the Divine Image, do some acts which we 
 must praise. This does not affect the distinction between the Old and 
 New Covenants, for the New re-writes that law which has not been 
 entirely effaced, and which the law on tables could not re-write. 
 Without this renewal such acts on the part of the heathen will be of 
 no avail, except perhaps for the mitigation of punishment. 
 
 49. In this case the Apostle wished by the text to shew the 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 XI 
 
 impartiality of God in not despising the previous working of the 
 remnants of His Image in Gentiles who afterwards come to believe. 
 
 E. 50. 51. Therefore Christ is the only source of righteousness to the 
 Jew and Gentile alike, by or through faith (for the meaning of both 
 expressions is the same), as shewn by Rom. ix. 30—x. 9, where the 
 Apostle sets forth the righteousness of the Gentiles, and the failure of 
 the Jews, because of the presence or absence of faith. The doing of 
 the law, and the life which follows, cannot be obtained exeept by faith 
 which believes that we share our Lord’s resurrection in spirit here 
 (which is our justification), and in body also hereafter. In the place of 
 the fear of the punishment of the law, faith causes hope in God and 
 love of His commandments. 
 
 F. 52. Free choice is not made void by grace, but it only becomes free 
 after the healing action of grace upon the believer, and so by love of right¬ 
 eousness keeps the law. Therefore free choice is a matter of gratitude 
 and not of boasting. 
 
 53. But is to believe in man’s power ? Power to do any action 
 implies (1) the will (however aroused) to do that action, (2) the ability 
 to carry that will into effect. The second of them is more strictly 
 called power. 
 
 54. As applied to belief in God, the will to believe is in our power, 
 for faith implies consent of the will; but even so this power, like every 
 other power, even that given to an evil will, comes from God ; but in 
 giving power He does not impose any necessity. 
 
 55. What is this faith ? It is faith in God, 
 
 56. Not a faith that is afraid of Him, but which, like a son, asks for 
 what it needs, lives in the hope of righteousness, makes the believer 
 whole, and works by love. 
 
 57. But is the wish to believe God’s gift, or the offspring of our 
 endowment of free choice ? If the latter, believers may claim to have 
 something which they have not received ; if the former, unbelievers 
 may blame God for their unrighteousness. And in either case the 
 want of universality is a difficulty. 
 
 58. Perhaps we should say that free choice is of itself a neutral 
 faculty, which at God’s call becomes the will to believe. God’s will 
 for the salvation of all does not interfere with man’s free choice. 
 
Xll 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 However man uses it, God’s will is supreme whether for punishment or 
 for salvation. 
 
 59. The path of salvation is described in Ps. ciii. 
 
 60. But sin, as well as the will to believe, comes from God’s gift of 
 free choice. Must not then sin, as well as the will to believe, be 
 attributed to Him ? No; for the will to believe is not attributed to 
 God solely because of the gift of free choice, but because He gives the 
 drawings and inducements without which the free choice can believe 
 nothing. That all do not believe belongs to the unsearchable judgments 
 of God. 
 
 G. 61-63. A concluding summary, recapitulating the occasion and 
 object of this treatise [cf. §§ 1-2), viz., that sinlessness is God’s work done 
 through man and not therefore less God’s. Even perfect righteousness 
 is not impossible with God, if man has sufficient strength of will; but 
 by God’s decree is not actually realised. 
 
 64. To know the two great Christian commandments of love to God 
 and love to our neighbour is defined by our Lord as not enough for 
 attaining righteousness. Experience is constantly shewing us the 
 insufficiency of our knowledge, and only a perfect knowledge of God, 
 to be realised hereafter, can produce that perfect righteousness implied 
 in loving with all the heart, &c. This ideal is set before us now, that 
 we may know what to aim at. 
 
 65. Even if we admit the term righteousness as applicable to a lesser 
 degree of righteousness possible in this life, with a lesser degree of love, 
 still this lesser stage is not without sin, and needs prayer to God, both 
 for forgiveness and that its love and righteousness may be perfected; 
 and that all the more because the love involved in such a state implies 
 a yearning for the higher righteousness. 
 
 66. If any suppose that there are examples of this higher stage in 
 this life, it is impious to assert that it is by the law, and not by God’s 
 grace, that this state has been attained. That there are none we know 
 from Scripture, not from the fact that such a thing is impossible with 
 God, Who might so help the will as to produce in this life, not only the 
 righteousness of faith, but the perfect and immortal righteousness of 
 the life to come. That God does not do this belongs to His inscrutable 
 mysteries. 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 Xlll 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 The subject of this treatise is, as the name implies, the true relation 
 between nature and grace. Pelagius had identified the two in a 
 work the object of which was to prove the possibility of sinlessness. 
 In this work he admitted the necessity for the assistance of that which 
 he called God’s grace, but eventually explained as meaning His gifts in 
 nature. 
 
 This book had considerably influenced two of S. Augustine’s friends, 
 who sent it to him to read. The following treatise is his reply. It 
 consists of a discussion of Pelagius’s arguments and authorities. The 
 connexion between the various chapters is to be found, not in the 
 order of thought, but in the order in which the passages under 
 discussion were found in the work which is being criticized. S. 
 Augustine’s main contention in reply to Pelagius is that God’s gifts in 
 nature have been weakened and diseased by sin, and that they need 
 for their restoration the grace and help which God has provided 
 through the Incarnation. It is only by this grace of God through 
 Jesus Christ that sinlessness is possible. 
 
 The following outline gives a rough list of the chief points of the 
 discussion :— 
 
 1-7. Introduction. A summary of those leading features of Christian 
 teaching about human nature and Divine grace, which 
 Pelagius’s work overlooks. 
 
 8-70. Review of the arguments of Pelagius. 
 
 8-10. “ Sinlessness must be possible that God’s judgment 
 
 of men may be just.” 
 
 Subject 
 
 Occasion 
 
 A 
 
XIV 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 11-12. “The asserter of the possibility of sinlessness is 
 the real upholder of grace.” 
 
 13-20. Discussion of minor points connected with the 
 question of sinlessness. 
 
 21-39. “ Sinlessness cannot be deemed impossible because 
 
 of past sin, for sin is neither a substance nor a penal 
 state.” 
 
 40-49. “The fact of sinlessness is implied, its possibility 
 is certainly not denied, by Scripture.” 
 
 50-59. “The possibility of sinlessness rests on our possession 
 of a necessarily inherent natural capacity, the work of a 
 good Creator.” 
 
 60-70. “Galatians v. 17 is no argument against the 
 possibility, because the ‘ flesh ’ does not there refer to 
 baptized people.” 
 
 71-81. Review of the authorities cited by Pelagius. 
 
 82-84. Conclusion. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The author of the book, in his zeal against the old error of 
 attributing man’s sin to his nature instead of to his will, is inclined to 
 overlook God’s gift of righteousness through Jesus Christ, which 
 is necessary for all. 
 
 2. If human nature, even in its fallen state, can of itself attain 
 righteousness, then those who by the circumstances of their lives are 
 excluded from hearing of the Incarnation, and yet by the light of 
 nature fulfil God’s will, ought in justice to receive eternal life. But 
 then Christ would have “ died in vain.” 
 
 3. It is true that man’s nature was created faultless; its corruption 
 was man’s work by his own free choice, and it now cleaves to our 
 nature as a just penalty. All our new life is the gift of Jesus Christ 
 through His blood and is called His grace because it is given gratis. 
 
 4. All who do not receive this gift are justly lost because they have 
 sin either actual or original only. 
 
 5. For the whole “ lump ” might justly suffer the punishment that 
 is due ; it is by God’s mercy, not by their own merits, that some are 
 saved. For this they should give Him the sincerest thanks. 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 XV 
 
 6. This is the true faith according to Holy Scripture. The argu¬ 
 ments to prove that nature needs not grace may be clever, but are not 
 “ the wisdom from above.” 
 
 7. The zeal which the author feels for human nature must be met 
 with greater zeal for Christ’s cross. He probably does not see the 
 
 -v 
 
 real tendency of his argument. 
 
 8. He begins his w r ork by insisting on the distinction between fact 
 and possibility; he only wishes to argue for the possibility , and not 
 for the fact, of human sinlessness, whereas he maintains that the 
 passages of Scripture quoted against him refer only to fact; and 
 that Scripture would not have blamed men if they could not have 
 helped their condition. 
 
 9-10. But we maintain that in heathen countries infants and grown-up 
 people cannot help dying unbaptized and yet are justly excluded from 
 the kingdom of heaven. If he denies this, he contradicts our Lord 
 and the Apostle, and makes the Cross of Christ of none effect. 
 
 11. He argues that his opponents are the real impugners of God’s 
 grace, because they deny the possibility of sinlessness (though as a fact 
 they do not do so); and that he, by maintaining the possibility of 
 sinlessness, of course admits the means by which it may be realized. 
 
 12. This sounds all that could be desired, but his illustrations from 
 the natural powers of the body soon make us suspect the worthlessness 
 of his admission. 
 
 13. But before touching on this a few minor points must be noticed. 
 (1) He states that little sins, which cannot be avoided, “ ought not to be 
 blamed,” forgetting that Scripture does blame them in order to make 
 us pray for forgiveness and gradual progress in the path of perfection. 
 
 14. (2) He is right in answering a certainly irrelevant question by 
 attributing his own sinfulness to negligence ; but the consciousness of 
 this negligence should make him seek in prayer the true Source of 
 strength. 
 
 15. (3) There is some truth in his statement that we must not in 
 this case insist too much upon the exact words of Scripture; and yet 
 it is remarkable that the term “ sinless,” as distinct from “blameless,” 
 is used only of our Lord. (4) Nor does there seem to be any objection 
 to his interpretation of “he that is born of God sinneth not.” 
 
XVI 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 16. (5) But when he makes the words “the tongue can no man 
 tame” a question asked by way of rebuke, he is certainly wrong, as 
 the context clearly proves. The emphasis should be put on “ man,” 
 as distinguished from God, from Whom we should ask for power to 
 tame the tongue. 
 
 17. For, as S. James goes on to say, it is only to be tamed by the 
 wisdom which comes down from above ; and this is to be obtained by 
 prayer and not by a self-sufficient power of free choice. 
 
 18. (6) The passage “ they that are in the flesh cannot please God ” 
 is certainly irrelevant as alleged against him ; but the real question is 
 whether those who live after the Spirit, do so by the grace of God or 
 by nature and their own will. 
 
 19. (7) About sins of ignorance, he says that we must be on our 
 guard against culpable ignorance, whereas he should have said that we 
 ought to pray for understanding. Careless ignorance is one thing, but 
 inability to understand our duty when we try can only be overcome by 
 God’s grace. 
 
 20. (8) He allows that man must pray for forgiveness when he has 
 sinned, but never says that he must pray for grace to avoid sin ; whereas 
 our Lord’s prayer enjoins both. 
 
 21. He maintains that “sin cannot weaken human nature, because 
 sin is not a substance, but only the name for a wrong action.” But, 
 while this description of sin is admitted, the conclusion is contradicted 
 by the words of the Psalmist, “ Heal my soul, for I have sinned 
 against Thee,” and also by the angel’s words in Matt. i. 21. 
 
 22. Sin, though not a substance, is an act which separates the soul 
 from God and therefore weakens it, just as abstinence from food 
 weakens the body. 
 
 23. He asserts also in opposition to Scripture that weakness cannot 
 be the punishment of sin, for it would give occasion toTurther sin. And 
 he also forbids the baptism of infants and thinks that Adam’s posterity 
 are even better than he. 
 
 24. He argues that if “ the weakness gives] occasion to more sin, it 
 makes punishment the cause of sin.” But he forgets that the punishment 
 is deserved and has a merciful design. The fact of such punishment 
 is clearly stated by S. Paul in Rom. i. 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 XVII 
 
 25. In consequence of this mistake, lie fails to see our argument that 
 grace alone can undo what the will has done, and he misrepresents the 
 moral character which we attribute to death and pain. 
 
 26. The death of our sinless Lord does not disprove the connexion 
 between sin and death, for that was an act of condescension, not a 
 necessity of His human nature. 
 
 27. The statement that “no evil can be the cause of any good” is 
 untrue, as shown by the salutary results of punishment through the 
 mercy of God, of which we have an instance in the Psalmist’s 
 experience. 
 
 28. We do not say that sin was necessary to cause God’s mercy; 
 but it is the inheritance of a most just and appropriate punishment. 
 We should therefore pray for that mercy and not murmur against God. 
 
 29. The illustration to describe God’s mercy which he draws from a 
 physician’s treatment of a wound is correct in so far as it allows that 
 sin is a wound, but the Heavenly Physician not only cures, but Himself 
 gives strength for the future to those whom He has cured. 
 
 30. On the ground that pride is sin, he objects to the view that sin 
 was necessary to cure pride. But such a cure is no more wonderful 
 than the cure of pain by pain. 
 
 31. It is true that God is able to cure all things, but by this means 
 it is His will to cure pride, as shewn by the example of S. Paul; 
 indeed it is particularly suitable because of the peculiar character of 
 that sin. 
 
 32. A similar paradox is to be seen in the case of the man delivered 
 over to Satan, and also in many medical remedies. 
 
 33. His argument that every sin is pride contradicts the distinction 
 in the law between pride and other sins, and overlooks the association 
 of pride with even our best acts. What is true is that pride was the 
 beginning of sin. 
 
 34. He objects that “ man cannot be held responsible for a sin which 
 is necessary and therefore not his own ” ; but it is his own, and there¬ 
 fore he should pray to have it healed. 
 
 35. We must confess that we do not know why God does not at 
 once cure this subtle sin of pride before the great day which will 
 
XV111 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 destroy it altogether. But meanwhile we must trust in His preventing 
 and following grace, humbly committing our way to the Lord. 
 
 36. Otherwise we are constantly liable to pride even when walking 
 in God’s way. 
 
 37. His opponents were certainly wrong in maintaining that sinless¬ 
 ness would make a man equal to God. 
 
 38. He is right in asserting that humility must be on the side of 
 truth; but it is just on this principle that the Apostle forbids us to say 
 that we have no sin. 
 
 39. While extolling our Creator, he forgets that the same God is 
 also our Saviour, Who not only forgives the past, but also helps us for 
 the future. 
 
 40. The true reason why the sins of good men are recorded in 
 Scripture is not to make us despair of goodness, but to prevent despair 
 when we sin. 
 
 41. For though they died without sin, yet it was by means of the 
 daily prayer for forgiveness such as that which our Lord Himself taught 
 us. 
 
 42. The Scripture characters whom he enumerates as sinless would 
 themselves acknowledge that if they said they had no sin they would 
 deceive themselves : and it is certain that humility is on the side of 
 truth. 
 
 43. It is absurd to suppose that because Scripture mentions the 
 good deeds of certain people, it would also have mentioned their sins, 
 had they committed any. 
 
 44. Nor can he maintain that the sins of such people would have 
 been mentioned at least in early times, in Abel’s case for instance. 
 
 45. For the purpose of Scripture was only to give instances. Many 
 things are obviously omitted, and we cannot but believe that Abel 
 committed some petty sins which might have led to great sins. 
 Though called righteous, Abel was not sinless. 
 
 46. The author’s principle of believing what he reads in Scripture 
 and not adding to it, is all very well. It is a pity though that he 
 does not adhere to it; for Scripture says that there is only one Name 
 by Which we can be saved. 
 
 47. If he understands this passage to mean that man needs the 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 XIX 
 
 gospel to teach him how to live, he must at least acknowledge the 
 miserable darkness which needs such teaching. If nature or freewill 
 can enlighten it, then the Cross of Christ is made of none effect. 
 
 48. He is wrong in arguing from Rom. v. 18, that in “All have 
 sinned,” the word “ all ” is not usecj absolutely, but only of S. Paul’s 
 contemporaries. 
 
 49. But even if taken absolutely, he says the Apostle is dealing with 
 ? fact and not with possibility. The possibility of sinlessness we admit, 
 
 but only as derived from the healing power of Him Who is Saviour as 
 well as Creator. 
 
 50. He is right in saying that God, being just and good, created man 
 so that he could avoid sin if he willed, and does not command impos¬ 
 sibilities. But we are not now talking of man’s nature as created but 
 as corrupted; and it is by healing, and not by nature, that the 
 impossibilities are removed. 
 
 51. The real question then is by what means sinlessness is possible. 
 We maintain that it is only by the grace of God through faith in Jesus 
 Christ, as under the Old Covenant so also now. 
 
 52. He indignantly protests that he describes sinlessness as the work 
 of God only ; and but for what follows he would seem to have been 
 grievously maligned. 
 
 53. But he goes on to describe this possibility as God’s gift because 
 “ it is a faculty, like the power of speech, dependent on nature and not 
 on choice.” This illustration, though it does not help his argument, 
 shews the drift of his meaning. 
 
 54. He says that “ a natural property, being necessary, is beyond the 
 region of choice.” But our desire for happiness and God’s holiness are 
 instances to prove the contrary. 
 
 55. He adduces illustrations from our senses of sight, sound, and 
 smell; none of which are to the point. 
 
 56. Equally untrue is his conclusion that “ the avoidance of sin 
 depends on ourselves, but the possibility of sinlessness belongs to our 
 nature.” This would have been untrue even of unfallen man ; much 
 more of us in our present corrupt state. 
 
 57. His two further deductions from this double statement are 
 
XX 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 equally absurd, for we are not always at liberty in the exercise of a 
 natural property, and some natural properties are alienable. 
 
 58. He maintains that “ no act of will can destroy this inseparable 
 possibility of nature.” S. Paul, on the contrary, represents man’s will 
 as striving in vain to attain sinlessness. 
 
 59. In self-defence he argues that “ the possibility of sinlessness, 
 belonging as it does to the nature which God made, is therefore the 
 work of His grace.” Now it is clear that he means by God’s grace 
 an inalienable natural possibility. This contradicts the Apostle’s words 
 about himself, and never existed even in unfallen man. 
 
 60. He says that “ the flesh is not contrary to the baptized, who 
 are not in the flesh.” This statement is a surrender of the defence 
 of nature, which even the unbaptized possess. 
 
 61. And it is untrue even of the baptized, for it is to them that S. 
 Paul refers when he says that the flesh is contrary ; and its opposition 
 shews itself in their not being able to do the things that they will. 
 
 62. The grace, which he by his silence implicitly denies, is not that 
 of creation, but of salvation ; and for this man must daily pray that he 
 may conquer the law of sin in his members. 
 
 63. It is true that by “ flesh,” S. Paul here means not the material 
 flesh, but the works of the flesh ; and that both flesh and spirit are the 
 works of a good Creator, and therefore good. It is the corruption of 
 nature which makes the flesh contrary to the spirit. 
 
 64. His argument about the work of a good Creator is fatal to 
 his previous admission that the flesh is contrary to an unbaptized 
 person. He must either retract this admission or allow the necessity 
 of grace to heal corrupted nature. 
 
 65. And when nature cries to be delivered from the body of this 
 death, she shews her need of liberty from the corruptions of nature and 
 her inability to deliver herself. Forgiveness for the past is not sufficient; 
 strength for the future is also necessary. 
 
 66. If he will only allow that the unbaptized need this saving grace, 
 it is no slight admission. 
 
 67. But the baptized also have the flesh contrary to them—even 
 though they are guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore are not 
 under the law. 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 XXI 
 
 68. So that while thanking God for past healing, we must pray for 
 further progress towards perfection, resisting the devil, as he says, but 
 by God’s power, not by our own. 
 
 69. And his argument for the possibility of sinlessness from all men 
 wishing to be without sin is good, if'he would only confess that this is 
 to be attained by the grace of God through Jesus Christ alone. If he 
 believes in this grace, it would have been easy to allude to it. 
 
 70. Even supposing that there have been instances of sinlessness in 
 this life, in spite of what Scripture seems to say, it is quite certain that 
 it is only by the grace of Christ that either absolute perfection or any 
 progress in righteousness can be attained. 
 
 71. His quotations from Catholic writers are of no assistance to him. 
 (1) The two passages from an unnamed author are vague and of 
 doubtful orthodoxy with regard to our Lord’s human nature. 
 
 72. (2) The two passages from S. Hilary only prove the possibility 
 of being pure in heart, but do not say that this is possible without 
 the grace of the Saviour. The righteousness of Job, of which S. 
 Hilary speaks, is not said to be perfect or sinless; it was the gradual 
 advance in the conflict with evil desires. 
 
 73. In fact Job elsewhere confessed his sinfulness ; and S. Hilary, 
 like S. John, says distinctly that no one is without sin. 
 
 74. (3) The quotation from S. Ambrose belongs to a passage where 
 he has been insisting on the possibility of sinlessness, but does not say 
 that it is possible without the grace of Christ, which was given to 
 believers even before the Incarnation. Besides Bishop Ambrose in his 
 hymn bids us pray for the Holy Spirit. 
 
 75. And in another passage of the book from which the quotation 
 is taken, he insists that the will is prepared by God, and in the 
 immediate context of the quotation he states that the spotlessness of 
 the Church was not from the beginning, but will be perfected only in a 
 future life. 
 
 76. (4) The quotations from John, Bishop of Constantinople, are not 
 denied by anyone, but they have nothing to do with man’s present 
 condition or with the need of the grace of Jesus Christ. 
 
 77. (5) The passages quoted from Xystus, to show the desirability of 
 purity and sinlessness, which are described as the objects of the gift of 
 
XX11 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 free will, do not deny the grace of God to be the means by which at 
 God’s call the will attains these objects. 
 
 78. (6) The words of the Presbyter Jerome only state that spotless 
 purity is to be our aim, and that we were created free from all necessity. 
 
 79. This freedom of ours is to be realized by love which is the gift of 
 the Holy Spirit, by Whom we are delivered from the necessities which 
 sin has imposed on our nature. 
 
 80. (7) The quotation from S. Augustine himself to the effect that sin 
 cannot be necessary is to be understood from its context, which speaks 
 of the grace of God, which, by forgiving the past and giving strength 
 for the future, makes sin unnecessary. 
 
 81. In the words that follow the quotation it is admitted that apart 
 from grace sin is necessary, not because of nature but because of its 
 corruptions. 
 
 82. In urging men to a good life, if they are not Christians, they 
 must be drawn towards the faith; if they are careless Christians, we 
 must spur them by hope and fear, not only to good deeds but also to 
 gratitude for past help and prayer to overcome present difficulties in 
 the way to perfection. For perfection is only possible by the grace of 
 God through Jesus Christ. 
 
 83. It is love which makes the commandments of God neither 
 impossible nor grievous. 
 
 84. At every step righteousness is commensurate with love, and thus 
 whether perfected here or hereafter it is the gift of the Holy Spirit, of 
 the grace of God through Jesus Christ. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 XX111 
 
 THE ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
 AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 This book was written to give an accurate account of what took place 
 at a Council in Palestine, at which it was currently reported that the 
 teaching of Pelagius had received full episcopal sanction. 
 
 The Council had been summoned by Eulogius, Metropolitan of 
 Caesarea, in consequence of an indictment which had been presented to 
 him by Heros and Lazarus, two Gallican bishops. In this indictment 
 the bishops, who were at that time living in Palestine, charged 
 Pelagius, who was also in Palestine, with false teaching. It 
 was a comprehensive document. For besides passages from well- 
 known books and letters of which Pelagius was the reputed author, 
 it included the charges against Coelestius at Carthage, a.d. 412, 
 three charges which seem to give the peculiar form that the heresy 
 took in Sicily, and also selections from a work written by Coelestius. 
 The accusers were unable through illness to be present at the Council, 
 and the case was heard through an interpreter, as the bishops did 
 not understand Latin. 
 
 S. Augustine’s object is to show that the bishops were quite right 
 in acquitting Pelagius, since he gave an orthodox interpretation of 
 every statement for which he acknowledged himself responsible, and 
 openly condemned all the other statements, including the main points 
 of Pelagian error. At the same time he charges Pelagius with 
 quibbling, with self-contradiction, with disingenuousness in the manner 
 in which he obtained his acquittal, and with deliberate falsehood in the 
 accounts which he had circulated purporting to describe what took 
 place at the Council. 
 
 Occasion . 
 
 Object. 
 
XXIV 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 It was of supreme importance to S. Augustine that he should shew 
 that the Catholic Church was not in conflict with itself on the question 
 of man’s absolute need of the grace of God through Jesus Christ, 
 our Lord. 
 
 ANAL YSIS. 
 
 i. S. Augustine had waited for the authorized minutes of the 
 Palestinian council before attempting to point out the true value of 
 their decision. 
 
 2-4. First count—“ No one can be without sin who has not the 
 knowledge of the law.” The explanation of Pelagius, that the 
 knowledge of the law helps man not to sin, is quite a different 
 statement, and is ambiguous. 
 
 5-8. Second count—“ All are governed by their own will.” The 
 explanation that the will is free, though helped by God when it 
 chooses good, is weaker than the original statement, the heretical 
 meaning of which is shewn by the passage from which it was taken. 
 
 9-11. Third count—“In the day of judgment, the wicked and the 
 sinners will not be spared, but will be burned with eternal fire.” This 
 was explained as a statement on the authority of our Lord, and as an 
 attack on Origen’s universalism. But he certainly did not mention 
 the sinners who will be saved, though as by fire. 
 
 12. Fourth count—“ Evil must not even enter the thoughts.” This 
 he explains as a maxim and not as an assertion. 
 
 13-15. Fifth count—“The kingdom of heaven was promised also in 
 the Old Covenant.” Pelagius, in his explanation, availed himself of 
 the ambiguous meaning of the words the “ Old Covenant ” to defend 
 a statement which was undoubtedly objectionable. 
 
 16-22. Sixth count—“ Man can be without sin if he wishes,” and 
 also some flattery in a letter implying perfect sinlessness. Pelagius 
 denied that the passages were written by him and anathematized the 
 writers as being foolish, not as heretical,—a distinction which does 
 not really hold good. With regard to the other part of the charge, 
 he asserted that he meant that man could be without sin by God’s 
 grace ; but he did not define what he meant by God’s grace. The 
 bishops thought only of the grace of God through Jesus Christ ; 
 Pelagius may have meant the gifts of nature only. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 XXV 
 
 23-26. Seventh count, consisting of the charges against Coelestius 
 at the Council of Carthage and some other assertions quoted from 
 a letter from S. Hilary to S. Augustine. Of these Pelagius repudiated 
 all but two, anathematizing all who “ hold or ever held them.” Thus he 
 anathematized the most pernicious of the errors that had given so 
 much trouble. One of the others was repeated from a previous count, 
 and in the other he explained the statement that “ there had been 
 sinless men before the coming of Christ,” to mean that men had 
 lived “ holy and righteous lives ” before His coming, a statement which 
 is in itself quite unobjectionable, but is not equivalent to that which 
 it is supposed to explain. 
 
 27-28. Eighth count—“ The Church here is without spot or wrinkle.” 
 This is a position held also by the Donatists, and would exclude from 
 the Church all who say “ forgive us our trepasses.” Pelagius explained 
 it to mean that the Church was made spotless in baptism and the 
 Lord willed it to remain so. This is obviously true, but he said nothing 
 about the Church during the period between its first cleansing and its 
 final perfection. 
 
 29. Ninth count—“ We do more than is commanded in the Law 
 and the Gospel.” He explained this as referring to the observance of 
 celibacy. It is true that celibacy is not commanded, but the observance 
 of it does not imply that eveiy commandment has been fully kept. 
 
 30-31. Tenth count, containing several other passages from a work by 
 Coelestius, which Pelagius repudiated and anathematized. These 
 anathemas seem to fix an orthodox meaning upon his explanations of 
 the sixth, first, and second counts. 
 
 32-41. Eleventh count—“Any one man may possess all virtues 
 and graces.” Pelagius explained it to mean, “God gives all graces 
 to the man who is worthy, as He gave them to S. Paul.” But (1) it 
 is not true that S. Paul possessed all graces. The graces of the 
 human Body and Soul of the Word of God and also of the whole of 
 His mystical body exceed those possessed by any one of the members 
 of that mystical body. (2) S. Paul did not receive the graces that he 
 possessed because of his being worthy either from his works or from 
 his faith. He was himself the first to confess that he had received all 
 from the grace of God. This Pelagius had admitted at the synod of 
 
XXVI 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 Jerusalem, although it is denied by implication in a published com¬ 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which is reported to be 
 written by him. (3) Pelagius had in the tenth count anathematized 
 the worthiness which he here asserts. The judges must have failed to 
 notice the word, or must have supposed that it was used in some 
 correct sense, as his preceding explanations had sounded so satisfactory. 
 
 42-43. The other charges Pelagius repudiated, and joined with the 
 bishops in anathematizing them. 
 
 44. The Council gave its decision that Pelagius held the godly 
 doctrines and anathematized what is contrary to the faith. 
 
 J 
 
 45. It was a sorry acquittal to rejoice over. The judges were quite 
 right, for they decided on the facts as set before them, in the absence 
 of the accusers. But those who knew Pelagius’s teaching in the past 
 must feel his want of sincerity on the present occasion. 
 
 46-49. S. Augustine describes his knowledge of Pelagius and his 
 teaching in the past, and how two of Pelagius’s followers had been 
 brought back to the true faith, acknowledging their error, and 
 charges Pelagius with meanness in practically including them in his 
 anathemas. 
 
 50-53. The friendly letters which Pelagius presented from many 
 bishops including S. Augustine himself no doubt admit of explanation. 
 As for his own letter, S. Augustine shews how carefully he had selected 
 all the expressions contained in it so as to set forth the true faith. 
 
 54-58. The conduct of Pelagius after the Council increased the 
 suspicion of his insincerity. For he sent a garbled account of the 
 proceedings to a friend of his, in which he says that the bishops had 
 approved of his statement that a man could easily be without sin 
 and keep God’s commandments, inserting “ easily ” and omitting 
 “ by the grace of God.” And to S. Augustine Pelagius sent an account 
 which omitted all his anathemas in the seventh and final charges, so 
 as to make it appear that neither he nor the bishops had expressed 
 any opinion about them. 
 
 59. S. Augustine appeals to Aurelius to make these facts known, 
 because it is supposed that the bishops had given their approval to 
 Pelagius’s teaching. The opposite is really true : the decision of the 
 bishops, while acquitting Pelagius, condemned his heresy. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 XXV11 
 
 60-65. Proof of this statement. The Council decided (1) that 
 Pelagius held godly doctrine ; this is proved from his answers to the 
 first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and eleventh 
 charges, in all of which he carefully avoids all false teaching. (2) That 
 he anathematized what is contrary to the faith. This is proved by 
 his anathemas to a part of the seventh, and the whole of the tenth 
 and last charges. And in these anathemas the judges concurred and 
 thus condemned the evil teaching of this new heresy. 
 
 66. An audacious attack had been made on the monastery and 
 convent of S. Jerome. It was for the local bishops to punish such ungodly 
 deeds ; but ungodly teaching must be attacked by the whole Church, 
 which is thereby endangered. 
 

THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 i. T lately wrote two works addressed to you, my dear 
 son Marcellinus, concerning the Baptism of Infants and the 
 Perfection of Man’s Righteousness, in which I said,“ It seems 
 that no one in this life either has attained or will attain to 
 that perfection, with the exception of the one Mediator, Who 
 bore all that belongs to man in the likeness of the flesh of 
 sin, but entirely without sin.” Having read these, you wrote 
 back to me that you were perplexed bv my saying in the 
 last of.the two books that it was possible that a man might 
 be without sin, by the help of God, if his will were not 
 lacking; while nevertheless there never has been, nor will 
 be, any one who has attained that perfection so long as he 
 lives here, save the One in Whom all will be made alive. It 
 seems to you absurd to say that anything is possible of 
 which there is no example. Now you would agree, 1 am 
 sure, that it never has happened that a camel has gone 
 through the eye of a needle, and yet Christ said that even this 
 is possible with God. We read, too, that twelve thousand 
 legions of angels might have fought for Christ, to prevent 
 His suffering, and yet that it did not happen ; we read that 
 the nations might have been at once exterminated from the 
 land which was given to the children of Israel, but that God 
 
 Matt. xix. 
 24-26. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 
 53. So many 
 Latin Cur¬ 
 sives and 
 Fathers. 
 
2 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 wished that it should happen by degrees; and six hundred 
 other things we might think of, which we must confess 
 might have happened, or might happen, even though we 
 could not produce examples of their having actually done 
 so. Therefore we ought not to say that it is impossible 
 for man to be without sin, merely on the ground that there 
 is no man in whom we can show that that perfection has 
 been realised, save Him who is not only man but also by 
 nature God. 
 
 2. To this, perchance, you may reply, that the things which 
 I have mentioned as possible, though they have not actually 
 happened, are works of God ; but for man to be without 
 sin pertains to the work of man himself, and the realisation 
 of full and perfect and absolutely complete righteousness 
 is his best work; if therefore this work can be fulfilled by 
 man, we ought not to suppose that there neither has been, 
 nor is, nor will be, anv one who has fulfilled it. But you 
 ought to consider that, though the doing of the work 
 pertains to man, yet this too is a gift of God, and there¬ 
 fore to agree without hesitation that it is a work of God. 
 
 Phil. H. 13. “For it is God which worketh in you,” says the Apostle, 
 “ both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” 
 
 3. Those, therefore, do not much harm who say that 
 man lives or has lived here altogether without sin ; and 
 they should be urged to prove their view if possible* 
 For if any one could convince us that the passages of Scrip¬ 
 ture in which I think it is clearly laid down that no man 
 while he lives here, although he uses free choice, is found 
 without sin, ought to be understood in* other than their 
 
 Ps. cxiiii. 2. natural sense—such a passage, e.g. as “ Enter not into 
 judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 3 
 
 living be justified,” and others of a similar purport—and if 
 he could show that some one orunore have lived here without 
 any sin, if he could do this, then the man who does not, I 
 will not say merely refrain from angry feelings, but who 
 does not congratulate him warmly, must be afflicted with 
 no small degree of envy. For even though, as I am 
 inclined rather to believe, there is not, nor ever has been, 
 nor will be, one who has reached such a perfection of purity, 
 and yet some one maintains and believes the contrary, there 
 is, as far as I can judge, no great or deadly error, since good 
 nature is the cause of the mistake. It must be understood, 
 however, that the man does not believe himself to be the 
 person who has attained to perfection, except on the most 
 certain and well-founded conviction. 
 
 4. But they ought to be opposed with the greatest 
 earnestness and vehemence who think they can either 
 have perfect righteousness or be attaining to it by 
 perseverance through the sheer force of man’s will 
 without God’s help. When once pressed to explain how 
 it is that they presume to assert that this happens without 
 God’s succour, they stop short, and dare not give utterance 
 to such a statement, knowing how impious and intolerable 
 it is, but give the following reasons why righteousness is not 
 effected without God’s help. They say that it is because 
 God created man with the free choice of his will; and 
 because, by giving commandments, He teaches how man 
 should live ; and because He helps him undoubtedly, in 
 that by teaching He takes away his ignorance, so that 
 man knows what he should avoid and what he should aim 
 at in his works ; and in this way, through the power 
 of free choice implanted in him by nature, by treading 
 
4 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 upon the road pointed out to him, by sober, righteous, 
 and godly living he may be deemed worthy to attain to 
 that blessed and eternal life. 
 
 5. But when we, on the other hand, assert that man’s 
 will is assisted by God to effect righteousness, we mean 
 that, beyond the fact of man’s creation with the free choice 
 of his will, and beyond the teaching which instructs him 
 how to live, he receives the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit 
 produces in his mind the delight and love of that highest 
 and unchangeable good which is God, even in this present 
 life, while he still walks by faith and not by sight; that, 
 
 2 Co r v . 5. having been given this earnest as it were of the free gift, he 
 may burn to abide in the Creator, and may be inflamed to 
 attain communion with that true light, so that he may derive 
 well-being from Him from Whom he derives his being. 
 For free choice is of no avail except to sin, if the way of 
 truth is unknown ; and when a man begins to know what to 
 do and what to strive for, he does it not, he begins it not, 
 he lives not well, unless it is also the object of his delight 
 Rom. v. 5. and love. To produce this affection is the love of God shed 
 abroad in our hearts, not by free choice which springs from 
 ourselves, but by the Holy Spirit Which is given unto us. 
 
 6. Now that teaching, by which we are commanded to 
 2 Cor. Hi. 6. live a sober and righteous life, is the “letter that killeth,” 
 
 unless there be present “the Spirit Which giveth life.” 
 For we ought not to understand the passage “the letter 
 killeth, but the Spirit giveth life,” as meaning only that we 
 should not give a literal interpretation to an expression 
 which is figurative, of which the natural meaning is 
 absurd ; but perceiving some other meaning should nourish 
 the inner man by spiritual understanding, because “to be 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 5 
 
 carnally minded is death, but 4 o be spiritually minded is Rom. viii. 6 
 life and peace.” As though a person were to understand 
 carnally much which is written in the Song of Songs, not as 
 referring to the fruit of an enlightened love, but to the 
 affection of sinful lust. 
 
 This is not then the only way in which we should 
 understand the words of the Apostle, “ the letter killeth 
 but the Spirit giveth life ” ; but also in another, and that a far 
 more important way, which he shows quite plainly by 
 another passage : “1 did not know desire had not the law R om . vii. 
 said Thou shalt not desire.” And a little later he says 
 “ Having taken occasion, sin through the commandment 
 deceived me, and through it killed me.” There we see 
 the meaning of “the letter killeth.” And certainly’in the 
 words “ Thou shalt not desire ” there is nothing figurative 
 which is not to be taken literally, but it is a very plain and 
 healthful precept, and if a man fulfils it, he will have no sin 
 at all. For the Apostle chose this general maxim, in which 
 he included all the rest, as though the words “ Thou shalt 
 not desire ” were the voice of a law prohibiting all sin, for 
 no sin at all is committed except by desire. The law therefore 
 which enjoins this is a good and excellent law. But where 
 the Holy Spirit helps not, inspiring good desire in place 
 of evil desire, that is, shedding abroad love in our 
 hearts, there indeed that law, however good, increases the 
 evil desire by forbidding it, like a rush of water which, if not 
 diverted from its old direction, gathers strength from the 
 barrier placed in its way, and when once it has overcome 
 this obstacle, dashes over in greater volume, and rushes on 
 its downward course more violently than before. Somehow 
 or other the very object of our desire becomes sweeter 
 
6 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 when it is forbidden ; and this is how sin deceives by the 
 commandment, and by it kills, when there is added also 
 transgression which is not where there is no law. 
 
 7. But let us consider, if you please, the whole of that 
 passage of S. Paul’s epistle, and thoroughly discuss it with 
 the Lord’s help. I wish to point out, if I can, that the 
 words of the Apostle, “the letter killeth, but the Spirit 
 giveth life,” do not refer to figurative expressions, though 
 a suitable interpretation may be derived even from that 
 sense, but rather to the law which openly forbids what is 
 evil. When I have shewn this, it will certainly become 
 more evident that well living is a gift of God, not merely 
 because God has given man free choice, without which there 
 can be neither ill nor well living, nor merely because 
 He has given the commandment to teach man how he 
 should live, but because by the Holy Spirit He sheds 
 Rom. viii. abroad love in the hearts of those whom He foreknew in 
 
 29, 30. 
 
 order to predestinate, predestinated to call, called to 
 justify, justified to glorify. When I have made this clear, 
 you will see, I think, that it is not to the point to say that 
 those things are only possible, though unexampled, which 
 are God’s works ; as the instance we gave of a camel going 
 through the eye of a needle, and any other things which 
 are impossible with us, but easy with God. You will see 
 that we should not maintain that man’s righteousness ought 
 not to be reckoned among such things, on the ground that 
 it should be referred, not to God’s, but to man’s work, and 
 that there is therefore no reason for supposing that its 
 perfection is without an example, if it is possible in this life. 
 The futility of such an argument will be clear enough, when 
 we have made it evident that even man’s righteousness 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 7 
 
 ought to be attributed to the operation of God, although it 
 is not produced without man’s will; and therefore we can¬ 
 not deny that its perfection is possible even in this life. 
 
 For with God all things are possible, whether those things 
 which He does by His own will alone, or those which He 
 has ordained as possible for Himself to do with the co¬ 
 operation of the wills of His creatures. And so whatever 
 of these He does not, though it is without example in 
 actual fact, yet the cause of its possibility lies with God and 
 His power; the reason why it was not actually done lies in 
 His wisdom ; and if a man knows not this cause, let him not 
 forget that he is man, nor ascribe foolishness to God, 
 because he does not fully comprehend God’s wisdom. 
 
 8. Listen, therefore, to the Apostle explaining to the 
 Romans, and showing clearly enough that what he wrote to 
 the Corinthians, “ the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth 
 life,” ought rather to be understood in the sense we have 
 given, that the letter of the law, which teaches that we 
 ought not to sin, killeth if the Spirit which giveth life be 
 absent. For the law makes sin known rather than avoided, 
 and so causes it to increase rather than diminish, because 
 to evil desire is added also the transgression of the law. 
 
 9. Now, the Apostle, wishing to commend grace, which 
 came by Jesus Christ to all the nations, that the Jews 
 might not boast against other nations because of the law 
 
 which they had received, began by saying that by one man Rom. v. 12. 
 
 sin and death had entered into the human race, and by one 
 
 man righteousness and life eternal, meaning obviously by 
 
 the first, Adam, by the second, Christ. Then he goes on to 
 
 say, “ but the law came in beside, that the trespass might Rom. v. 20. 
 
 abound, but where the trespass abounded, grace did much 
 
8 
 
 . THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 more abound ; that as sin reigned unto death, so also grace 
 might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord.” Then, as an objection to his own 
 Rom. vi. i. argument, he introduces the question, “What then shall 
 we say ? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? 
 God forbid.” For he saw that the words, “the law came 
 in beside that the trespass might abound, but where the 
 trespass abounded, grace did much more abound,” might 
 be perverted by perverse readers, as though he had meant 
 that sin was a good thing because it made grace abound. 
 To dispose of this objection he answered, “ God forbid,” 
 and went on to say, “We that are dead to sin, how shall we 
 live therein?” That is to say, when dying to sin is the 
 very thing which grace has bestowed upon us, what else 
 shall we be doing but shewing ourselves ungrateful for 
 grace, if we live therein ? 
 
 For when a man praises the benefits of medicine, he 
 does not imply that diseases and wounds which the medicine 
 heals are good things; but the more he extols the medicine, 
 the more he blames, and shows that he dreads, the wounds 
 and diseases from which the' medicine he so praises 
 sets the patient free. In the same way the praise and 
 commendation of grace is the blame and condemnation 
 of trespasses. It was needful to point out to man the 
 loathsomeness of his sickness, when not even the holy 
 commandment was of any avail against his iniquity, for it 
 increased rather than diminished it, because “ the law came 
 in beside that the trespass might abound.” It was by this 
 means that man was to be convicted and made ashamed ; 
 and so might see that he needs God not only as a teacher 
 but also as a helper to order his steps so that no sin may 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 9 
 
 have dominion over him ; and that he may be healed by 
 taking refuge in the help of God’s mercy, and that so 
 where the trespass has abounded, grace may much more 
 abound, not by the merit of the sinner but the help of the 
 Succourer. 
 
 10. The Apostle next points out this healing, speaking of 
 it mystically in terms of the suffering and resurrection of 
 Christ, saying “ Know ye not that so many of us as were 
 baptized in Christ Jesus, were baptized in His death ? R0m.vi.3-n 
 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into 
 
 death, that like as Christ rose from the dead through the 
 glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of 
 life. For if we have been planted with the likeness of His 
 death, we shall be also of His resurrection ; knowing this, 
 that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of 
 sin may be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve 
 sin. For he that is dead hath been justified from sin. 
 
 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall 
 also live with Him, knowing that Christ being raised from 
 the dead dieth no more, and death shall no more have 
 dominion over Him. For in that He died to sin, He died 
 once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God. lake- 
 wise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but 
 alive unto God in Christ Jesus.” It is very clear that by 
 the figure of our Lord’s death and resurrection is here 
 symbolised and represented the setting of our old life and 
 the rising of the new, the abolition of iniquity and the 
 renewal of righteousness. Whence then is this great 
 blessing to man through the letter of the law, but through 
 faith in Jesus Christ ? 
 
 11. This holy thought preserves the sons of men trusting Ps.xxxvi. 
 
10 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND I HE LETTER. 
 
 in the protection of God’s wings, so as to be inebriated with 
 the fatness of His house and made to drink of the torrent of 
 His pleasure ; for with Him is the fountain of life, and in 
 His light shall we see light, Who continueth forth Hrs 
 lovingkindness unto them that know Him, and His 
 righteousness unto them that are of an upright heart. For 
 it is not because they know Him, but rather that they may 
 know Him, that He continueth forth His lovingkindness ; 
 nor is it because they are upright of heart, but that they 
 may be upright of heart, that He continueth forth His 
 righteousness by which He justifies the ungodly. 
 
 This thought does not elate and lead to pride, a vice 
 which arises when a man trusts in himself and regards 
 himself as the source of his own life. By such feelings of 
 pride man goes back from that fountain of life, the 
 draught of which alone gives righteousness, that is to say, a 
 good life, and from that unchangeable light, by sharing 
 which the reasonable soul is in a manner kindled so as to 
 become itself too a made and created light. Just as John 
 John v. 35. was a lamp burning and shining ; but, recognising the 
 johni. 16. source from which he shone, he said ‘‘of His fulness we 
 have received.” Whose but His, in comparison of Whom 
 John was not light ? “For that was the true light which 
 lighteth every man when he cometh into this world.” 
 Ps. ixxvi. Therefore when he had said in the same Psalm “ Continue 
 
 10-13. 
 
 Thy lovingkindness unto them that know Thee, and Thy 
 righteousness unto them that are of an upright heart,” he 
 adds “ Let not the foot of pride come to me, and let not 
 the hand of sinners remove me. There are they fallen, all 
 that work wickedness ; they were driven out, they were not 
 able to stand,” since by the impiety, through which a 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 11 
 
 man attributes to himself what belongs to God, he is 
 driven into his natural darkness-, that is, works of iniquity. 
 
 For these works are entirely a man’s own doing, and 
 such he is competent of himself to fulfil; but works of 
 righteousness he does not, except so far as he receives of 
 that fountain and that light, where is the life that needeth 
 nothing, and where there is no changing or shadow of James i. 17. 
 turning. 
 
 12. Therefore the Apostle (who, being originally called 
 Saul, seems to me to have chosen the name of Paul 
 with the express purpose of showing his littleness as the 
 least of the Apostles), while fighting with great force and 
 vehemence in order to commend this grace of God against 
 the proud and arrogant and those who presumed on their 
 own works, rightly cries out and contends in its defence, 
 and heeds not the hostility of those who understand not 
 a matter so deep and abstruse, and who distort the sound 
 meaning of his words. He cares only that he may inces¬ 
 santly preach the gift of God, by which alone are saved the 
 sons of promise, the sons of God’s blessing, the sons of 
 grace and lovingkindness, the sons of the New Covenant. 
 
 S. Paul had good reason to do so, because in him truly 
 had that grace been very clearly and brilliantly manifested ; 
 for, in spite of the hostility he was showing in persecuting 
 the Church of Christ, for which he deserved the severest 
 penalty, he received mercy instead of condemnation, and 
 grace instead of punishment. The way in which he 
 insists on grace is — firstly, by putting every salutation in 
 the form, “ Grace to you and peace from God the Father 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ” ; and secondly, by making this 
 question almost the whole subject of the Epistle to the 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 i 2 
 
 Romans. Indeed it is contended so fiercely and in such a 
 variety of ways as to fatigue, it may be, the mind of the 
 reader, but with a fatigue so beneficial and healthful as to 
 exercise rather than to injure the members of the inward 
 man. 
 
 13. That is the meaning of the passage I quoted above. 
 That again is the meaning of his reproving the Jew, and 
 saying that ho is called a Jew, but in no wise fulfils what 
 
 Rom. ii. 17- he professes. “But if thou art called a Tew,” he says, 
 
 29. So best 
 
 Uncials, &c. “and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, and 
 knowest His will, and provest things that differ, being 
 instructed out of the law, thou art confident that thou 
 thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are 
 in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of 
 babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in 
 the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest 
 thou not thyself ? Thou that preachest a man should not 
 steal, dost thou.steal? Thou that sayest a man should 
 not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery ? Thou 
 that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege ? Thou 
 that makest thy boast in the law, through transgression 
 of the law dishonourest thou God ? For the name of God 
 is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you : as it is 
 written, Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the 
 law, but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy 
 circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if un¬ 
 circumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not 
 his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? and shall 
 not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it keep the law, 
 judge thee, who bv the letter and circumcision art a 
 transgressor of the law ? For he is not a Jew which is 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 J 3 
 
 •one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is 
 
 outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one 
 
 inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart in the 
 
 spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men 
 
 but from God.” In these last words he shows what he 
 
 meant by saying “Thou makest thy boast in God.” For 
 
 certainly if such a Jew were boasting in God in the way 
 
 required by grace which is given, not for merits of works, 
 
 but as a free gift, then his praise would be from God, 
 
 not from men. But they were so boasting in God as 
 
 if they alone had merited to receive His law, according 
 
 to the words of the Psalm, “He hath not dealt so with Ps.cxivii.20 
 
 any nation, and His judgments He hath not made manifest 
 
 to them.” And this law of God they were thinking to 
 
 fulfil by their own righteousness, when they were rather 
 
 its transgressors. Wherefore it was working wrath upon 
 
 them, because sin abounded, and was committed by them 
 
 wittingly. 
 
 And besides, even those who were doing what the law 
 commanded without the help of the Spirit of grace, were 
 doing so from the fear of punishment, not from the love of 
 righteousness. And so in God’s sight that was not in 
 the will, which in man’s sight appeared in the act; and 
 rather they were held guilty by God for the sin He knew 
 they would like to commit, if they could do so with 
 impunity. By “ circumcision of the heart,” on the other 
 hand, he means a will pure from all illicit desire, which 
 •comes not by the letter which teaches and threatens, 
 but by the Spirit Which helps. Therefore the praise 
 of such as have this circumcision of the heart is not 
 from men, but from God, who by His grace gives the 
 
Ps. xxxiv 
 Ps. xxii. 
 
 Rom. iii. 
 
 Rom. iii. 
 Rom. \ii 
 
 14 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 2. ground of praise, of Whom it is said “ In the Lord will 
 25. my soul be praised,” and to Whom it is said “With Thee 
 is my praise.” They are not like those who wish God 
 to be praised because they are men, but themselves 
 because they are righteous. 
 
 14. “ But we do praise God also,” they say, “ as the author 
 of our justification, because he gave the law by study of 
 which we know how we ought to live.” But they do 
 
 20. not attend to what they read: “ By the law shall no 
 
 flesh be justified in God’s sight.” For it may be in man’& 
 sight, but not in His who looks into the very heart and 
 inmost will, whence He sees what a man would like to 
 do if he might, even though he does otherwise from fear of 
 the law. And lest anybody should suppose that the Apostle 
 meant that no one is justified by that law, which in ancient 
 symbols contains many figurative commandments, of which 
 we have an example even in the rite of circumcision which 
 children were commanded to receive on the eighth day,, 
 he went on at once to shew what law he meant, saying, 
 20. “For by the law is the knowledge of sin.” That law is 
 . 7- therefore meant, of which he afterwards said, “ I did 
 not know sin except through the law, for I had not known 
 
 4 
 
 desire, except the law said, Thou shalt not desire,” which 
 is the same as saying “For by the law is the knowledge 
 of sin.” 
 
 15. To this that presumption of man which is ignorant 
 of God’s righteousness and wishes to establish its own 
 may perchance reply that the Apostle rightly said that from 
 the law no man shall be justified, for the law only shows 
 what should be done and what avoided, that what it has- 
 shewn the will may fulfil, and so man may be justified, not by 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 15 
 
 the command of the law, but by free choice. But, 0 man, 
 
 listen to what follows: “But now,” he says, “without the Rom. iii. 21 . 
 
 law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, being 
 
 witnessed by the law and the prophets.” Has this too little 
 
 sound for the deaf? “The righteousness of God,” he 
 
 says, “hath been manifested.” This they are ignorant 
 
 of, who wish to establish their own ; to this they refuse to 
 
 submit themselves. “ The righteousness of God,” he 
 
 says, “hath been manifested.” He did not say “the 
 
 righteousness of man” or “the righteousness of one’s 
 
 own will,” but “ the righteousness of God,” not that by 
 
 which God is righteous, but that with which He clothes 
 
 man when He justifies the ungodly. This is what is 
 
 witnessed by the law and the prophets, for to this the law 
 
 and the prophets bear witness: the law, by the very fact 
 
 that it commands and threatens and justifies no one, shows 
 
 clearly enough that it is by God’s gift that man is justified 
 
 by the help of the Spirit; the prophets, because what they 
 
 foretold was fulfilled by the coming of Christ. For after 
 
 these words he goes on to say “ But the righteousness of Rom. iii. 22. 
 
 God, through faith of Jesus Christ,” that is, through the 
 
 faith by which a man believes on Christ. For just as by 
 
 the faith of Christ is not meant that by which Christ 
 
 believes, so also the righteousness of God is not that by 
 
 which God is righteous. For both the righteousness and 
 
 the faith are ours, but they are said to belong to God and 
 
 to Christ, because they are given us by His bounty. 
 
 The righteousness of God then is without the law, but 
 has not been manifested without the law. For if it had 
 been manifested without the law, how could it have been 
 witnessed through the law ? But it is without the law, 
 
Prov. iii. 16, 
 Cf. LXX. 
 
 ' Rom. iii. 22- 
 23 - 
 
 Rom. iii. 24. 
 
 1 Tim. i. 9, 8. 
 
 16 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 because God gives it through the Spirit of grace to the 
 believer, without the help of the law, that is, though 
 the believer has not been helped by the law. For by 
 the law He shewed man his weakness, that taking refuge 
 in His lovingkindness through faith he might be healed. 
 For of God’s wisdom it was said, “let her carry the law 
 and lovingkindness in her tongue,” the law to make 
 the proud guilty, but lovingkindness to justify the humbled. 
 It is then “the righteousness of God through faith 
 of Jesus Christ upon all who believe. For there is no 
 difference, for all have sinned and need the glory of 
 God.” He does not say “their own glory,” for what have 
 they which they have not received? If then they have 
 received it, why do they boast, as though they had not 
 received it ? They need therefore the glory of God; 
 and notice what follows, “ being justified freely through 
 His grace.” So it is not said “justified through the 
 law,” nor “justified through their own will,” but “justified 
 freely through His grace.” Not as though it took place 
 without our will, but our will is shown through the law 
 to be weak, that grace may heal the will and the will 
 once healed may fulfil the law, not having been established 
 under the law, nor needing the law. 
 
 16. For “the law was not made for a righteous man,” 
 and yet “ it is good if a man use it lawfully.” By putting 
 together these two apparently contradictory statements, 
 the Apostle advises and urges the reader to thoroughly 
 examine and solve the question. For how is it that 
 “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully,” if what 
 follows is also true, “ knowing this, that the law was 
 not made for the rig-hteous man”? For who uses the 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 law lawfully, except the righteous man ? But it was 
 not made for him, but for the unrighteous. Can it be 
 that even the unrighteous man ought to use the law 
 lawfully, in order to be justified, i.e., made righteous, 
 using it as a schoolmaster to lead him to grace, as 
 the only way by which he can fulfil what the law 
 commands ? By grace verily, he is justified freely, that is, 
 with no antecedent merits depending on his own works; 
 otherwise grace is no more grace. For grace is given, 
 
 \ not because we have done good works, but to enable us 
 to do them, or, in other words, not because we have 
 fulfilled the law, but to give us power to fulfil the law. 
 
 For it was He who said, “I am not come to destroy Ma tt. v. i 7 . 
 the law, but to fulfil,” of Whom it was also said, “ We j G h n - u I4 
 beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from 
 the Father, full of grace and truth.” This is the glory 
 which the Apostle meant when he said, “All have sinned Rom.iii. 23. 
 and need the glory of God,” and it is this grace of which he 
 speaks in the words which immediately follow, “ Justified Rom. in. 24. 
 freely through His grace.” The unrighteous man, there¬ 
 fore, uses the law lawfully in order to become righteous ; 
 but when he has become righteous, he must not use it 
 any longer as a carriage now that he has come to his 
 journey’s end, or rather, to use the above-quoted simile 
 of the Apostle, as a schoolmaster now that he has finished 
 his education. 
 
 But how was the law not made for a righteous man, 
 if it is necessary for a righteous man also, not to lead 
 him as though unrighteous to justifying grace, but to be 
 used by him lawfully when righteous ? May we not 
 say perchance, nay even certainly, that a man when 
 
 2 
 
I 8 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 righteous uses the law lawfully when he imposes it on 
 the unrighteous to terrify them, that, when in them too 
 the disease of natural desire begins to increase by the 
 incentives of restraint and by the mass of transgression, 
 they may fly for refuge through faith to justifying grace, 
 and, through the gift of the Spirit being ravished with the 
 sweetness of righteousness, may evade the penalty of the 
 letter which threatens ? The two statements, therefore, 
 will not be contrary nor mutually exclusive, that even a 
 righteous man should use the law lawfully, and that the 
 law should not be made for a righteous man. For he was 
 not justified by that law, but by the law of faith, by which 
 he believed that his weakness could in no way be assisted 
 to fulfil the things which the law of deeds commanded, 
 except by God’s grace. 
 
 Rom. iii. 27. 17 . Therefore he says, “Where then is thy boasting? 
 
 It is excluded. Through what law ? of works ? Nay, 
 but through the law of faith.” Here he may have intended 
 that praiseworthy boasting which is in the Lord, and 
 meant by its being excluded, not that it was driven away 
 so as to depart, but pressed out so as to become prominent. 
 
 * Exciusores J ust as some silver-smiths are called “beaters out.”* 
 
 Ps.ixviii.30. Similarly we have that passage in the Psalms, “That 
 they may be excluded who have been proved by 
 silver,” that is, “that they may be prominent who have 
 been tried by the word of the Lord ”; for he says in 
 Ps.xii. 6 . another place “The words of the Lord are pure words, 
 silver tried by fire.” Or he may have intended to speak 
 of that vicious boasting which comes from pride, the 
 boasting of those, I mean, who, when they fancy they 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 19 
 
 are living righteously, boast as though they had not 
 received it; that he says is excluded, i.e ., driven out 
 and away, not by the law of deeds, but by the law of 
 faith, because by the law of faith a man knows that 
 whatever little good he has in his life, he has it by the 
 grace of God, and that from Him alone he will obtain 
 the power of perfection in the love of righteousness. 
 
 18. This thought makes him godly, for godliness is true 
 wisdom, I mean that godliness which the Greeks call 
 Oeoaefteia. For such is the godliness commended in the 
 passage of the book of Job which says to man, “ Behold, 
 godliness is wisdom.” Oeoacfteia, if we interpret it j ob. xxviii. 
 
 28. 
 
 according to the origin of the word, might be translated 
 the “worship of God”; and worship consists chiefly in 
 the soul being grateful to Him. Wherefore, in that most 
 true and singular sacrifice, we are admonished to “give 
 thanks to our Lord God.” But the soul would be un¬ 
 grateful to Him, if she attributed to herself what comes 
 to her from God, and above all things righteousness, 
 and were puffed up with the works of righteousness, as 
 though they were her own works and her own gifts to 
 herself; not with an ordinary kind of pride, as though these 
 gifts belonged to the class of riches or beauty or eloquence 
 or other properties, external or internal, of the body or 
 the mind, which even wicked people often possess ; but 
 with a would-be wisdom as though they were good qualities 
 and the peculiar property of the good. By this vice some 
 even great men have been driven back from the firm 
 ground of the Divine substance, and have drifted down 
 into disgraceful idolatry. 
 
20 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 Wherefore the Apostle, in the same Epistle in which 
 Rom.i. 14-17 he defends grace so eagerly, after he had said that he was 
 debtor to Greeks and Barbarians, to wise and unwise, and 
 therefore, as far as it was possible for him, was ready to 
 preach the Gospel to those at Rome also, adds “ For I am 
 not ashamed of the Gospel. For it is the power of God 
 unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first 
 and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness 
 of God revealed from faith unto faith, as it written, But 
 the righteous lives from faith.” This is God’s righteousness 
 which was veiled in the Old Testament, but revealed in the 
 New; and it is called God’s righteousness because by 
 imparting it He makes men righteous, just as that is called 
 God’s salvation by which He saves them. And this is the 
 faith from which and unto which it is revealed,/}w;j the faith 
 namely of those who preach, unto the faith of those who 
 obey. By this faith of Jesus Christ, that is, which Christ 
 has bestowed upon us, we believe that we have from God, 
 and will have more abundantly, the righteousness of our 
 life. Wherefore we give Him thanks with that godliness 
 by which He alone should be worshipped. 
 
 19. And it is natural enough that the Apostle after this 
 sentence should turn to speak with horror of those who 
 (light as they were, and inflated with that sin which I 
 have just mentioned, and borne up through themselves as 
 through empty space, where they could not rest, but 
 must needs be broken and burst asunder) have fallen 
 down upon figments of idols as though upon stones. For, 
 because he had praised the godliness of faith, for 
 justification by which we ought to be grateful to God, by 
 way of suggesting the contrary which we should hate, he 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 2 I 
 
 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven Rom ^ i - 18 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those men 
 who hold down the truth in unrighteousness. For that 
 which is known of God is manifest in them, for God 
 manifested it to them. For the invisible things of Him 
 from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being- 
 understood by the things that are made, even His eternal 
 power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 
 
 Because when they knew God, they glorified Him not as 
 God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their 
 thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. Saying 
 that they were wise, they became fools, and changed the 
 glory of the uncorruptible God into the likeness of the 
 image of corruptible man, and birds, and fourfooted 
 beasts and creeping things.” Notice how he did not 
 say that they were ignorant of the truth, but that they 
 held down the truth by their unrighteousness. But because 
 it occurred to him that it might be asked whence they could 
 have the knowledge of the truth, to whom God had not 
 given the law, he told us whence they could have it; for 
 he said it was by the visible things of the creation that they 
 arrived at the knowledge of the invisible things of the 
 Creator, since, doubtless, so far as great minds persevered 
 in seeking, so far they were able to find. In what, then, did 
 their impiety consist ? In that, verily, “ When they had 
 known God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were 
 thankful, but became vain in their thoughts.” Vanity is 
 the natural disease of those who deceive themselves, 
 imagining themselves to be something when they are 
 nothing, at last overshadowing themselves with this swelling 
 of pride, whose foot the holy psalmist prays may not come p s . xxxvi. 
 
22 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 James iv. 
 
 to him, when he said “ In Thy light shall we see light,” 
 they turned aside from the very light of unchangeable 
 truth, and “their foolish heart was darkened.” For their 
 heart was not wise, although they had known God, but 
 rather foolish, because they glorified Him not as God, 
 neither were thankful. For God said to man, “Behold, 
 godliness is wisdom,” and thus by “ saying that they w r ere 
 wise ” (which must be understood as meaning “attributing 
 this wisdom to themselves”), “they became fools.” 
 
 20. What need to speak of what follows ? The fall 
 6. of those men through their ungodliness (for “ God resisteth 
 the proud”), those men, I say, who might through the 
 creature have known their Creator, and the depths into 
 which they sank, are better described in the verses of 
 this epistle which follow than in any words of mine. For 
 we have not undertaken in this work to expound this 
 epistle ; but we are striving with all our power by quotations 
 from it to show that the help which God gives us to 
 work righteousness consists, not in His having given us 
 a law full of good and holy commandments, but in the 
 fact that our will itself, without which we cannot work 
 good, may be helped and quickened by the gift of the 
 spirit of grace. Without this help, that teaching is 
 “ the letter which killeth,” because it rather holds men 
 guilty of transgression, than justifies the ungodly. For 
 just as to those who knew the Creator through the creature 
 that knowledge was of no avail to salvation, because, 
 “ knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, neither 
 were thankful, saying that they were wise ”; so those 
 who, through the law, know how man should live, are 
 not justified by that knowledge, because, wishing “ to 
 
THE SPIRIT AND 1JIE LETTER. 
 
 23 
 
 establish their own righteousness, the} 7 have not submitted 
 themselves unto the righteousness of God.” 
 
 21. It is worth our while to consider and, if possible, 
 
 give our careful attention and discrimination to, the 
 
 difference between the law of deeds, i.e., of works, through 
 
 which that boasting is not excluded, and the law of faith 
 
 through which it is. For a person might at first be inclined 
 
 to say that we find the law of works in Judaism but the 
 
 law of faith in Christianity, merely because the law contains 
 
 the rite of circumcision and other such works, which are 
 
 not now preserved in the Christian system. But we have 
 
 long been trying to show, and have perhaps already 
 
 succeeded in showing those who are clever in seeing 
 
 differences, yourself especially and those like you, how 
 
 far such a distinction is fallacious ; still, since the subject 
 
 is one of very great importance, we are hardly doing 
 
 wrong to spend some time in adducing more and more 
 
 quotations to make it plain. Now the Apostle is speaking of 
 
 that law by which no one is justified, and he says, it 
 
 had “come in beside that the trespass might abound Rom. v. 
 
 but lest any should on this account object to the law 
 
 through ignorance or irreverence, he defends it, saying: 
 
 “What then shall we say? Is the law sin? God forbid. Rom.vii 
 
 Nay, I had not known sin but through the law; for I 
 
 had not known desire, except the law had said, Thou 
 
 shalt not desire. But, having taken occasion, sin through 
 
 the commandment wrought in me all desire.” He also 
 
 says “ The law indeed is holy, and the commandment Rom.vii 
 
 13- 
 
 holy and just and good ; but sin, that it might appear 
 sin, wrought death in me through that which is good.” 
 
 It is therefore the letter that killeth, which saith, “thou 
 
24 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 shalt not desire,” of which he says what I quoted a little 
 Rom. iii. 20- while back, “For by the law is the knowledge of sin. 
 
 27. 
 
 But now, without the law, hath the righteousness of God 
 been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the 
 prophets, even the righteousness of God through the 
 faith of Jesus Christ upon all who believe. For there 
 is no difference. For all have sinned and need the glory 
 of God, being justified freely through His grace, through 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has 
 set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, 
 to show His righteousness on account of His purpose*' 
 with reference to sins that are past through the forbearance 
 of God, to shew at this time His righteousness, that 
 He may be just and the justifier of him who is of the 
 faith of Jesus.” And then he adds the words which we 
 are now discussing, “ Where then is thy boasting ? It 
 is excluded. Through what law ? of deeds ? Nay, but 
 through the law of faith.” The law of deeds, then, is 
 the same as that which says “Thou shalt not desire,” 
 because through it is the knowledge of sin. 
 
 I would like, then, to know, if any one would dare to tell 
 me, whether the law of faith does not say “Thou shalt not 
 desire ” ? For if it does not, what reason is there why we 
 should not rest in it without concern and sin with impunity? 
 For this mistake about the Apostle’s meaning was made by 
 Rom.iii. 8. those of whom he says, “And as some affirm that we say, 
 let us do evil, that good may come, whose judgment is just.” 
 But if the law of faith also says “ Thou shalt not desire,” as 
 so many precepts in the Gospels and Epistles testify and 
 
 * Propositum, with D-lat, See., probably from TrpoQacnv for iroipivu. 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 25 
 
 assert again and again, why is not it too called a law of 
 deeds ? For although it has not the works of those ancient 
 symbols, circumcision and the like, still what it has, con¬ 
 tained in symbolical rites, suitable to the present time, are 
 nevertheless works. Nor indeed was there any question of the 
 works of symbolical rites. For the reason why the law was 
 mentioned was because through it was the knowledge of 
 sin, and therefore from it is no man justified. Therefore it 
 is not through this law that boasting is excluded, but through 
 the law of faith, from which the righteous man lives. 
 
 But does not the law of faith, too, cause the knowledge of 
 sin, since it also says ‘‘Thou shalt not desire”? 22. I will 
 then briefly show what the difference between them is. 
 
 What the law of works commands by threatening, the law 
 
 of faith obtains by believing. The first says “ Thou shalt 
 
 not desire ” ; the second “ When I perceived that no one wisd.viii.21 
 
 can restrain himself unless God gives it, and that was a 
 
 point of wisdom also to know whose gift this was ; I went 
 
 unto the Lord and besought Him.” That is the wisdom 
 
 which is called godliness, by which the Father of lights is 
 
 worshipped, “from Whom is every best gift and every James i. 17, 
 
 perfect gift.” And He is worshipped with “ the sacrifice 
 
 of praise and thanksgiving ” So that His worshipper 
 
 glories not in himself but in Him. And so by the law of 
 
 works God says “ Do what I command,” by the law of faith 
 
 man says to God “ Give what thou commandest.” For the 
 
 law commands in order to enjoin what faith must do, that 
 
 is, in order that the man who is commanded, if he cannot 
 
 yet do it, maj know what to ask for. But if he can at once 
 
 do it and does it obediently, he still ought to know by 
 
 whose gift he has the power. 
 
 i 
 
I 
 
 26 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 x Cor. ii. 12. “For we have received not the spirit of this world,” 
 says that most constant preacher of grace, “ but the 
 Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things 
 that are freely given to us of God.” Now what is the 
 spirit of this world but the spirit of pride ? By this 
 spirit was the foolish heart darkened of those who did 
 not glorify as God the God they knew, by being thankful. 
 And it is by the same spirit that they are deceived, 
 who, being “ ignorant of God’s righteousness and wishing 
 to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted 
 themselves unto the righteousness of God.” Whence it 
 seems to me that he is more truly a son of faith, who 
 knows from whom to hope for what he has not yet, 
 than he who attributes to himself what he has. But 
 that man is better than either of these, who both has, 
 and knows from Whom he has ; provided only he does 
 not believe himself to be what he is not yet, lest he 
 Luke xviii. fall into the fault of the Pharisee who, although he 
 
 11,12. 
 
 thanked God because of what he had, yet asked not for 
 anything to be given him, as though he needed nothing 
 to increase or perfect his righteousness. 
 
 Having therefore considered and discussed this question 
 according to the power which God vouchsafes to give 
 us, we gather that man is not justified by the precepts 
 Gal. ii. 16. of a good life, * but only by the faith of Jesus Christ, 
 that is, not by the law of works but by that of faith, 
 not by the letter but by the Spirit, not by the merits of 
 deeds but by free grace. 
 
 23. Now it is true that in rebuking and correcting 
 
 * So R. V. marg. This meaning seems here decided by the context. 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 27 
 
 those who were being persuaded to practice circumcision, 
 the Apostle seems to call by the name of the law that rite 
 itself, and other legal observances of a similar kind, which, 
 as shadows of the future, are now rejected by Christians, 
 because they hold what was figuratively promised through 
 those shadows. Nevertheless, when he said that “by 
 the law no man is justified,” he did not mean only that 
 law contained in symbolical rites, with figures of the 
 future promises ; but also that contained in the works which 
 constitute a righteous life: and to these belongs the 
 command “ Thou shalt not desire.” To make our meaning- 
 plainer, let us look at the Decalogue itself. For verily 
 Moses received the law which he was to minister to the 
 people on the mountain, written with the finger of God 
 upon tables of stone. This law is comprised in ten 
 commandments, in which there was no order given about 
 circumcision or animal sacrifices, which are no longer 
 offered by Christians. Now, among those ten command¬ 
 ments, I should like to ask whether there is any, excepting 
 the keeping of the Sabbath, which ought not to be 
 observed by Christians, whether that against making and 
 worshipping idols and any other gods except the one 
 true God, or that against taking the name of God in 
 vain, or that about paying honour to parents, or those 
 about avoiding fornication, murder, theft, false witness, 
 adultery, or the desiring of another man’s goods. Which 
 of these will any one say a Christian need not keep ? 
 Or can it be, perchance, that the Apostle does not mean 
 by the “letter that killeth ” the law which was written 
 upon the two tables, but that of circumcision and other 
 ancient, but now abolished, symbols ? But how shall we 
 
28 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 think so, when the precept “Thou shalt not desire” is 
 one of the laws of the two tables, “through which law,” 
 he says, though “ holy, just, and good, sin deceived me, 
 and, through it, killed me”? And is not that “the 
 letter killeth ” ? 
 
 24. And it is still more evident from the passage itself 
 in the Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he says, 
 “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life,” that he 
 means no other letter but the Decalogue itself written 
 2 Cor.iii.2-9 on the two tables. For he says as follows: “That ye 
 are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not 
 with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God ; not in 
 tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And 
 such confidence have we through Christ to Godward, 
 not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything 
 as from ourselves ; but our sufficiency is from God, Who 
 hath made us able ministers of the New Covenant, not 
 of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter killeth, 
 but the Spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of 
 death engraven in letters upon stones was in glory, so 
 that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold 
 the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which 
 glory is done away, how shall not rather the ministration 
 of the Spirit be in glory? For if the ministration of 
 condemnation be glory, much more shall the ministration 
 of righteousness abound in glory.” 
 
 There is much I might say about these words, but 
 afterwards perhaps I shall have a better opportunity. 
 At present, however, I want you to consider what letter 
 is here meant by “the letter that killeth,” with which 
 the Apostle contrasts “the Spirit that giveth life.” Surely 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 29 
 
 it is that ministration of death engraven in letters of 
 stone, and the ministration of condemnation ; for “ the 
 law came in beside, that the trespass might abound.” 
 
 Yet however those precepts themselves are so useful and 
 healthy to the doer that, unless a man does them, he 
 cannot have life. Can it really be then that, on account 
 of that one commandment therein enjoined concerning 
 the Sabbath, the Decalogue is called “the letter that 
 killeth,” meaning that whoever now literally observes 
 that day is carnally minded and to be carnally minded 
 is death, and that those nine commandments, which we 
 do right to observe literally, ought to be regarded as 
 pertaining, not to the law of works by which no one is 
 justified, but to the law of faith by which the righteous 
 man lives ? Who would be so absurd as to suppose that 
 the expression “the mininistration of death engraven in 
 letters of stone ” does not imply a reference to all the 
 ten commandments, but that only which refers to the 
 Sabbath? What then becomes of the passages “ The Rom. tv. 15. 
 law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no 
 transgression” and “Until the law sin was in the world, Rom. v. 13, 
 but sin was not reckoned when there was no law,” and 
 that which we have so often quoted, “Through the law Rom. m. 20.. 
 is the knowledge of sin,” and that especially, in which 
 our point is most clearly expressed, “I had not known Rom.vii.7. 
 desire, save the law said, Thou shalt not desire ?” 
 
 25. Now study the whole context of this last passage 
 and see whether he says anything with a view to circum¬ 
 cision or the Sabbath or any other symbol which is but 
 a shadow, and does not speak with the one sole object 
 of showing that the letter which forbids sin does not 
 
Rom. vii. 
 25 - 
 
 30 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 give man life, but rather kills him by increasing desire, 
 by heaping up iniquity through transgression, unless grace 
 set him free through the law of faith which is in Christ 
 Jesus, when “love is shed abroad in our hearts through 
 the Holy Spirit, which is given unto us.” For when 
 6-he had said “That we should serve in newness of the 
 spirit, not in the oldness of the letter,” he adds, “ What 
 shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid. Nay, 
 I did not know sin, except through the law. For I 
 had not known desire except the law said, Thou shalt not 
 desire. But having taken occasion, sin through the 
 commandment wrought in me all desire. For without 
 the law sin was dead. And I was alive without the 
 law once, but when the commandment came sin revived, 
 and I died, and the commandment, which was unto life, 
 I found to be unto death. For having taken occasion, 
 sin through the commandment deceived me and through 
 it killed me. And so the law indeed is holy, and the 
 commandment holy and just and good. Did then that 
 which is good become death unto me ? God forbid. 
 But sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me 
 through that which is good ; that sin, through the com¬ 
 mandment, might become exceeding sinful. For we know 
 that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 
 For that which I work, I know not; for not what I 
 would, that do I practise, but what I hate, that I do. 
 But if I do that which I would not, I consent unto the 
 law that it is good. So now it is no more I that work 
 it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, 
 that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For to 
 will is present with me, but to perfect that which is 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 3 1 
 
 good, is not. For the good that I would I do not, but 
 the evil which I would not, that I practise. But if I 
 
 do that I would not, it is no more I that work it, but 
 
 sin that dwelleth in me. I find then the law, that when 
 
 I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight 
 
 in the law of God after the inward man ; but I see 
 another law in my members warring against the law of 
 my mind and bringing me into captivity under the law 
 of sin which is in my members. 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. 
 
 So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God, 
 but with the flesh the law of sin.” 
 
 26. It is apparent, therefore, that the oldness of the 
 letter, if the newness of the Spirit be wanting, rather 
 makes man guilty by the knowledge of sin, than frees 
 him from sin. Just as it is written also in another 
 place, “He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth also Eccies.i. 18. 
 sorrow.” Not that the law itself is evil, but that the 
 commandment has what is good in the letter that points 
 out, not in the Spirit Which helps ; and this command¬ 
 ment, if it is done by fear of punishment, not by the 
 love of righteousness, is done slavishly, not freely, and 
 therefore is not really done at all. For the fruit is 
 not good which does not grow out of the root of love. 
 
 But if there be present faith which worketh through 
 love, we begin to “ delight in the law of God after the 
 inward man.” And this delight does not belong to the 
 letter, but is the gift of the Spirit; even though another 
 law in the members still wars against the law of the 
 mind, until all the oldness pass and be changed into 
 
32 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 Gen. 
 
 2 Cor.ii 
 17* 
 
 the newness, which day by day is increased in the inward 
 man, as the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord 
 frees us from the body of this death. 
 
 27. This grace lay concealed and veiled in the Old 
 Testament, but was revealed in the Gospel of Christ, 
 in that most fitting dispensation of times, by which God 
 knows how to dispose all things. And perchance it 
 has some reference to this hiding of grace, that in 
 the Decalogue, which was given on Mount Sinai, the 
 commandment referring to the Sabbath is the only one 
 which was hidden under a symbolical precept. Now, 
 the Sabbath is the day of sanctification; nor is it without 
 meaning, that among all the works which God made, 
 ii. 3 . then first did the word of sanctification sound forth, 
 when He rested from all His works. But this I have 
 no time to discuss further at present. But what I do 
 think to be a matter of great importance to our present 
 discussion is, that the people were not without a purpose 
 commanded to abstain on that day from slavish work, 
 by which is signified sin, but it was because not to sin is 
 a result of sanctification, that is, of God’s gift through 
 the Holy Spirit. And the fact that in the law written on the 
 two tables of stone this is the only thing which is enjoined 
 under the shadow of a figure under which the Jews 
 observe the Sabbath, is intended to signify that that was 
 the time for hiding the grace, which had been destined 
 to be revealed in the New Covenant through the suffering 
 of Christ, which was as it were the rending of the veil, 
 i l6 . “But whensoever it shall pass to Christ,” it is said “the 
 veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and 
 where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 33 
 
 28. Now this Spirit of God, by the gift of Whom we are 
 
 * 
 
 justified, by Whom is effected in us the delight of not 
 sinning, wherein is liberty, (whereas without His help sin 
 delights us wherein there is slavery, from the works of 
 which we are required to abstain), this Holy Spirit, by 
 Whom love, which is the fulfilling of the law, is shed abroad 
 in our hearts, is actually called the “finger of God ” in the Luke xi - 2 °- 
 Gospel. Since, then, those tables were written with the 
 finger of God, and further the finger of God is God’s Spirit, 
 by Whom we are sanctified, that living from faith we may 
 do good works through love ; who is not struck by the simi¬ 
 larity and at the same time the difference between the 
 two ? For it is reckoned that fifty days intervened 
 between the celebration of the Passover, which was ordered 
 by Moses to be observed by the slaughter of a sheep (to 
 signify doubtless the future suffering of our Lord), and the 
 day on which Moses received the law on tables written by 
 the finger of God. Similarly from the killing and resurrec¬ 
 tion of Him, Who was led as a sheep to the slaughter, fifty 
 days were completed when the faithful gathered together 
 were filled with the finger of God, that is, the Holy Spirit. 
 
 29. And, in spite of this marvellous similarity, there 
 is certainly this very great difference, that there the people 
 are prevented by a horrible dread from approaching 
 the place where the law was being given; but here 
 those upon whom the Holy Ghost came had received 
 the promise of His coming, and were gathered together 
 waiting to receive Him. There the finger of God 
 wrought upon tables of stone, here upon the hearts of 
 men. There, then, the law was imposed from without to 
 frighten the unrighteous; here it was given within to justify 
 
 O 
 
34 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 Rom. xiii 
 9, io. 
 
 2 Cor. iii. 
 
 2 Cor. iii. 
 13-16. 
 
 them. For “Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shall 
 not kill, thou shalt not desire, and if there be any other 
 commandment ”—meaning, of course, such as were written 
 on the tables—“ it is briefly comprehended in this saying, 
 namely, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. 
 The love of his neighbour worketh no ill, for love is the 
 fulfilling of the law.” This love was not written upon 
 tables of stone, but shed abroad in our hearts through the 
 Holy Spirit Which is given unto us. God’s law is there¬ 
 fore love. To this law “the carnal mind is not subject, 
 neither indeed can it be.” But when, to frighten the carnal 
 mind, the works of love are written upon tables, it is the law 
 of works, and the letter that killeth the transgressor ; but 
 when love itself is shed abroad in the heart of believers, it is 
 the law of faith and the Spirit giving life to him who loves. 
 
 30. Notice now, how closely the distinction I am 
 pointing out agrees with the passage I quoted for another 
 purpose a little while ago, reserving a fuller discussion 
 of its meaning. “Made manifest,” he writes, “that ye 
 are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not 
 with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in 
 tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” See 
 how he shows that the one is written outside the man 
 to frighten him from without, the other inside the man 
 to justify him from within. Now, he called them “fleshy 
 tables of the heart,” not as belonging to a carnal mind, 
 but to that which lives and has feeling, in contrast to 
 > a stone which has not. And what he says a little 
 lower down, that “ the children of Israel could not 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 35 
 
 steadfastly look on the end of the'face of Moses,” and 
 
 therefore he spoke to them through the veil, signifies 
 
 that the letter of the law justifies no one, but that a 
 
 veil is put at the reading of the Old Covenant, until 
 
 they pass to Christ and the veil be taken away. This 
 
 means until they pass to grace and understand that from 
 
 Him we have justification, which enables us to do what 
 
 He commands. And on this account he commands, 
 
 that, being not sufficient of ourselves, we may fly for 
 
 refuge to Him. Therefore, when he had been careful 
 
 to say “Such confidence have we through Christ to 2 Cor.iii.4-6 
 
 Godward,” lest we should attribute this to our own 
 
 strength, he immediately commended the grace of which 
 
 we are speaking, by saying, “ Not that we are sufficient 
 
 of ourselves to think anything as from ourselves ; but 
 
 our sufficiency is from God, Who also hath made us 
 
 able ministers of the New Covenant, not of the letter 
 
 but of the Spirit. For the letter killeth, but the Spirit 
 
 2fiveth life.” 
 
 o « 
 
 31. Because, then, as he elsewhere says, the law, by 
 which he means that letter which was written without 
 the man, was made “for the sake of transgression,” * Gal. iii. 19. 
 therefore he calls it the ministration of death and the 
 ministration of condemnation. But the present law, that 
 is, the law of the New Covenant, he calls the ministration 
 of the Spirit and the ministration of righteousness, because 
 by the gift of the Spirit we work righteousness, and are 
 freed from the condemnation of the transgression. And 
 so the former is done away, the latter remains ; for 
 
 * Prevaricationis gratia. So in Serm. 156 § 4. Yulg., propter 
 
 transgressionem. 
 
2 Cor.iv. x, 2 
 
 Ps. xxxii. 2. 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 5-7 
 
 2 Cor. v. 3,4. 
 
 36 THE SPIEIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 the schoolmaster who frightens will be taken away, when 
 fear is succeeded by love. “For where the Spirit of the 
 Lord is, there is liberty.” Now, this ministration, he 
 says, does not arise from our merits, but from mercy, as 
 follows: “Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, 
 as we have received mercy, let us faint not; but let us 
 reject the hidden things of shame, not walking in crafti¬ 
 ness, nor in guile adulterating the word of God.” By 
 craftiness and guile he here means us to understand the 
 hypocrisy by which proud men wish to appear righteous. 
 Similarly in the Psalm, which the same Apostle quotes 
 to testify to this very subject of grace, it is said, “ Blessed 
 is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, 
 and in whose mouth there is no guile.” This is the 
 confession of humble saints, not of those who boast 
 themselves to be what they are not. And a little farther 
 down the Apostle goes on to say, “For we preach not 
 ourselves, but Jesus Christ the Lord, and ourselves your 
 servants for Jesus’ sake; for God, Who commanded the 
 light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts 
 to give the light of the knowledge of His glory in the 
 face of Jesus Christ.” The knowledge of His glory is 
 that by which we know that He is the light to illuminate 
 our darkness. And notice how he impresses this same 
 truth by what follows, “ But we have this treasure in 
 earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power 
 may be of God, and not from ourselves.” And then he 
 goes on for awhile to commend with greater fulness 
 this grace in our Lord Jesus Christ, till he came to speak 
 of the garment of the righteousness of faith, which we K 
 
 are to put on that we may not “ be found naked,” and 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 37 
 
 therefore groan, weighed down by njortality, desiring to 
 
 be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven, 
 
 that mortality may be swallowed up of life. And then 
 
 notice what he says, “For He that hath wrought us 2 Cor. v. 5. 
 
 for this selfsame thing is God, Who hath given unto us 
 
 the'earnest of the Spirit”; after a while he adds, “That 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 
 we may be the righteousness of God in Him.” Here is 
 
 not meant the righteousness of God with which He 
 
 is righteous, but that with which we are made righteous 
 
 by Him. 
 
 32. Let no Christian, therefore, wander from this belief, 
 which is the only true belief of a Christian. Nor let any 
 one, fearing to say that we are justified through ourselves 
 without the work of God’s grace within us (because he sees 
 that faithful and godly people cannot endure such a 
 statement), have recourse to saying that the reason why 
 we cannot be righteous without the work of God’s grace 
 is that He has given us a law, instituted a system of teach¬ 
 ing, laid down good commandments. For that law, 
 without the help. o r the Spirit, is doubtless the letter that 
 killeth, but when there is present the Spirit, that giveth life, 
 
 He makes a man love the very same thino- written within 
 him, which the law made him fear when written without. 
 
 33. Consider this a little while by the light, also, of the 
 passage in which the prophet makes the clearest statement 
 
 on the matter. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that jer.xxxi.31 
 
 34. 
 
 I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
 with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that 
 I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by 
 their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; because 
 they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them 
 
38 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant which I 
 will ordain to the house of Israel. After those days, saith 
 the Lord, I will put My laws into their heart, and in their 
 mind will I write them, and I will become their God, and 
 they shall become My people. And they shall not teach, 
 every man his fellow-citizen, and every man his brother, 
 saying, know the Lord, for they shall all know Me, from the 
 less even to the greater of them ; for I will be merciful to 
 their unrighteousness, and I will remember their sins no 
 more.” What do we say to this ? Now, in the books of 
 the Old Covenant we nowhere, or hardly, find any mention 
 by name of the New Covenant, except in this one prophetic 
 passage. It is no doubt in many places signified and 
 foretold as coming, but not so as to be actually expressed 
 by name. Consider, therefore, what sort of difference God 
 has testified that there is between the two Covenants, that 
 is, the Old and the New. 
 
 34. When He had said “Not according to the Cove¬ 
 nant that I made with their fathers in the day that I 
 took them by their hand to bring them out of the land 
 of Egypt,” notice how He went on, “ because they con¬ 
 tinued not in My Covenant.” He makes it their fault 
 that they did not remain in God’s Covenant, lest it should 
 be supposed that the law which they then received was 
 to blame. For this is the same law which Christ came, 
 not to destroy, but to fulfil; not, however, that the ungodly 
 are justified by it, but by grace: this verily is the action 
 of the Spirit that giveth life without Whom the letter 
 killeth. “For if there had been a law given, which could 
 give life, verily righteousness should have been from the 
 Gai.iii.2i- law. But the Scripture hath shut up all things under sin, 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 39 
 
 that the promise from the faith of Jesus Christ might be 
 
 given to them that believe.” By this promise, that is, by 
 
 the kindness of God, is the law itself fulfilled ; without it, 
 
 it made men transgressors, either to the extent of actual 
 
 sin, if the flame of desire surmounted even the bars 
 
 of fear; or at any rate in will alone, if the fear of 
 
 punishment subdued the allurement of lust. Now in 
 
 saying “ Scripture hath shut up all things under sin, 
 
 that the promise from the faith of Jesus Christ might 
 
 be given to them that believe ”, he shewed the usefulness 
 
 of that shutting up. For the uses are shewn in another 
 
 verse, where he says, “ But before faith came, we were 
 
 kept in ward under the law, shut up into the faith, which 
 
 hath since been revealed.” The law, then, was given 
 
 that grace might be sought for; grace was given, that 
 
 the law might be fulfilled. For it was not the fault of 
 
 the law that it was not fulfilled, but of the carnal mind; 
 
 and this fault had to be pointed out by the law, to be 
 
 healed by grace. “ For what the law could not do, in Rom.viii.3,4 
 
 that it was weak through the flesh, God sent His Son 
 
 in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and for sin condemned 
 
 sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might 
 
 be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after 
 
 the Spirit.” 
 
 And this is the point of that prophetic passage we 
 are discussing, “I will complete with the house of Israel 
 and with the house of Judah a New Covenant” (where 
 by “I will complete” is meant surely “I will fulfil”), 
 
 “ not according to the Covenant which I made with their 
 fathers in the day that I took them by their hand to 
 bring them out of the land of Egypt.” 
 
4 ° 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 35. That Covenant, then, was old, because this is new. 
 How then can that be old and this new, when the same 
 law, which said under the Old Covenant “Thou shalt 
 not desire,” is fulfdled through the new? “Because 
 they continued not in My Covenant, and I regarded 
 them not, saith the Lord.” The reason why that Covenant 
 is called old is because of the guilt of the old man, which 
 was by no means healed through the letter that commanded 
 and threatened. But this Covenant is called new because 
 of the newness of the Spirit, which heals the new man 
 from the fault of oldness. 
 
 Now notice what follows, and see how conspicuously 
 that truth is brought out which self-confident men will 
 not see. “For this is the Covenant,” he says, “which 
 I will ordain to the house of Israel. After those days, 
 saith the Lord, I will put My laws into their hearts, and 
 in their mind I will write them.” There you see the 
 source of what the Apostle says in the passage we quoted 
 2 Cor.iii.3,6. above, “ not in tables of stone, but in tables of the 
 heart”; because it was “not with ink, but with the 
 Spirit of the living God.” And the Apostle had no other 
 reason, I think, in wishing to mention the New Covenant 
 in that passage where he says, “ Who also hath made 
 us able ministers of the New Covenant, not of the letter 
 but of the spirit,” but that, by saying “ not in tables of 
 stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart,” he shows 
 us that he was thinking of this prophecy, for the words 
 “ In their hearts will I write them ” occur where the 
 New Covenant is expressly promised. 
 
 36. What then are the laws of God written by God 
 Himself in men’s hearts, but the very presence of the Holy 
 
THE SPIRIT AND TIIE LETTER. 
 
 41 
 
 Spirit, Who is the finger of God, by Whose presence love is 
 shed abroad in our hearts, which is the fulfilling of the law, 
 and the end of the commandment ? For (if we except the 
 symbols which foreshadowed the future, such as circum¬ 
 cision and the Sabbath, and other observances of days, and 
 ceremonial distinctions of certain meats, and many kinds 
 of sacrifices and sacred rites, all which were in harmony 
 with the oldness of the carnal law and the yoke of bondage) 
 it is true that the Old Covenant contains such command¬ 
 ments of righteousness as we are still commanded to 
 observe. These were expressed for the most part on the 
 tables without any figure with a symbolical meaning, such as 
 “Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt do no murder, Rom.xiii. 9. 
 thou shalt not desire, and if there be any other command¬ 
 ment” which “ is briefly' comprehended in this saying, thou 
 shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” But, although it contains 
 such commandments, the promises of the Old Covenant 
 are only earthly, and because they are earthly and temporal, 
 they are concerned with the good things of this corrup¬ 
 tible flesh (however much they may typify things eternal and 
 heavenly which belong really to the New Covenant). Now 
 we are promised the good of the heart, the good of the 
 mind, the good of the spirit, that is, rational * good, when it *inteiiigibiie 
 is said “ I will put My laws in their mind, and in their hearts 
 will I write them.” By this he meant that they would not 
 in future fear a law frightening them from without, but love 
 the righteousness itself of the law dwelling within. 
 
 37. And then he added also the reward, “ I will become 
 their God, and they shall become My people.” This is 
 equivalent to what the Psalmist says to God, “ It is my good Ps.ixxiii. 28. 
 to hold me fast by God.” 
 
42 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 He says, “ I will become their God and they shall be 
 my people.” What is better than this good, what happier 
 than this happiness, to live to God, to live of God, with 
 Ps. xxxvi. 9 Whom is the fountain of life, and in Whose light we 
 shall see light? Concerning this life, the Lord says 
 John xvii. 3. Himself, “But this is life eternal, that they may know 
 Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou 
 hast sent,” that is, “Thee, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou 
 has sent, to be the only true God.” For this thing 
 Christ also promises to those who love Him, saying, 
 johnxiv. 21. “ He that loveth Me, keepeth My commandments; and 
 he that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father; and I 
 will love him, and will manifest Myself to him ” ; that 
 Phil. ii. 6.7. means, “in the form of God,” in which He is equal to 
 the Father, not “ in the form of a servant,” in which He 
 will manifest Himself also to the ungodly. For then 
 is. xxvi. 10. will be fulfilled that which is written, “The wicked must 
 be taken away so as not to see the glory of the Lord,” 
 Matt. xxv.46 when those on the left hand shall go into eternal fire, 
 but the righteous into eternal life. This eternal life 
 has been defined in the passage I have quoted to be 
 the knowledge of the one true God. Of this John also 
 
 1 John iii. 2. says, “ Beloved, we are sons of God, and it hath not 
 
 yet appeared what we shall be. We know that, when 
 He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see 
 Him as He is.” 
 
 This likeness is already beginning to be re-formed, as 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 16. man is inwardly renewed from day to day “after the 
 Col. iii. 10. image of Him that created him.” 
 
 38. But what is the character or extent of this 
 present beginning when compared to the perfection 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 43 
 
 of that greatness which is to be hereafter ? For the 
 Apostle, by way of giving some sort of illustration from 
 common life to explain such ineffable things, contrasted 
 the age of childhood with that of man’s estate, saying, 
 
 “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood i Cor. xiii. 
 
 II, 12. 
 
 as a child, I thought as a child ; but when I became 
 ■a man I put away childish things.” And he shows his 
 object in saying this by what follows, “Now we see 
 through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now I 
 know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am 
 known.” 
 
 39. To the same purpose the prophet, whose words we 
 are discussing, goes on to say that in Him consists the 
 reward, in Him the end, in Him the perfection of happi¬ 
 ness, in Him the sum of blessed and eternal life. For 
 when He had said “ I will become their God, and they 
 shall become my people,” he went on at once to add 
 “And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, 
 and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for 
 they shall all know Me from the less even to the greater 
 of them.” 
 
 The present, no doubt, is already the time of the New 
 Covenant, which the prophet promised in the words which 
 we have quoted from that prophecy. Why then do men 
 still say every man to his fellow-citizen and to his brother 
 “Know the Lord”? Do they not say so when the 
 gospel is preached, and the very object of preaching 
 it is to say it everywhere ? For on what grounds does 
 the Apostle call himself the “ teacher of the Gentiles,” 
 except as carrying out his own saying, “ How shall they Rom - x - *4- 
 call on Him in Whom they have not believed ? or 
 
+ 4 - 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 “ how shall they believe Him of Whom they have not 
 heard ? And how shall they hear without a preacher ? ” 
 Since, then, now the preaching is spreading everywhere, 
 how can the present be the time of the New Covenant, 
 of which the Prophet said, “And they shall not teach, 
 every man his fellow-citizen, and every man his brother, 
 saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me 
 from the less even to the greater of them ” ? Is not 
 the true explanation that in these words he went on 
 further to promise the eternal reward of the New Covenant,, 
 that is, the blessed contemplation of God Himself? 
 
 go. What then is the meaning of “ all from the less 
 even to the greater of them,” but all who belong spiritually 
 to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, that is, 
 to the sons of Isaac, to the seed of Abraham ? For 
 this is the meaning of the promise, in which it was 
 Rom. ix. 7- said to Abraham, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” 
 
 That is, “they which are the children of the flesh, these 
 are not the children of God; but the children of the 
 promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word 
 of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall 
 have a son. And not only this, but Rebecca also, 
 having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, the 
 children being not yet born, neither having done any 
 good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election 
 might stand, not from works, but from Him that calleth,. 
 it was said unto her concerning them, The greater 
 shall serve the less.” This is what the prophet calls 
 the house of Israel, or the house of Judah, because of 
 Christ, who came of that tribe. This is the house of 
 “ the children of promise,” not the children of their 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 45 
 
 own works, but of God’s blessing. For what God 
 promises, He does Himself; He does not promise and 
 another perform, which would be not to promise, but 
 to predict. Therefore it is not from works, but from 
 Him that calleth; lest it should be of themselves instead 
 of God; lest the reward should be not reckoned as of 
 grace, but as of debt, and so “ grace be no more grace.” 
 
 It was this grace which was defended and asserted so 
 earnestly by the “least of the Apostles,” who “ laboured i Cor. xv. g , 
 
 IO. 
 
 more abundantly than they all,” yet not he, but the 
 grace of God which was with him. “ For all,” he says, 
 
 “shall know Me.” “All” means the house of Israel 
 and the house of Judah. And yet not all who are of 
 Israel are Israel; but all to whom it is said in the Psalm Ps,xxii.title 
 
 & 23. 
 
 “for the help of the morning” (that is, for the new 
 
 light, meaning the light of the New Covenant), “magnify 
 
 Him, ye whole seed of Jacob, let all the seed of Israel 
 
 fear Him.” Absolutely the whole seed, even the whole 
 
 seed of those who were promised and called, but called 
 
 according to God’s purpose. “ For whom He did pre- Rom. viii. 
 
 destinate them He also called, and whom He called, 
 
 them He also justified, and whom He justified, them 
 
 He also glorified.” “Therefore it is from faith, that Rom.iv. 16, 
 
 T 7- 
 
 according to grace the promise may be sure to all the 
 seed. Not to that only which is from the law,” that 
 is, comes out from the Old Covenant to the New, “ but 
 to that also which is from faith ” (because they have 
 not before received the law), “ from the faith ” he says, 
 
 “ of Abraham,” that is, who are imitators of Abraham’s 
 faith, “ who is the father of us all, as it is written, I 
 have made thee a father of many nations.” All these, 
 
4 6 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 i Cor. xiii. 
 12. 
 
 John xiv.: 
 John xvii. 
 i John iii. 
 i Cor. xiii. 
 
 then, predestinated, called, justified, glorified, will know 
 God by the grace of the New Covenant, from the less, 
 even to the greater of them. 
 
 41. Just as, therefore, the law of deeds written upon the- 
 tables of stone, and its reward, that land of promise 
 which the carnal house of Israel received after it had 
 been released from Egypt, belong to the Old Covenant 
 so the law of faith written in men’s hearts, and its reward, 
 that vision of contemplation which the spiritual house 
 of Israel will enjoy when released from this world, belong 
 to the New Covenant. Then shall be fulfilled the saying 
 8- of the Apostle, “ Whether there be prophecies, they 
 shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they 
 shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be 
 done away.” By this is meant that child-like knowledge 
 which belongs to our present life, which is “in part, 
 through a glass, darkly.” For, for its sake, prophecy 
 is necessary, so long as the future follows the past, and 
 tongues, that is, a multiplicity of symbols. For he 
 who does not yet behold with a spotless mind the eternal 
 light of the clear truth is still taught many things in 
 many different ways. But when that which is perfect 
 is come, and all that which is in part has been done away,, 
 then the Word Which assumed flesh and appeared to- 
 2i. flesh, will shew Himself to those who love Him; then 
 3m will be life eternal, that we may know the only true 
 12 God; then we shall be like Him, for then we shall 
 know even as we are known. Then they shall not teach,, 
 every man his fellow-citizen or his brother, saying, Know 
 the Lord; for all shall know Him “ from the less even 
 unto the greater of them.” 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 47 
 
 These last words may be interpreted in many ways. 
 
 It may mean that even in that state all the saints differ 
 just as “ one star differeth from another star in glory.” 
 
 In which case it does not affect the argument whether 
 it be said “ from the greater even to the less,” or, as 
 we actually have it, “ from the less to the greater.” Nor 
 is the order of any importance, even if we were to under¬ 
 stand by “the less” those who have only been able to 
 believe, but by “the greater” those who have also been 
 able to understand, as far as is possible in this life, the 
 incorporeal and unchanging light. Or he may have in¬ 
 tended by “the less” those later, by “the greater” those 
 earlier, in time. For all will have received the promised 
 contemplation of God at the same time; for even they Heb. xi. 40 
 foresaw better things for us, that they without us should 
 not be made perfect. And “the less” are mentioned 
 as though they were first, because they have not had to 
 wait so long; as is symbolically expressed in the penny Mattxx.8-12 
 of the Gospel, which they who came last to the vineyard 
 received first. Or perchance the words “less” and 
 “greater” should be explained in some other way, which 
 I cannot think of at present. 
 
 42. Consider as carefully as you can what I am taking 
 so much pains to show. When the Prophet promised 
 the New Covenant, not according to the Covenant which 
 was formerly made with the people of Israel when released 
 from Egypt, he said nothing of the change of sacrifices 
 or the several symbolical rites. And yet that was doubtless 
 destined to follow, as we see it did follow, and is testified 
 to in many other passages by the same prophetic scripture. 
 
 But the difference which he insisted on was this only, 
 
+ 8 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 John xv. 
 
 Phil. ii. 13 
 
 that God would put His laws into the mind of those 
 who belonged to this Covenant, and would write them 
 in their hearts, whence the Apostle derived the expression 
 “ not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; 
 not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” 
 And the Prophet added that the eternal reward of this 
 justification is not the land from which the Amorites, and 
 the Hittites, and other nations mentioned as living there, 
 were expelled, but God Himself to Whom it is good 
 to hold fast, so that the good thing of God which they 
 love is nothing else but the God Himself Whom they 
 love. And between Him and man there is nothing which 
 separates save sins, which are only forgiven by the grace 
 of which we are speaking. And this is why, after saying 
 “For all shall know Me from the less to the o- re ater 
 
 O 
 
 of them,” he continued “ I will be merciful to their 
 iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.” 
 
 By the law, then, of deeds the Lord says “Thou shalt 
 not desire”; by the law of faith the Lord says, “Without 
 Me ye can do nothing.” For He was speaking of good 
 works, that is, of the fruits of the vine branches. It is 
 clear, then, that this is the difference between the Old 
 and the New Covenant, that the law in that case was 
 written on tables, in this on the hearts, so that what in 
 that frightens from without, in this delights from within, 
 and in that man is made to transgress through the letter 
 that killeth, in this he is made to love through the Spirit 
 Which giveth live. We ought, therefore, not to say that 
 the way in which God helps us to work righteousness, 
 and “ worketh in us to will and to work for His o-ood 
 pleasure,” is through dinning into our senses from without 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 49 
 
 the commandments of righteousness; but through giving 
 us increase within by shedding abroad love in our hearts R om . v . 5 . 
 through the Holy Spirit, Which is given unto us. 
 
 43. Now we ought to consider what the Apostle means 
 
 when he says, “For when the Gentiles, which have not Rom ii. 14,15 
 the law, do by nature the things of the law, these having 
 not the law are a law unto themselves, which show the 
 work of the law written in their hearts.” For it might 
 seem from this passage that the promise that God would 
 write His laws in the hearts of His people was not the 
 definite characteristic of the New Covenant, since the 
 Gentiles have this by nature. The question which is 
 here raised is of great importance, and must be thoroughly 
 considered. For some one will say, If God thus dis¬ 
 tinguishes the New Covenant from the Old, that in the 
 Old He wrote His law upon tables, but in the New 
 He wrote it in men’s hearts; then how are the faithful 
 of the New Covenant distinguished from the Gentiles, 
 who have the work of the law written in their hearts, 
 and so do by nature the things of the law ? The Gentiles, 
 indeed, would seem to be superior to the old people who 
 received the law on tables, and to have precedence of 
 the new people, who obtain through the New Covenant 
 what the Gentiles have already obtained by nature. 
 
 44. May he not possibly have meant by those who had 
 the law written in their hearts, the Gentiles belonging 
 to the New Covenant ? To understand this we must 
 consider the context immediately preceding. He begins 
 
 by commending the Gospel, saying, “For it is the power Rom. i. 16,17 
 of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to 
 the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is 
 
 4 
 
5o 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 the righteousness of God revealed from faith unto 
 faith, as it is written, But the righteous lives from faith.” 
 Then he speaks of those ungodly persons whom the 
 knowledge of God did not profit on account of their 
 Rom. i. 21. pride, because they “ glorified Him not as God, neither 
 were thankful.” After that he goes on to speak of those 
 who judge others, and do the very things they condemn, 
 referring no doubt to the Jews who boasted of the law 
 of God, although he does not as yet mention them by 
 Rom. ii. 8- name, and so he says, “Wrath and indignation, tribulation 
 and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, 
 of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory and 
 honour and peace to every man that worketh good, to 
 the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no 
 respect of persons with God. For as many as have 
 sinned without law shall also perish without law; and 
 as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged 
 by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just 
 before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” 
 To this he adds the passage we are discussing, saying, 
 “When the Gentiles which have not the law do by nature 
 the things of the law,” and the rest which I quoted 
 just now. It thus appears that by the name “Gentiles” 
 he meant no other than those whom he before called 
 “Greeks,” when he said, “To the Jew first and also 
 to the Greek.” Moreover if the Gospel is the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to 
 the Jew first and also to the Greek, and if there be 
 wrath and indignation and tribulation and anguish upon 
 every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first 
 and also of the Greek, but glory and honour and peace 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 51 
 
 to every man that worketh good, to the jew first and also 
 to the Greek, and it is this Greek which is meant by “ the 
 Gentiles who do by nature the things of the law ” and 
 “ have the work of the law written in their hearts,” it 
 is obvious that the Gentles, in whose hearts the law 
 is written, belong to the Gospel, for it is to them when 
 they believe that the Gospel is the power of God unto 
 salvation. For to what Gentiles outside the grace of 
 the Gospel would he promise glory and honour and peace 
 for doing good works ? For because “there is no respect 
 of persons with God,” and “ not the hearers of the law 
 but the doers are justified,” whether he be a Jew or a 
 Greek, /.<?., any one of the Gentiles who believes, he will 
 equally receive salvation in the Gospel. “For there is Romiii. 22 
 no difference,” as he afterwards says, “ for all have 
 sinned and need the glory of God, being justified freely 
 through His grace.” But what ground would he have 
 for saying that a doer of the law, if a Greek, would be 
 justified without the Saviour’s grace ? 
 
 45. Now, we must not suppose that the Apostle con¬ 
 tradicted himself when he said, “the doers of the law 
 shall be justified,” as if they were justified through works, 
 not through grace, whereas he says that man is justified Rom. m. 28 
 freely through faith without the works of the law, clearly 
 wishing us to understand by the word “freely” that works 
 do not come before justification. At any rate he says 
 clearly enough in another passage, “If it be by grace, Rom. xi. 6 
 it is no more from works; otherwise grace is no more 
 grace.” But the words, “the doers of the law shall be 
 justified,” ought to be understood as teaching that they 
 are not doers of the law unless they are justified; so 
 
52 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 that justification does not come after they are doers of 
 the law, but comes before, to make them doers of it. 
 For what else does “justified” mean but “made righteous 
 (just),” by Him, of course, Who justifies the ungodly, 
 so that, instead of being ungodly, he is made righteous ? 
 For if we were to say “men will be freed,” it would 
 be certainly understood that freedom was given afterwards 
 to those who were already men; but if we were to say 
 “ men will be created,” it would be understood as meaning 
 not that they were created who were already men, but 
 that by their very creation they became men. Similarly, 
 if it had been said “ doers of the law shall be honoured,” 
 we should have to understand that honour would after¬ 
 wards be given to those who were already doers of the 
 law; but when it is said “ doers of the law shall be 
 justified,” it is equivalent to saying “the righteous (just) 
 shall be justified.” For the doers of the law are certainly 
 righteous. And so it is very much the same as if it 
 were said, “ doers of the law will be created,” which 
 means not “those who were doers,” but “to be doers,” 
 that so even the Jewish hearers of the law might under¬ 
 stand that they needed the grace of the Justiher, to have 
 the power to be doers. Or, possibly, “ shall be justified ” 
 was used in the sense of “ shall be regarded, or reckoned 
 righteous,” as it was said of a certain person, “ but 
 Luke x. 29. he wishing to justify himself,” that is, to be regarded 
 and reckoned righteous. Just as we use the word 
 “hallow” in one sense when we say, “God halloweth 
 His saints,” in another when we say “ Hallowed be Thy 
 name.” For the first means that He makes those to be saints 
 who were not saints ; the second, that what is ever holy 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 53 
 
 in itself should be regarded as holy by men, that is, 
 feared with holy reverence. 
 
 46. If, then, when he mentioned the Gentiles, as doing 
 by nature the things of the law, and having the work 
 of the law written in their hearts, he meant those believers 
 in Christ who come to the faith without having, like 
 the Jews, first received the law, there is no reason why 
 we should attempt to distinguish them from those of 
 whom the Lord said, when He promised the New 
 Covenant through the prophet, that He would write His 
 laws in their hearts. For the Gentiles, too, by the grafting Rom.xi. 24. 
 in which S. Paul says was granted to the wild olive, 
 belong to the same olive, i.e., to the same people of 
 God. And so this passage of the Apostle rather agrees 
 with, than contradicts, the passage from the Prophet, by 
 implying that belonging to the New Covenant is meant 
 by having God’s law not in tables but written in the 
 heart, i.e., embracing the righteousness of the law with 
 the inmost affections, where faith works through love. 
 
 For God justifies the Gentiles from faith; and Scripture, Gal. m. 8. 
 foreseeing this, foreannounced to Abraham, saying, “ In 
 thy seed shall all the Gentiles be blessed,” that by this 
 promised grace the wild olive might be graffed in the 
 olive tree, and the believing Gentiles might become sons 
 of Abraham in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, Gal. m. 16. 
 following the faith of him who, without having received Rom - iv - l6 * 
 the law on tables, and when he had not as yet even 
 circumcision itself, believed on God and it was reckoned 
 to him for righteousness. And so what the Apostle 
 said of Gentiles under the same conditions, that they 
 have the work of the law written in their hearts, is 
 
54 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 similar to what he said to the Corinthians, “ not in 
 tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” For 
 Rom. ii. 26. so they come to be of the house of Israel, when their 
 uncircumcision is counted for circumcision, because they 
 do not show the righteousness of the law by the cutting 
 of the flesh, but preserve it by the love of the heart; 
 since “ if uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the 
 law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circum¬ 
 cision ? ” And, therefore, in the house of the true Israel, 
 in Whom is no guile, they are partakers of the New 
 Covenant, because God puts laws into their minds, and 
 writes them in their hearts by His finger, the Holy Spirit, 
 by Whom love is there shed abroad, which is the fulfilling 
 of the law. 
 
 47. Nor must we be surprised that he said they do the 
 the things of the law “ by nature,” instead of saying “by 
 the Spirit of God,” or “by faith,” or “bv grace.” For 
 this is the effect of the Spirit of grace, to restore in us 
 the image of God in which we were made by nature. It 
 is the corruption, which is contrary to nature, which grace 
 Ps. xii. 4. heals; and on account of this grace the Psalmist says 
 to God, “ Be merciful unto me, heal my soul, for I have 
 sinned against Thee.” Therefore men do by nature the 
 things of the law ; and those who do not the things of 
 the law, do them not because of their corruption. By 
 this corruption the law of God has been effaced from 
 their hearts; and therefore, after the healing of the 
 corruption, when the law is written in their hearts, the 
 things of the law are done by nature ; not that nature 
 implies the denial of grace, but rather that nature is 
 Rom. v. 12. restored through grace. For “by one man sin entered 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 55 
 
 into the world and death through sin, and so it passed 
 upon all men, in whom all have sinned ” ; and therefore, 
 because there is no difference, they need the glory of Romiii.22 ;24 
 God, being justified freely through His grace. By this 
 grace in the renewed inward man is written the righteous¬ 
 ness which the corruption had effaced, and this mercy 
 to the human race is through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God i Tim. ii. 5 . 
 and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 
 
 48. But it may be that those “who do by nature the things 
 of the law” ought not to be considered as yet in the number 
 of those who are justified by Christ’s death, but rather of 
 those who, though ungodly and not truly and righteously 
 worshipping the true God, do, as we read, or know, or 
 hear, certain deeds, which according to the rule of 
 righteousness, we not only cannot blame, but even de¬ 
 servedly and rightly praise. And yet, if we consider 
 thoroughly the motive of such deeds, they are hardly found 
 to deserve the praise and approbation which righteousness 
 would merit. Nevertheless it is because in the soul of men 
 the image of God has not been so entirely obliterated by 
 the stain of earthly affections, as that not even the faintest 
 lineaments remain in it; and therefore a man can be 
 rightly said, even in that ungodly state of life, to do or 
 think some things of the law. Even if this, I say, be the 
 meaning of the saying that “ The Gentiles which have 
 not the law,” that is, the law of God, “do by nature the 
 things of the law,” and such men “are a law unto 
 themselves” and “have the work of the law written 
 in their hearts,” that is, what was there stamped through 
 God’s image at their creation has not been entirely 
 
56 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 effaced ; even so it will not affect the difference which 
 exists between the Old and New Covenants, namely that 
 through the New Covenant the law of God is written in 
 the heart of believers, which through the Old Covenant 
 was written in tables. For that is written in the heart 
 through the renewal, which was not entirely effaced through 
 the old state. For just as the very image of God is 
 renewed through the New Covenant in the mind of those 
 who believe, and this image was not entirely destroyed by 
 ungodliness (for there had remained at the very least the 
 necessarily rational character of the human soul), so also 
 is the law of God, not having been entirely destroyed by 
 unrighteousness, renewed by grace and written in the 
 mind. 
 
 But the law written in tables could not effect, among the 
 Jews, that writing in the mind, which is justification, but 
 only transgression. For even they were men, and that 
 force of nature was inherent in them, by which the reason¬ 
 able soul thinks and does something belonging to the law. 
 But the godliness which translates a man to another life, 
 which is blessed and eternal, has a law undefiled, which 
 converts souls, so that men are renewed by “that light,” 
 Ps. iv. 6. and the words “the light of Thy countenance has been 
 stamped upon us, O Lord,” are realized in them. Having- 
 turned aside from this light, the Jews deserved to wax old ; 
 be renewed they cannot, except by the grace of Christ by 
 t Tim.ii.5,6. the intercession of the Mediator. “ For there is one God, 
 and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all.” 
 
 * See S. Aug. Enarr. in Ps. iv. § 7. 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 57 
 
 If they of whom we are speaking, who, after the manner 
 we just now sufficiently explained, do by nature the things 
 of the law, are alien from His grace, what advantage 
 will their excusing thoughts be to them in the day when Rom. ii. 14- 
 
 16, 
 
 God will judge the secrets of men, except perchance 
 
 to procure a milder punishment ? For just as certain venial 
 
 sins, without which no life on earth is ever lived, do 
 
 not keep the righteous man back from eternal life ; even 
 
 so some good works, which the life even of the worst 
 
 man is seldom found without, are of no avail to an 
 
 ungodly man to secure eternal salvation. But just as in 
 
 the kingdom of God the saints differ as “ one star differeth 1 Cor.xv.41. 
 
 from another star in glory,” so also in the condemnation 
 
 of eternal punishment it will be more tolerable for Sodom Luke x. 12. 
 
 than for that city, and some will be twofold more than Mattxxiii.15 
 
 others the children of hell. We may therefore assume 
 
 that it will make a difference in God’s judgment, that 
 
 even in that guilty state of ungodliness one man has 
 
 sinned more or less than another. 
 
 49. When, then, the Apostle, by way of checking the 
 pride of the Jews, had said, “not the hearers of the Rom.ii. 13. 
 law r are righteous before God, but the doers of the law 
 shall be justified,” what was his object in going on at 
 once to speak of those, who, “ not having the law, do 
 by nature the things of the law,” if we take his words 
 as meaning not those who belong to the grace of the 
 Mediator, but those rather who, though they do not 
 worship the very God with true godliness, nevertheless, 
 even in their ungodly life, have some good works ? Did 
 he not think to prove by this what he had said above, 
 that “ there is no respect of persons with God,” and Rom. ii. n. 
 
58 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 what he afterwards said, that “ He is not the God of 
 the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles”? For even 
 the smallest works of the law planted in them by nature 
 would not be found in them who have not received the 
 the law, except from the relics of the image of God. 
 And this image God despises not, as long as they believe 
 on Him with Whom is no respect of persons. 
 
 But in whichever of these ways the passage is understood, 
 it is clear that the grace of God is promised to the New 
 Covenant even through the Prophet, and this grace is 
 therein defined as consisting in this, that the laws of God 
 are written in men’s hearts, and they come to that know¬ 
 ledge of God in which they shall not teach, every man his 
 fellow-citizen or his brother, saying, “ Know the Lord, 
 for all shall know Him, from the less even to the greater 
 of them.” This is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by Whom 
 love is shed abroad in our hearts, not any ordinary love, 
 but the love of God “out of a pure heart and a good 
 conscience and faith unfeigned.” By this faith the 
 righteous man lives in the present state of pilgrimage, 
 iCor.xiii.i2 till, after the time of seeing through a glass darkly, and 
 of the knowledge which is in part, he is brought also 
 to sight, that he may know face to face, even as also he 
 Ps. xxvii. 4. is known. For one thing hath he desired of the Lord, 
 and this he requireth, to dwell in the house of the Lord 
 all the days of his life, in order that he may behold 
 the pleasantness of the Lord. 
 
 50. Let no one, therefore, boast of what he seems to 
 have, as though he had not received it, or think that 
 he has received it merely because the letter has from 
 without appeared for him to read, or sounded for him 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 59 
 
 to hear. For if righteousness is through the law, then Gai.ii.21. 
 Christ died for nought. But if it was not for nought 
 that Christ died, “ascended up on high, led captivity Ps.ixviii. 18. 
 captive, and gave gifts unto men” ; then “whoever hath,” Lukeviii.i8. 
 has it from Him. And whoever says it is not from Him 
 that he has it, either has it not, or “ even that he hath 
 shall be taken away from him.” For it is one God which 
 justifies the circumcision from faith, and the uncircum¬ 
 cision through faith. And this is not said by way of 
 distinction, as though “from faith” and “through faith” 
 were different, but for variety of language. For in another 
 place when he spoke of the Gentiles, that is, the uncir¬ 
 cumcision, he said, “The Scripture foreseeing that God Gal. Hi.8. 
 justifies the Gentiles from faith,” and likewise when he 
 spoke of the circumcision, to which he himself belonged, 
 he said, “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of Gai.ii.15,16. 
 the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified from 
 the works of the law, but through the faith of Jesus Christ, 
 we also believe on Christ Jesus.” Observe that he here 
 says that the uncircumcision are justified from faith, and 
 the circumcision through faith, provided that the cir¬ 
 cumcision keeps the righteousness of faith. For so “the Rom.ix.30- 
 
 X. 4. 
 
 Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have 
 attained to righteousness, but the righteousness which is 
 of faith,” by asking for it of God, not by presuming in 
 it as of themselves; “but Israel, who pursued the law 
 of righteousness, did not arrive at the law of righteousness. 
 Wherefore ? Because they sought it not from faith, but 
 as it were from works,” that is, as though they wrought 
 it through themselves, instead of believing that God 
 wrought it in them. For “ it is God Who worketh in us, Phil. h. 13. 
 
6o 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” And 
 so they stumbled on the stone of stumbling. For what 
 he meant when he said “that it was not from faith, but 
 as it were from works,” he showed most clearly when 
 he said, “For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness,, 
 and wishing to establish their own, have not submitted 
 themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ 
 is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that 
 believeth.” 
 
 Have we still any doubt what are the works of the 
 law, by which a man is not justified, if he believes them 
 to be his own without the help and gift of God, which is 
 from the faith of Jesus Christ ?” And do we suspect them 
 to be circumcision and other commandments of the kind, 
 because something of the same sort is said of these 
 symbols in other places ? But, in this case at any rate, 
 it was not circumcision which they were wishing to 
 establish as their own righteousness, because even it was 
 established by God’s command. Nor can this be under¬ 
 stood as referring to those works of which the Lord said 
 Mark vii. 9. to them, “Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye 
 may establish your traditions.” “For Israel," he says, 
 “pursuing the law of righteousness, did not arrive at the 
 law of righteousness,” he did not say pursuing, that is, 
 following, their own traditions. The only difference then 
 (between them and the justified) is this : that they were 
 attributing to themselves the commandment “Thou shalt 
 not desire,” and other holy and good commandments of 
 God, to enable man to do which God works in man 
 through the faith of Jesus Christ, Who is the end for 
 righteousness to every one that believeth. These words 
 
 O v 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 61 
 
 mean that every one who is incorporated into Christ 
 through the Spirit and made a member of Him is able, 
 through the increase which Christ gives him from within, 
 to work righteousness, and it is of such works that He 
 said Himself, “Without me ye can do nothing.” John xv. 5. 
 
 51. The righteousness, then, of the law is so laid Rom. x. 5-9. 
 down that he who does righteousness shall live therein, 
 that, when a man knows his weakness, he may, not 
 through his own strength nor through the letter of 
 the law itself, which is impossible, but through faith 
 reconciling the Justifier, arrive at righteousness and do 
 it and live therein. For the work which, if a man do, 
 he shall live therein, is not done except by one justified. 
 
 But justification is obtained from faith, concerning which 
 it is written, “ Say not in thine heart, Who ascendeth 
 into heaven ? that is, to bring Christ down, or, Who 
 descendeth into the abyss ? that is, to bring up Christ 
 again from the dead ? But what saith it ? The word 
 is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is,” 
 he says, “the word of faith which we preach: that if 
 thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is the Lord, 
 and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Him 
 from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” As far as a man 
 is saved, so far is he righteous. For through this faith 
 we believe that God raises us too from the dead. For 
 the present He raises us in our spirit, that in the newness 
 of His grace we may “ live soberly and righteously and Tit. ii. 12. 
 godly in this world,” but hereafter in our flesh also, 
 which will rise to immortality, the reward of the spirit, 
 which, before this resurrection of the flesh has a resur¬ 
 rection suited to itself, viz. justification. “ For we were 
 
62 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 Rom. vi. 4. buried with Christ through baptism into death ; that like 
 as Christ rose again from the dead through the glory of 
 the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life.” 
 
 It is by faith, then, of Jesus Christ that we obtain salvation,, 
 not only as far as it is actually begun in us now, but as 
 we hope for its perfection hereafter. “ For whosoever 
 shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” 
 
 Ps. xxxi. 19. ‘ ‘ How great,” says the Psalmist, “is the multitude of Thy 
 sweetness, O Lord, which Thou hast hidden for those 
 who fear Thee, but hast perfected for those who hope 
 in Thee.” From the law we fear God, from faith we 
 hope in God; but for those who fear punishment grace 
 is hidden. Let the soul labouring under this fear, when 
 it has not overcome evil desire, and the fear like some 
 strict guard still holds it in check, through faith fly for 
 refuge to God’s lovingkindness, that He may give what 
 He commands, and by the inspiration of the sweetness 
 of grace through the Holy Spirit, make the command 
 more delightsome than the hindrance to it. And so is 
 the great multitude of God’s sweetness, (that is, the law 
 of faith, His love, written and shed abroad in men’s 
 hearts), perfected for those who hope in Him, so that 
 the soul healed works what is good, not by fear of 
 punishment but by love of righteousness. 
 
 52. Do we then make free choice of none effect through 
 grace ? God forbid. Nay, rather we establish free choice. 
 For just as the law is not made of none effect, but 
 established through faith, so free choice is not made of 
 none effect through grace, but is established. For not 
 even is the law fulfilled except by free choice; but 
 through the law is the knowledge of sin, through faith 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 6 3 
 
 the obtaining of grace against sin, through grace is the 
 healing of the soul from the corruption of sin, through 
 the healing of the soul is the freedom of the choice, 
 through free choice the love of righteousness, through 
 the love of righteousness the working of the law. And 
 so, just as the law is not made of none effect, but 
 established through faith, because faith obtains grace by 
 which the law may be fulfilled, so free choice is not 
 made of none effect but established through grace, 
 because grace heals the will, by which righteousness 
 
 may be freely loved. All this that I have put together, 
 
 as it were in a chain, finds its expression in the language 
 of Holy Scripture. The law says, “ Thou shalt not 
 desire.” Faith says, “Heal my soul, for I have sinned Ps.xii.4. 
 against Thee.” Grace says, “Behold thou hast been Johnv. 14. 
 healed, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” 
 
 Health says, “O Lord my God, I have cried unto Thee, p s . xxx. 2. 
 and Thou hast healed me.” Free choice says, “I will p s . liv.6. 
 
 freely sacrifice unto Thee.” The love of righteousness 
 
 says, “ The unrighteous have told me of delights, but Ps. cxix. 85. 
 
 not after Thy law, O Lord.” 
 
 How, then, do miserable men dare be proud, either 
 of their free choice before they are set free, or of their 
 own strength when once they have been set free ? And they 
 consider not that, in the very name of free choice, there 
 is sound of freedom at any rate. But “where the Spirit 
 of the Lord is, there is liberty.” If, then, they are the 
 slaves of sin, why do they boast of free choice? “ For 2 Pet. ii. 19. 
 by whom a man has been overcome, to him he is made 
 a slave.” But if they have been made free, why do they 
 boast as though of their own work, and glory as though 
 
6 4 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 they had not received it ? Are they so very free that 
 they do not wish to have Him for their Lord, Who says 
 John xv. 5. to them, “Without Me ye can do nothing,” and “If 
 vm. 36. q ie g Qn shall ma k e y 0 u free, then ye shall be free 
 indeed ”? 
 
 53. Some one might ask whether the faith in which 
 there seems to be the beginning of salvation, or which 
 seems to lead to salvation, in the chain I mentioned 
 above, is placed in our own power. We shall see the 
 proper answer to this question more easily, if we first care¬ 
 fully consider what power is. Now, there are two distinct 
 things, to will and to have power. And he who wills 
 
 to do a thing has not necessarily the power, nor does 
 
 he who has power necessarily will to do it; for just as 
 
 we sometimes will what we have no power to do, so 
 
 do we sometimes have power to do what we will not. 
 If we analyze the expressions, their very sound tells us 
 that “will” comes from the verb “to will,” and “power” 
 from the verb signifying “to have power.” Wherefore, he 
 who wills is possessed of will, and similarly he who has 
 power is possessed of power. But in order for power to 
 take effect, will must be present too. For we are not accus¬ 
 tomed to say that a man has done a thing with power, when 
 he has done it unwillingly (reluctantly). And yet, if we 
 consider the matter more closely, even what a man is 
 compelled to do unwillingly (reluctantly), if he does it, 
 he does it by will ; but because he would have preferred 
 something else, therefore he is said to do it reluctantly 
 or unwillingly. For under pressure of some evil, which 
 he wishes to avoid or remove from him, he does what 
 he is compelled to do. For if his will be so great that 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 65 
 
 he would rather endure the evil consequences than do 
 the act, he doubtless resists the person who is compelling 
 him, and does it not. And so if he does it, it is not 
 with a full and free will it is true, but it is not without 
 a will that he does it. And inasmuch as this will is 
 followed by action, we cannot say that he has lacked power. 
 For if he had yielded to the person who was trying to 
 compel him and wished to do it, and yet could not, 
 we should have to say that he had the will, even though 
 it was extorted from him, but had not the power. But 
 supposing his reason for not doing it was that he was 
 unwilling, in that case he would have the power, but 
 not the will, as long as he resisted the person compelling 
 him and did it not. And this is why even those who 
 are trying to compel or persuade a man to do a thing 
 are accustomed to say, “ Why do you not do what it 
 is in your power to do, to avoid the evil consequences 
 of not doing it?” And those who really have no power 
 to do the thing at all which they are being compelled 
 to do under the belief that they have, are wont to excuse 
 themselves by saying, “ I would do it if it were in my 
 power.” We see, then, without further discussion, that 
 we mean by power will combined with the capacity of 
 action. Wherefore a man is said to have that thing 
 in his power which he does if he wills, and does not 
 if he wills not. 
 
 54. Consider now the question we have proposed for 
 discussion, whether faith lies in our power. We are now 
 speaking of the faith which we exercise when we believe 
 a thing, not the faith we give when we make a promise, 
 for that also is called faith. We mean one thing when 
 
66 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 i Cor. x. i 
 
 Rom. iv.3, 
 
 Rom. xiii. 
 
 we say “He had no faith in me,” another when we 
 say “ He did not keep faith with me.” For the first 
 means “ He did not believe what I said,” the second 
 “ He did not do what he said.” It is with the faith 
 by which we believe, that we are faithful to God ; but 
 with that by which one performs what he promises even 
 God Himself is faithful to us. For the Apostle implies 
 3. this when he writes, “ God is faithful, Who will not 
 suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.” Now the 
 faith which we mean, when we inquire whether faith is in 
 our own power, is that by which we believe God, or believe 
 5- in God. Of this it was written, “Abraham believed God 
 and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and “To 
 him that believeth in Him That justifieth the ungodly, 
 his faith is counted for righteousness.” 
 
 Consider now whether man believes if he wills not, 
 or does not believe if he wills to believe; and if it is 
 absurd to think so (for what is believing but consenting 
 that what is said is true ? and consent is the act of 
 a willing agent) then certainly faith is in our power. 
 1. But, as the Apostle says, “There is no power but of 
 God;” what reason is there then why it should not be 
 said even of this power, “For what hast thou that 
 thou didst not receive”? For even to believe is God’s 
 gift. But we nowhere read in Holy Scripture, “There 
 is no will but of God.” And rightly so, for it is not 
 true; otherwise God is the author even of sins (which 
 God forbid!) if there is no will but of Him; for an 
 evil will by itself is sin, even if it result not in action, 
 or, in other words, have not the power. Accordingly 
 when an evil will receives the power of fulfilling what 
 
 l 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 67 
 
 it intends, this comes from the' judgment of God, 
 with Whom is no unrighteousness. For He punishes 
 even in this way, and not unjustly, because secretly. 
 
 But the unrighteous man does not know that he is 
 
 being punished, except when by manifest punishment he 
 
 is made unwillingly to feel how great the evil is which 
 
 he has committed willingly. This is what the Apostle 
 
 says of certain persons, “God gave them up to the Rom. i. 28. 
 
 desires of their heart, to do those things which are 
 
 not convenient.” Of this, too, the Lord said to Pilate, 
 
 “Thou wouldst have no power against Me, except it Johnxix. n. 
 were given thee from above.” But when power is given 
 no necessity certainly is imposed. Thus when David 
 had received the power of killing Saul, he preferred 1 Sam. xxiv. 
 to spare him rather than to strike him. From this we I0;xxvi ' 9 ' ir 
 see that the wicked receive power for the condemnation 
 of their evil will, but the good to prove their good will. 
 
 55. Since, therefore, faith is in our power, because when 
 a man wills he believes, and when he believes he believes 
 willingly; we must inquire further, or rather consider 
 again, what faith the Apostle is commending with so much 
 earnestness. For it is not good to believe everything, for 
 else what would be the reason of saying, “Brethren, believe 1 John iv. 1. 
 not every spirit ; but prove the Spirit which is of God.” 
 
 Nor in that praise of love ought we so to understand the 
 
 words “ believeth all things ” as to lessen our estimate of a iCor.xiii.7. 
 
 man’s love if he does not at once believe whatever he may 
 
 hear. Does not the same love admonish us not readily to 
 
 believe any evil of a brother, and if any evil is told her, does 
 
 she not consider that it becomes her rather not to believe 
 
 it ? In the last place the very love which believes all 
 
68 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 Rom.viii. 
 
 Rom. iii. 
 
 things believes not every spirit ; and so she believes all 
 things, but believes God, for it is not said “ believes 
 all beings.”* It is clear, then, that the faith commended 
 by the Apostle is that by which a man believes God. 
 
 56. But a further distinction has still to be made. For 
 they also believe God who are under the law, and 
 through fear of punishment are trying to work their own 
 righteousness, and, therefore, are not working the righteous¬ 
 ness of God, because that is the work of love, which only 
 likes what is lawful, not of fear, which is compelled to do 
 what is lawful while it wills something else, and would 
 therefore prefer that, if it were possible, what is not lawful 
 were lawful. These, I say, believe God ; for if they did 
 not, they certainly would not fear the punishment of the 
 law. But this is not the faith which the Apostle commends, 
 15. when he says “ For ye have not received the spirit of 
 slavery again unto fear, but ye have received the spirit of 
 the adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba, Father.” That 
 fear, then, is slavish, and therefore, although by it a man 
 believes the Lord, yet it is not, however, from love of 
 righteousness, but from fear of condemnation. But 
 sons cry “ Abba, Father,” of which two words the first 
 belongs to the Circumcision, the second to the Uncircum- 
 30. cision, “ of the Jew first and also of the Greek,” “ seeing it 
 is one God, which justifies the Circumcision from faith, and 
 the Uncircumcision through faith.” But when they so cry, 
 they seek for something ; and what do they seek for, 
 except what they are hungering and thirsting after ? And 
 
 * Omnia quidem credit, sed Deo ; quia non dictum est, omnibus. 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 69 
 
 what is this but that which is said of them, “Blessed are Matt. v. 6. 
 they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for 
 they shall be filled?” 
 
 To this let them pass, who are under the law, that from 
 being slaves they may become sons, and yet not in such a 
 way as to cease being slaves, but as sons to be the slaves of 
 the Lord and Father in freedom, for this too they have 
 received. For the Only-begotten gave “power to become John i. 12. 
 the sons of God to them that believe on His name,” and 
 Ho admonished them to ask, to seek, to knock, that they Matt. vii. 7- 
 
 11. 
 
 may receive and find, and that it may be opened to them ; 
 
 adding this rebuke, “ If ye, being evil, know how to give 
 
 good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your 
 
 Father Which is in Heaven give good things to them that 
 
 ask Him.” When, then, the law which is “the strength iCor.xv.56. 
 
 of sin ” has inflamed “ the sting of death,” so that having 
 
 taken occasion sin through the commandment works all Rom. vii. 8. 
 
 manner of desire, from whom can a man seek self-restraint 
 
 except from Him, Who knows how to give good gifts to 
 
 His children ? Or perchance the man is so foolish that he 
 
 does not know that “ no one can restrain himself unless Wisd.viH.21 
 
 God gives it.” To know this, therefore, he needs nothing 
 
 less than wisdom. Why, then, does he not listen to the 
 
 Spirit of his Father speaking through the Apostle of Christ, 
 
 or to Christ Himself, Who says in His Gospel, “Ask, and ye 
 
 shall receive,” and speaks also in His Apostle and says, “If Jamesi.5,6. 
 
 any of you need wisdom, let him ask of God, That giveth 
 
 to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be 
 
 given him : but let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.” 
 
 This is the faith from which the righteous man lives. This 
 is the faith by which a man believes on Him Who justifies 
 
7 ° 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 the ungodly. This is the faith through which boasting is 
 See? 17. excluded, whether that expression means that the boasting 
 by which we are inflated is excluded so as to depart, or that 
 the boasting by which we glory in the Lord is pressed out 
 so as to become prominent. This is the faith by which is 
 obtained the plenteousness of the Spirit, of Whom it is 
 Gal.v. 5. said, “ For we by the Spirit from faith wait for the hope of 
 righteousness.” Here indeed we might still ask whether 
 the hope of righteousness signifies that with which 
 righteousness hopes, or that by which righteousness itself 
 is hoped for. Because the righteous man who lives from 
 faith certainly hopes for eternal life ; and likewise the faith 
 which hungers and thirsts after righteousness advances in 
 righteousness by the renewal of the inward man from day 
 to day, and hopes to be satisfied with it in eternal life, 
 when that will be realized which is said of God in the 
 Ps. dii. 5. Psalm, “Who satisfieth thy desire with good things.” This 
 is the faith by which they are saved to whom it is said, 
 E P h. ii. 8-10. “ By grace have ye been saved through faith ; this not of 
 yourselves, but it is the gift of God ; not from works, lest 
 perchance any man should boast. For we are His work¬ 
 manship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which 
 God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” 
 Gal. v. 6. Lastly, this is the faith which works through love, not through 
 fear, not by fearing punishment, but by loving righteous¬ 
 ness. Whence, then, is that love, that is, the charity 
 through which faith works, but from the source from which 
 faith itself has obtained it? For it would not be in us, 
 even as far "as it is in us, were it not shed abroad in our 
 hearts by the Holy Spirit Which is given unto us. Now 
 by the love of God which is shed abroad in our hearts is 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 71 
 
 meant, not the love by which He .Himself loves us, but 
 that by which He makes us love Him ; just as by the 
 righteousness of God is meant that by which we are made 
 righteous by His gift, and by the salvation of the Lord is 
 meant that by which He saves us, and by the faith of 
 Jesus Christ that by which He makes us believers. This is 
 the righteousness of God, which He not only teaches 
 through the commandment of the law, but gives through 
 the gift of the Spirit. 
 
 57. But it still remains for us to consider fora while whether 
 the will by which we believe is itself too God’s gift, or 
 should be regarded as arising out of free choice, which is 
 by nature planted in us. For if we say that it is not God’s 
 gift, it is to be feared that we may think that we have found 
 an answer to the Apostle’s rebuke and question, “ What hast 
 thou that thou didst not receive ? Now, if thou didst receive 
 it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it ? ” 
 For we might say, “ Lo, we have the will to believe, which 
 we did not receive ; lo, here is something to glory in, which 
 we have not received.” But if, on the other hand, we say 
 that even will of this kind is not other than a gift of God, 
 again it is to be feared that unbelievers and ungodly men 
 may seem to excuse themselves with some show of justice, 
 saying that the reason they have not believed is that God 
 has not thought good to give them that will. For the 
 words, “ For it is God Which worketh in us both to will 
 and to work for His good pleasure,” refer now to the grace 
 which faith obtains, that man may be enabled to have the 
 good works, which faith works by love, shed abroad in the 
 heart through the Holy Spirit Which is given unto us. But* we 
 
 See $ 15. 
 See ? 18. 
 See $ 18. 
 
 Cor. iv. 7. 
 
 ‘hi 1. ii. 13, 
 
 * Sed, so MSS. Si, in Ben., and other Edd. 
 
7 2 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 i Tim. ii. 
 
 believe in order that we may obtain this grace, and certainly 
 we believe by our will; the question, then, is whence we have 
 this will. If by nature, why do not all have it, since the 
 same God is the Creator of all ? If by God’s gift, again 
 why not all, since He “ willeth all men to be saved, and to 
 come unto the knowledge of the truth ” ? 
 
 58. First, then, let us suppose the former of these two 
 alternatives and see whether it gives a satisfactory answer 
 to our inquiry. Let us suppose that free choice, given as 
 a natural property by the Creator to the rational soul, is a 
 neutral power, which may be inclined either to faith or 
 unbelief. In this case, not even that will by which a man 
 believes in God can he be said to have, without having 
 received it; since at the call of God it arises from the free 
 choice which he received naturally when he was created. 
 
 4. But God “willeth all men to be saved, and to come unto the 
 knowledge of the truth,” not, however, so as to take away 
 their free choice, but that they may be most justly judged 
 for a good or bad use of it. Under these circumstances unbe¬ 
 lievers act contrary to God’s will when they do not believe His 
 Gospel ; but they do not therefore overcome it, but deprive 
 themselves of a great and the highest good, and involve 
 themselves in evils sent as a punishment, to find in punish¬ 
 ment the power of Him Whose mercy in gifts they have 
 despised. Thus God’s will is never overcome; but it would 
 be overeome if He found no way of treating those who 
 despised Him, or if they could in any way evade what He has 
 determined concerning them. For if a man says, for the 
 sake of example, “ I wish all these slaves of mine to work 
 
 I 
 
 in my vineyard, and after work to rest and feast, so that 
 whoever of them refuses to do this must grind for ever in 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 73 
 
 a mill,” the slave who despises his wish seems indeed to be 
 acting contrary to the will of his lord ; but then only will 
 he overcome it, if he succeed in despising and escaping the 
 mill as well. And this can in no wise happen under God’s 
 power. 
 
 Similarly it is written, “ God spake once,” that is, Ps.ixii.11,12 
 unchangeably (though it might be also taken of the only- 
 begotten Word), and then, adding what He said unchange¬ 
 ably, the Psalmist says, “These two things have I heard, that 
 power belongeth unto God, and to Thee, Lord, be- 
 longeth mercy, for Thou wilt render to every man accord¬ 
 ing to his works.” He, then, will be guilty and con¬ 
 demned under His power, who has despised His mercy 
 
 and refused to believe. But whoever has believed and has 
 
 • 
 
 committed himself to Him to be absolved from all sins, 
 and to be healed of all faults, and to be enkindled and 
 enlightened by His heat and light, will have by His grace 
 good works, by which he may be redeemed even in his 
 body from the corruption of death, crowned and satisfied 
 with good things, not temporal but eternal, above what we 
 ask and think. 
 
 59. This order has been maintained in the Psalm where 
 it is said, “ Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all Ps. ciii. 2-5. 
 His rewards, Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who 
 healeth all thy infirmities, Who redeemeth thy life from 
 corruption, Who crowneth thee with mercy and loving¬ 
 kindness, Who satisfieth thy desire with good things.” 
 
 And lest, perchance, the deformity of this old state, that 
 is, of mortality, should despair of these great blessings, 
 he says, “ Thy youth shall be renewed like the eagle’s,” as 
 though he were to say, “ These things which you have 
 
74 THE spirit and the letter. 
 
 heard belong to the new man and the New Covenant.” 
 Reconsider with me for a while this same passage, I 
 beseech you, and look with delight on its praise of loving¬ 
 kindness, that is, God’s grace. “ Bless the Lord,” he says, 
 “ O my soul, and forget not all His rewards.” He does 
 not say, “ all His gifts,” but “ all His rewards,” because 
 He rewardeth good for evil. “ Who forgiveth all thine 
 iniquities” : this takes place in the Sacrament of Baptism. 
 “Who healeth all thy sicknesses : ” this takes place in the 
 Gal.v. 17. present life of a believer, while “the flesh lusteth against 
 the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, so that we do 
 Rom. vii. 25, not the things that we would, while another law in our 
 
 18. 0 
 
 members warreth against the law of our mind ; while to 
 will is present with us, but to perfect that which is good, 
 is not.” And these sicknesses of our old life, if we advance 
 with perseverance of purpose, are healed as our new life 
 grows from day to day from faith which worketh through 
 love. “ Who redeemeth thy life from corruption : ” this is 
 done in the final resurrection from the dead. “Who 
 crowneth thee with mercy and lovingkindness: ” this is 
 done in the Judgment. For when the just King shall sit 
 upon His Throne to render to every man according to His' 
 works, who will boast that he has a chaste heart ? or who 
 will boast that he is pure from sin ? It was necessary, 
 therefore, to mention the mercy and lovingkindness of the 
 Lord at that point where it might seem that debts would 
 be demanded and merits rewarded so strictly as to leave 
 no room for lovingkindness. “ He crowneth, therefore, 
 with mercy and lovingkindness,” but even so according to 
 men’s works. For he will be separated to the right hand, 
 to whom it is to be said, “ I was an hungered and thou 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 75 
 
 gavest me to eat,” since there is to be judgment without 
 mercy only to him who has showed no mercy. But “ Blessed 
 are the merciful, for God will be merciful to them.” Now, 
 when those on the left hand shall have gone into eternal 
 burning, but the righteous into eternal life (because “ this,” 
 he says, “ is life eternal, that they may know Thee the 
 only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent ”), John xvii. 3. 
 by that knowledge, by that vision, by that contemplation, 
 will the desire of the soul be satisfied with good things. 
 
 For this alone satisfies it; beyond this it has nothing to 
 
 seek, to pant for, to require. For he was burning with the 
 
 desire of this satiety, who said to the Lord Christ, “Show johnxiv.8,9 
 
 us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” To whom the answer 
 
 was given, “ He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father 
 
 also.” “ For this is life eternal itself, that they should know 
 
 Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast 
 
 sent.” But if he who has seen the Son has seen also the 
 
 Father, then certainly he who sees the Father and the Son 
 
 sees also the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son. So 
 
 we do not take away free choice, and our soul blesses the 
 
 Lord, not forgetting all His rewards ; neither does the 
 
 soul ignorant of God’s righteousness wish to establish its 
 
 -own, but believes on Him Who justifies the ungodly, and 
 
 lives by faith until it be led to sight, by that faith verily 
 
 which works through love. And this love is shed abroad 
 
 in our hearts, not through the sufficiency of our own will, 
 
 nor through the letter of the law, but through the Holy 
 
 Spirit Which has been given unto us. 
 
 60. Let this discussion suffice, if it suffices to solve the 
 question. But it may be answered, that we ought to 
 he careful lest we should think that sin, which comes in 
 
7 6 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 through free choice, must be attributed to God, if in the 
 words, “ What hast thou which thou hast not received ? ” 
 even the will by which we believe is assigned to God’s 
 gift, just because it comes of the free choice, which 
 we received when we were created. Let us, then, consider 
 carefully and see that that will ought not to be attributed 
 to God’s gift, solelv on the ground that it comes from 
 the free choice which was created with us as part of 
 our nature, but also because God influences our will 
 and belief by the persuasions of things perceived. This 
 takes place either from without through the exhortations 
 of the Gospel, where even the commandments of the 
 law have some effect if they admonish a man of his 
 weakness in order that he may by believing take refuge 
 in justifying grace, or from within, where no one has it 
 in his power to decide what shall come into his mind, 
 but to consent or dissent belongs to his own will. When 
 in these ways, then, God so acts with the rational soul 
 that it believes on Him (for a man cannot believe anything 
 by free choice, unless there be some persuasion or call 
 to determine his belief), then certainly even the very 
 wish to believe is the work of God in man, and in all 
 things His mercy prevents us. But to consent to God’s 
 call or to dissent from it belongs, as I said before, to 
 man’s own will. And this not only does not weaken 
 the saying, “For what hast thou, which thou didst not 
 receive ? ” but it even confirms it. The soul certainly 
 cannot receive and have the gifts about which it hears 
 these words except by consenting, and so what a man 
 may receive and have belongs to God ; but the act of 
 receiving and having belongs to him who receives and has- 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 77 
 
 Now if any one compel us to investigate that deep) 
 question, why one man is so persuaded as to be thoroughly 
 convinced, and not another, for the moment only two 
 things occur to me which I should like to say in reply. 
 
 “ O the depth of the riches ! ” and “ Is there unrighteous- Rom. xi. 33 
 ness with God ? ” And if any one does not approve of Rom. ix. 14 
 this answer, let him seek for some more learned teachers, 
 but let him be careful lest those he find should be 
 overbold. 
 
 61. Let us now, at length, bring our work to a close. 
 
 Whether we have effected anything by its great prolixity, I 
 know not; I do not mean with you whose faith I know, but in 
 the minds of those for whom you wished me to write. It 
 is not our opinion that they are opposing, but (to express 
 it gently, and not say the opinion of Him Who spake in 
 His Apostles) the opinion of the great Apostle Paul, and 
 that not merely once stated, but contended with such 
 vehemence and earnestness. And they prefer defending 
 their own opinion to listening to the Apostle, when he 
 beseeches them by the mercy of God, and tells them 
 through the grace of God given unto him, not to think 
 more highly than they ought to think, but to think soberly 
 according as God hath dealt to every man a measure of 
 faith. 
 
 62. Consider now the question you proposed to me, and 
 the result we have arrived at by such a great and lengthy 
 discussion. You were perplexed, you will remember, to 
 understand how it can be said to be possible for a man to 
 be without sin, supposing his will is not wanting, and he is 
 assisted by God’s help, although no one in this piresent life 
 either has been or is or will be so perfectly righteous. For 
 
78 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 Wisd. xi. 17, 
 18 ; xvi. 24. 
 
 this is what I said on this subject in the books which I 
 wrote to you before, “ If I am asked,” I said, “ whether it 
 is possible for man to be without sin in this present life, I 
 will confess that it is possible through God’s grace and his 
 own free choice; without hesitating to say that even free 
 choice belongs to God’s grace, that is, God’s gifts, and that 
 not merely because God makes it, but because He makes 
 it good, that is, converts it to do the Lord’s commands. 
 And so the object of God’s grace is not only to point out 
 what ought to be done, but also to help so as to make possible 
 what it points out.” But to you it seemed absurd that, if a 
 thing is possible, we should have no instance of it. From this 
 arose the question of this book, and so it was necessary for 
 us to show that there were things that were possible, even 
 though there was no instance of their occurrence. For this 
 purpose, in the beginning of this treatise we gave instances 
 from the Gospel and the Law—as of a camel going through 
 a needle’s eye, and the twelve thousand legions of angels 
 who might have fought for Christ had He wished, and 
 those nations which God says He might have exterminated 
 at once from before His people; all of which did not 
 actually take place. To these might be added also what we 
 read in the book of Wisdom, how many new plagues God 
 might have employed against the ungodly with creatures 
 serving His behest, but He did not employ them. And 
 again, we may instance the mountain which faith should 
 move into the sea ; yet we have never read or heard of its 
 having happened. If a man were to say that any of these 
 things is impossible with God, you see how foolish he 
 would be, and how contrary to the faith of God’s Scrip¬ 
 ture he would speak. Many other things of the same 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 79 
 
 kind might occur to us, as we read or think, which we 
 cannot deny are possible with God, although there is no 
 instance of their occurrence. 
 
 63. But because it might be said that those are works of 
 God, but to live righteously belongs to our own works, I 
 undertook to show that even this was a work of God, and 
 this I have treated of in this book more fully than was 
 necessary perhaps ; but against the enemies of God’s grace 
 I seem to have said but too little, and never am I so pleased 
 to speak, as when God’s Scripture is so abundant in my 
 support, and when my object is that he that glorieth may 
 glory in the Lord, and in all things we may give thanks to 
 our Lord God, lifting up our hearts to that place whence 
 every good gift and every perfect gift cometh from the 
 Father of lights. For if it is not God’s work, because it is 
 done through us or we do it by His gift, then neither is the 
 moving of the mountain into the sea God’s work; because 
 it is through men’s faith that our Lord said it can be 
 done, and He attributed it to their work, saying, “ If ye 
 have faith in you as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say 
 to this mountain, Be thou removed and be thou cast into 
 the sea, and it shall be done, and nothing shall be impos¬ 
 sible unto you.” Notice, He said “unto you,” not “unto 
 Me,” or “unto the Father,” and yet man in no wise does 
 this without God’s gift and work. 
 
 You see, then, how perfect righteousness, though without 
 example among men, is nevertheless not impossible. For 
 it might be effected, if a will of sufficient power for so 
 great an object were directed towards it; and the will 
 would be sufficient, if not only we knew every single thing 
 that belongs to righteousness, but also our minds were so 
 
8 o 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 delighted therewith, that no other pleasure or pain could 
 any longer hinder our joy. That this is not so belongs 
 not to the impossibility of the thing, but to God’s decree. 
 For who can but know that man's knowledge lies not in 
 his own power, and that it follows not that he will desire 
 what he knows to be desirable, unless it delights him as 
 much as it deserves ? But this is true only of the healthy 
 soul. 
 
 64. But some one may think perchance that we lack 
 nothing towards the knowledge of righteousness, because 
 Rom ix. 28. the Lord, finishing the word and cutting it short upon 
 the earth, said that upon two commandments hung all 
 the Law and the Prophets; and did not pass them over 
 in silence, but set them forth in the plainest language, 
 Matt. xxii. saying, “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
 
 37-4O. 
 
 thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, 
 and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” What can 
 be truer than that when these have been fulfilled, righteous¬ 
 ness is altogether fulfilled ? But let him who considers 
 this consider also how in many things we all offend, 
 while we think we are pleasing, or are not displeasing, 
 God Whom we love in what we do, and afterwards, 
 when we have learned, either through LI is Scripture or by 
 the warnings of certain and clear reason, what pleases Him 
 not, we penitently pray for pardon. The life of man 
 is full of such teachings. How comes it that we do 
 not know well enough what pleases Him, except that 
 TC0r.xiii.12 He Himself is not well enough known to us ? For now 
 we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. 
 Who then would dare to think that when they have 
 come to that state described in the words “that I may 
 
 J 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 81 
 
 know even as also I am known,” those who see God will 
 not have a greater love for Him than those who believe 
 have now ? or that the one love can be in any way even 
 approximately compared to the other ? If, therefore, the 
 greater the knowledge the greater be the love, then we 
 must certainly believe that the imperfection of our 
 righteousness is measured by the imperfection of our love. 
 
 For a thing may be known or believed without being 
 loved ; but that cannot be loved which is neither known 
 nor believed. But if, by believing, saints have been able 
 to attain to so great love (than which the Lord has testified John xv. 3 . 
 there can be no greater in this life), as to lay down their 
 lives for the faith or the brethren; then when, after this 
 pilgrimage in which we now walk by faith, we shall have 
 arrived at sight (which, having not yet seen, we hope for and 
 by patience wait for it), love itself will doubtless also be not 
 only above what we now have, but far above what we ask and 
 think. Still that love cannot possibly be more than “with 
 all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind.” For 
 we have nothing left to add to what is “ all,” for it would 
 not be “ all,” if anything were left. This first command¬ 
 ment, then, of righteousness, by which we are bidden to love 
 the Lord with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all 
 the mind, next to which comes the other of loving 
 one’s neighbour, we shall fulfil in that life when we 
 shall see face to face. But the reason why this command¬ 
 ment has been given us even now is that we may be 
 admonished what we should demand by faith, whither 
 we should direct our hopes, and what things before us 
 we should stretch forward to, forgetting those things 
 which are behind. And so he has made, I think, a great 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 advance during this life in the righteousness, which is to 
 be made perfect, who has gone far enough to discover 
 how far he is from the perfect righteousness. 
 
 65. But if we may speak of a lesser righteousness, as 
 it were, suited for this life, in which the righteous man 
 lives by faith although absent from the Lord, and, 
 therefore, walking bv faith and not yet by sight, it is 
 not absurd to say that it belongs even to this righteous¬ 
 ness not to sin. And yet it ought not to be counted 
 as a man’s fault if there cannot be yet so great a love 
 of God as is due to that full and perfect knowledge. 
 Because not to have attained to perfect love is a very 
 different thing from being led by no evil desire. 
 Wherefore a man ought, even though he loves God far 
 less than it is possible to love Him when he sees Him, 
 nevertheless to seek after nothing which is unlawful. 
 Just in the same way also in regard to objects of sense, 
 it is quite possible for the eye to take no delight in dark¬ 
 ness, though it is not possible for it to gaze on the most 
 brilliant light.* 4 
 
 But come, let us now suppose a human soul so consti¬ 
 tuted in this corruptible body that, although it has not yet 
 by that exceedingly excellent and perfect love for God 
 absorbed and swallowed up all the feelings of earthly 
 desire, yet in that state of lesser righteousness it consents 
 not by the slightest leaning to that desire, so as to work 
 anything that is unlawful. So that to the higher life even 
 now immortal belongs the precept “ Thou shalt love the 
 
 * The Benedictine text here inserts the passage beginning on p. 83, 
 “ Having determined this—fear of punishment” without MSS. 
 authority. 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER . 
 
 83 
 
 Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, 
 
 and with all thy might to this lower life belong the 
 
 words “Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye Rom.vi. 22. 
 
 should obey the lusts thereof”; to that higher life “Thou 
 
 shalt not desire”; to this lower “Go not after thy desires”: Eccles.xviii. 
 
 3 °. 
 
 to that it belongs to seek nothing further than to continue 
 in that perfection; to this that a man should still be 
 working what he has in hand, and hope for its perfection 
 as a reward. So that through that other life the righteous 
 man lives without end in “ sight,” which he has longed for 
 in this ; while through this the righteous man lives by 
 faith, in which he longs for that higher life with fixed 
 limitations. Having determined this, it will be sin for a 
 man who lives by faith even to consent to any unlawful 
 pleasure, not only in perpetrating what are regarded as 
 horrible deeds and crimes, but in things of a less heinous 
 character, such as lending the ear to any words which 
 should not be heard, or allowing the tongue to utter what 
 should not be uttered, or even so thinking in the heart as 
 to wish that to be lawful which he is wrong in liking, and 
 knows through the commandment to be unlawful. For 
 even that consent partakes of the nature of sin, for it 
 would become act but for the fear of punishment. Have 
 such righteous men living by faith no need to say “Forgive Matt. vi. 12. 
 us our debts as we also forgive our debtors ”? And do 
 they prove the Scriptures to be false which say, “ In Thy p s< cx nii. 2 . 
 sight shall no man living be justified,” and “ If we shall 
 say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth x 1. g. 
 is not in us,” and “That there is no man that will not sin,” z Kings viii. 
 and “ There is not a righteous man upon earth that doeth Ecdes. vii. 
 good and will not sin”? Notice, that both these last 
 
I 
 
 84 THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 passages speak not of the past, “has not sinned,” but of 
 the future, “will not sin and there are other things said 
 in Holy Scripture to this same purpose. But since these 
 words of Scripture cannot be false, I see that it follows 
 that whatever kind or degree of righteousness we may 
 define as possible in this life, there is no man living in it 
 who is altogether without sin. And for every man it is 
 necessary to give that it may be given unto him, to forgive 
 that it may be forgiven him; and, if he has any righteous¬ 
 ness, not to presume upon it, as though it were his own, 
 but to refer it to the grace of a justifying God, and never¬ 
 theless to hunger and thirst after righteousness from Him 
 Who is “the Living Bread,” and with Whom is the fountain 
 of Life; Who so works justification in His saints while 
 labouring in this life of temptation that there is still some¬ 
 thing for His bounty to give to those who seek it, some¬ 
 thing for His mercy to pardon for those who confess. 
 
 66. But let them find, if they can, some one living 
 under the burden of this corruption, whom God has 
 even now nothing to pardon; yet if they maintain that 
 he was helped to be so only by the teaching of the 
 law which was given him, and not also by the grace¬ 
 giving Spirit Which was infused, they will incur the charge, 
 not of any ordinary sin, but of ungodliness itself. 
 Although they will be utterly unable to find such a one, 
 if they receive in their true sense those passages of Divine 
 Scripture, yet it ought by no means to be said that God 
 has not the power of so helping man’s will that not 
 only that righteousness which is of faith may now be 
 completely perfected in man, but even that righteousness 
 also in which man is hereafter to live eternally in the very 
 
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. 
 
 85 
 
 contemplation of God. Since, if God should will now that 
 in any man even this corruptible should put on incor¬ 
 ruption, and should choose to command him to live here 
 among mortal men an immortal life, so that, his old 
 life being altogether done away, no law in his members 
 should war against the law of his mind, and he should 
 know the ever-present God as completely as the saints 
 will hereafter know Him, who would be so mad as to 
 dare to assert that God could not do it ? But men ask 
 why God does not do it. Those who so ask do not 
 consider that they are men. I know that, as there is 
 nothing impossible, so there is no unrighteousness with 
 God. And I know that He “ resisteth the proud, but giveth 
 grace unto the humble.” And I know that he who had 
 the thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, given him 
 to buffet him, that he might not be exalted above measure, 
 when he prayed for its removal, once, twice, and a third time 
 was told “ My grace is sufficient for thee, for strength is 
 made perfect in weakness.” There is some reason, then, 
 in the secret depths of God’s judgment, by which every 
 mouth, even of the righteous, should be stopped in its 
 own praise, and not be opened except in praise of God. 
 
 But this reason who can possibly pry into ? who can 
 
 find out ? who can know ? “ So unsearchable are His Rom.xi. 33- 
 
 36. 
 
 judgments, and His ways past finding out. For who 
 hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been His 
 counsellor ? or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be 
 recompensed unto him again ? For of Him and through 
 Him and unto Him are all things. To Him be glory for 
 ever and ever. Amen.” 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 87 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 1. I have laid aside for the moment the work which I 
 had on hand, and have read through the book which you, 
 my dearest sons, Timasius and James, sent me, rapidly 
 indeed, but with no slight attention. I see therein a 
 man inflamed with the most burning zeal against those 
 who, instead of accusing the will of man for their own 
 sins, rather accuse the nature of man, and on that account 
 endeavour to excuse themselves. He has excited himself 
 beyond measure against this pestilential habit; for even 
 secular writers have severely censured it, saying, “ False 
 are the complaints which the human race makes of its 
 own nature.” It is exactly this opinion which your author 
 also has emphasized with all the ability that he possesses. 
 I am afraid, however, that he inclines to cast in his lot with 
 those who “ have a zeal for God but not according to 
 knowledge : for they, being ignorant of God’s righteous¬ 
 ness and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted 
 themselves unto the righteousness of God.” And the 
 Apostle unfolds in the following words what that righteous¬ 
 ness of God is, of which he here speaks, adding, “ For 
 Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone 
 that believeth.” Hence, the man who understands that 
 
 Sallust: 
 Prologue to 
 Jugurtliine 
 War. 
 
 Rom. x. 2,3. 
 
 Rom. x. 4. 
 
Gal. iii. 
 Gal. ii. 
 
 Rom. iv 
 
 Rom. iii. 
 24. 
 
 Matt. ix. 
 
 13 • 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 
 
 Rom. x. 
 17, 18. 
 
 88 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 this righteousness of God does not lie in the command¬ 
 ment of the law which inspires fear, but in the assistance 
 of the grace of Christ, to which alone the fear of the 
 24. law, as of a schoolmaster, profitably guides us, this 
 21. man, I say, understands why he is a Christian. For “if 
 righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for 
 nought.” But if He died not for nought, in Him alone 
 is the ungodly justified when believing in Him Who 
 justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 
 . 8 . “For all have sinned and need the glory of God, being 
 23, justified freely” through His blood. But whoever are 
 not supposed to belong to this class of “all” who “have 
 sinned and need the glory of God,” have certainly no 
 12, necessity for becoming Christians ; for “ they that be whole 
 need not a physician, but they that are sick,” and therefore 
 He “ came not to call the righteous but sinners.” 
 
 2. And hence it follows that if the nature of the human 
 race, as engendered from the flesh of that one transgressor, 
 is sufficient of itself to fulfil the law and to perfect 
 righteousness, it ought to be certain of the reward, that 
 is, of eternal life, even if in some race or in some bygone 
 
 age it knew not of faith in the blood of Christ. For 
 
 God is not unrighteous that He should defraud the 
 
 righteous of the reward of righteousness, if they have 
 
 16 not been told of the mystery which was manifested in the 
 flesh, of the Divinity and Humanity of Christ. 
 
 14, For “how should they believe that which they have 
 not heard ? or how should they hear without a preacher ? ’ * 
 For “faith cometh by hearing,” as it is written: “but 
 hearing by the word of Christ. But I say,” the Apostle 
 continues, “have they not heard? Their sound is gone 
 
 
i 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 89 
 
 out into all the earth, and their words into the ends of 
 the world.” But before this began to take place, and 
 before this preaching reaches to the very ends of the 
 whole world (since there are still some most remote 
 nations, although, as it is said, they are very few in 
 number, to whom this has not yet been preached), what 
 will, or what did human nature do, seeing that in the 
 one case it had not heard beforehand that this would 
 take place, in the other it is still in ignorance that it has 
 taken place ? It could and can but believe in God Who 
 made heaven and earth, and by Whom also it instinctively 
 feels that it was created, and live uprightly, and thus 
 fulfil His will, without being instructed in the faith of the 
 Passion and Resurrection of Christ. And if this was 
 possible or is possible, I too say the same as the Apostle 
 said about the law, “Then Christ died for nought.” For 
 if he said this of that law which the one nation of the 
 Jews received, with how much greater justice is it said 
 of the law of nature which the whole human race received, 
 
 “ If righteousness be by nature, then Christ died for 
 nought ” ? But if Christ died not for nought, then the 
 whole of human nature can in no way be justified and 
 redeemed from the most righteous wrath of God, that 
 is from punishment, but through the faith and the mystery* 4 
 of the blood of Christ. 
 
 3. Truly the nature of man was originally created 
 blameless and without any corruption; but that nature 
 of man, with which each is born of Adam, now needs 
 a physician because it is not whole. Every good thing, 
 indeed, which it possesses in its constitution, life, senses, 
 intellect, it has from the most high God, its Creator and 
 
 Gal. ii. 21. 
 
 5 Sacramen- 
 tura. 
 
go 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 2 Cor. v. 17. 
 
 Eph. ii. 3-5. 
 
 Rom. iii. 24. 
 
 Rom. iii. 23 
 
 Rom. ix. 21, 
 and S. Aug. 
 Serm. xxvi. 
 5 13. 
 
 Rom. ix. 2 , 3 
 
 Maker. But the corruption which darkens and weakens 
 those good gifts of nature, so that it needs illumination 
 and healing, was not derived from its blameless Maker, 
 but from original sin which was committed through free 
 choice; and on this account a penal nature is a part of 
 a most righteous punishment. For if we are now in 
 Christ a new creature, still we were by nature children 
 of wrath, even as the rest; but God, Who is rich in mercy, 
 for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when 
 we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with 
 Christ, by Whose grace we have been made whole. 
 
 4. But this grace of Christ, without which neither 
 infants nor aged can be made whole, is not paid for 
 merits, but is given gratis; and for this reason is termed 
 “ grace.” As the Apostle says, “ Being justified freely 
 (gratis) through His blood,” wherefore those who are 
 not by this means set free (either because they have 
 not yet been able to hear, or because they refused to 
 obey, or even because, when by reason of old age they 
 could not hear, they received not the washing of regenera¬ 
 tion which they might have received and been saved), 
 are certainly righteously condemned ; since they are not 
 without sin, either that which they derived from their 
 birth, or that which they added by their evil lives. “For 
 all have sinned” (either in Adam or in themselves), “and 
 need the glory of God.” 
 
 5. Therefore the whole “lump” is under an obligation 
 to suffer punishment; and if the due punishment of con¬ 
 demnation were inflicted on all, undoubtedly there would 
 be no injustice in so doing. Hence, those who by grace 
 are set free from this punishment are called not “ vessels 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 9i 
 
 of their own merits,” but “ vessels of mercyof Whose 
 mercy, if not His Who sent Christ Jesus into this world 1 Tim. i. 15. 
 to make sinners whole, whom He foreknew and pre¬ 
 destinated, and called, and justified, and glorified ? Who, K-om.viH.29, 
 then, can be so utterly out of his mind as not to give 
 ineffable thanks for the mercy of Him Who frees whom 
 He has willed, since he could in no way rightly impugn His 
 justice if He condemned the whole of mankind together ? 
 
 6. If we thus believe according to the Scriptures, we 
 are not compelled to argue against Christian grace, and 
 make statements with the intention of proving that in 
 little children human nature does not need a physician, 
 because it is sound, and that in older people it can be 
 sufficient of itself for righteousness if it wills. To be 
 sure, such arguments seem sharp; but the sharpness lies 
 
 in “ the wisdom of words,” whereby the Cross of Christ 1 Cor. i- w- 
 is made of none effect. That is not “ the wisdom that 
 cometh down from above ” ; I will not go on with the James Hi. 15 
 quotation, lest we should be thought to be injuring our 
 friends, whose very strong and active minds we wish to 
 set running, not in the wrong, but in the right course. 
 
 7. Therefore, however warm be the zeal which inflames 
 the author of this book which you have sent against those 
 who seek an excuse for their sins in the infirmity of 
 human nature, we must be inflamed with equal, nay with 
 far more fiery, zeal, lest the Cross of Christ be made of 
 none effect. But it is made of none effect by the assertion 
 that righteousness and eternal life can be attained in 
 
 any other way than through His mystery*'; and such is *Sacramen- 
 
 tum. 
 
 the argument of this book (I do not mean to say that z xi m . Hi. 16 
 the author is conscious of it, lest I should be judging 
 
92 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 John v. 
 
 him unworthy to be regarded as a Christian ; but, I would 
 rather think, that he is not conscious of it). It shews 
 great power certainly, but I wish that it was healthy 
 and not like that of a madman. 
 
 8. For he begins by drawing a distinction. It is one 
 thing , he says, to inquire whether a thing can he , for that 
 7'etates only to possibility ; it is a different thing to inquire 
 ivhether it actually is. The truth of this distinction no 
 one doubts; for that which is must have been possible ; 
 but that which is possible need not actually be. For 
 the fact that the Lord raised Lazarus, doubtless proves 
 that He could; but from the fact that He did not raise 
 Judas, can it be said that He could not have done so ? 
 He could therefore, but He would not. For had He 
 willed, He could have effected even this by the same 
 lm power, for “The Son also quickeneth whom He will.” 
 
 But notice his aim and the use that he tries to make 
 of this true and obvious distinction. We, he says, are 
 dealing with the possibility only; and we regard it as most 
 monstrous and unfair to pass to a further point before arriving 
 at a clear decision on this. He continues to repeat this 
 in various ways and at considerable length, to prevent 
 the supposition that he is inquiring into anything else 
 than the possibility of not sinning. So among the many 
 passages in which he discusses this subject, he says as 
 follows : I repeat the same thing again , I say that ?7ian 
 can be without sin : what do you say ? that man cannot be 
 <without sin ? I do not say that man is without sin; you 
 do not say that man is not without sin; our argument 
 is about what can be and what cannot be, not about what 
 is and what is not. Then he shows that some of the 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 93 
 
 Scripture passages, which are usually alleged against them, 
 have no bearing on his inquiry as to whether man can 
 be or cannot be without sin, as follows : For the statements job xiv. 4. 
 “ None is f ree from stain and “ There is no man that sinneth 1 Kings viii. 
 
 46. 
 
 not; ” and “ There is not a righteous man upon earth; ” and Eccies.vii. 
 “ There is none that doeth good,” and the other passages Ps 2 °i' v 4 . 
 of a similar kind, he says, prove what there is not, not what 
 there cannot be. For by statements of this kind we are shewn 
 the character of certain men at a definite tune, not that they 
 could not have been different; hence also it is with justice 
 that we find them blamed. For they are free from blame 
 if they were in that condition, because they could not be 
 otherwise. 
 
 9. See what he says ; now, I say that a little child born 
 in a place where he could not be assisted by the baptism 
 of Christ, and overtaken by death, .was such, that is, 
 died without the washing of regeneration, because he 
 could not be otherwise. On that account let your author 
 absolve him and open to him the kingdom of heaven, 
 
 in contradiction to the Lord’s decree. But the Apostle John Hi. 3. 
 does not absolve him when he says “By one man sin 
 entered into the world, and by sin death, and so it Rom. v. 12. 
 
 Cf. Vulg. 
 
 passed unto all men, in whom all have sinned.” There¬ 
 fore with justice, because of that condemnation which 
 runs through the whole lump, the child is not admitted 
 into the kingdom of heaven, although he not only was 
 not, but could not even have been, a Christian. 
 
 10. But they say ‘He is not condemned; because all 
 are said to have sinned in Adam, not by reason of sin 
 brought upon them originally from their birth, but by 
 reason of imitation.’ In that case, if Adam is called 
 
94 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 the father of all the sinners who have come after him r 
 because he was the first sinner among men, why is not 
 Abel, rather than Christ, accounted the head of all the 
 righteous, because he was the first righteous man among 
 men ? 
 
 But I am not now speaking of an infant: a young or 
 old man has died in a country where he could not hear 
 the name of Christ; could he have become righteous 
 by nature and free choice, or could he not ? If they 
 say he could have become so, you see an instance of 
 i Cor. i. i 7 . what is meant by “making the Cross of Christ of none 
 effect,” in their maintaining that without it anyone can 
 be justified through the law of nature and the choice 
 Gai. ii. 21. of his will. Here too we must say, “ Then Christ died 
 for nought” ; for this justification would lie in the power 
 of all, even if He had not died ; and if they were 
 unrighteous, they would be so because they willed it,, 
 not because they could not be righteous. But if that 
 man could not have been justified at all without the 
 grace of Christ, let your author, if he dares, absolve him 
 as well, according to his own statement; because he is free 
 from blame if he was in that condition because he could not 
 be otherwise. 
 
 11. But he introduces an objection to himself, as though 
 made by some one else, and says, You will say, “ It is 
 indeed possible, but by the grace of God.” To this he adds, 
 by way of answer, I thank you for your courtesy; you are 
 not content with withdrawing your opposition to that assertion 
 of mine which you were just now opposing, or merely with 
 granting its truth, but you do not even hesitate to prove it. 
 For does not the statement, “It is indeed possible but by so- 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 95 
 
 and so,” not only allow that it is possible but also shew *by 
 what means it is possible or * with what quality ? Hence 
 no one more clearly proves the possibility of anything than 
 he who at the same time states its quality*; for no quality 
 can exist without a subject. After this he again makes the 
 objector say, You will say, “ But in this connexion you 
 see?n to deny the grace of God by not mentioning it.” Then 
 he replies, Is it I who deny it, who, in acknowledging the 
 result, acknowledge also of necessity that through which it 
 can be produced ? or is it you who, in denying the result, 
 deny also undoubtedly that, whatever it be, through which 
 the result is produced ? He forgets that he is really replying 
 to an opponent who does not deny the result, for he 
 has just described him as saying “ It is indeed possible, 
 but by the grace of God.” How then can he be denying 
 that possibility for which your author labours much, when 
 he just now told him “ It is possible, but by the grace 
 of God ” ? But if he dismisses the opponent who already 
 allows the result, and continues to argue with those who 
 deny that it is possible for man to be without sin, what 
 has it to do with us ? He may argue with whomsoever 
 he pleases, as long as he allows what can only be denied 
 with the grossest impiety, that man cannot be sinless 
 without the grace of God. And so he says whoever acknow¬ 
 ledges the result, ack?iowledges also the cause, whatever it be, 
 through which man is able to be without sin, whether it be 
 grace, or assistance, or mercy. 
 
 12. I confess to you, my friends, that when I read 
 these words I was suddenly filled with joy, because he 
 did not deny the grace of God by which alone a man 
 can be justified. For it is this that I detest and abhor 
 
 * quomodo. 
 
 * qualiter. 
 
 ' qualitatem 
 
g6 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 beyond everything in the discussions of such men. But 
 as I went on to read the rest of his argument, I began 
 to be doubtful about him; first of all because of the 
 illustrations that he used. He says, For if I were to say 
 “ A man can argue, a bird can fly, a hare can run,” with¬ 
 out mentioning the means by which these acts can be done, I 
 mean the tongue, the wings, and the feet, should I be denying 
 * qualitates the* qualities by which these functions are performed, when 
 officiorum. j ac q, now i e( qg ec i the functions themselves ? It is quite clear 
 that he has adduced examples in which the power comes 
 by nature; for these organs, the tongue, the wings, and 
 the feet, have been created with such natural endowments. 
 He has produced nothing which illustrates what we wish 
 to teach about the grace without which no man is justified; 
 for here the question is, not about the constitution of 
 what is natural, but about its healing. So from this point 
 I began with anxiety to read the rest, and discovered 
 that my suspicions were not groundless. 
 
 13. But before I come to that, notice what he said. 
 When he was dealing with the question of the difference 
 of sins, and had brought forward an objection to his 
 argument as urged by some, that certain kinds of little sins 
 from their very number, because they often attack us, cannot 
 all be avoided; he replied that if they cannot be avoided at 
 all, they ought not to be held deserving even of a slight censure. 
 In saying this, he failed to notice the passages of the New 
 Testament, where we maintain that the intention of the 
 law which holds us guilty is that, because of our mis¬ 
 deeds, we may take refuge in the grace of the merciful 
 Lord ; the law being as it were a schoolmaster shutting 
 Gal. Hi. 23. up into the same faith which has since been revealed ; 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 97 
 
 that therein, not only may evil deeds be forgiven when 
 done, but, through the assistance of the same grace, they 
 may not be done. To those who are making progress 
 the Way belongs, although they who make good progress 
 may be called “ perfect wayfarers.” But it is the height 
 of perfection which admits of no increase, when we 
 begin to possess the goal of our journey. 
 
 14. Again, that remark which is made to him “Are you 
 yourself without sin ? ” does not really refer to the point on 
 which the question turns. But his reply, that his not being 
 without sin must be put down rather to his own negligence , is 
 right; only he should on that account, so as to prevent 
 this wicked negligence getting the dominion over him, 
 think it good to pray to God (Whom a certain person 
 used to entreat and say “ Order my steps according 
 to Thy word, and no wickedness shall have dominion 
 over me ”) lest, trusting to his own diligence as if it were 
 his own strength, he attain not to the true righteousness, 
 either in this life or in that in which doubtless its perfec¬ 
 tion is to be desired and expected. 
 
 15. And that other objection which some people make 
 to him, that it is nowhere stated in so many zvords in Scrip¬ 
 ture that man can be without sin , he easily refutes by saying 
 that it is not a question about the exact zvords i?i which a 
 certain statement is made . Still perhaps there may be a good 
 reason why, though we sometimes find in Scripture men 
 
 who are said to be without blame, we do not find any who Luke i. 6. 
 is said to be without sin, except that One alone, of Whom 
 it is expressly said “ Who knew no sin.” And again 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 in that passage, where the Apostle is discussing the 
 priesthood, we find the words “For He experienced all Heb. iv. 15. 
 
 7 
 
NATURE AND GRACE . 
 
 98 
 
 things according to the likeness without sin,” that is, 
 Rom. viii. 3. “ [ n that flesh which had the likeness of the flesh of sin,” 
 although it was not “ the flesh of sin ” ; still it would not 
 have had this likeness, if all other flesh were not “the flesh 
 1 John iii. 9. of sin.” And the meaning of the passage, “ Whosoever 
 is born of God sinneth not, and cannot sin, for His seed 
 abideth in him,” whereas the Apostle John himself, as if 
 1 John i. 8. he were not born of God or were speaking to those who had 
 not yet been born of God, clearly stated “If we say that we 
 have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not 
 in us ” ; this I have been at pains to explain as clearly 
 as I could in the work which I have written on this 
 subject to Marcellinus. And his statement, that the 
 words “ cannot sin ” are the same as if he had said “ ought 
 not to sin,” is not, I think, to be objected to ; for who 
 would be mad enough to say that we ought to sin, since 
 it is sin just because it ought not to be done ? 
 
 16. I certainly do not think that that passage of the 
 James iii. 8. Apostle James, “But the tongue can no man tame,” 
 can be understood in the manner in which your author 
 wanted to expound it, that it is said as if by way of reproof\ 
 as though the Apostle meant “ Is it the?i possible that no 
 man can tame the tongue ?” as though he were protesting 
 and saying, “ You can tame wild beasts, can you not tame 
 the tongue f” as if it were easier to tame the tongue 
 than wild beasts. I do not think that this is the meaning 
 of this passage. For if he wished to suggest the ease 
 of subduing the tongue, the immediate context would 
 have borne out the comparison with the wild beasts; 
 but as it is he continues, “ It is a restless evil, full of 
 deadly poison,” more harmful indeed than that of beasts 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 99 
 
 and serpents: for that slays the flesh, but the poison 
 of the tongue slays the soul. For “ the mouth that belieth, Wis - »• n* 
 slayeth the soul.” Therefore St. James did not pronounce 
 those words as though taming the tongue were easier 
 than taming beasts, nor did he intend them to be pro¬ 
 nounced in such a tone of voice, but rather as shewing 
 how great is the evil of the tongue in man, so that no 
 man can tame it, though even beasts are tamed by men. 
 
 Nor did he say it in order that we should allow the 
 dominion of this evil over us to continue through our 
 negligence, but rather that we should pray for the help 
 of Divine grace to subdue the tongue. For he does 
 not say “The tongue can no one tame,” but “no man”; 
 so that when it is tamed, we may acknowledge that this 
 is effected by God’s mercy, God’s help, and God’s grace. 
 Therefore let the soul endeavour to tame the tongue, 
 and whilst it endeavours, let it ask for help ; and let 
 the tongue pray that the tongue may be tamed, for He 
 tames it Who said to His own, “For it is not ye that Matt. x. 20. 
 speak, but the Spirit of your Father Which speaketh in 
 you.” And so, by this command, we are bidden to do 
 a work which, though we try, we are unable to do of 
 our own strength, and must therefore pray for God’s 
 help to effect. 
 
 17. Hence also when the Apostle had enlarged upon 
 the evil of the tongue, saying, among other things, “ My 
 brethren, these things ought not so to be,” having finished 
 what he was saying on that point, he went on to tell 
 them by what assistance those things which he said 
 ought not to be done, can be avoided. “For who is James m. 
 wise and instructed among you ? Let him shew out of 10 17 
 
100 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 a good conversation his works in meekness of wisdom. 
 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, 
 glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom 
 descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. 
 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and 
 every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is 
 first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, 
 full of mercy and good fruits, priceless without hypocrisy.” 
 This is the wisdom which tames the tongue, coming 
 down from above and not springing forth from the human 
 heart. Or does anyone dare to rob the grace of God 
 of this wisdom also, and with the vainest conceit make 
 it lie in the power of man ? Why then do we pray to 
 receive it, if it is to be had of man ? Or do they reject 
 even this prayer, lest we should do injury to that free 
 choice which , by the possibility of nature , is of itself 
 sufficient to fulfil all the precepts of righteousness ? Then 
 the same Apostle James himself must be rejected, when 
 jaraesi.5. he advises us, saying, ‘‘But if any of you lack wisdom, 
 
 let him ask of God, That giveth to all liberally and 
 
 upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him 
 ask in faith, nothing wavering.” This is the faith to 
 which the commandments constrain us, that the law may 
 command and faith may obtain. For by the tongue, 
 which no man can tame, but the Wisdom which comes 
 James iii. 2. down from above, “in many things we all offend.” For 
 
 this passage also, as well as the other which says “The 
 
 tongue can no man tame,” the Apostle did not pronounce 
 in another tone of voice. 
 
 18. Again, no one, to prove the impossibility of not 
 sinning, should have alleged against them that passage, 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 IOI 
 
 “ The wisdom of the flesh is emnity against God, for Rom. via. 
 
 7, 8. 
 
 it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
 it be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please 
 God.” For the Apostle said “the wisdom of the flesh,” 
 not “ the wisdom that cometh down from above ” ; and 
 by “ being in the flesh ” it is clear that those are not 
 meant who have not yet left the body, but those who live 
 according to the flesh. But the question which is now in 
 discussion is not there mentioned. What I want, if pos¬ 
 sible, to hear from him, is whether those who live according 
 to the Spirit, and, on that account, even while they still live 
 here, are already in a certain manner not in the flesh,— 
 whether they live according to the Spirit by the grace 
 of God, or whether they are sufficient of themselves 
 from the capacities of their nature already given to them 
 at creation and from their own will; since there is no 
 fulfilling of the law but love, and the love of God is R om . v. 5. 
 shed abroad in our hearts, not by ourselves, but by the 
 Holy Spirit, Which is given unto us. 
 
 19. He also deals with the question of sins of ignor¬ 
 ance, and says that a man must be very watchful, against 
 ignorance; and ignora?ice is culpable because it is by his 
 own negligence that a ma 7 i does not know what he might 
 have know71 if he had take 7 i the trouble; while at the 
 same time he argues anything rather than allow a man to 
 pray and say, “ Give me understanding that I may learn Ps. cxix. 73. 
 thy commandments.” For it is one thing not to have 
 taken the pains to know, and sins of negligence of this 
 kind even seem to have been expiated by certain sacrifices 
 of the law; it is a different thing to wish to understand 
 and not to be able, and to act contrary to the law through 
 
102 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 not understanding what it wishes to be done. On this 
 account we are bidden to seek for wisdom from God, 
 “ Who giveth to all liberally,” especially to all those 
 who seek in a manner and with a constancy suitable to 
 so great a gift. 
 
 20. He allows that the sins which have been committed must 
 be expiated by God , and we must entreat the Lord for them , 
 that is, in order to obtain pardon ; for, even by his own 
 confession, that power of nature and the will of man , which 
 he praises so much, are unable to undo what has been done , 
 so that in this necessity he can only pray for pardon. 
 But that he should pray for help against sinning, he 
 nowhere said; I have not read it in this book; there 
 is altogether a strange silence on the subject. Yet the 
 Lord’s Prayer bids us pray for both gifts, that our debts 
 may be forgiven us and that we be not brought into 
 temptation ; the former that our past sins may be expiated, 
 and the latter that future sins may be avoided. And 
 although this is not done without the will, yet the will 
 alone is not sufficient to do it; therefore, with this object, 
 the sacrifice of prayer to God is neither superfluous nor 
 unseemly. For what would be more foolish than to pray 
 that you may do what you have in your own power ? 
 
 21. But now see, what touches the question most 
 closely, how he tries to describe human nature as if it 
 were altogether without any corruption, and how the 
 wisdom of the word wrestles against the clearest Scriptures 
 of God so as to make the Cross of Christ of none effect. 
 But certainly it will not be made of none effect ; 
 that wisdom rather will be overthrown. For when we 
 have proved this, perhaps the mercy of God will be 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 103 
 
 with him, and even he will repent that he said these 
 words. He says, First , ive must discuss the statement that 
 by sin nature is weakened and changed. And therefore , he 
 says, befoi'e everything else, I think that we must ask what 
 sin is: a substance of some kind ? or a name altogether devoid 
 of substance, by which is denoted not a thing, nor an existence, 
 nor any kind of body, but the doing of a wrong deed ? Then 
 he adds, I believe it to be the latter. And if so, he says, how 
 ♦ could that which has no substance have weake?ied or changed 
 human nature ? 
 
 I pray you to notice how he unconsciously strives 
 to subvert those most wholesome words of healing 
 eloquence, “ I said, Lord, be merciful unto me ; heal my Ps. xii. 14. 
 soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” What is healed 
 if nothing is wounded, nothing hurt, nothing weakened 
 and corrupted ? But if there is anything to be healed, 
 whence has it been corrupted ? You hear the Psalmist con¬ 
 fessing ; why do you crave for a disputant ? He says, 
 
 “ Heal my soul.” Ask him by what means that has been 
 corrupted, for the healing of which he prays ; and hear 
 what follows: “For I have sinned against Thee.” Let 
 your author examine him ; let him put to him the question 
 which he thinks must be asked, and let him say, “ O 
 thou who criest, ‘ Heal my soul, for I have sinned against 
 Thee,’ what is sin ? Is it a substance of some kind, or 
 a name altogether devoid of substance, by which is denoted 
 not a thing, nor an existence, nor any kind of body, 
 but only the doing of a wrong deed ? ” He answers, 
 
 “ It is as you say: sin is not a substance of any kind, 
 but by this name is denoted only the doing of a wrong 
 deed.” And your author replies, “Why then do you 
 
NATURE AND GRACE . 
 
 104 
 
 cry, 1 Heal my soul for I have sinned against Thee ’ ? 
 How could that which has no substance have corrupted 
 your soul ? ” Would not he, spent with the pain of his 
 wound and to avoid being diverted from prayer by argu¬ 
 ment, reply briefly, “ Depart from me, I beg you; argue 
 Matt. ix. 12 rather, if you can, with Him Who said ‘ They that be 
 whole need not a physician, but they that are sick : I 
 am not come to call the righteous, but sinners,’ where 
 He certainly spoke of the righteous as whole, but of 
 the sinners as sick.” 
 
 22. Do you not perceive the drift and aim of this 
 
 Matt. i. 21. discussion ? It is that the words, “ Thou shalt call 
 
 His name Jesus ; for it is He that shall make His 
 
 people whole from their sins,” should be regarded as 
 said all in vain. For how shall He make whole, where 
 there is no sickness ? The sins, forsooth, from which 
 the Gospel says that the people of Christ are to be made 
 whole, are not substances, and according to your author 
 cannot make us corrupt. O brother, it is good that 
 
 you should recollect that you are a Christian. Perhaps 
 it would be enough to believe these words; but yet, 
 since you wish to argue, and it does no harm but rather 
 does good if preceded by the strongest faith, let us not 
 imagine that human nature cannot be corrupted by sin 
 but, believing from the Divine Scriptures that it has 
 been so corrupted, let us inquire how this could have 
 taken place. 
 
 Since we have already learnt that sin is not a sub¬ 
 stance, is it not evident, to omit other instances, that 
 not to eat is also not a substance ? For it is holding 
 aloof from a substance, since food is a substance. But 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 I0 5 
 
 to abstain from food is not a substance ; and yet, if a 
 man abstains altogether from food, the substance of 
 the body languishes so much, is so injured by dis¬ 
 ordered health, is so exhausted by loss of strength, 
 is so weakened and broken down by weariness, that 
 if by any means it continues alive, it can with difficulty 
 return to that food by abstinence from which it was 
 corrupted. In the same way sin is not a substance, but 
 God is a substance and the chief of substances, and 
 the only true food of His rational creation; and when 
 man holds aloof from Him by disobedience, and is through 
 weakness unable to receive Him in Whom he ought to 
 rejoice, you hear how he says, “ My heart was smitten p s . di. 4. 
 like grass and withered, for I forgot to eat my bread.” 
 
 23. But notice how he continues to attack the truth of 
 Holy Scripture with plausible reasonings. The Lord 
 Jesus says—and He is called Jesus because it is He 
 that makes His people whole from their sins—He says 
 “They that be whole need not a physician, but they Matt.«. 12 
 that are sick. I am not come to call the righteous, but 
 sinners.” To the same effect the Apostle also says, “ This 1 Tim. i. 15 
 is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus 
 Christ came into this world to make sinners whole.” 
 
 And in opposition to the “ faithful saying and worthy 
 of all acceptation,” your author says that the contraction of 
 this sickness was not the due consequence of sins, for if so 
 the punishment of sin would involve the committal of more sins. 
 
 Again this great Physician is sought for to help little 
 children ; and your author says, What are you seeking ? 
 
 They for whom you seek the Physicia 7 i are whole. Not even the 
 first man himself was condemned to death on that account, 
 
Rom. i. 
 3i 
 
 106 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 for afterwards he did not sin. As though he has heard 
 something afterwards of the perfection of Adam’s 
 righteousness, except that the Church mentions him 
 also as having been freed by the mercy of the Lord Christ. 
 And his posterity too , he says, not only are not weaker 
 than he , but even have kept more commandments , since he 
 failed to keep one; even though he sees this posterity 
 born in a state in which Adam certainly was not created, 
 not only unable to keep the commandment, of which 
 they have no conception at all, but hardly able to take 
 their food when they are hungry. And yet when He, 
 Who “makes His people whole from their sins,” wishes 
 to make these children whole by His grace in the bosom 
 of their mother the Church, men refuse, and with unsound 
 judgment pronounce them to be sound, as if they were 
 able to examine the condition of the creature whom He 
 created more accurately than He can. 
 
 24. Punishment , he says, is the cause of sin , if the sinner 
 was weakened that he might commit more sins. He does 
 not consider how deservedly the light of truth forsakes 
 the transgressor of the law; and when thus forsaken, 
 he indeed becomes blind, and of necessity stumbles the 
 more, and by falling is hurt, and, when hurt, does not 
 rise, in order that he may listen to the voice of the 
 law sufficiently to be warned by it to pray for the grace 
 of the Saviour. Was that no punishment for those of 
 . whom the Apostle says, “ Because when they had known 
 God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, 
 but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart 
 was darkened”? That “darkening” certainly was itself 
 punishment and penalty; and yet through this penalty, 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 107 
 
 that is, through blindness of heart, which is the result of 
 the light of wisdom forsaking them, they fell away into 
 more numerous and graver sins. “For, saying that they 
 were wise, they became fools.” This is a grievous 
 penalty, if rightly understood; and, in consequence of 
 this penalty, see whither they went. “And they changed,” 
 the Apostle says, “ the glory of the uncorruptible God 
 into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and 
 birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” This 
 they did in consequence of the penalty of sin, whereby 
 their foolish heart was darkened. And yet because of 
 these deeds, which, although penal, are themselves also 
 sins, he goes on to say, “ Wherefore God gave them up 
 to the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness.” See how 
 God sentenced them to a severer punishment, giving them 
 up to the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness. See 
 also what they do in consequence of this penalty, “That 
 they should dishonour their bodies among themselves.” 
 And that that is the penalty of iniquity, though it is 
 itself iniquity, he more clearly proves, saying, “ Who 
 changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and 
 served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed 
 for ever, Amen. For this cause,” he says, “ God gave 
 them up unto vile passions.” You see how often God 
 punishes, and out of that same punishment still more 
 numerous and more grievous sins arise. “For their 
 women changed the natural use into that use which is 
 against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the 
 natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward 
 another, men with men working unseemliness.” And in 
 order to shew that these are not only sins, but also the penal- 
 
io8 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 ties of sins, he still further added, “And receiving in them¬ 
 selves that recompense of their error which was due.” 
 You see how often He punishes, and it is the same 
 punishment which brings forth and produces sins. Listen 
 again, “ And even as they did not like,” he says, “ to 
 have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to 
 a reprobate mind to do those things which are not con¬ 
 venient ; being filled with all unrighteousness, with deceit, 
 wickedness, covetousness, full of envy, murder, strife, 
 deceit, malignity ; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, 
 despiteful, proud, boastful; inventors of evil things, dis¬ 
 obedient to parents, without understanding, covenant- 
 breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful.” Now 
 let your author say sin ought not to be punished in such a 
 way that through the punishment the sinner should commit 
 more sins. 
 
 25. He would, perhaps, reply that God does not 
 compel men to such sins, but only forsakes those who- 
 deserve to be forsaken. If he says this, he says what 
 is most true; for when forsaken, as I described, by the 
 light of righteousness and so cast into darkness, what 
 else can they bring forth except all those deeds of 
 darkness which I have mentioned, until God says to 
 
 Eph.v. 14. them, if they will only obey the command, “Awake,. 
 
 thou that sleepest and arise from the dead, and Christ 
 shall give thee light.” The Truth calls them “ dead,” 
 
 Matt. viii. (as in the passage, “ Let the dead bury their dead,”)— 
 22 , 
 
 the Truth calls those dead whom your author says 
 could not possibly have been hurt and corrupted by 
 sin, because, forsooth, he has learnt that sin is not a 
 substance. 
 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 109 
 
 No one tells him that man ivas so created that he could 
 indeed pass from righteousness to sin , but could 710 1 return 
 from sin to righteousness. But in order to pass to sin, the 
 free choice by which he corrupted himself was sufficient, 
 while to return to righteousness, he needs a Physician 
 because he is not whole, he needs a Quickener because he 
 is dead. And of this grace your author says nothing at 
 all, as if man could heal himself by his own will alone, 
 because by it alone he could be corrupted. 
 
 We do not tell him that the death of the body involves 
 sin; for in death there is only punishment, for no 
 one sins by his body dying. But the death of the 
 soul involves sin, when its life, that is, its God, has 
 forsaken it ; and of necessity it does dead works until 
 it springs to life again by the grace of Christ. 
 
 Far be it from us to say that hunger and thirst and 
 other bodily ailme 7 its mvolve a 7 iecessity of sinning; for 
 through the discipline of these ailments the life of the 
 righteous has shone forth more brightly, and by over¬ 
 coming them with patience has attained greater glory; 
 but this they did by the assistance of God’s grace, by the 
 assistance of God’s Spirit, by the assistance of God’s mercy, 
 not by exalting themselves in proud will, but by winning 
 strength in humble confession. For they had learnt to 
 say to God, “ For Thou art my patience.” I do not know p s . ixxi.5 
 why he does not make any mention at all of this grace and 
 assistance and mercy, without which we cannot live well; 
 nay, rather by defending nature as sujfcie 7 tt of itself 
 for righteous 7 iess , if only the will be present , he most 
 openly denies the grace of Christ whereby we are 
 justified. But why the death of the body, though it 
 
I 10 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 Cf.DePecc. 
 Meritis et 
 Remissione 
 ii. 30. 
 
 John x. 18. 
 
 John xiv. 
 80, 31. 
 
 Ps. xxx. 8. 
 
 Ps, xxx. 7. 
 
 came from sin, should remain for the discipline of 
 faith when the guilt of sin has been removed by grace, 
 I have already discussed, as far as I was able, in the 
 books to Marcellinus of blessed memory. 
 
 26. But he says, the Lord was able to die without sin. 
 To this I reply, that just as even His birth belonged 
 to the power of His mercy, not to the order of nature ; 
 so also His death was an act of power, and this is our 
 price which He paid to redeem us from death. And it is. 
 this that their argument tends to make of none effect, when 
 they defend human nature in such a manner as to make 
 free choice independent of that price for its translation 
 from the power of darkness and of the prince of death 
 into the kingdom of the Lord Christ. And yet when 
 the Lord went to His Passion, He said “ Behold 
 the prince of this world shall come, and shall find 
 nothing in Me,” certainly no sin by reason of which 
 the prince of death might claim of his own right to 
 kill Him. “But,” he says, “that all men may know 
 that I do the will of My Father, arise, let us go hence,” 
 that is, that I do not die by the necessity of sin but 
 by the will of obedience. 
 
 27. He says that no evil can be the cause of any good , 
 as if punishment were a good thing; though many, how¬ 
 ever, have been improved by it. There are, then, some 
 evil things which do good by the marvellous mercy of 
 God. Had he experienced some good thing who said, 
 “ Thou didst turn Thy face from me and I was troubled ” ? 
 Certainly not; and yet being thus troubled was, so to 
 speak, a remedy against his pride. For he had said in 
 his abundance, “ I shall never be moved,” and was attribut- 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 111 
 
 ing to himself what he had from the Lord. For what 
 had he that he had not received ? Wherefore he had i Cor. iv. 7. 
 to be shown whence he had it, that in humility he 
 m’ght receive what he had lost in pride. Wherefore 
 he says, ‘‘Lord, in Thy goodwill Thou hast given Ps.xxxj, 
 strength to my beauty. And I, in this abundance of 
 mine, was saying ‘ I shall never be moved,’ whilst I had 
 it from Thee and not from myself. And at last Thou 
 didst turn Thy face away from me and I was troubled.” 
 
 28. It is this that the proud mind does not understand 
 at all; but great is the Lord Who will produce conviction 
 in a way known to Himself. For we are inclined rather 
 to seek what answers we may make to the objections 
 against our error, than to discern how useful the objections 
 are to heal us from error. Wherefore we must treat 
 with them not so much bv arguments as by prayers for 
 them as well as for ourselves. For we do not say to 
 them what your author put into the mouth of his objec¬ 
 tor, it was necessary that sin should exist that there should 
 he some cause for the mercy of God. Would God, there 
 had not been the misery to make that mercy necessary ! 
 
 But the heinousness of a sin which was all the greater 
 
 in proportion as it was easier for man, unfettered as 
 
 yet by any weakness, to avoid sin, was followed by a 
 
 most just punishment, so that he received in himself 
 
 the “due reward” of his sin; for, inasmuch as he had Rom. i. 27. 
 
 despised the first duty of obedience under his Lord, 
 
 he lost the obedience of his own body, which had 
 
 been placed, so to speak, under him. And because we 
 
 are now born with this law of sin which wars in our 
 
 members against the law of our mind, we ought neither 
 
I 12 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 to murmur against God, nor to argue against a most 
 evident fact, but to seek and pray for His mercy on 
 us in our state of punishment. 
 
 29. Notice very carefully how he has expressed himself, 
 Even in such a case as this, God applies indeed His mercy, 
 whenever it is necessary; because after sin man ?ieeds such 
 help, not because God willed the cause of this need. Do you 
 not see how he does not say that the mercy of God is 
 necessary that we should not sin, but because we have 
 sinned ? Then he adds, A surgeon, too, ought to be ready 
 to heal one who is already wounded; but he ought not to wish 
 a man who is whole to be ivoiinded. If this illustration suits 
 the subject we are discussing, human nature (he must 
 remember) cannot be wounded by sin, because sin is no 
 substance. Just as, then, for an example, a man, who is 
 lame from a wound, is put under medical treatment, that 
 not only his past hurt may be healed, but also that his 
 power of walking may be set right for the future ; so 
 the heavenly Physician heals our ills, not only in order 
 that they may no longer exist, but also that for the future 
 we may be able to walk aright, which, not even when 
 whole, shall we be able to do unless God helps us. For 
 when a human physician has healed a patient,, he leaves 
 him to God for the future to be sustained by the elements 
 and bodily food, that by suitable support his regained 
 health may grow stronger and be permanent; and these 
 things are provided for those who live in the flesh by 
 the same God, Who gave also the remedies which the 
 physician applied to effect the cure. For the physician 
 does not heal anyone by means which he himself has 
 created, but by the resources of Him Who creates all 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 ”3 
 
 things necessary for the whole and the diseased. But 
 when, through the mediator between God and man, the 
 man Jesus Christ, God heals one who is spiritually sick 
 or. quickens the dead, that is, justifies the ungodly, and 
 when He has brought him to a state of perfect health, 
 that is, to perfect life and righteousness, He does not 
 desert him, unless He be Himself deserted, in order that 
 he may ever live a godly and righteous life. For just as 
 the eye of the body, even when most perfectly sound, 
 cannot see unless assisted by the brightness of light, so 
 also man, even when made most perfectly righteous, 
 cannot live uprightly unless assisted from God by the 
 eternal light of righteousness. God’s way of healing, 
 therefore, is not only to wipe out our past sin, but also 
 to give us the power of not sinning. 
 
 30. He is certainly clever in dealing with, and in his 
 own opinion refuting and shewing to be false, a remark 
 made to them that it was even necessary for man that he 
 should not be able to be without sin, in order to take awry 
 all occasion of pride and boasting. For, he thinks, it is 
 most absurd and foolish that there should have been sin in 
 order that there should not be sin, for pride itself is certainly 
 sin; as if it were not true that an ulcer is painful, and 
 cutting it gives pain, and so pain may be removed by 
 pain. If we had not experienced this, and were to 
 hear of it in some country where such things never 
 happened, we should certainly laugh the idea to scorn, 
 perhaps even use his very words and say “ It is most 
 absurd that pain should have been necessary to remove 
 the pain of the ulcer.” 
 
 31. But, they say, God is able to heal all things. This 
 
 8 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 ii + 
 
 is indeed His work, to heal all things; but He works 
 according to His own wisdom, and does not receive 
 the method of treatment from the sick man. No doubt 
 He wished to make the Apostle as strong as possible, 
 2 Cor. xii. 9. yet He said to him, “Strength is made perfect in weak¬ 
 ness ”; and, in spite of so many prayers, God took 
 not from him the thorn in the flesh, whatever that 
 was, which, he says, was given him lest he should be 
 exalted by the greatness of the revelations. For other 
 faults shew their power only in misdeeds; pride alone 
 has to be guarded against even in good deeds. Where- 
 Phii.ii 12,13. fore, they to whom it is said, “Work out your own 
 salvation with fear and trembling; for it is' God Which 
 worketh in you both to will and to work for His good 
 pleasure,” are warned lest, by attributing the gifts of 
 God to their own power and by self-exaltation, they 
 perish more grievously than if they did no good thing. 
 Why, then, “with fear and trembling,” and not rather 
 with freedom from anxiety, if God worketh ? Is it not 
 that, because of our will without which we cannot work 
 well, the thought may soon insinuate itself into the human 
 mind that its good work is entirely its own, and it 
 Ps. xxx. 8 . may say in its abundance, “I shall never be moved”? 
 
 Therefore, He Who “ in His goodwill had given strength 
 to” such a man’s “beauty,” turned away His face for a 
 moment, that he who had said this might be troubled ; 
 for it was by that very pain that that tumour was to be 
 healed. 
 
 32. Wherefore man is not told, “It is necessary to 
 sin that you may not sin ” ; but he is told, “ God in a 
 measure withdraws Himself from that of which you are 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 115 
 
 proud, that you may know that it is not yours but 
 
 His, and may learn not to be proud.” For is not 
 
 the passage of the Apostle that I am about to refer to 
 
 •of such an astonishing character, that it would not be 
 
 •credible except that he says it himself, and his truth 
 
 it is wicked to call in question ? Every Christian knows 
 
 that the first suggestion of sin came from Satan, and 
 
 that he is the first author of all sins. And yet certain 
 
 people are “ delivered to Satan that they may learn 1 Tim * 20 • 
 
 not to blaspheme.” How, then, is the work of Satan 
 
 excluded by the work of Satan ? Your author should 
 
 examine these and similar statements, lest he should 
 
 over-estimate the sharpness of some remarks which 
 
 sound rather sharp, but on discussion are found to be 
 
 very much the reverse. Why, he even adduces illustrations 
 
 which have the effect rather of suggesting the answer 
 
 which ought to be given him : what more shall 1 say, he 
 
 says, except that we might helm e that fire puts oat fire, if we 
 
 could believe that sms may he cured by sms. What if a man 
 
 cannot put out fire by fire, yet pain, as I have shewn, 
 
 can be cured by pain ? Also, if he cares to enquire 
 
 and learn, poisons can be driven away by poisons. And 
 
 if he notices that feverish heat is dispersed by certain 
 
 medicinal heats, he may allow, perhaps, that even fire 
 
 is put out by fire. 
 
 33. How , he asks, shall we distinguish pride itself from 
 sin ? Why does he ask this, since it is clear that it also 
 is sin ? To sin, he says, is to he proud, as much as to he 
 proud is to sin. For, consider the nature of any sin you 
 please , and see if you will find any sin which cannot he called 
 pride . He pursues this thought and tries to prove it as 
 
 \ 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 116 
 
 follows : If I mistake not, every sin is contempt of God , and 
 all contempt of God is pride. For what is so proud as to 
 contemn God? Therefore every sin is also pride , as even 
 Ecclus.x.13. Scripture says, “Pride is the beginning of every sin.” If 
 he looks carefully, he will find in the law that there is 
 a good deal of difference between the sins of pride and 
 other sins. For many sins are committed through pride; 
 but not every wrong act is a proud act,—acts done by 
 the ignorant, by the weak, and, as a rule, by the weeping 
 and groaning. And, indeed, pride, since it is itself a 
 great sin, exists of itself without other sins, in such a 
 manner that generally, as I have said, it is not in sins 
 but in good deeds themselves that pride with its swifter 
 foot overtakes and steals over us. But what he under¬ 
 stood in a wrong sense, “ Pride is the beginning of every 
 sin,” is a most true saying; for it was pride which caused 
 the fall of the devil, from whom came the beginning of 
 sin, and who then, in his envy, overthrows man, who was 
 standing in the place whence he himself had fallen. For 
 undoubtedly that serpent sought a door of boasting where- 
 Gen.iii. 5. by he might enter, when he said “Ye shall be as Gods.” 
 
 That is the meaning of the words, “ Pride is the beginning 
 Eccius.x. 12 of every sin” and “The beginning of pride is when 
 one revolteth from God.” 
 
 34. But what does he mean by saying, Then how shall 
 a man be subject to punishment from God for the guilt of 
 that sin which he knows to be not his owji ? For it is not 
 his own , if necessary. Or if it is his own , it is voluntary, and 
 if voluntary, it ca?i be avoided. We reply, “ It is his own 
 altogether; but the corruption through which it is com¬ 
 mitted has not yet been entirely healed, and indeed that 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 nj 
 
 this corruption should grow up in man at all is the 
 result of misused health ; and now whilst he suffers from 
 it he commits many sins either from infirmity or from 
 blindness ; and for it he must pray that it may be healed 
 and that he may then live in continual health, and not be 
 proud, as if man were healed by the same power as that 
 by which he was corrupted.” 
 
 35. And I would say this in such a way as to confess 
 my ignorance of the deeper counsel of God, why He 
 does not forthwith cure pride itself, which lays its snares 
 for the human soul even in good deeds, and for the 
 cure of which pious souls entreat Him with tears and 
 great groanings to stretch forth His right hand to their 
 endeavours, so that they may overcome it and, so to 
 speak, trample upon and destroy it. For when a man 
 rejoices that he has even conquered pride in some good 
 work, out of that joy pride rears its head and says, “You 
 see I am alive, why are you exulting ? and I am alive 
 because you exult.” For perhaps his delight in exulting 
 over its conquest is premature, since, as I think, its last 
 shadow will be swallowed up in that noonday, which is 
 promised in Scripture, where it says, “And He shall Ps.xxxvii. 
 
 5? o. 
 
 bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy just 
 dealing as the noonday,” if the preceding words are 
 obeyed, “ Reveal thy way unto the Lord and hope in 
 Him, and He shall bring it to pass,” not as some think, 
 that they themselves bring it to pass. When he said 
 “ He shall bring it to pass,” the Psalmist seems to have 
 been thinking of those who say “we bring it to pass,” 
 that is, we ourselves justify ourselves. In which process 
 indeed we too work, but we work with Him while He 
 
118 NA TURE AND GRA CE. 
 
 works, for His mercy prevents us. But it prevents us 
 that we may be made whole; because it will also follow 
 us that, when made whole, we may grow. It prevents 
 us that we may be called; it will follow us that we may 
 be glorified. It prevents us that we may live a godly life; 
 it will follow us that we may live with Him for ever, for 
 John xv. s. “without” Him “we can do nothing.” For we find 
 Ps.iix. io. both statements in Scripture: both “My God, His mercy 
 Ps. xxiii. 6. shall prevent me,” and “Thy mercy shall follow me 
 all the days of my life.” Let us, then, reveal to Him 
 our way by confession, not praise it by defence ; for if 
 it is not His way, but ours, undoubtedly it is not right. 
 Let us reveal it by confessing, for it is not hidden from 
 Him even if we try to conceal it. And it is a good 
 thing to confess to the Lord. 
 
 36. For on that condition will He give us what is pleasing 
 to Him, if that which in us displeases Him, displeases us also. 
 Ps.xiiii. 18. As it is written, “He will turn aside our paths from His 
 way,” and will make our way to be that which is His own ; 
 cf.Ps.xxxvii since this is His gift to those who believe in Him and who’ 
 
 & sup .i 35. 
 
 hope in Him that He will do it. For this is the righteous 
 way which they who have a zeal for God but not according 
 Rom. x. 2-4. to knowledge are ignorant of; and seeking to establish 
 their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves 
 John xiv. 6. to the righteousness of God. For Christ, Who said “I am 
 the Way,” is “the end of the law, for righteousness to every 
 one that believeth.” And yet the voice of God has 
 sometimes alarmed those who were already walking in 
 this way, lest they should boast themselves in it as of 
 their own strength. For on this account the Apostle says 
 Phil.ii.12,13. to them, “ Work out your own salvation with fear and 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 119 
 
 trembling, for it is God Which worketh in you both to will 
 
 and to work, for His good pleasure.” The Psalmist, 
 
 too, for the same reason tells them, “Serve the Lord in Ps. ii. n, 12 
 
 LXX 
 
 fear, and rejoice unto Him with trembling ; lay hold of 
 instruction lest the Lord be angry and ye perish from the 
 right way, when His wrath will soon be kindled upon 
 
 you.” He does not say “ lest the Lord be angry and 
 
 show you not the right way” or “bring you not to the right 
 way,” but when they were already walking in it, he was 
 able to frighten them and say “ Lest ye perish from the 
 right way.” Why is this except that pride, as I have so 
 frequently said and still must often say, must be guarded 
 against even in good deeds, that is in the right way itself, 
 lest while a man reckons as his own what belongs to 
 God, he lose what belongs to God and return to his 
 own. Wherefore, let us do that with which that Psalm 
 
 concludes, “ Blessed are all they that put their trust in 
 
 Him,” that is, that He may bring it to pass, that He may 
 shew His way to Whom it is said, “ Shew us Thy mercy, Ps. lxxxv. 
 
 O Lord ; ” that He may give salvation to enable us to 
 walk, to Whom it is said “And grant us Thy salvation” ; 
 that He may lead us in the same way, to Whom it is said, 
 
 “ Lead me in Thy way, O Lord, and I will walk in Thy Ps.ixxxvi.n 
 
 truth ” ; that He may bring us to those promises whither 
 
 the way leads, to Whom it is said, “ Even thither shall Thy Ps.cxxxix.xo 
 
 hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall bring me ” ; that 
 
 then He may there feed those who sit down with Abraham, 
 
 Isaac, and Jacob, of Whom it is said, “He will make Luke xii.37 
 them sit down, and will come over and serve them.” For 
 in mentioning such things we are not taking away the 
 choice of the will ; but we are preaching the grace of 
 
I 20 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE . 
 
 i John i. 
 
 God. For to whom are they of any use but to him who 
 wills, yet wills with humility, not boasting himself of the 
 strength of his will, as if it alone were sufficient for 
 perfecting righteousness ? 
 
 37. But far be it from us to say to him what he says 
 some people urge as an objection to him, that man 
 is put on an equality with God, if it is asserted that he 
 is without sin , as if indeed an angel, because he is 
 without sin, were put on an equality with God. For 
 my part, I think that even when there shall be in us so 
 great righteousness that nothing whatever can be added 
 to it, the creature will not be made equal to the Creator. 
 But if some people think that our advance will be so 
 great that we shall be changed into the substance of 
 God, and that we shall become exactly what Fie is, let 
 them be careful how they support their opinion. I 
 confess that it is not proved to my satisfaction. 
 
 38. Now, however, I quite agree with your author on 
 this point, that, in answer to those who say your asser¬ 
 tions certainly appear reasonable, but it is a proud thing 
 to say that man is able to be without sin, he' replies to 
 the effect that if the assertion is true, it can in no way 
 whatever be said to be proud. For he says with the 
 greatest acuteness and truth, on ivhich side do you pi'efer 
 to place humility ? Most certainly on the side of falsehood , 
 if pride exists in ivhat is proved to be the side of truth, 
 And therefore he prefers, and prefers rightly, that 
 humility should rather be placed on the side of truth, 
 not on that of falsehood. Whence it follows that he 
 
 8 . who said “ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive 
 ourselves and the truth is not in us,” should without 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 I 2 I 
 
 hesitation be acknowledged to have spoken truly, and 
 should not be supposed to have made this statement falsely 
 for the sake of humility. It was on this account that 
 he added, “ And the truth is not in us ” ; when perhaps 
 it wonld have sufficed to say “ We deceive ourselves,” 
 had he not noticed that some might think it possible that 
 he said “ We deceive ourselves,” because even in the 
 case of what is really good the man who praises himself 
 is vainly puffed up. And so by adding, “ And the truth 
 is not in us,” he clearly shows (and this rightly pleases 
 your author) that it is altogether not true “ if we say 
 we have no sin,” lest humility, placed on the side of 
 falsehood, lose the reward of truth. 
 
 39. But further, because he thinks that he is pleading 
 the cause of God in defending nature, he does not notice 
 that by saying that the same nature is sound, he is 
 rejecting the mercy of the Physician. But the Saviour 
 of nature is the same as its Creator. We must not, 
 therefore, so praise the Creator that we are obliged, nay 
 forced, by truth to say that the Saviour is superfluous. 
 Let us, therefore, honour the nature of man with the 
 praises that are due, and refer those praises to the glory 
 of the Creator; but let not our gratitude for our creation 
 interfere with our gratitude for our healing. Our cor¬ 
 ruptions, indeed, which He heals, we must not attribute 
 to the work of God, but to the human will and its just 
 punishment; but, as we allow that it was in our power 
 to have prevented their occurring, so let us confess that 
 their cure lies in His mercy and not in our power. This 
 mercy and the healing help of the Saviour, your author 
 places only in this, that He forgives sins committed in 
 
122 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 the past, not that He helps us to avoid them for the future. 
 Here he makes a most pernicious mistake ; here, although 
 Matt xxvi. unwittingly, he forbids us to watch and pray lest we 
 
 41. 
 
 enter into temptation, since he maintains that to prevent 
 temptation befalling us lies only in our own power. 
 
 40. The man who knows what is sound truth does 
 not say that the examples of some of whom we read as 
 having sinned , have been set forth in Scripture that they 
 may produce a despair of not sinning and may seem in a 
 manner to give us security in sinning; but he maintains 
 that they were so set forth that we may learn either 
 the humility of repentance or that salvation is not to 
 be despaired of even in such falls. For some, when they 
 have fallen into sins, are lost all the more through 
 despair, and not only neglect the medicine of repentance 
 but become the slaves of lusts and wicked passions, to 
 fulfil infamous and unholy desires ; as if they would 
 be the losers if they did not that which their lust 
 prompts, since sure damnation already awaits them. 
 Against this all too dangerous and destructive disease,, 
 the mention of the sins, into which even righteous, 
 and holy people have fallen, is of value. 
 
 41. But he seems to ask a sharp question, hi what 
 condition must we believe that those holy men departed from 
 this life ? with sin or without sin ? So that if it be answered 
 “ with sin,” damnation may be supposed to have over¬ 
 taken them, which it is wicked to believe; but if it be 
 said that they departed this life without sin, he may 
 prove that a man has been without sin in this life, at 
 least at the approach of death. Here he fails to notice, 
 in spite of his acuteness, that it is not for nothing that 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 123 
 
 even righteous men say in prayer, “Forgive us our debts Matt.vi. 12. 
 as we also forgive our debtors,” and that the Lord Christ, 
 after unfolding this prayer in His teaching, added most 
 truly, “For if ye forgive men their sins, your Father will Matt -^ 
 forgive you your sins.” For through this daily spiritual 
 incense, so to speak, offered up to God on the altar of 
 the heart which we are bidden to “ lift up,” although 
 we live not here without sin, we may die without sin 
 if only that which is constantly being committed by 
 ignorance or infirmity, is constantly being wiped out by 
 forgiveness. 
 
 42. Then he mentions those iv/10 are not only not said to 
 have sin?ied, but are even said to have lived righteously, Abel , 
 
 Enoch , Melchizedeck, Abraham , Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the 
 son oj Nun, Phinehas , Samuel, Nathan, Elijah , Joseph , 
 
 Elisha , Micaiah, Daniel, Ananias, Azarias , Misael, Ezechiel, 
 
 Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was 
 espoused, John, and he adds the following women, Deborah , 
 
 Hannah the mother oj Samuel, Judith, Esther, Anna the 
 daughter oj Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the Mother oj 
 our Lord and Saviour, whom, he says, compels 
 
 us to acknowledge to have been without sin. Now, with 
 the exception of the holy Virgin Mary, about whom, 
 because of the honour due to the Lord, I wish no 
 question at all to be raised when speaking of sins—for 
 whence do we know what greater grace for the entire 
 conquest of sin was conferred on her, who was deemed 
 worthy to conceive and bring forth One, Who certainly 
 had no sin ?—with the exception, I say, of the Virgin, 
 had we been able to assemble all those holy men and 
 women, when they were living here, and to ask them 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 I 24 
 
 whether they were without sin, what answer do we suppose 
 that they would have given ? What your author says, or 
 what the Apostle John says ? I ask you, if this question 
 could have been put to them, however conspicuous they 
 may have been for holiness in this life, would they not 
 1 John i. 8. have exclaimed with one voice, “If we say that we have 
 no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ? ” 
 Would they, perchance, have made that answer more in 
 humility than truth ? But your author prefers, and rightly 
 prefers, not to put the praise of humility on the side of 
 falsehood. Therefore, if they said this truly, they would 
 have sin, and because they humbly made this confession 
 the truth would be in them ; but if they said it falsely, 
 still they would have sin, because the truth would not be 
 in them. 
 
 43. He says, They will perhaps reply , “ Could Scripture 
 mention the sins of everybody ? ” And whoever shall say this 
 to him, will be saying what is true, nor do I see that he 
 has made any good answer to it, although I see that 
 he did not wish to pass it over in silence. For notice, 
 I pray, what he said. This, he replies, may rightly be said 
 of those people, whose actions, whether good or bad, Scripture 
 records not; but it would undoubtedly have also recorded the 
 sins of those people whose righteousness it records, if it were 
 conscious that in any ivay they had sinned. In the case, 
 then, of that great multitude which went before and 
 followed the colt on which the Lord sat with shouts of 
 praises, and which, even among enemies indignantly 
 asking why they did this, kept crying out and saying, 
 Matt, xxi.9. “ Hosanna to the Son of David ! blessed is He that cometh 
 in the name of the Lord ”—let him say, if he can, that 
 
NATURE AND GRACE . 
 
 125 
 
 such great faith was not a part of righteousness. And 
 then let him dare to say, if he can, that there was no one 
 in that great multitude who had any sin at all. And if 
 that is a most absurd thing to say, why has Scripture not 
 mentioned any of their sins, while it was at pains to 
 mention such a good deed of their faith ? 
 
 44. But perhaps he saw this himself and therefore went 
 
 on to say, Well, let it be granted that in later times, because 
 of the number of persons, Scripture may have failed to insert 
 an account of the sins of everybody ; what reason , he asks, 
 do we give that it did not think fit to record the faults of 
 everybody in the very first beginnings of the world, when 
 there were only four persons ? Was it because of the great 
 multitude, which did not yet exist; or because it records the 
 sins of those only who had committed sins, but could not 
 7 'ecord the sins of him who had not committed any ? He 
 adds yet further arguments to support this opinion more 
 fully and clearly. Certainly ( he says, in the earliest period, 
 Adam and Eve, from whom Cain a 7 id Abel were born, a 7 'e 
 said to have bee 7 i the only four pe 7 'sons ; Eve si 7 i 7 ied, Sci'iptnre 
 has related this; Adam also fell away; the same Scriptu 7 'e 
 has not passed it over in silence; and that Cam sinned 
 also, Sc 7 'iptu 7 'e itself has testified with equal clea 7 'ness; and 
 it not only mentions their sms, but also the nature of their 
 sins. But if Abel had sinned as well, Scriptu 7 'e would 
 doubtless have mentioned this also; but it did 7 iot mention 
 
 it, the 7 'efore he did not sin. Nay, it even shews that he 
 
 was righteous. Let us, then, believe what we read; and 
 what we do 7 iot read, let us believe it wicked to maintain. 
 
 45. Thus speaking, he does not sufficiently notice 
 
 what he had himself said a little before : As soon as 
 
126 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 the multitude of the human race had come into existence , 
 because of the number of persons Scripture may have failed 
 to insejd an account of the sins of everybody. For had 
 he sufficiently noticed this, he would see that even 
 in one man the crowd and multitude of little sins 
 either could not or, if it could, ought not to have been 
 written in detail. For it was necessary for Scripture to 
 observe some limit in what it recorded, and by a few 
 examples to instruct the reader in many necessary truths. 
 For Scripture did not care to mention even the number 
 and names of the persons living, few though they still 
 were—that is, how many sons and daughters Adam 
 and Eve had and what names they gave them. (And 
 hence some people, with little consideration of the 
 number of things which Scripture silently passes over, 
 
 Gen. iv. 17. have supposed that Cain himself had intercourse with 
 his mother, and thus begat the posterity which is men¬ 
 tioned, supposing that those sons of Adam had no 
 sisters because Scripture did not mention them at the 
 time, though afterwards it mentioned in a summary what 
 
 Gen.v. 4. it had omitted, namely, that Adam “begat sons and 
 daughters,” without mentioning either the time of their 
 birth or their number or names.) In the same way it 
 was not to be mentioned if Abel, although deservedly 
 
 Matt.xxiii. called “ righteous,” sometimes laughed a little too freely 
 35 * 
 
 or jested lightly, or looked at anything to covet it, or 
 picked fruit rather too greedily, or suffered from eating 
 a little more than was good for him, or thought of 
 something which distracted his attention at his prayers, 
 and how often these and similar sins overtook him. 
 Can it be said by any chance that these are not the sins 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 1 27 
 
 which the Apostle bids us in general terms to avoid 
 and check, where he says, “ Let not sin, therefore, Rom. vi. 12. 
 reign in your mortal body that ye should obey the lusts 
 thereof” ? Not to obey these lusts so as to do those 
 things which are unlawful or unbecoming, we must 
 struggle in daily and continuous combat. For indeed 
 it is from this corruption that the eye is directed or 
 allowed to rest where it ought not ; and when this cor¬ 
 ruption grows strong and prevails, adultery is committed 
 not only in the heart, where it takes place so much 
 sooner because of the greater quickness of thought and 
 the absence of all hindrances, but even in the body. 
 
 Those who have to a great extent bridled this sin, that 
 is, the appetite of corrupt affection, so as not to 
 “ obey the lusts thereof ” nor present to it their mem¬ 
 bers as instruments of unrighteousness, have even won 
 the name of “ righteous,” and this by the help of God’s 
 grace. But because sin insinuates itself often times in 
 the most trivial things and sometimes in unguarded 
 moments, though they were righteous they were at the 
 same time not without sin. 
 
 Lastly, if in “righteous Abel” the love of God, in 
 virtue of which alone any one who is righteous is truly 
 righteous, was still such as could be and ought to be 
 increased, whatever was lacking was the result of the cor¬ 
 ruption. And in whom must there not be something 
 lacking until he comes to that strength of God, wherein 
 all man’s weakness is swallowed up ? 
 
 46. It was certainly a weighty utterance with which 
 he concluded this passage, when he said, Let us then 
 .1 believe what we read , and believe it wicked to maintain what 
 
128 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 we do not read , and Jet it suffice to have said this once for 
 all. On the other hand, I say that we ought not to 
 iThess.v. 21. believe even all that we read, because of what the Apostle 
 says, “ Read all things ; hold fast that which is good,” 
 and that it is not wicked even to maintain something 
 which we do not read. For we can with good faith main¬ 
 tain as witnesses something which we have experienced, 
 even if by chance we have not read it. To this, perhaps, 
 he answers, “When I said that, I was speaking of the 
 Holy Scriptures.” How I wish that he would be content 
 to maintain nothing, I do not say besides what he reads 
 in those books, but in contradiction to what he reads, 
 and that he would faithfully and obediently listen to what 
 Rom. v. 12. is written, “Through one man sin entered into the world, 
 and death through sin, and so it passed unto all men, 
 in whom all have sinned ”; and that he would not 
 depreciate the grace of so great a physician, by declining 
 to acknowledge that human nature is corrupted. How 
 I wish that, like a Christian, he would read that, except 
 Acts iv. i2. Jesus Christ, there is no other name under heaven 
 whereby we must be saved ; and that he would not so 
 defend the capacity of human nature as to believe that 
 man can be whole through free choice, even without 
 that Name. 
 
 47. But perhaps he thinks that the name of Christ is 
 necessary, that through His Gospel we may learn how 
 we ought to live, and not also necessary that we may 
 be assisted by His grace to live well. Still, on this 
 account, let him at least acknowledge that there is 
 miserable darkness in the mind of man, since he knows 
 how he ought to tame a lion, and does not know how 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 129 
 
 he ought to live. Or does he think that freedom of 
 choice and the law of nature are sufficient to enable 
 him to know even this ? This is the wisdom of word 
 by which the Cross of Christ is made of none effect. 
 But since that Cross cannot be made of none effect, He 
 Who said, “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” 
 has verily overthrown that wisdom by the foolishness of 
 preaching, whereby believers are healed. For if natural 
 possibility is through freedom of choice able of itself 
 both to know how man ought to live, and also to 
 live well, then Christ died for nought, then hath the 
 offence of the Cross been made of none effect. Why 
 should I not, in my turn, now call out? Yea, I will 
 call out, and with Christian sorrow will I chide them, 
 “ Christ is become of none effect unto you whosoever 
 of you are justified by nature: ye are fallen from grace.” 
 For, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing 
 to establish your own, ye have not submitted yourselves 
 to the righteousness of God. For as Christ is the end 
 of the law, so also is He the Saviour of corrupted human 
 nature, for righteousness to everyone that believeth. 
 
 48. But, with regard to the the text which he made 
 his opponents quote against him, “For all have sinned,” 
 it is clear, as he says, that the Apostle was speakmg of those 
 who voere then alive , that is of fews and Gentiles. But 
 certainly the text which I have quoted, “Through one 
 man sin entered into the world and death through sin, 
 and so it passed unto all men, in whom all have sinned ”— 
 that passage includes both the past and the present, both 
 ourselves and our posterity. He alleges also the following 
 passage to prove that when “ all ” are mentioned, we 
 
 xCor.i.17-21 
 
 Gal. ii. 21. 
 Gal. v. 11. 
 
 Gal. v. 4. 
 
 Rom. x. 3-5. 
 
 Rom. v. 12. 
 
 9 
 
« 
 
 130 NA TURE AND GRA CE. 
 
 must not always understand “ all without any exception 
 Rom. v, 18. whatever.” “As by the offence of one, judgment came 
 upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteous¬ 
 ness of One, the free gift came upon all men to justification 
 of life.” Now thei'e can be no doubt , he says, that by the 
 ?dghteousness of Christ, all have not been sanctified, but only 
 those who have been willing to obey Him and have 
 been made clean by the washuig of His baptism. He 
 
 certainly does not prove what he wishes by this text. 
 For just as by the words, “As by the offence of one 
 judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” it is 
 intended that no one should be excepted, so also by 
 the words, “ By the righteousness of one the free gift 
 came upon all men to justification of life,” no one is 
 excepted. Not that all do believe in Him and are washed 
 with His baptism, but that no one is justified unless he 
 believes in Him and is washed with His baptism. There¬ 
 fore, the word “all” is used lest it should be believed 
 that any one can be made whole by any other means 
 except through Him. Just as when one schoolmaster 
 has been appointed in a town, it is quite correct to say 
 “ He teaches all here,” not because all the citizens learn, 
 but because no one learns unless he teaches him; so no 
 one is justified unless Christ justifies him. 
 
 49. Well, he says, I will allow that Scriptui'e testifies that 
 all have beeji sinners. For it states ivhat they have been, ?iot 
 that they could not have been different. Wherefore, he says, 
 even if all men could be proved sinners , still that in no way 
 injures our position; for we are maintaining not so much 
 what men are, as what they might be. Here he does well 
 p s . cxiiii. 2. to allow at last that in the sight of God “ no man living 
 
NA TURE AND GRA CE. i 3 i 
 
 shall be justified.” He contends, however, that the 
 discussion is not on that point, but on the simple possibility 
 of not sinning, on which point we, on our part, have 
 no need to dispute with him. For I am not very anxious 
 about the question whether in this life there have been, 
 are, or can be, certain persons, who have had, or have, 
 or shall have, the perfected love of God which could 
 admit of no increase (for that is the truest, fullest, most 
 perfect righteousness) ; because I do not think it right 
 to dispute overmuch as to when, or where, or in whom, 
 that has taken place which I admit and maintain to be 
 possible when the will of man is assisted through the 
 grace of God. Nor do I argue about the possibility itself; 
 since, when the will of man has been healed and assisted, 
 the possibility itself, together with its realization, arises 
 in the saints, while, by the Holy Spirit Which is given 
 unto us, the love of God is being shed abroad in our 
 hearts in the fullest measure that our healed and cleansed 
 nature can contain. Therefore the cause of God (which 
 he identifies with the defence of nature) is more truly 
 pleaded when God is acknowledged both as Creator and 
 also as Saviour, than when by defending the work of 
 the Creator, as if it were whole and of unimpaired powers, 
 the aid of the Saviour is made of none effect. 
 
 50. But what he says is true, That God , Whose goodness 
 is as great as His justice , made man with such powers that he 
 could keep free from the evil of sin, had he but willed it. For 
 who does not know that man was made whole and 
 blameless, and was endowed with free choice and with 
 a free power to live righteously ? But now the question is 
 about that man whom the robbers left half dead on the 
 
 Rom. v. 5 
 
1 3 2 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 road, and who, maimed and stabbed with grievous wounds, 
 cannot go up to the height of righteousness in the same 
 manner as he was able to go down from it; and who, 
 even if he is now in the inn, is still being cured. God 
 does not, on that account, command impossibilities ; but 
 by His commands He bids you both to do what is possible 
 to you, and to pray for what is not possible to you. But 
 now let us see whence comes this possibility and want of 
 possibility. He says, By his will man is not that which by 
 his nature he is able to be. I say, “ By his will indeed man 
 is not righteous, if by his nature he is able to be : but by 
 the remedy he will be able to be that which by his 
 corruption he is not able to be.” 
 
 51. What need, then, is there for us to waste our time 
 on further details ? Let us come more closely to the point 
 which, in this enquiry at any rate, is the only, or almost 
 the only, one on which we are at issue with them. For, 
 as he says himself, it is of no use to our present purpose to 
 enquire whether there have been, or are , some men in this life 
 without sin, but whether there could have been , or can be, such 
 men ; so on my part, even if I allow that there have been 
 or are such men, still I assert that by no means whatever 
 can they have been, or can they be, so, unless they have 
 been justified by the grace of God through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord, and Him crucified. For the righteous men of 
 old were healed by the same faith which heals us also, 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 5. the faith, I mean, in the Mediator between God and men, 
 
 the man Jesus Christ; faith in His blood, faith in His 
 Cross, faith in His Death and Resurrection. “ Having, 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 13. therefore, the same spirit of faith, we also believe and 
 
 therefore we speak.” 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 133 
 
 52. But when this point, on which to Christian hearts 
 he seems truly unbearable, is brought against him, let us 
 notice his answer. For he says, But, you will say, it is 
 this which troubles many people, that you do not maintain 
 that it is by the grace of God that man can be without sin. 
 This is exactly what troubles us ; this is what we bring 
 against him. He states the very point: it is the very 
 thing which is most hard for us to bear. Because of the 
 love which we feel to others and to ourselves, we cannot 
 endure the discussion of such subjects in this way bv 
 Christians. Let us then hear how he clears himself from 
 this allegation. O the blindness of the ignorance, he cries, 
 O the dullness of the stupid mind, which supposes that 
 something which it is told ought only to be attributed to God, 
 is maintained to be without the grace of God! If we did 
 not know what follows, and had heard only this state¬ 
 ment, we should suppose that we had believed a false 
 report about them, on the suggestion of rumour and the 
 assertions of some of our brethren who were trustworthy 
 witnesses. For what could be more concise and true 
 than that the possibility of not sinning, however great it 
 be or shall be in man, ought only to be attributed to God ? 
 
 53. This we also say: let us shake hands. Or must we 
 hear the rest ? We must certainly hear it, and then correct 
 it or guard against it. For, he goes on, when it is said that 
 the ability does not at all belong to human choice, but to the 
 Author of our nature, that is, to God, how is it possible that 
 that which is stated to belong of right to God, should be 
 understood to be without the g?'ace of God ? Now his meaning 
 begins to come out; but, lest we should happen to make 
 a mistake, he unfolds it more fully and clearly. But, 
 
*34 
 
 NA TURE AND GRACE . 
 
 he says, to make this more evident, we must discuss the point 
 a little more fully . For we say that the possibility of each 
 thing lies not so much in the power of human choice as in the 
 necessity of nature . He illustrates his meaning also with 
 examples or similitudes. For instance, he says, I am able 
 to speak: my being able to speak does not depend on me; 
 my speaking does depend on me, that is on my own will; 
 and since my speaking depe?ids on me, I am able to do both,, 
 that is both to speak and not to speak; but since my being 
 able to speak does not depend on me, that is on my choice and 
 will, I must necessarily always be able to speak; and if I 
 should wish not to be able to speak, still I cannot be unable 
 to speak, unless, perhaps, I remove that member by ivhich the 
 function of speaking can be performed. Many ways, indeed, 
 might be mentioned by which a man, if he wishes, may 
 remove from himself the possibility of speaking, without 
 removing the member by which we speak. If, for example, 
 something is done which will take away the voice, a 
 man will not be able to speak, although he still has his 
 members (for the human voice is not a member); or 
 indeed it might be done by damaging some inner member 
 without removing it. But lest I should appear to quibble, 
 and should meet with the captious reply that “to damage 
 is the same as to remove ” ; we might, indeed, bring about 
 the same result by having the mouth so fastened and 
 gagged by bandages that we should be utterly unable 
 to open it, and not have it in our power to get it opened, 
 although it was in our power to have it shut; and this 
 without taking away or hurting any of our members. 
 
 54. But what has this to do with us ? Let us see what 
 he works out of it. For, he says, whatever is determined by 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 135 
 
 a necessity of nature, is out of the region of the choice of the 
 will and of deliberation. About this, too, there is some 
 question. For it is very absurd to say that it does not 
 belong to our will that we wish to be happy, just because 
 by some good determination of nature we are altogether 
 unable not to wish it. Nor dare we say that God has not 
 a will, but a necessity, for righteousness, just because He 
 cannot wish to sin. 
 
 55. Notice also what follows. This, he says, caii be 
 obsei'ved also with regard to hearing, smelling, or seeing, that to 
 hear, to smell, and to see, is in our power; but to be able to hear, 
 or to smell, or to see, is not in our power, but lies in a natural 
 necessity. Either I do not understand what he means, or 
 he himself does not. For how is the possibilty of 
 seeing not in our power, if the necessity of not seeing is 
 in our power? For blindness is in our power, and by 
 blindness we may, if we wish, take from ourselves the very 
 possibility of seeing. And how is it in our power to see if 
 we wish, when, even if the perfection of the structure of 
 the body and of the eyes remains unimpaired, in spite of 
 our will we are unable to see, either at night time when 
 lights, which are things external to us, have been removed, 
 or when we are shut up in some dark place ? Again, if our 
 being able or not able to hear is not in our power, but 
 depends on the necessity of our nature, whilst hearing or 
 not hearing is, that is, depends on our own will, how is it 
 that he does not notice what a number of things we hear 
 againt our will, which penetrate to our sense of hearing 
 even when our ears are stopped up—for instance the 
 screeching of a saw or the squealing of a pig close to us ? 
 And although the stopping of our ears shews that it is not 
 
i 3 6 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 Rom.viii.24, 
 
 25 - 
 
 Wisd. ix. 15. 
 
 in our power not to hear when our ears are open ; yet such 
 a stopping as would take away our very sense of hearing 
 puts it in our power even to be unable to hear. And is he 
 not rather careless in what he says about smell, that our 
 being able or not able to smell is m our power, that is, in free 
 will ? For when we are placed in the midst of strong and 
 unpleasant odours, if we are placed there with our 
 hands tied, and still possess the completeness and 
 soundness of our organs, we may wish, but are quite unable, 
 not to smell : for when we are obliged to take breath, we 
 at the same moment inhale also the odour which we do 
 not wish. 
 
 56. Just as, then, these illustrations are false, so also is 
 the purpose for which he wished to use them. For he 
 proceeds to say, Therefore we must in the same way under¬ 
 stand about the possibility of not sinning, that not sinning is 
 ours, but being able not to sin is not ours. Were he speaking 
 of that perfect and sound human nature, which we have 
 not yet (“For we are made whole by hope ; but hope that 
 is seen is not hope ; but if we hope for that we see not, 
 then do we with patience wait for it ”), still he would not be 
 right in saying simply that not sinning is ours, although sinning 
 would be so ; for even then there would be the assistance of 
 God, and Fie would give Himself to those who wish to 
 receive Him, as a light to sound eyes, to help them to 
 see. But since he is arguing about this life, where “ the 
 corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly 
 tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon 
 many things,” I wonder with what conscience he can 
 suppose that, even without the assistance of the medicine 
 of our Saviour, not sinning is ours; and can maintain 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 1 37 
 
 that to be able not to sin belongs to our nature, which is 
 clearly so corrupted that its blindness in this respect is 
 the sign of a deeper corruption. 
 
 57. Since not sinning , he says, is ours , we are able to sin 
 and not to sin. What if some one else were to say, 
 “ Since it is ours not to wish for unhappiness, we are 
 able both not to wish for it and to wish for it ? ” And 
 yet we are quite unable to wish for it. For who can by 
 any means wish to be unhappy, even though he does 
 wish for something whereby, though he wishes it not, 
 unhappiness must overtake him. Again, since in a far 
 truer manner it belongs to God not to sin, shall we dare 
 to say that He is able both to sin and not to sin ? Far 
 be it from us to say that God is able to sin. For it 
 does not follow, as foolish people think, that He is not 
 almighty, because He is both unable to die and also to 
 deny Himself. What, then, do his words mean, and by 
 what rules of logic does he try to convince us of a 
 statement which he will not carefully examine ? He adds 
 further, But since being able not to sin is not ours , even if we 
 wished to be unable not to sin we could not be unable not to 
 sin. This is an involved and, therefore, a rather obscure 
 statement. But he could have stated it more clearly in 
 this way : “ Since being able not to sin is not ours, 
 whether we wish it or not, we are able not to sin.” For 
 he does not say, whether we wish it or not we do not 
 sin ; for undoubtedly we sin if we wish ; but he asserts 
 that, whether we wish it or not, we have a possibility of 
 not sinning, which, he says, is implanted in our nature. 
 Now,, it can fairly be said of a man with sound feet that, 
 whether he wishes it or not, he has the possibility of 
 
138 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 walking ; but if his feet are crushed to pieces, even if he 
 wishes he has not that possibility. The nature of which 
 Eccius. x. 9. we are speaking is corrupted. “ Why is earth and ashes 
 proud ? ” It is corrupted ; it implores the physician; it 
 Ps. xii. 1. cries, “Make me whole, O Lord”; it cries, “Heal my 
 p s. xh. 4 . sou p>> Why does he stifle these cries, and thus prevent 
 future health by defending possibility as though present ? 
 
 58. And see what he adds to prove his statement, as he 
 thinks, Fo r, he says, no act of will can take away that which is 
 proved to be inseparably implanted in our nature. Whence, 
 Gal. v. 17. then, those words, “ So that ye cannot do the things that 
 Rom.vii.19. ye would ” ? Whence, also, those other words, “ For the 
 good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I hate, 
 that I practise ” ? Where is that possibility which is proved 
 to be inseparably impla 7 ited in our nature ? Here you see 
 men who do not the things that they would ; and he 
 was certainly speaking about not sinning, not about flying, 
 for they were men, not birds. Here you see a man who 
 does not the good that he would; but the evil which 
 Rom.vii. 18. he would not, that he does. “To will is present” with 
 him, “but to perfect what is good” is not present. 
 Where is that possibility which is proved to be insepai'ably 
 Cf.iCor.iv.6 implanted in our nature ? For whomsoever the Apostle 
 may in a figure be transferring to himself, if he does 
 not utter these words in his own person, it is certainly 
 a man that he in a figure transfers to himself. But 
 your author maintains that human nature itself has an 
 inseparable possibility of not sinning. Now, the aim of 
 such words (although unknown to the speaker, yet well 
 known to him who suggests them even to Godfearing 
 people when off their guard) is to make void the grace of 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 130 
 
 Christ, as though human nature were sufficient of itself 
 for its own righteousness. 
 
 59. But to avert the hostile feelings wherewith Christians 
 cry aloud on behalf of their own salvation, saying, “Why 
 do you say that without the help of God’s grace man 
 can be without sin ?” he says, The possibility of not shining 
 does not itself lie in the power of choice , so much as in the 
 necessity of nature. Whatever is based upon the necessity of 
 nature undoubtedly belongs to the Author of nature , that is 
 to God. How then, he says, is it supposed that what is 
 demonstrated essentially to belong to God , is asserted to 
 exist without God's grace ? Now the latent thought 
 
 has found expression ; it could not be hid. He 
 
 attributes the possibility of not sinning to the grace of 
 God, because God is the Author of that nature in which, 
 he says, there is implanted an inseparable possibility of 
 not sinning. So, then, when a man wishes to do anything, cf.Gai.v.17 
 
 he does it; and if he does it not, it is because he does 
 
 not wish it. For where there is this inseparable possibility , 
 a man cannot have weakness of will, or rather presence Rom.vii. 18 
 of will and lack of performance. If, then, this is so, 
 whence come the words, “To will is present with me, 
 but to perfect that which is good is not present” ? For, 
 if the author of this book was speaking of that nature 
 of man which at the first was created blameless and 
 sound, this assertion might by all means be accepted; 
 although he ought not to have said that that nature has 
 an inseparable or, if I may use the word, an unloseable, inamissi- 
 possibility since it might be corrupted, and have to seek a 
 physician to heal the eyes of the blind man and restore the 
 possibility of seeing, which had been lost through blindness. 
 
140 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 For he is blind, I consider, because he wishes to see, but 
 is not able ; but if he wishes and is not able, the will is 
 in him, but the possibility has been lost. 
 
 60. See further what barriers he tries to break through, 
 if possible, so as to make a way for his own ideas. For 
 he asks a question as in the words of an objector, But , 
 Gal. v. 17. you will say, according to the Apostle, the flesh is contrary to 
 us. To this he answers, How can the flesh be contrary to 
 any one who is baptized, when from the words of that same 
 Apostle we gather that such an one is not in the flesh ? For thus 
 Rom. viii. 9. he says, “ But ye are not in the flesh.” It is good that he 
 says that to the baptized the flesh cannot be contrary ; 
 whether this is true we will see afterwards. But now, 
 not being able entirely to forget that he is a Christian, 
 and having some faint recollection of it, he has retreated 
 from his defence of nature. Where is, then, the inseparable 
 possibility ? Or is it perchance, that the unbaptized have 
 not human nature ? Now indeed he might wake up, 
 and if he attends, he can do so. How can the flesh, he 
 says, be contrary to any one who is baptized ? Then to the 
 unbaptized the flesh can be contrary. Let him explain 
 how : for even they possess that nature which he so 
 strenuously defends. He certainly grants that in their 
 case at least it is corrupted, even if in the case of the 
 baptized the wounded man has already gone whole 
 out of the inn, or is whole in the inn whither the merciful 
 Samaritan carried him to be taken care of. Further, if 
 he grants that to the unbaptized at least the flesh is 
 contrary, let him say what has happened, since both, 
 that is, both the flesh and the spirit, are the creations 
 of one and the same Creator, and are undoubtedly 
 
nature and grace. 
 
 H 1 
 
 good, because He is good. Is not this the corruption 
 which has been brought upon man by his own will ? 
 
 And to cure this corruption in nature, he needs as 
 Saviour the same person Who, as Creator, gave his nature 
 its origin. If we confess that this Saviour and His healing 
 power wherewith the Word became flesh that He might 
 dwell in us is needed by small and great, that is, from 
 the wailing of infancy to the hoar hairs of old age, all 
 the controversy, between us has melted away. 
 
 61. Now then let us see whether we read that the 
 flesh is contrary to the baptized also. Here I ask, to 
 whom did the Apostle say, “The flesh lusteth against Gal.v. 17 
 the spirit and the spirit against the flesh ; for these are 
 contrary the one to the other, so that ye do not the 
 things that ye would ” ? He wrote it, I believe, to the 
 Galatians ; and to them he says, “ He therefore That sup- Gal. Hi. 5 
 plieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you 
 doeth He it by the works of the law or by the hearing of 
 faith ? ” Hence it is clear that he is speaking to Christians, 
 and to men to whom God had supplied the Spirit, there¬ 
 fore to those who were also baptized. You see that 
 to jjthe baptized also the flesh is found to be contrary, 
 and that they have not that possibility which is said to be 
 inseparably implanted in our nature. What becomes of 
 his words, How ca?i the flesh be contrary to any 07 ie who is 
 baptized? Let him assign w’hat meaning he will to “flesh” 
 
 (for, in truth, it is not the nature of the flesh, for that 
 is good, but the carnal corruptions which are called by 
 the name of “flesh” in this passage), still you see that 
 to the baptized also the flesh is contrary ; and in what 
 manner contrary? So that “they do not the things that 
 
142 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE . 
 
 they would.” There, you see, the will is present in man; 
 where is that possibility of nature ? Let us acknowledge 
 Rom.vii.24, that grace is necessary; let us cry out, “O wretched man 
 
 25. 
 
 that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this 
 death?” And let us hear the answer, “The grace of 
 God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 
 
 62. For when they are asked most properly, “Why do 
 you say that man can be without sin without the help of 
 God’s grace ? ” it is not a question of the grace wherewith 
 man was created, but of the grace wherewith he is made 
 whole through Jesus Christ our Lord. For the faithful 
 say in their prayers, “ Bring us not into temptation, but 
 deliver us from evil.” If they have the possibility, why 
 do they pray ? Or from what evil do they pray for 
 deliverance, if not above all from the body of this death, 
 whence naught but the grace of God through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord delivers us ? Certainly it is not from the 
 substance of the body that they pray for deliverance, for 
 that is good, but from carnal corruptions, from which 
 man is not freed without the grace of the Saviour, not 
 even when by the death of the body he leaves the body. 
 And what had the Apostle said before, leading up to this 
 Kom.vii. 23. passage ? “I see another law in my members, warring 
 against the law of my mind and bringing me into 
 captivity under the law of sin, which is in my members.” 
 There you see what corruption of human nature was 
 brought about by the disobedience of the will. Let that 
 corruption be allowed to pray that it may be healed. 
 Why does it vaunt itself so much about the possibility of 
 nature? It is wounded, hurt, injured, lost; it needs true 
 confession, not false defence. Therefore, let the grace 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 H3 
 
 of God be sought for, not the grace of creation, but the 
 grace of restoration ; and it is this grace alone which, 
 by his silence, he emphatically declares to be unnecessary. 
 Had he said nothing at all about the grace of God, had 
 he not set forth this question to be solved with a view 
 to removing hostile feeling on this point, it might be 
 supposed that he held what is true, although he did not 
 assert it; for everything cannot be said on every occasion. 
 He started the question about grace; he gave the answer 
 which he had in his mind ; the question is settled, not 
 as we wished, but we are no longer in doubt as to his 
 opinions. 
 
 63. Then with many quotations from the Apostle he 
 tries to prove a point on which there is no controversy, 
 that the word “flesh” is often used by the Apostle when he 
 wishes you to understand not the substance but the works of 
 the flesh. What has this to do with the matter ? The 
 corruptions of the flesh are contrary to the will of man ; 
 nature is not accused ; but it is for the corruptions that 
 the Physician is sought. What is the meaning of what 
 follows, when he asks, Who made maids spirit ? and answers 
 himself, God, without doubt; and, again asks, Who made 
 his flesh ? and again answers, The same God, I believe ; and 
 asks a third time, Is the God Who created both good ? and 
 answers, No one doubts it; and once again asks, And is 
 each of the works which the good Maker created, good ? and 
 to this answers, That must be granted; and then con¬ 
 cludes, Therefore , if both the spirit is good and the flesh 
 is good, as being made by a good Creator , how can it be that 
 two good things can be contrary to one another ? I forbear 
 to say that the whole of this argument would be upset if 
 
144 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 he were asked, “Who made heat and cold?” for he 
 would answer, “ God, without doubt.” I do not ask many 
 questions : let him decide whether these can be said to 
 be not good, and whether they are not yet clearly contrary 
 to one another. To this, perhaps, he says, “ These are 
 qualities of substances, not substances.” Just so, that 
 is true; but they are natural qualities, and undoubtedly 
 belong to the creation of God; moreover, substances, 
 water and fire for instance, are not said to be contrary to 
 one another in themselves but in their qualities. What if it 
 be the same with the flesh and the spirit ? We do not, 
 indeed, assert this ; but we made the remark to show 
 that his argument concludes with an illogical inference. 
 For it is possible even for contraries not to be mutually 
 opposed, but to temper one another, and so produce a 
 good state of health ; as in the body, dryness and moisture, 
 cold and heat, in the due tempering of which sound bodily 
 health consists. But that the flesh is contrary to the 
 spirit, so that we do not the things that we would, is 
 corruption, not nature : let the medicinal grace be sought, 
 and the controversy be at an end. 
 
 64. Besides how, in opposition to his argument, can 
 those two good creatures of the good God be contrary 
 to one another in the unbaptized ? Or will he regret 
 that he made even this admission, which he uttered with 
 some feeling of Christian faith? For when he said, How 
 cci 7 i the flesh be contrary to any o?ie who is already baptized ?' 
 he implied that the flesh might be contrary to the 
 unbaptized. For why did he add, who is already baptized , 
 when he might have said, even without this addition, How 
 can the flesh be contrary to anyone ? and to prove this he 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 145 
 
 might have adduced that argument of his, that both are 
 good, made by One Who is good, and therefore cannot 
 be contrary to one another ? Suppose, then, the unbaptized, 
 to whom he certainly acknowledges that the flesh is 
 contrary, press him with questions of their own and say, 
 
 “Who made man’s spirit?” he will answer, “God.” 
 
 And again they ask, “ Who made the flesh ? ” he answers, 
 
 “The same God, I believe.” A third time they ask, 
 
 “Is the God Who made both good?” again he answers, 
 
 “No one doubts it.” And if they put the one remaining 
 question, “ And is each of the works which the good 
 Maker created good ? ” he will allow it. Then they will 
 kill him with his own sword, by educing his conclusion 
 and saying, “ If, then, the spirit is good and the flesh 
 is good, as being made by a good Creator, how can it 
 be that two good things can be contrary to one another ? ” 
 
 To this perhaps he will answer, “ Forgive me; for I 
 
 ought not to have said that the flesh cannot be contrary 
 
 to anyone who is baptized, so as thus to acknowledge 
 
 that it is contrary to you who are unbaptized ; but I 
 
 ought to have said, without any exception, that the flesh 
 
 is contrary to no one.” Then, you see into what a corner 
 
 he drives himself; you see what a man says who will 
 
 not cry out with the Apostle, “ Who shall deliver m C Rmn.vii.24. 
 
 from the body of this death ? The grace of God through 
 
 Jesus Christ our Lord.” But why, he says, should I 
 
 cry out who am already baptized in Christ ? Let them raise 
 
 this cry, ivho have not leceived such a gift, whose words 
 
 the Apostle transferred in a figure to himself; if, indeed, 
 
 they say even this. But that defence he makes of nature 
 
 does not allow this cry even to the unbaptized. For 
 
 TO 
 
NATURE AND GRACE . 
 
 146 
 
 it cannot be that nature is in the baptized and is 
 not in the unbaptized. Or, if he grants that in them 
 at least it is corrupted, so that they cry out with good 
 reason, “ O wretched man, who shall deliver me from 
 the body of this death ? ” and obtain help in what 
 follows, “The grace of God through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord,” let him now at last allow that human nature does 
 sometimes need Christ as a physician. 
 
 65. But I ask where nature lost that liberty which it 
 longs to receive when it says, “Who shall deliver me?”; 
 for the Apostle, too, does not accuse the substance 
 of the flesh, when he says that he desires to be delivered 
 from the body of this death, since the nature of the body, 
 as much as that of the soul, must be attributed to the 
 good God as its Creator. But he speaks of the corruptions 
 of the body. For from the body the death of the body 
 severs him; but the corruptions contracted from it cling 
 to the soul, and to them is due a just punishment, which 
 the rich man found even in hell. From these corruptions 
 clearly he could not deliver himself, who says, “Who' 
 shall deliver me from the body of this death ? ” But 
 wherever he lost that liberty, surely that possibility of 
 nature is inseparable ; he has the power by the supply 
 of nature, he has the will by free choice; why does he 
 seek the sacrament of baptism ? Is it because of sins 
 which he has committed, that only those acts which 
 cannot be undone may be pardoned? Forgive the man: 
 he must still cry out as before. For he desires not only 
 that by pardon he may escape punishment for what is 
 past, but also that for the future he may be brave and 
 Rom.vii.22- strong so as not to sin. For he delights in the law of 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 147 
 
 God after the inward man, but he sees another law in 
 his members warring against the law of his mind; he 
 sees that it is there, he is not recollecting that it was; 
 it is by present troubles that he is oppressed, not the 
 past that he is calling to remembrance. And he does 
 not see it only warring, but also bringing him into 
 captivity under the law of sin, which is, not which was, 
 in his members,. Hence he calls out, “ 0 wretched man, 
 who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? ” 
 Allow him to pray, allow him to implore the assistance 
 of the most Mighty Physician. Why forbid him ? Why 
 cry him down ? Why is a wretched man prevented from 
 seeking the mercy of Christ, and that by Christians ? For 
 just in the same way they were walking with Christ, who 
 tried to prevent the blind man from crying for light, 
 but even amid the tumult of the gainsayers Christ hears 
 his cry. From Him too comes this other answer, “ The 
 grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 
 
 66. Moreover, if we obtain even the concession from 
 them that the unbaptized may implore the help of the 
 Saviour’s grace, this indeed is no little to set against that 
 false defence of the supposed self-sufficiency of nature 
 and the power of free choice. For he is not self-sufficient 
 who says, “ O wretched man who shall deliver me ?” nor 
 can he be said to have full freedom, who still prays to 
 be delivered. But let us consider this further point, 
 whether the baptized do the good which they would, 
 without any desire of the flesh warring against them. 
 Now, your author himself states what we should say on 
 this point, where at the conclusion of this passage he 
 says, As we have said, the text which contains the words , 
 
148 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 Rom. vi. 
 
 Gah v. 
 
 Rom. v. 
 
 James i 
 
 “ The flesh lusts against the spirit ,” must he understood not 
 of the substance , hut of the works, of the flesh. This we also 
 maintain, that it is said not of the substance, but of the 
 works of the flesh, which proceed from the desire of the 
 flesh, that is, from sin, with regard to which the Apostle 
 enjoined us that it should not reign in our mortal body 
 12. that we should obey the lusts thereof. 
 
 67. But let him notice, also, that the words were 
 addressed to those who were already baptized : “ The 
 flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the 
 flesh, so that ye do not the things that ye would.” And 
 lest he should make his readers laggards in this fight, 
 and should seem by this statement to have given some 
 indulgence for sin, the Apostle adds, “ But if ye be led 
 of the Spirit, ye are no longer under the law.” For he is 
 “ under the law ” who is conscious that he abstains from 
 the work of sin through fear of the punishment which the 
 law threatens, not through love of righteousness; he is 
 not yet free from, or a stranger to, the wish to sin. For 
 he is guilty in the very wish which makes him prefer, if 
 it were possible, that the object of his fear did not exist, 
 so that he might be free to do what he secretly desires. 
 Hence he says, “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are no 
 longer under the law,” the law, that is, which inspires 
 fear and does not bestow love: for the love of God 
 5, is shed abroad in our hearts, not by the letter of the 
 law, but by the Holy Spirit, Which is given unto us. This 
 is “ the law of liberty,” not of slavery, for it is the law of 
 love not of fear; and of this the Apostle James also 
 25, says, “ But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty.” 
 Wherefore, also, S. Paul was no longer, indeed, frightened 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 149 
 
 like a slave by the law of God, but he delighted in it after 
 the inward man : yet he still sees another law in his 
 members warring against the law of his mind. And so 
 he says here, “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not now 
 under the law.” Just so far as any one is led of the 
 Spirit, so far he is not under the law ; because in as far 
 as he delights in the law of God, he is not under the fear 
 of the law, for “ fear hath torment,” not delight. 
 
 68. Wherefore, if we think rightly, we ought not only 
 to give thanks because our members have been healed, 
 but we ought also to pray that they may be healed, so 
 that we may enjoy the most complete health which admits 
 of no increase, the perfect sweetness of God, the perfect 
 liberty. For we do not refuse to acknowledge that human 
 nature can be without sin, nor ought we in any way to 
 deny that that can be perfected, inasmuch as we do not 
 deny that it progresses, but it must be by the grace of 
 God through Jesus Christ our Lord. We say that human 
 nature may become righteous and happy by the help 
 of Him by Whom it was called into being. Therefore, 
 he finds an easy answer to the objection which, he says, 
 some people urge against him, The devil is fighting against 
 us. We most certainly reply to this objection in the 
 very same words that he uses, Let us resist him and he 
 will flee. “Resist the devil,” says the blessed Apostle , “and 
 he will flee from you.” From these words we may notice 
 how little he can hurt those from whom he flees, and what 
 little power we can suppose him to possess who is able to hurt 
 those only who do not resist him. These are my words 
 also; for nothing could be more true. But there is this 
 difference between us and them, that even in resisting 
 
 1 John iv. 18. 
 
 James iv. 7* 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 150 
 
 the devil we do not only not deny, but we even insist 
 that the help of God must be sought; but they attribute 
 so much power to the will that they rob piety of prayer. 
 For it is just in order that we may resist the devil and 
 that he may flee from us, that we say in our prayers, 
 Matt.vi. 13 “Bring us not into temptation”; for the same reason 
 also we are warned as by a commander exhorting his 
 Markxiv 38 soldiers and saying, “Watch ye and pray lest ye enter 
 into temptation.” 
 
 69. And to those who say, And who would not wish-to 
 be without sin if this had been placed within the powe? of 
 man ? he indeed argues rightly, that by this very fact that 
 many or all wish it, they confess that it is not impossible; 
 but let him acknowledge by what power it is possible, 
 and we are at peace. For the power is this very grace 
 of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by which he 
 absolutely never would say that we are helped not to 
 sin in answer to our prayers. If this happens to be his 
 latent belief, he must excuse those who suspect otherwise. 
 For it is he who raises the suspicion; because, when 
 exposed to so much hostility on the subject, he chooses 
 to believe it, without choosing to acknowledge or profess 
 his conviction. It would have been no great thing 
 to say it, particularly when he undertook to treat and 
 discourse upon this point as if alleged against him by 
 his opponents. Why did he choose to defend nature 
 only, and why did he assert that man was so created 
 that he had the power of not sinning if he had not wished 
 to sin ? Why did he lay down that this possibility, 
 by which a man does not sin if he does not wish to sin, 
 belongs to the grace of God on the ground that man was 
 
NA TURE AND GRA CE. 15 I 
 
 so created ? Or why would he not say anything about the 
 fact that, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord, nature itself is either healed because it is corrupted, 
 or helped because it is not sufficient of itself ? 
 
 70. For there may be some question among true and 
 godly Christians whether in this world there has been, or 
 is, or can be, any one living so righteously as not to have 
 any sin at all; but any one who doubts that it is certainly 
 possible after this life, is a fool. But I do not wish to 
 quarrel even about this life. For, although I do not 
 
 see that the passage “ In Thy sight shall no man living Ps cx]iii 2 
 be justified,” and others like it, can have any other 
 meaning, still I wish that it could be shewn, either that 
 these texts admit of another and a better meaning, or 
 that a perfect and complete righteousness to which nothing 
 could be added, has both been found in some one hereto¬ 
 fore whilst living in this body, and abides in him now, 
 and will be in him for the future; while, however, there 
 are still very many more who, without doubting that it 
 is necessary for them up to the last day of this life to 
 say with truth, “Forgive us our debts as we also forgive 
 our debtors,” are yet assured that their hope in Christ 
 and in His promises is true and certain and firm. But 
 if any shall assert either that some have attained to 
 absolute perfection, or that anyone has attained any 
 advance in true and godly righteousness, by any way 
 except through the assistance of our Saviour Christ 
 Crucified and through the gift of His Spirit, I know not 
 whether they can rightly be reckoned as Chritians at all. 
 
 71. And so again, those passages which he quoted, 
 not indeed from the Canonical Scriptures, but from certain 
 
!5 2 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 treatises of Catholic writers, to meet the objections of 
 those who said that he was the only supporter of these 
 views, are of such a neutral character as to contradict 
 neither our opinion nor his. Among them, also, he has 
 chosen to place an extract from my books, regarding 
 even me as of sufficient importance te be worthy of 
 being mentioned with them. I ought not to be ungrateful 
 for this, and 1 should feel the more deeply grieved that 
 a man who has done me this honour should make a mistake. 
 
 Why should I discuss at length the first passages that 
 he quoted, since I do not find in the book the name 
 of their author (either because he did not mention it, or 
 because the copy which you sent, perhaps by some clerical 
 error, did not contain it) ? Specially since I owe un¬ 
 qualified assent to the Canonical Scriptures alone, do I 
 feel at liberty in dealing with the writings of ordinary 
 men of this kind, and am in no way shaken by the passage 
 which he has quoted from the writings of the unnamed 
 author. It runs, It was necessary for the Master and Teacher 
 of virtue to be made very like man , so that by conquering sin 
 He might teach us that man can conquer sin. The author 
 of this statement may have seen in what way he could 
 explain its meaning; we, however, have no doubt that 
 Christ had no sin in Himself to conquer, for He was born 
 “ in the likeness of the flesh of sin,” not in the flesh of sin. 
 
 He has quoted another passage from the same author: 
 And again , in order that , when He had subdued the desires 
 of the flesh , He might teach that sinning is not a matter of 
 necessity , but of determination arid will. If desires of 
 unlawful lusts are not here alluded to, I understand desires 
 of the flesh to be such as hunger, thirst, rest after 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 *53 
 
 weariness and everything of that kind. For though these 
 are faultless yet by them some men lapse into faults. 
 
 This was far from being the case with the Saviour, 
 though we see from the evidence of the Gospel that He 
 had these desires in Himself as a consequence of the 
 likeness of the flesh of sin. 
 
 72. He quoted the following words of the blessed Hilary: 
 
 “ For unless we are perfect in spirit and changed by immortality , 
 we shall not behold the immortality which is in God , a sight 
 which is ordained for the pure in heart alone f but I know 
 not what Hilary said in opposition to what we say, or 
 how he helps your author, except that he bore witness 
 that man can be pure in heart. And who denies this ? 
 
 But it is by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord, not by freedom of choice alone. 
 
 Also he states that Hilary said, “ What book had fob Job i. 8 lxx. 
 read that he should keep himself from every evil thing ? For 
 he used to reverence God with a pure mind without any taint 
 of fault; and to worship God is a function peculiar to 
 righteousness .” Hilary said what Job had done, not what 
 he had perfectly done in this life, nor what he had either 
 done or perfectly done, without the grace of the Saviour, 
 of Whom also he prophesied. For even he abstains from 
 every evil thing who has sin but does not suffer it to 
 reign in him, who is assailed by a wicked thought but 
 does not allow it to come to effect in action. But not 
 to have sin is one thing; not to obey its desires is another. 
 
 It is one thing to fulfil what is commanded, “Thou shalt Exod. xx. 16 
 not desire and it is another, by a definite effort of self- 
 denial, to do at least what is also written, “Go not after Ecciusxviii. 
 
 30. 
 
 thy desires”; at the same time to know, however, that 
 
*54 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE . 
 
 he can rightly fulfil neither of these commands without 
 the grace of the Saviour. Therefore, to do righteousness 
 is to fight an inward battle with the inward evil of desire 
 in the true worship of God ; but to perfect righteousness 
 is not to have any adversary at all. For he who fights 
 is both still in danger and is also sometimes smitten, even 
 if he is not overthrown ; but he who has no adversary 
 enjoys perfect peace. And he is most truly said to be 
 without sin, in whom no sin dwells ; not the man who 
 Rom. vii. 20. says, because of his abstaining from evil deeds, “Now, 
 it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” 
 
 73. For even Job himself is not silent about his sins, 
 and certainly your friend rightly prefers that humility 
 should not be placed on the side of falsehood ; and 
 therefore that which Job confesses, he without doubt 
 confesses truly, since he is a truthful worshipper of God. 
 And Hilary himself, in explaining the passage of the 
 Ps. cxix. 118 Psalm where it is written, “Thou hast despised all them 
 that depart from Thy ordinances,” says, “For if God 
 were to despise sinners, He would indeed despise all ; 
 for no one is without sin. But He despises those who 
 depart from Him, who are called apostates.” You see 
 how he did not say that no one has been without sin, 
 as if speaking of the past, but that no one is without 
 sin ; and on this point, as I have said, I do not dispute. 
 For whoever does not give way to the Apostle John, 
 1 John i. 8. -who himself, too, does not say “If we say that we have 
 had no sin,” but “ have no sin,” how will he give way 
 to the Bishop Hilary ? I cry aloud on behalf of the 
 grace of Christ, without which no one is justified, as 
 though the free choice of nature were sufficient. Nay, 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 1 55 
 
 •Christ Himself calls out on its behalf; let him give way 
 to Him, when He says, “Without Me ye can do nothing.” 
 
 74. The blessed Ambrose, however, in the passage 
 which your author quotes, is really opposing those who 
 say that man cannot be without sin in this life. For 
 he took occasion to remark this in connexion with 
 Zacharias and Elisabeth, because in the Gospel they are 
 said to have “walked in all the ordinances of the law 
 blameless does he, however, deny that that was caused 
 by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord ? 
 For there is no doubt that righteous men lived by this 
 faith, even before the passion of Him Who bestows the 
 Holy Spirit Which is given unto us, by Which there is 
 shed abroad in our hearts the love which alone gives 
 righteous men their righteousness. And the same bishop 
 bids us ask in our prayers for this Spirit (so he does 
 not consider that will is sufficient unless helped by God), 
 when he says in a hymn of his own, “ And grants to 
 our constant prayers to earn the Holy Spirit.” 
 
 75. I, too, will quote something from the same work of 
 Saint Ambrose, from which he quoted what he thought was 
 worth quoting, He says, “ ‘ It seemed good to me.’ It 
 is possible that what S. Luke declares ‘ seemed good to ’ 
 him, did not seem good to him only. For it did not 
 seem good merely by an act of human will, but as it 
 pleased Him Who, he says, speaks in me, that is Christ, 
 Who by His working makes it possible that that which is 
 good seems good to us also. For whom He pities, He 
 also calls. Therefore when a follower of Christ is asked 
 why he chose to be a Christian, he can answer ‘ It seemed 
 good to me.’ And when he says this, he does not say 
 
 John xv. 5. 
 
 Luke i. 6. 
 
 Luke i. 3. 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 I5 6 
 
 that it did not seem good to God : for the will of man is 
 prepared by God, for it is through the grace of God that 
 God is honoured by His saints.” See what your author 
 must hold if he delights in the words of Ambrose, that 
 “ the will of man is prepared by God ” ; and it is no 
 question, or at least no question of importance, who is 
 perfected or when, provided only that there is not a 
 shadow of doubt that that perfection is impossible without 
 the grace of Christ. 
 
 Then what a great thing it would be that he should 
 attend to that one clause of the words of Ambrose, which 
 he quoted. For after saying, For since the Church has 
 been gathej'ed from Gentiles, that is, from simiers, how can 
 the spotted form a spotless Church, unless in the first place , 
 through the grace of Christ, she be purged from transgression ; 
 and then she abstain from transgressions through the power to 
 avoid sin ? Ambrose added a passage which for evident 
 reasons your author was unwilling to add. For he says, 
 “ She was not from the beginning spotless, for this was 
 impossible to human nature ; but because she does not 
 now sin through the grace of God and her own power 
 it results that the Church is seen to be spotless.” 
 Who does not understand why your author did not add 
 these words ? Even now, in this world, our aim is that 
 that most spotless purity, which all the saints desire, may 
 be attained by the Holy Church, which in the future world, 
 when she is freed from the commixture of every evil man, 
 and from the law of sin within her resisting the law of the 
 mind, is to lead a most pure life in the Divine eternity. 
 But he must notice what Bishop Ambrose said in accordance 
 with the Scriptures. She was not “ from the beginning 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 r 57 
 
 spotless, for this was impossible to human nature.” For 
 
 from the beginning ” means certainly from our birth 
 from Adam. For undoubtedly Adam himself was created 
 spotless : but for those who are by nature children of 
 wrath, inheriting from him that which was corrupted in 
 him, to be immaculate from the beginning, he stated to 
 be impossible for human nature. 
 
 76. Also John, the bishop of Constantinople, whom he 
 quoted, says that sin is not a substance but a wicked act . 
 Who denies this ? And because it is not natural, therefore in 
 opposition to it the law was given, and the power that comes 
 from freedom of choice. Who denies this either ? But now 
 we are discussing the human nature which has been 
 corrupted; and we are discussing the grace of God by 
 which that nature, which your author maintains to be 
 able not to sin as if it were whole or were sufficient of 
 itself through the choice of the will, is made whole through 
 Christ the Physician, Whom it would not need if it were 
 whole. 
 
 77. Also what Christian does not know that which he 
 quotes as having been said by the most blessed Xystus, a 
 bishop of the Roman Church and a martyr of the Lord,* 
 ■“ God has granted to men the freedom of their own choice, that 
 by living purely and without sin they may become like God.” 
 But to this very choice it appertains to hear and believe 
 Him when He calls, and from Him in whom it believes, to 
 
 * S. Aug. Retractations, i. 42. “ Certain words which Pelagius 
 
 •quoted as being the words of Xystus, the Roman Bishop and Martyr, 
 I have in this book defended as if they were really the words of that 
 Xystus : for I had supposed that they were so. But I afterwards 
 read that they were the words of Sextus, the philosopher, not of 
 Xystus, the Christian.” 
 
158 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 ask for help not to sin. For indeed when he says “ They 
 may become like God,” that they will be so, it is by the 
 love of God which is shed abroad in our hearts, not by tho 
 possibility of nature, not by the free choice which is in us, 
 but by the Holy Spirit Which is given unto us. 
 
 And as regards what the same martyr says, “A pure 
 mind is a temple holy to God, and His best altar is a heart 
 clean and without sin,” who does not know that the clean 
 heart is to be brought to this perfection, while the inward 
 man is renewed from day to day, yet not without the grace 
 of God through Jesus Christ our Lord ? Also in saying 
 The man, who is chaste and sinless, has received power from 
 God to be the son of God, he indeed admonished us lest 
 when anyone has become thus chaste and sinless (where 
 and when this can be perfected in him is a question, but a 
 good question for godly people, who are certain indeed 
 that it is possible, but that it is not possible without the 
 Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus)— 
 still, as I had begun saying, Xystus wisely admonished us, 
 lest, when any one has reached this character and is 
 therefore rightly reckoned among the sons of God he 
 should be supposed to have of himself the power which 
 he has received from God through grace. For he could not 
 possess it in his nature already corrupted and depraved, as 
 we read in the Gospel, “ But as many as received Him, 
 John i. 12. to them gave He power to become the sons of God : ” this 
 they certainly were not by nature, nor would they have 
 been so at all, unless by receiving Him they had obtained 
 such power through His grace. This is the power which is 
 won by the courage of love, and this love is in us only by 
 the Holy Spirit Which is given unto us. 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 *59 
 
 78. But about the words of the venerable presbyter 
 Jerome in the passages quoted from his exposition of the 
 words “ Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” 
 that is, they whom no consciousness of sin convicts, to which he 
 added, the pure One is beheld by the pure in heart, that which 
 is polluted cannot be a temple of God, that is indeed what 
 is our aim by striving, working, praying, intreating to 
 be brought, by the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord, to that 
 perfection in which we may behold God with a pure heart. 
 
 Also what he quotes from the same presbyter, “ God 
 created us with freedom of choice, and we are drawn by necessity 
 neither to virtue nor to vices ; otherwise, where there is necessity, 
 there is no crown ; ” who would not acknowledge this ? 
 
 Who would not embrace it with his whole heart ? Who 
 would deny that human nature was created different 
 from what it is now ? But in right action there is no 
 bond of necessity, for the gift of love is liberty. 
 
 79. Come back therefore to the Apostle’s words, “The love 
 
 of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit Which Rom.v. 5. 
 is given unto us.” By Whom, if not by Him Who 
 “ascended on high,” and “led captivity captive and Eph< iv . 
 gave gifts unto men ” ? But man must know that there 
 may be a certain necessity of sinning arising from the 
 corruptions of nature, not from its constitution ; and to 
 free himself from that necessity, let him learn to sav 
 to God “ Bring Thou me out of my necessities.” For p s . xxv . 17 
 even in such prayer there is a battle with the tempter 
 who is fighting against us about that necessity ; and so 
 when grace through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us, both 
 this baneful necessity will be removed and full liberty will 
 be bestowed. 
 
i6o NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 80. Let us come to ourselves. Bishop Augustine also, he says, 
 in his books about Free Choice, writes, “ Whatever that cause of the 
 will be, if it cannot be resisted, it is not sinful to yield to it ; if 
 it can be resisted', it must not be yielded to, then there will be no 
 sin. But if it happens to deceive a man when off his guard l 
 Then let him be on his guard against being deceived. But if 
 the deceit is so great that it is altogether impossible to guard 
 against it ? If it is, in that case there is no sin. For who 
 can be said to sin when he does what he cannot by any means 
 guard against t But man does commit sin ; therefore it is 
 possible to guard against it.” I acknowledge it, the words 
 are mine; but let him condescend to acknowledge all 
 I said before. For 1 was discussing not the impossibility 
 of righteousness, but the grace of God which through 
 the Mediator helps us like medicine. Therefore that 
 cause, whatever it may be, can be resisted ; it evidently 
 can. For in these words we pray for assistance when 
 we say “ Bring us not into temptation,” and we should not 
 ask for this assistance if we believed the cause could 
 not be resisted. It is possible to guard against sin ; but by 
 the aid of Him Who cannot be deceived. While also this 
 other prayer applies to guarding against sin, if we 
 say truly “ Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our 
 debtors.” For in the case of the body as well there 
 
 are two ways of guarding against the evil of disease, 
 both by taking care not to contract it, and, when con¬ 
 tracted, by taking care to cure it speedily ; let us take care 
 not to contract it by saying “ Bring us not into tempta¬ 
 tion ” ; let us take care to cure it speedily by saying 
 “ Forgive us our debts.” So then whether it threaten 
 us, or whether it be in us, we can guard against it. 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 161 
 
 81. But that my opinion on this subject may be 
 sufficiently clear, not only to him, but also to those who 
 have not read those books of mine on Free Choice 
 which he has read, and who perchance without having read 
 them do read this book, I must quote from those books a 
 statement which if he would hold and insert in his writings, 
 there would be no further controversy on the subject 
 between us. For, immediately after those words of mine 
 which he quoted, I myself added, and as far as possible 
 dealt with, a point that might suggest itself, saying, “ And 
 yet even some acts done through ignorance are blamed, 
 and are decreed worthy of punishment, as we read in 
 the Divine records.” And after adducing examples to 
 illustrate this, I spoke also of infirmity, saying, “ Some 
 acts even when done through necessity are to be blamed, 
 where a man wishes to do rightly and cannot. For what 
 mean those cries ‘ For the good that I would, I do not, 
 but the evil which I hate, that I do ? ’ ” And having 
 quoted other passages of the word of God to the same 
 effect, I go on to say, “ But all these passages are the 
 cries of men who are coming out of that condemnation 
 of death. For if that state be not the punishment of 
 man but his nature, none of those acts are sins.” Then 
 a little after I said, “ It remains therefore that this just 
 punishment should result from the condemnation of man. 
 Nor is it strange that either through ignorance he has not 
 the free choice of his will to select what it is right 
 to do, or through the resistance of the carnal habit, 
 which has grown up in a manner naturally through the 
 force of the deadly inheritance, he should see what it 
 would be right to do, and should wish, and yet be 
 
162 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 unable, to fulfil it. For the most just punishment of sin 
 is this, that a man should lose what he was unwilling 
 to use aright when he could have done so without any 
 difficulty had he wished ; and this implies that he, who 
 knows how to act and does not act rightly, should 
 lose the knowledge of what is right, and that he, who 
 would not act rightly when he could, should lose the 
 power to do so even if he would. For there are in 
 truth those two penal visitations on every soul that sins, 
 ignorance and difficulty. The first brings the shame 
 of error ; the other the pain of torment. But if a man 
 approves of falsehood instead of truth, so that he errs 
 against his will, and from the resistance and torture of 
 the pain of fleshly bondage is unable to refrain from 
 the works of lust, this is not the nature of man as he 
 was created but his punishment as condemned. But 
 when we speak of the free will to do what is right, we 
 are speaking of that state in which man was created.” 
 Then I proceeded to reply to the men who allege what 
 they think a just cause of complaint because of these 
 corruptions of ignorance and difficulty which have been 
 passed on and transfused into the descendants of the first man. 
 “To these,” I go on to say, “I answer briefly that they 
 should be quiet and cease to murmur against God. For 
 they might perhaps reasonably complain if no man proved 
 victorious over error and lust; but since One is everywhere 
 present ready in divers manners by means of His Creation 
 which serves Him as its Master, to call the wanderer, 
 teach the believer, console the hopeful, exhort the 
 diligent, help the striving, listen to the prayerful, it 
 is not your unwilling ignorance but your failure to pray 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 163 
 
 for the knowledge of that of which you are ignorant, 
 which is reckoned as your fault; nor is it your fault 
 that you do not set your broken limbs, but that you 
 despise Him who wishes to cure you.” Thus, while I 
 exhorted them, as far as I could, to an upright life, I did 
 not make of none effect the grace of God, without which 
 human nature in its present darkness and corruption 
 cannot be illuminated and healed. It is on this point 
 that the whole discussion with them turns, that we are 
 not to frustrate the grace of God which is in Christ Jesus 
 our Lord by an obstinate defence of nature. And about 
 this nature I said also a little lower down, “ Even the 
 word itself we use, in one sense, when we are speaking 
 strictly, of that nature of man in which at the first he 
 was created after his kind blameless ; in another sense, 
 when we speak of that nature in which, in consequence 
 of the punishment of man under condemnation, we are 
 both ignorant and subject to the flesh : in the latter 
 sense the Apostle says, ‘ For we also were by nature 
 the children of wrath even as the rest.’ ” 
 
 82. If then we wish, by Christian exhortations , to rouse 
 and kindle minds which are cold and sluggish in striving 
 after an upright life , let us first of all exhort them to 
 the faith by which they may become Christians and be 
 in subjection to the name of Him, without Whom they 
 cannot be whole. But if they are already Christians, 
 and are careless about living well, let them be whipped 
 on with terrors and excited by the praises of the rewards; 
 in such a manner, however, that we remember to exhort 
 them, not only to good deeds, but also to godly prayers, 
 and to train them in such sound teaching that, when 
 
164 
 
 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 1 John i 
 
 Matt. xi. 
 
 1 John v 
 
 Rom. x. 
 
 they have begun to lead a good life, they may both 
 give thanks for whatever they do without difficulty, and, 
 when they find some difficulty, they may be urgent in 
 winning from the Lord, by the most faithful and persevering 
 prayers and with ready works of mercy, help to overcome 
 it. But if they thus progress, I care not overmuch where 
 and when they are made perfect in the most complete 
 righteousness; but wherever and whenever they shall have 
 been made perfect, I maintain that they can be perfected 
 only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 Certainly, when they know for certain that they have no 
 sin, they must not say that they have sin, lest the truth 
 be not in them, just as the truth is not in those who, 
 
 ■ 8- when they have it, say that they have it not. 
 
 83. But “the commandments are good” indeed, if we 
 use them lawfully. For, by the very fact of our most 
 strong belief that “the just and good God cannot have 
 commanded impossibilities,” we are admonished both 
 what to do in easy matters and what to pray for in difficult 
 matters. For to love, all things become easy; to it 
 3 °- only “the burden” of Christ “is light,” or rather love 
 itself is the one burden which is light. In this sense 
 • 3- it was said, “And His commandments are not grievous”; 
 that he to whom they are grievous should consider that 
 it could not have been said under Divine inspiration that 
 they “ are not grievous,” were not a state of* the heart 
 possible to which they are not grievous ; and that he 
 should pray for what he lacks in order that he may fulfil 
 what he is bidden. And what is said to Israel in 
 Deuteronomy has the same meaning, if it be understood 
 8. piously, reverently, and spiritually. For the Apostle, after 
 
 
NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 
 165 
 
 quoting the passage “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth 
 
 and in thy heart” (in Deuteronomy we have “in thy Deut.xxx.14 
 
 hands,” because the hands of the spirit are in the heart), gee Aug. 
 
 says, “that is, the word of the spirit, which we preach.” Deu^Lib!". 
 
 Whoever, therefore, has turned, as is there enjoined, to 
 
 the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his 
 
 soul, will have no commandment of God that is grievous. 
 
 For how is it grievous since it is the commandment of 
 
 love ? For either a man does not love and so it is grievous, 
 or he does love and it cannot be grievous. But he does 
 love if, as Israel is there admonished, he has turned to 
 the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul. 
 
 “Anew commandment,” the Scripture says, “I give unto John xiii.34. 
 you that ye love one another,” and “He that loveth his Rom. xiii. 8. 
 neighbour hath fulfilled the law,” and “Love is the 
 fulfilling of the law.” To the same effect also are those Rom. xiii. 10 
 other words, “If they had walked in the good paths, Prov. ii. 20. 
 they would surely have found the paths of righteousness 
 smooth.” How, then, is it said, “Because of the words Ps.xvii. 4 . 
 
 Cf. i.xx. 
 
 of Thy lips, I have kept the rough ways,” except that 
 both are true ? They are rough to fear; they are smooth 
 to love. 
 
 84. Therefore love begun is righteousness begun ; love 
 increased is righteousness increased ; great love is great 
 righteousness ; perfect love is perfect righteousness, but 
 love out of a pure heart and of a good conscience and of 1 Tim. i. 5. 
 faith unfeigned. And it will be at its greatest in this life 
 when, for its sake, life itself is despised : but I wonder if 
 it may not grow yet further after it has left this mortal 
 life. But wherever and whenever it is so complete that 
 there is nothing to be added to it, still it is not shed 
 
 1 
 
166 NATURE AND GRACE. 
 
 abroad in our hearts by the resources which are in us, 
 whether of nature or of will, but through the Holy Spirit 
 Which is given unto us, Who both helpeth our infirmity 
 and worketh with our health. For this is the grace of 
 God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to Whom with the 
 Father and the Holy Spirit belongs eternity and goodness, 
 for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 167 
 
 THE ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
 AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 1. After I had received, holy Father Aurelius, the Acts 
 of the Council, in which Pelagius is pronounced Catholic 
 by fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine, I no 
 longer hesitated to enter upon a fuller and more confident 
 discussion of his defence. For I had already read this 
 defence in a short document, which he had himself sent 
 me. As, however, I had received therewith no letter 
 subscribed with his name, I was afraid that there might be 
 found some discrepancy between my language and the 
 account authorised by the bishops, and that Pelagius 
 might assert that he had not sent me the document. In 
 which case, since he could not easily be convicted of 
 falsehood on the authority of one witness, I feared that I 
 rather might be found guilty, by those who supported him 
 in that assertion, either of deliberate forgery or, to express 
 it more mildly, of rash credulity. But now, since my 
 discussion is based upon the evidence of the official account, 
 and there is no longer, I imagine, any doubt whether 
 Pelagius used such language in his defence, your Holiness 
 and all my readers will more easily and more surely 
 form their judgment both concerning his defence and 
 my present work. 
 
168 
 
 PR O CEE DINGS A GAINS T PE LA GIGS. 
 
 2. In the first place, then, I cannot find words to 
 express the gratitude I feel towards the Lord God, my 
 Ruler and Protector, because the opinion which I held 
 concerning our holy brethren and fellow-bishops, who 
 sat as judges in that cause, has not proved false. For it 
 was quite right that they should approve of his answers, 
 for they were not concerned with the way in which Pelagius 
 had expressed the impugned statements in his works, but 
 with his answers about them in this trial. For there is a 
 great difference between a question of unsound faith and 
 one of an unguarded expression. 
 
 Now there were certain statements of Pelagius objected 
 to in the indictment which had been handed in by our holy 
 brethren and fellow-bishops of Gaul, Heros and Lazarus, 
 and recited from it at the Council, (for they were unable to 
 be present on account of what we have afterwards learnt 
 to be a serious illness of one of them). Among these 
 statements the first is a passage which occurs in a certain 
 book of his, that a man cannot be ivithout sin, unless he has 
 the knowledge of the Jaw. When this was recited, the Synod 
 asked, Is this your statement, Pelagius ? To which he replied, 
 The words indeed are mine, but I did not mean them in the 
 sense in ivhich my accusers understand them; I did not mean 
 that he cannot sin, who has the knowledge of the law ; but that 
 man is helped to be ivithout sin by the knowledge of the law, as 
 Is. viii. 20. it is written , “ He gave them the law to help them .” When 
 they had heard this, the Synod said, What Pelagius has said 
 is not contrary to the teaching of the Church. Certainly the 
 reply of Pelagius was not contrary, but the quotation made 
 from his book sounds as though it meant something else. 
 But this meaning the bishops, being Greeks, and hearing 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. l 69 
 
 the quotation translated by an interpreter, did not care to 
 discuss ; regarding only what he who was under examina¬ 
 tion said that he had thought, not in what words that 
 thought was expressed in his book. 
 
 3. For to say that a man is helped to be without sin by 
 the knowledge of the law is a very different thing from 
 saying that a man cannot be without sin unless he has the 
 knowledge of the law. For we see, for example, corn 
 threshed even without the usual threshing instruments, 
 though these are helpful if we have them ; we see that 
 boys can go to school without slaves to take them, though 
 the help of slaves for this purpose is of great use; we see 
 many recover from illness without physicians, though the 
 help they can give is obvious ; we see men live upon other 
 kinds of food without bread, though no one would deny 
 that the help of bread is of very great value ; and many 
 other similar cases will easily occur to the mind without 
 our mentioning them. Such instances show us clearly that 
 there are two kinds of help. The one kind consists of 
 those things without which the purpose towards which they 
 help cannot be effected ; for example, no one sails without 
 a ship, or speaks without a voice, or walks without feet, or 
 sees without light, and many other things of the same sort. 
 To this kind belongs the fact that no one lives rightly 
 without God’s grace. The other kind of help consists of 
 those which help us in such a way, that even without them, 
 the purpose for which we want them may be effected in 
 some other way ; just as the things which I mentioned, 
 the instruments for threshing corn, the slave to take the 
 boy to school, the medicine prepared by human art for 
 regaining health, and other things of the kind. We ought 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEL A GIGS. 
 
 170 
 
 therefore to ask, to which of these two kinds the knowledge 
 of the law belongs, or in other words, how it helps man to 
 be without sin. 
 
 If it helps him in such a way that without it sinlessness 
 cannot be realised, then not only the answer of Pelagius at 
 his trial, but also the statement in his book, is true. But 
 if the knowledge of the law only helps in such a way 
 as to be of use if a man has it, but that without it the 
 purpose towards which it helps may be effected in some 
 other way ; then the answer of Pelagius in the trial, which 
 rightly pleased the bishops, namely, that man is helped to be 
 without sin by the knowledge of the law , is true; but not so 
 his statement in his book that man is not without sin, unless he 
 has the knowledge of the law. This statement his judges left 
 undiscussed, because they were ignorant of the Latin 
 language, and were content with the confession which the 
 defendant made, especially since there was no accuser 
 present to compel the interpreter to expound and make 
 plain the language of his book, and show what that was which 
 with good reason roused the indignation of the brethren. 
 
 For there are very few who are skilled in the law, but the 
 great multitude of Christ’s members scattered in all direc¬ 
 tions, and unskilled in the law which is so profound and 
 multiplex, are commended by the piety of their simple faith 
 and their firm hope in God and their sincere love, and 
 endowed with these gifts they trust that they can be 
 cleansed from sin by God’s grace through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord. 
 
 4. Pelagius might reply to this objection that by the 
 knowledge of the law without which man cannot be free from 
 sin , he meant that knowledge, which by the teaching of 
 
PR OCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 171 
 
 the faith is presented to neophytes and children in Christ, 
 in which too candidates for baptism are catechized that 
 they may know the Creed. If so we must maintain that 
 that is certainly not what is usually meant, when a person 
 is said to have a knowledge of the law, but rather that 
 knowledge which is implied in the phrase skilled in the law. 
 
 But let us suppose that by the knowledge of the law he did 
 refer to the words, few in number but great in power, which 
 are faithfully delivered by the custom of all churches to 
 candidates before baptism, and he were to declare that in 
 saying that man is not without sin, unless he has the knowledge 
 of the law he meant the law which is of necessity delivered 
 to believers before they receive the actual remission of sins. 
 
 Even so he would be beset by a countless number of 
 baptized children, not arguing with him but wailing, and 
 they would cry out, not with words, but by their very 
 innocence which cannot lie: “What is this, what is this 
 which you have written, that a man cannot be without sin, 
 unless he has the knowledge of the law ? Lo here are we 
 a great flock of lambs without sin, and yet we have no 
 knowledge of the law.” Surely they by their silent tongues 
 would compel him to be silent, or rather they might per¬ 
 chance compel him to acknowledge that either now he has 
 been argued out of that perversity, or at least that, while 
 holding from the first the opinions which he maintained in 
 the ecclesiastical tribunal, he had not expressed his opinion 
 with due care, and that therefore his faith must be approved, 
 his book corrected. “For there is,” as it is written, “one Ecclus.xi* 
 that slippeth in his speech and not in his heart.” If he 
 had said this, or should say it, who would not readily 
 pardon the unguarded and careless expressions which he 
 
17 2 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A. GINS. 
 
 wrote, since he would not be defending the opinion which 
 those words imply, but would be declaring that to be his 
 opinion, which is approved by truth ? This we must 
 believe was the opinion of the pious judges, even sup¬ 
 posing that his statement in his Latin book was carefully 
 interpreted, and that they were able sufficiently to under¬ 
 stand its meaning, just as they easily understood his 
 answer uttered in Greek, and declared that it was not 
 contrary to the teaching of the Church. But let us 
 consider other matters. 
 
 5. The Synod of bishops went on to say, Let another 
 * capituium. sentence* be read, and it was read that in the same book 
 Pelagius had asserted that all are governed by their own will. 
 When this was read Pelagius answered, This, too , I said 
 because of free choice, which God helps when it chooses good; 
 but man when he sins is himself to blame, as being endoived 
 with free choice. When they heard this the bishops said, 
 This, too, is not contrary to the teaching of the Church. For 
 who would condenm or deny free choice, when with it is pro¬ 
 claimed the help of God ? Therefore the bishops were right 
 in approving of the opinion which Pelagius expressed in 
 his answer; while nevertheless the brethren who knew what 
 arguments he and his followers are accustomed to use 
 against God’s grace, were certainly right in being vexed with 
 the statement in his book that all are governed by their own 
 will. For this statement was intended as though it meant 
 that God governs no one, and that the passage was written 
 Ps. xxviii. 9- in vain which says, “Save Thy people, and bless Thine 
 inheritance, and govern them and lift them up for ever,” 
 * reguntur. that they may not remain, that is, if they are governed* 
 by their own will without God, “ as sheep not having a 
 
PR O CEE DINGS A GA INS 2 ' PE LA GIUS. 
 
 *73 
 
 shepherd;” which God forbid! Now there is no doubt 
 that to be acted upon* means something more than to be *agi. 
 governed; for he who is governed is himself an agent,* *aiiquidagit 
 and he is governed by God to act rightly; but he who is 
 acted upon is hardly understood by that phrase to be 
 an agent; and yet, nevertheless, the grace of God gives 
 so much power to our wills, that the Apostle does not 
 hesitate to say, “as many as are acted upon* by the Spirit * aguntur. 
 
 jR.ora.viii.14 
 
 of God, they are the sons of God.” Nor can free will have 
 
 any better action* within us, than to commend itself to Him *aiiquid 
 
 melius agere 
 
 to be acted upon, for He cannot act what is evil; and, when 
 it has done this, to have no doubt that it was helped to do 
 it by Him, to Whom it is said in the Psalm, “ My God, p s . lix.io. 
 His mercy shall prevent me.” 
 
 6. And then in that book in which Pelagius wrote those 
 sentences,* after the statement that all are governed by *capituia. 
 their own will and that each is left free to his own desire , 
 he quoted some passages of Scripture which make it 
 evident that man ought not to entrust himself to his own 
 government. For the Wisdom of Solomon says on this 
 point, “I myself also am a mortal man, like to all of the Wisd.vii. 1. 
 earthly race of him, that was first made;” and going on 
 to the end of the passage we find, “ All men therefore ibid. 6,7. 
 have one entrance into life, and the like going out; 
 wherefore I desired, and understanding was given me, 
 and I called upon God and the Spirit of wisdom came to 
 me.” Is it not as clear as daylight, how he, considering 
 the misery of human frailty, dared not entrust himself 
 to his own government, but desired, and there was given 
 him the understanding concerning which the Apostle 
 says, “ but we have the understanding of the Lord,” and 
 
* aguntur. 
 
 Ps. cix. 17. 
 
 Ecclus. xv. 
 16, 17. 
 
 
 
 174 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIGS. 
 
 he prayed, and there came upon him the Spirit of wisdom? 
 For by this Spirit, not by the strength of their own will, 
 are they who are the sons of God governed and acted 
 upon.* 
 
 7. And with regard to that other quotation (which he 
 has made from the Psalms in the same book of sentences 
 by way of proving that all are governed by their own will), 
 “ He delighted in cursing, and it shall come upon him, 
 and he loved not blessing, and it shall be far from him,” 
 everybody knows that is not the fault of nature as God 
 created it, but of man’s will which has departed from 
 God. But, nevertheless, supposing he had not loved 
 cursings and had wished for blessing, and should deny that 
 in this very thing his will was helped by God’s grace, then 
 in his ingratitude and ungodliness he would be left free to 
 govern himself, that when thrown down headlong without 
 God to govern him, he might find by punishment that he 
 was incapable of governing himself. So also in that other 
 quotation which he has adduced under the same heading- 
 in that book, “ He hath set water and fire before thee; 
 stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt; before 
 man is good and evil, life and death, and whether him 
 liketh, shall be given him,” it is obvious that if a man 
 reaches out his hand to the fire, and if evil and death please 
 him, that is the work of man’s will ; but if he loves good 
 and life, that is not the effect of his will alone, but he is 
 helped by God. For the eye is sufficient of itself for not 
 seeing, that is for darkness ; but for seeing it is not sufficient 
 of itself by its own light, unless the help of clear light be 
 given to it from without. God forbid that they who are 
 called according to God’s purpose, whom He foreknew and 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GINS. 17 5 
 
 predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, 
 should be left free to their own desire to perish. For this 
 is the fate of the vessels of wrath, which were fitted to 
 destruction; in whose very destruction God makes known the 
 riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy. This is why 
 the Psalmist, when he had said “ My God, His mercy shall 
 prevent me,” immediately went on to say “ My God hath 
 made me see it * upon mine enemies. ” In them there¬ 
 fore takes places that which is written, “ God gave them up 
 to the desires of their heart,” but not in the predestined, 
 who are governed by God's Spirit, since their words are not 
 uttered in vain, “ Give me not up, O Lord, by means of 
 my desire to the sinner.*” For it was against these very 
 desires that we find the prayer uttered, “ Take away from 
 me the greediness of the belly, and let not the lust of the 
 flesh take hold of me.” This prayer God grants to those 
 whom He subdues and governs; but not to those who deem 
 themselves fit to govern themselves, and with the over¬ 
 confident stiffneckedness of their own will disdain to have 
 him for their Governor. 
 
 8. This being so, how vexed might those sons of God 
 have been, who know this and rejoice that they are 
 governed and led by the Spirit of God, when they heard 
 or read what was written by Pelagius, that all are governed 
 by theu own will \ and that each is left free to his own 
 desire ! And yet because Pelagius, when interrogated by 
 the bishops, perceived what an evil meaning those words 
 naturally bore, and therefore answered that he said this 
 because of free choice , adding that God helps it ivhen it 
 chooses good; but man , when he sins , is himself to blame , 
 as being endowed with free choice , the pious judges approved 
 
 * i.e. His 
 mercy. See 
 S. Aug. 
 Enarr.prima 
 in Ps. Iviii. 
 ? 20. 
 
 Rom. i. 24. 
 Ps. cxl. 8. 
 
 * See S.Aug. 
 Enarr. in Ps. 
 exxxix. ? 12. 
 Ecclus.xxiii. 
 
 6 . 
 
176 
 
 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 of this opinion also, and did not care to consider or 
 inquire how far the words objected to were the result 
 of carelessness, or in what sense they were used in his 
 book. For they were satisfied with his admission that 
 free will was so constituted that God helped it when it 
 chose good; but when man sinned, he was to blame, 
 because his own will was sufficient of itself for this. 
 And so God governs those whom he helps in choosing 
 * bene good, and these are good governors in all things*, just 
 
 regunt quid- 
 
 quid regunt. because they are themselves governed by One Who is good. 
 
 9. There was likewise quoted an expression which 
 Pelagius made use of in his book, In the day of judgment 
 the wicked and sinners are not to be spared, but to be burnt 
 with eternal fire. The brethren were vexed by this 
 statement, and thought it right to raise an objection, 
 because it seemed to imply that all sinners are to be 
 punished eternally, without excepting those who have 
 Christ for their foundation, although they build upon 
 
 1 Cor.iii.n- it wood, hay, stubble, about whom the Apostle says, “If 
 any man’s work be burnt up, he will suffer loss, but he 
 himself will be saved, yet so as by fire.” But when 
 Pelagius replied that his statement ivas made in accordance 
 with the Gospel, in which it is said of sinners, “ These shall 
 go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,” 
 the Christian judges could in no wise object to an opinion 
 thus supported by the Gospel and by our Lord’s words; 
 for they did not know what, in the quotation from 
 Pelagius’s book, distressed the brethren, accustomed as 
 they were to hear the disputations of himself or of his 
 disciples; since, in the absence of those who handed in 
 the indictment against Pelagius to the holy Bishop 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINS 7' PELAGIUS. 
 
 1 77 
 
 Eulogius, there was no one to press him to make any 
 exception, or to distinguish between the sinners who were 
 to be saved through fire, and the sinners who were to 
 be punished eternally ; for had the judges in this way 
 understood the real reason of the objection, they would 
 have rightly blamed him, if he had refused to make the 
 distinction. 
 
 io. And the judges accepted the further statement of 
 Pelagius, If any one believes otherwise , he is a?i Origenist ; 
 because the Church does very rightly to detest that opinion 
 of Origen, namely, that even they whom the Lord says are 
 to be punished eternally, not excluding the devil and his 
 angels, will, a long time hence, it may be, after purgation, 
 be released from their sins and be united in the fellowship 
 of bliss with the saints who reign with God. This state¬ 
 ment therefore the Synod declared to be not contrary to the 
 teaching of the Church , not as Pelagius used it, but as the 
 Gospel teaches, meaning that such wicked men and sinners 
 as the Gospel judges deserving of such punishment are to 
 be burnt with eternal fire, and that he who says that this 
 punishment, which the Lord has pronounced to be eternal, 
 can ever have an end, holds the detestable opinions of 
 Origen. But about those sinners, who, the Apostle says, 
 will be saved as by fire, though their work is burnt up, 
 they expressed no opinion, because clearly no objection 
 was raised against Pelagius about them. So then it is not 
 inaptly that Pelagius calls the man an Origenist who says 
 that the wicked men and sinners whom truth condemns to 
 eternal punishment can ever be released therefrom ; but on 
 the other hand he may call by what name he pleases the 
 man who thinks that no sinner is worthy of mercy in the 
 
 12 
 
i 7 8 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 Luke xiii. 25 
 -27. 
 
 Luke xix.27. 
 
 Matt. xxv. 
 31-46. 
 
 Luke xix. 
 22-24. 
 
 Matt. xxii. 
 11-13. 
 
 .Matt. xxv. 
 10-12. 
 
 judgment of God, provided that he understands that their 
 error is not admitted by the true teaching of the Church. 
 “For he will have judgment without mercy, who hath 
 showed no mercy.” 
 
 11. Now how this judgment will take place it is not 
 easy to gather from the statements of the Holy Scriptures. 
 For it is expressed in many ways, though it will take 
 place in one. For at one time the Lord says that He will 
 shut the door against those whom He does not receive 
 into His kingdom, and when they crv out and say “ Open 
 unto us, we have eaten and drunk in Thy name,” and 
 other things which they are represented as saying, He will 
 answer, “ I know you not, ye that work iniquity.” At 
 another time He relates that He will command that 
 those which would not that He should reign over them be 
 brought to Him, and be slain before Him. At another 
 time He says that He will come with His angels in His 
 glory, that there may be gathered before Him all nations, 
 and that He may divide them, and place some on the 
 right hand, and, commemorating their good works, carry 
 them into life eternal; and others on the left hand, and 
 charging them with their barrenness of good works may 
 condemn them to suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 
 At another time he commands the wicked and slothful 
 servant who neglected to lav out His money, or even the 
 man found in the feast not having a wedding garment, to 
 be bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness. At 
 another time he receives the five wise virgins, and shuts 
 the door against the other five who were foolish. These 
 things, and others which I cannot call to mind at present, 
 are said about the future judgment, which is to be ad- 
 
 I 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 179 
 
 ministered certainly not on one, nor even five, but on 
 many persons. For if there had been one only who was 
 ordered to be cast out from the feast into darkness 
 because he had not on a wedding garment, he would not 
 have immediately added, “ for many are called but few are 
 chosen ” : whereas it would rather have seemed [from the 
 parable] that one was cast forth and condemned and many 
 remained in the house. But it would take too long to 
 discuss all this subject satisfactorily at the present time. 
 But this I may say briefly, without prejudice (to use a 
 common business expression) to a fuller discussion here¬ 
 after, that some one kind of judgment, inscrutable to us, 
 preserving however a distinction of merits both in rewards 
 and punishments, is described in Holy Scripture in many 
 ways. But this is enough to say for the purpose of our 
 present inquiry; had Pelagius said that all sinners abso¬ 
 lutely are to be punished with eternal fire and eternal 
 punishment, then every one who had approved of that 
 opinion would have first of all passed sentence upon himself. 
 For who will boast that he is free from sins ! But because 
 he said neither all nor some , but made his statement quite 
 indefinite, and in his answer maintained that he said it in 
 accordance ivith the Gospel ; the opinion which the bishops 
 confirmed by their decision is certainly true, but it is not 
 clear what opinion Pelagius still holds, and it is not per¬ 
 verse to inquire, even though this decision was made by 
 bishops. 
 
 12. A further objection was made against Pelagius for 
 having, as it seemed, written in his book that evil docs 
 not even come into the thought. But he answered, We did 
 not so express it , but we said that a Christian should take 
 
18 o PR OCEEDINGS A GAINST PETA GIUS. 
 
 care not to think evil . And this statement the bishops 
 rightly approved. For who doubts that evil ought not 
 to be thought ? And if we read what Pelagius does 
 really say in his book that evil is not thought , as if it 
 were evil is not to be thought ! , this means, according to 
 the ordinary use of language, that evil ought not even 
 to be thought. For the man who denies this implies that 
 evil ought to be thought. But if this were true, it would 
 not be said in praise of love “ thinketh no evil.” But 
 we cannot equally approve of the assertion that evil 
 does not come into the thought of righteous and holy men, 
 for the word thought is commonly used when something 
 comes into the mind, even though it is not followed 
 by consent. But the thought which contracts fault, and is 
 rightly forbidden, has consent. But it is possible that 
 they read a corrupt text, who thought it right to raise 
 an objection to the supposed statement of Pelagius that 
 evil does not come into the thought , that is, that what is 
 evil does not come into the mind of righteous and holy 
 people. Such an opinion is certainly most absurd ; for 
 when we blame evil we cannot express ourselves without 
 thinking of the evil we blame, but by thinking evil we 
 usually mean, as I said, that thought which draws after 
 it consent, and is therefore a fault. 
 
 13. When the judges had approved of this answer 
 of Pelagius also, another statement made in his book 
 was read out, that the kingdom of Heaven was promised 
 even in the Old Covenant * To this he replied, This too can 
 
 * Here and throughout “ Covenant ” is adopted as the translation of 
 Testamentum which, like is made in the N. T. to have the 
 
 two meanings of Covenant and Testament. 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GINS. I 81 
 
 be proved by Scripture , though he?'etics deny it to the injury of 
 
 the Old Covenant; but I had the authority of Scripture on my 
 
 side , when I made the statement , because it is written in the 
 
 prophet Daniel , “ and the saints shall take the kingdom of the Dan. vii. 18. 
 
 Most High.” When they had heard his reply the Synod 
 
 said, “ This also is not contrary to the faith of the Church .” 
 
 14. Were our brethren then needlessly vexed with this 
 statement of Pelagius so as to make it one of their objec¬ 
 tions ? Certainly not. But the expression “ Old Covenant ” 
 is frequently used in two senses, one on the authority of 
 the Divine Scriptures, the other in accordance with the 
 common use of language. For Paul the Apostle says to 
 the Galatians, “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Gai.iv.21-26 
 law, have ye not heard 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 Covenants; the one which gendereth 
 to bondage, which is Agar. Sina is a mountain in Arabia, 
 and answereth to Jerusalem which now is; for she is in 
 bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above 
 is free, which is our mother.” Since, then, the Old 
 Covenant belongs to bondage, and he goes on to say 
 of it, “Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the 
 son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son 
 Isaac,” but the kingdom of heaven belongs to liberty, 
 how can the kingdom of heaven belong to the Old 
 Covenant ? But, since, as I said before, by the common 
 use of language we give the name of the Old Covenant 
 to all the Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, which 
 were delivered to men before the Incarnation of our 
 Lord, and are contained in the authoritative canon; who 
 
I 82 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TELA GINS. 
 
 is so little acquainted with ecclesiastical literature as not 
 to know that the kingdom of heaven may have been 
 promised in those Scriptures, as also that New Covenant 
 to which the kingdom of heaven belongs ? For it is 
 jer. xxxi. certainly most clearly written in those books: “ Behold 
 the days come, saith the Lord, that I will complete a 
 New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house 
 of Jacob, not according to the Covenant that I ordained 
 to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, 
 to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” Now this 
 happened on Mount Sinai. But at that time the prophet 
 Daniel was not living to say, “ The saints shall take the 
 kingdom of the Most High.” For in these words he 
 was prophesying the reward not of the Old but of the 
 New Covenant, just as the same prophets foretold the 
 coming of Christ Himself, by Whose blood the New 
 Covenant itself was dedicated. Of this Covenant the 
 Apostles were made the ministers, as the blessed Paul 
 says, “ Who also had made us able ministers of the New 
 Covenant, not in the letter, but in the Spirit. For the 
 letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.” But in that 
 Covenant which is rightly called Old, and was given on 
 Mount Sinai, there is nothing quite clearly promised 
 except earthly happiness. And hence that land, whither 
 the people was led through the wilderness and brought 
 in, is called the land of promise ; and what they were 
 here to enjoy, peace and dominion, the gaining of 
 victories over their enemies, the begetting of many sons, 
 the abundance of the fruits of the earth, and other things 
 of the kind, are promises of the Old Covenant. And 
 though in these are symbolised spiritual things belonging 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 183 
 
 to the New Covenant, yet he who receives God’s law 
 because of those earthly promises, is himself an heir of 
 the Old Covenant. For it is the things which are desired 
 after the old man which are promised and given according 
 to the Old Covenant, but the things which are symbolised 
 therein and belong to the New Covenant require new men 
 as their recipients. For he well knew what the great 
 Apostle said, who tells us that the Covenants were 
 distinguished allegorically by the bond-maid and the 
 free-woman, and assigns the children of the flesh to the 
 Old, the children of the promise to the New. “They 
 which are the children of the flesh,” he says, “they are 
 not the children of God, but the children of the promise 
 are counted for the seed.” The children therefore of 
 the flesh belong to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in 
 bondage with her children ; but the children of the 
 promise to the Jerusalem which is above, our free 
 mother eternal in the heavens. Thus we see who belong 
 to the earthly Kingdom and who to the Kingdom of 
 Heaven. Those who by God’s grace understood the 
 distinction even at that time were made the children 
 of promise and were in the secret counsel of God 
 counted as heirs of the New Covenant, even though they 
 administered the Old Covenant given by God, in the 
 dispensation of times so as to suit the needs of His 
 old people. 
 
 15. Was it not then right that the sons of the promise 
 should be indignant, the sons of the free Jerusalem 
 eternal in the heavens, when that Apostolic and Catholic 
 distinction seemed by Pelagius’s words to be taken away, 
 and Agar in a way to be thought equal with Sarah ? The 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINS! 1 PELAGIUS. 
 
 I 84 
 
 man therefore does wrong, by his heretical impiety, to the 
 Scripture of the Old Covenant, who has the face with 
 sacrilegious impiety to assert that that Covenant is not 
 from the good, the highest, and the true God, such as 
 Marcion, or Manichaeus, and any other pest who holds 
 this opinion. Wherefore, to sum up as briefly as possible 
 my opinion on this subject, just as wrong is done to the 
 Old Covenant if it is denied that it is from the good and 
 highest God ; so wrong is done to the New if it is put on 
 the same level as the Old. But when Pelagius had 
 answered why it was that he said that the Kingdom of 
 Heaven was promised even in the Old Covenant, and 
 quoted the passage from the prophet Daniel, who 
 prophesied most clearly that the Saints would take the 
 kingdom of the Most High, the bishops were right 
 in deciding that this was not contrary to the Catholic 
 faith. For they were not thinking of that distinction by 
 which the earthly promises given on Mount Sinai are 
 shewn to belong properly to the Old Covenant. Still 
 they were not wrong I say, because they followed that 
 ordinary usage of language, by which all the canonical 
 Scriptures which were delivered to jnen before the 
 Incarnation of our Lord are regarded as included in 
 the expression the Old Covenant. For the Kingdom of 
 the Most High is not a different kingdom from the King¬ 
 dom of God, nor will any one dare to maintain that the 
 Kingdom of God is different from the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 16. The next objection was that Pelagius had written 
 in that same book of his that man can , if he wishes , be 
 ivithout sin , and that he had written in a flattering way to 
 a widow and said, With thee may piety find the home which 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINS7' PELAGIUS. 
 
 185 
 
 it has found nowhere else ! May righteousness, everywhere 
 ■else a stranger, in thee find its abode ! May truth , with which 
 no one now-a-days is acquainted, become thy intimate friend 
 ■and companion ; and may the law of God, which almost all 
 despise, by thee alone be honoured! And again, that he 
 wrote to the same lady, O happy and blessed art thou, 
 if righteousness, which we should believe to be in Heaven only, 
 is found with thee alone upon the earth ! And that in 
 another book addressed to the same lady, after the prayer 
 of our Lord and Saviour, by way of teaching how saints 
 ought to pray, lie said, He worthily lifts up his hands to 
 God, he pours forth prayer with a good conscience, who can 
 say, “ Thou knowest, O Lord, how holy and innocent, and 
 pure from all harm and iniquity and robbery are the hands 
 which I stretch forth unto Thee ; how righteous and pure and 
 free from all lying are the lips with which I offer Thee the 
 prayer to have mercy upon me ! ” To this Pelagius answered, 
 We did say that man can indeed be without sin and keep God's 
 commandments, if he wishes, for this power God has given 
 him ; but we did not say that there can be found any one who, 
 in any stage of life, from infancy to old age, has never sinned; 
 but that if he turns from sins, he can, by his own labour and 
 the grace of God, be without sin ; yet nevertheless he may 
 afterwards turn back again. But the other quotations which 
 follow are not in our books, and we have never said anything of 
 the kind. When the Synod heard this, they said, Since 
 you deny that you have written anything of the kind, do you 
 anathematize those who hold such opinions ? Pelagius answered, 
 I anathematize them as fools, not as heretics ; since it is not 
 a matter of doctrine. Then the bishops passed sentence in 
 these words, Noiv since Pelagius has with his own mouth 
 
186 
 
 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 anathematized certain vague folly , rightly answering that man 
 with God’s help and grace can be without sin , let him answer 
 also to the other sentences. 
 
 17. How could the judges in this case, or how ought 
 they to, have condemned unknown and vague statements, 
 when there was no one there on the other side to prove 
 that Pelagius had written those objectionable words which 
 he was said to have written. For it would not have been 
 enough certainly only to have produced a copy and to 
 have read these extracts from his writings, without 
 bringing forward witnesses, in case he should deny that 
 the words, even when so recited, were his own. Neverthe¬ 
 less under the circumstances the judges did what they 
 could, asking Pelagius whether he anathematized those 
 who held opinions of the kind which he declared that he 
 had neither written nor uttered. And when he answered 
 that he anathematized them as fools, what further ought 
 the judges to have required in the matter in the absence 
 of the accusers ? 
 
 18. But they ought, perhaps, you may think, to have 
 discussed that further point, whether he was right in 
 saying that those who held such opinions ought to be 
 anathematized, not as heretics but as. fools, since it was 
 not a matter of doctrine. But the judges were right? 
 under the circumstances, in abstaining from considering 
 the very important question, how a heretic should be 
 defined. For if a person were to say, by way of example, 
 that the young of eagles are held in their parents’ 
 talons and exposed to the rays of the sun, and that if they 
 blink, they are allowed to drop on the ground, as though 
 it were proved by the light somehow that they were a 
 
PR O CEE DINGS A GA INST PEL A G1 US. 
 
 187 
 
 bastard brood; though such an opinion may be false, 
 he who holds it ought not to be deemed a heretic. And 
 even though the opinion is not true, it ought not to 
 be considered foolish, inasmuch as it is found in the 
 writings of learned men, and is a common tradition ; 
 and by believing it we neither harm nor help our faith, 
 in that sense of the word by which we are called faithful. 
 But if anyone were to go on to contend, on the ground 
 of this instinct, that birds are possessed of rational souls, 
 because the souls of men transmigrate into them, then, 
 verily, such a view, as a heretical pest, ought to be driven 
 from our hearing and our thoughts, and we ought to 
 strive to show that, even if this opinion about eagles 
 is true, as are many marvellous things about bees which 
 we see with our eyes, yet reason, which is common not 
 to men and animals but to men and angels, differs very 
 widely from such an instinct of irrational animals, 
 marvellous though it be. Certainly there are many other 
 foolish things which are said by ignorant and silly people, 
 who are, nevertheless, not heretics; such as the rash 
 opinions given by men about the occupations of others, 
 which they have not learnt; or the immoderate and blind 
 praise of those whom they love, or the blame of those 
 whom they hate, and whatever else in the ordinary usage 
 of human language, not as a fixed opinion, but now and 
 again as occasion arises, is by thoughtless folly, either 
 uttered with the mouth or committed to pen and paper. 
 And further, many when but slightly reproved for such 
 utterances, readily repent of them, which shows that they 
 did not hold them as a fixed and resolute opinion, but 
 had, if I may say so, snatched them up anywhere and 
 
188 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 poured them forth without consideration. It is scarcely 
 Eccius. xix. possible to avoid evils of that kind, and who is there 
 who does not slip in speech and offend in word ? But 
 it makes a difference how great the offence is and what 
 it is about, and, lastly, whether when reproved he corrects 
 it, or by obstinately defending it, he changes into a fixed 
 doctrine what he had said not as a doctrine, but thought¬ 
 lessly. Since, then, every heretic is from that very fact 
 also a fool, but every foolish man ought not therefore 
 to be called a heretic, the judges were right in saying 
 that Pelagius had, with his own month, anathematized vague 
 folly, because, if it were a heresy, it would undoubtedly 
 be folly. Accordingly, whatever it may be, they called 
 it by the name of a general fault. And they did not 
 think it necessary to discuss at that time whether the 
 statement was made as a doctrine, or with no fixed and 
 resolute judgment, only from a thoughtlessness which might 
 easily be corrected ; since, in whatever spirit the words 
 were said, the man whom they were hearing denied that 
 they were his own. 
 
 19. However, when we read this defence of Pelagius in 
 the document which we first received, there were present 
 certain holy brethren, who said that they possessed some 
 books of Pelagius written by way of exhortation or con¬ 
 solation to a certain widow, whose name is not given ; and 
 they advised that search should be made to see whether 
 perchance the words were there written which he denied to 
 be his. For even they declared that they did not know 
 whether it was so. And then the books were read through 
 from the beginning and the words were sought and found; 
 and those who had shown me the copy, declared that 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. l 8 9 
 
 they had first received the books as the work of Pelagius 
 about four years before, and that they had never heard 
 any doubt expressed that they were his. When we 
 considered, therefore, from our intimate knowledge of the 
 veracity of these servants of God, that they could not lie on 
 this point, there seemed nothing left but to believe that 
 Pelagius rather had lied in the trial by the bishops; except 
 that we thought it possible that even so many years before 
 a work might have been published under his name, which 
 he had not really written. For they did not say that they 
 had received those books from Pelagius, or had heard from 
 himself that they were his. For I, too, have been told by 
 some of our brethren that some works published under my 
 name have found their way into Spain, which were not 
 recognised by those who had read the rest of my works, 
 but yet were believed by others to be mine. 
 
 20. That statement, however, which Pelagius did confess 
 to be his still remains obscure, but I think that it will 
 become clear in the subsequent parts of the same pro¬ 
 ceedings. For he says, We did say that man can indeed, if 
 he wishes, be without sin , and keep God's commandments , for 
 this power God has given him ; but we did not say that there 
 can be found any one who, in any stage of life, from infancy to 
 old age, has never sinned: but that, if he turns from sins, he 
 can by his own labour and the grace of God be without sin ; 
 yet nevertheless he may afterwards turn back again. In these 
 words it is not at all clear what grace of God he means, 
 and certainly the Catholic judges could have understood no 
 other but that which is most of all commended by the 
 teaching of the Apostle, that, namely, by which we hope 
 that we can be freed from the body of this death through 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PE LA GIUS. 
 
 190 
 
 Jesus Christ our Lord, and to obtain which we pray that 
 we may not enter into temptation. 
 
 This grace is not nature, but by it our frail and corrupted 
 nature is helped. This grace is not the knowledge of the 
 Gai.ii. 21. law ; but it is that of which the Apostle says, “ I will not 
 frustrate the grace of God ; for if righteousness come by 
 the law, then Christ died in vain,” and so it is not the 
 letter which killeth but the Spirit Which giveth life. For 
 the knowledge of the law without the grace of the Spirit 
 Rom. vii. works in man all manner of desire. “ For I did not know 
 sin,” he says, “ except through the law. For I had not 
 known desire, except the law said Thou shalt not desire. 
 But, having taken occasion, sin through the commandment 
 wrought in me all desire.” And in so saying he does not 
 Kom.vii.12- blame the law, nay he even praises it when he says, “ The 
 law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and 
 good. Did then that which is good become death unto 
 me ? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, 
 wrought death in me through that which is good.” And 
 again he praises the law, when he says, “For we know that 
 the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For 
 that which I work I know not. For not what I would, 
 that do I practise, but what I hate, that I do. If 
 then I do that which I would not, I consent unto 
 the law that it is good.” You see, now, he knows the 
 law, he praises it, and consents to it, that is, consents 
 that it is 2-ood, because what it commands, that he himself 
 too wishes, and what it condemns, that he himself too 
 hates : and, nevertheless, what he hates, that he does. He 
 has in him, then, the knowledge of the holy law, yet this 
 corrupt desire is not healed ; he has the good will, and 
 
PR O CEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 191 
 
 evil action prevails. Hence it is that while the two laws 
 strive together, while the law in his members wars against 
 the law of his mind, and brings him into captivity to the 
 law of sin, he confesses and cries out, saying, “ 0 wretched 
 man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of 
 this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord.” 
 
 21. It is not then nature (which, sold under sin and 
 wounded by corruption, desires a Redeemer and Saviour,) 
 nor the teaching of the law (by which comes the knowledge, 
 not the conquest, of desire) that delivers him from the body 
 of this death ; but the grace of the Lord through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. That grace is not nature which dies, 
 nor the letter which kills, but the Spirit Which giveth 
 life. For he already had nature, together with the choice 
 of the will; for he said, “To will is present with me,” 
 but he had not nature with the healing and without the 
 corruption; for he said, “ I know that in me, that is, 
 in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” He already had 
 the knowledge of the holy law ; for he said, “ I had not 
 known sin, but by the law,” but he had not the strength 
 to do and to perfect righteousness; for he said, “Not what 
 I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do,” 
 and “ How to perfect that which is good, I find not.” 
 Therefore, it is neither the choice of the will, nor the 
 commandment of the law, by which he is freed from 
 the body of this death ; because both of these he had 
 already, the one in nature, the other in the teaching ; 
 but he asked for the help of God’s grace through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. 
 
 22. And so it was this grace, which the bishops knew to 
 
192 PR OCEEDINGS A GAINS 7 ' PEL A GINS. 
 
 be very well known in the Catholic Church, that they 
 believed Pelagius was acknowledging, when they heard 
 him say that if a man turns from sins he can , by his own- 
 labour and the grace of God , be without sin. But I, neverthe¬ 
 less, and very many of the brethren, still feel great anxiety 
 about this statement of Pelagius. I, because of a certain 
 book of his, they, because of his disputations which they say 
 they know very well. The book I refer to was one which was 
 given to me for refutation by certain servants of God, who 
 were his disciples and declared it to be his, though they 
 entertained great affection for him. In this book this 
 question was proposed for discussion, because he had 
 already offended very many under the impression that he 
 was speaking against the grace of God. And he said 
 most plainly that by the grace of God he meant that 
 our nature received, when it was created , the power of not 
 sinning, because it ivas created with free choice. We feel 
 anxious, I say, lest some hidden meaning underlie the 
 ambiguity of that language, and he may afterwards explain 
 to his disciples that he said this without prejudicing his 
 doctrine, discoursing in this sort of way : I did indeed say 
 that man could be without sin by his own labour and the grace 
 of God; but what grace 1 mean you know very well and can call 
 to mind by reading my works, that grace , namely , in which we 
 were created by God with free choice. And so the bishops, 
 believing that he meant not the grace by which we were 
 created men, but that by which we were adopted so as 
 
 „ , . to become the new creature (for this is the grace which 
 
 Gal. vi. 13. v 0 
 
 the Divide Scripture most obviously commends), not 
 knowing that he was a heretic, acquitted him as Catholic. 
 And I feel suspicious also about that very clear statement 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PE LA GINS. 
 
 l 93 
 
 which Pelagius made in the same book which I answered, 
 namely, that righteous Ah el never sinned at all; whereas he 
 says now, But we did not say that tin re can he found any one 
 who, in any stage of life from infancy to old age, has never 
 sinned; hut if he turns from sin, he can by his own labour and 
 the grace of God he without sdn. He certainly did not say 
 that righteous Abel turned from sin and in after life 
 became without sin, but that he never committed any sin. 
 If then that book is his own, certainly it ought to be 
 corrected to agree with his reply. For I should be sorry 
 to say that he has now lied, lest perchance he should say 
 that he has forgotten what he wrote in that book. 
 
 Now let us consider the rest. Certainly by what follows 
 in the ecclesiastical proceedings we can show with God’s 
 help that even if, as some think, Pelagius was cleared in 
 that examination, and was certainly acquitted by judges 
 who were but human, yet that this heresy, so serious that 
 that we desire it not to make further progress and grow 
 worse, was undoubtedly condemned. 
 
 23. The next objections made against Pelagius were 
 certain statements which are selected as found in the 
 teaching of his disciple Coelestius : that Adam ivas created 
 mortal atid was destined to die, whether he sinned or not: 
 that Adam’s sin injured himself alone, and not the human 
 race : that the Law admits to the Kingdom just as much 
 as the Gospel: that before Christ’s coming there were men 
 without sin: that new-horn infants are in the same state 
 that Adam was before the transgression : that neither by the 
 death nor the transgression of Adam does the whole human 
 race die, nor by the Resurrection of Christ does the whole 
 human ?'ace rise again. And in the objections made against 
 
194 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 these statements it was mentioned that at Carthage they 
 had already been heard and condemned by your Holiness 
 and by other bishops with you. On this occasion it is 
 true I was not, as you remember, present ; but after I 
 had come to Cartilage, I went over the minutes carefully, 
 and remember parts of them, but I am not sure whether 
 all these statements are contained therein. But what 
 matters it whether some things should happen not to have 
 been mentioned on that occasion, and therefore not 
 condemned, when it is certain that they are worthy of 
 condemnation ? 
 
 Then some other sentences were objected to, reference 
 being made to my name. These had been sent to me 
 from Sicily, when the Catholic brethren of that country 
 were being disturbed by questions of this sort, and I 
 answered them quite satisfactorily, as I thought, in a book 
 addressed to Hilarius, who had sent them to me, to ask 
 my advice. They are: that man can be without sin , if 
 he wishes: that infants, though unbaptized , have eternal 
 life: that rich men, though baptized, unless they give up all ■ 
 that they have, whatever good they may seem to have done 
 is not accounted to them, nor can they have the kingdom of God. 
 
 24. To these objections, as the minutes testify, Pelagius 
 thus replied : As to the possibility of man’s being without 
 sin, I have already spoken before; but as to the statement 
 that there were men without sin before the Lord’s coming, 
 we, too, say that before Christ’s coming certain men lived 
 holy a?id righteous lives, according to the tradition of the 
 Holy Scriptures. But the rest of the statements, as their 
 own testimony shows, were never made by me, and I am not 
 obliged to give satisfaction concerning them ; but, nevertheless. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEL A GIGS. 
 
 *95 
 
 for the satisfaction of the Holy Synod, I anathematize those who 
 hold such opinions, or ever have held them. After this reply 
 of Pelagius the Synod said, As regards these sentences 
 already cited, Pelagius has, in our presence, given good and 
 sufficient satisfaction by anathematizing statements which 
 were not his. We see, then, and hold that, not only by 
 Pelagius but also by the holy bishops who presided in 
 that court, the most pernicious evils of such a heresy 
 as this were condemned, namely, that Adam was created 
 mortal, to which, by way of explaining its meaning, was 
 added, so that he was destined to die , whether he sinned or 
 not: that his sin injured himself alone, and not the human 
 race: that the Paw admits to the Kingdom, just as much as 
 the Gospel: that new-born infants are id the same state that 
 Adam was before the transgression : that neither by the death 
 nor the transgression of Adam does the whole human race 
 die, nor by the Resurrection of Christ does the whole human 
 race rise again: that infants, though unbaptized, have eternal 
 life: that rich men, though baptized, unless they give up 
 all that they have, whatever good they may seem to have done 
 is not accounted to them, nor can they have the kingdom of 
 God. It is certain that all these opinions were condemned 
 in that ecclesiastical tribunal, by the separate decision* 
 of the bishops and the anathema of Pelagius. 
 
 25. Now by such questions and by the contentious 
 assertion of such opinions, which are now hotly discussed 
 in all parts, many weak brethren are disturbed. Wherefore 
 we were compelled by our anxious love, which it behoved 
 us to have through the grace of Christ towards His Church, 
 
 * Episcopis interloquentibus. Properly speaking, a judgment on a 
 single point given before the general verdict. 
 
196 PR O CEEDINGS A GAINST PE LA GIUS. 
 
 to write even to Marcellinus of blessed memory. For he 
 was daily annoyed by those most troublesome disputants 
 and wrote to ask my advice on certain questions connected 
 with those opinions, and especially about the baptism of 
 infants; and later on also at your request, I discussed this 
 
 * in basilica same subject in the church of the Majores,* 4 holding in 
 
 majorum 
 
 what this my hands an Epistle of the most glorious martyr Cyprian, 
 
 was is not J r J 
 
 known. anc i quoting and commenting upon his words about this 
 matter. And so I laboured hard, with the help of your 
 prayers, that the wicked error might be taken away from 
 the hearts of certain persons, who had been persuaded 
 to believe the opinions which we see condemned in these 
 proceedings. These opinions are what certain of the 
 advocates of such doctrines were trying to persuade some 
 of the brethren to hold; threatening them with the possible 
 condemnation of the Eastern Churches if they refused to 
 accept them. You see that the fourteen bishops of the 
 Eastern Church, in the land where our Lord manifested 
 the presence of His flesh, would not have acquitted 
 Pelagius, unless he had condemned these opinions as 
 contrary to the Catholic faith. Wherefore if he was 
 acquitted just because he anathematized such opinions; 
 then without any doubt these opinions were condemned. 
 This will show itself still more abundantly and clearly in 
 what follows. 
 
 26. Now therefore let us consider those two statements 
 which Pelagius refused to anathematize, which he even 
 acknowledged to be his, but, to take away what was 
 objectionable in them, explained the sense in which he 
 meant them. He said, The possibility of man's being 
 without sin I have already spoken of before. He had spoken 
 
PR O CEE DINGS A GA INS T PEL A GIUS. 1 9 7 
 
 of it certainly, and we remember it; but the assertion was 
 modified (and therefore approved of by the judges) by the 
 addition of the words by the grace of God, of which there is 
 no mention in those sentences. But the way in which 
 he replied to the second statement deserves more careful 
 consideration. But as to the statement he says, that there 
 were men without sin before the Lord's coming, we too say that 
 before Christ's coming certain men lived holy and righteous 
 lives according to the tradition of the Holy Scriptures. He did 
 not dare to say, We too say that before Christ's coming 
 there were men without sin. For this is what had been 
 objected against him from the statements of Coelestius, 
 for he realized how dangerous and harmful such a state¬ 
 ment was ; but he said, We too say that before Christ's 
 coming certain men lived holy and lighteous lives. Who 
 would deny this ? But this is quite a different thing from 
 having been without sin. For they too were living holy 
 and righteous lives, who nevertheless said with truth 
 “ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves 1 John i.s. 
 and the truth is not in us.” And there are many at the 
 present time who live righteous and holy lives, and yet do 
 not lie when they pray, saying, “Forgive us our debts, 
 as we also forgive our debtors.” The judges therefore 
 were satisfied with the statement in the sense that Pelagius 
 declared that he meant it, not in that in which it was 
 objected to in the assertion of Coelestius. Now let us, to 
 the best of our ability, discuss what follows. 
 
 27. An objection was made against Pelagius that he 
 said that the Church here on earth is without spot or wrinkle • 
 
 On this point we have had a long conflict with the 
 Donatists also in our Conference. With them we were 
 
19 8 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 rather arguing to show the mixture of evil men, as of chaff 
 with the wheat, from the similitude of the threshing floor. 
 And we might refer to the same similitude in answering 
 the Pelagians, were it not that, perhaps, they wish us to 
 understand by the Church the good only, whom they 
 assert to have no sin at all, so that it may be here on 
 earth without spot or wrinkle. But, if so, I again repeat 
 what I said a little above: How are they members of 
 the Church, of whom true humility exclaims, “ If we say 
 that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth 
 is not in us ” ? Or how will the Church use the petition 
 which the Lord taught her, “Forgive us our debts,” if 
 in this life the Church is without spot or wrinkle ? Lastly, 
 the Pelagians ought to be questioned about themselves, 
 whether they do, or do not, confess that they have some 
 sins. If they shall say they have not, they should be 
 told that they deceive themselves, and the truth is not 
 in them. But if they shall confess that they have sin, 
 they will be certainly confessing their own spot and 
 wrinkle, and they are not, therefore, members of the 
 Church, since, according to them, she has not spot and 
 wrinkle, and they have. 
 
 28. But to this objection Pelagius made a cautious and 
 guarded reply, which the Catholic judges approved of 
 without hesitation. We certainly said it , he answered, 
 but in the sense that the Church is, by “ the Washing," purged 
 from all spot and wrinkle, and God ivishes it to remain so. 
 To which the Synod replied, We, too, agree with this. For 
 who of us would deny that the sins of all are forgiven 
 in Baptism, and that all the faithful rise from the 
 “ Washing of regeneration ” without spot and wrinkle ? 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 199 
 
 Or what Catholic Christian does not agree with our 
 Lord’s intention, which is to be realized in the future, 
 that the Church should remain without spot and wrinkle ? 
 Since we make it our special object, by God’s mercy and 
 truth, to bring the holy Church to that perfection, in 
 which it will remain for ever without spot and wrinkle. 
 But between the Washing, in which all past spots and 
 
 wrinkles are taken away, and the Kingdom, in which 
 
 the Church will continually remain without spot and 
 
 wrinkle, is this present intermediate time of prayer, in 
 which it is necessary to say, “ Forgive us our debts.” 
 On this account objection was made to their saying that 
 the Church here on earth is without spot and wrinkle; 
 for the objectors doubted whether they were not, by 
 so saying, daring to forbid prayer, bv which the Church 
 already baptized asks pardon for her sins day and 
 
 night. Concerning this intermediate time between the 
 remission of sins, which takes place in the Washing, 
 and the continuance without sin, which is to take place 
 in the Kingdom, there was no discussion with Pelagius 
 and no declaration made by the bishops. All that was 
 said was that he thought it ought to be briefly intimated 
 that he had not used the words in the sense implied by 
 the charge. For when he said We certainly did say 
 it , but not in such a sense, he obviously meant to imply 
 that he had not said it in the sense supposed by those 
 who raised the objection. But it is clear enough, I think, 
 what the judges were thinking of, which made them say 
 that they agreed with Pelagius, namely, Baptism by which 
 the Church has her sins washed away, and the Kingdom 
 in which now purified she will remain holy without sin. 
 
200 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 29. Objections were then made to several things in 
 Coelestius’s book, a general summary of the several chapters 
 being given rather than the exact words. These Coelestius 
 had elaborated at much greater length, but those who 
 handed in the indictment said that they could not quote 
 all that he had said. They said, then, that in the first 
 chapter of Coelestius’s book it was thus written : We do 
 more than is commanded in the taw and the Gospel. To 
 this Pelagius replied, They have quoted this as though it 
 were a statement of our own opinion; hut we said it, in 
 accordance with the Apostie Paid, of the virgin life, of 
 1 Cor.vii.25 which, he says, “I have no commandment of the Lord.” 
 
 The Synod said : This, too, the Church accepts. I have 
 read in what sense Coelestius made that statement 
 in his book, supposing, that is, that he does not deny 
 that the book is his own. For he said this to persuade 
 his readers, namely, that we have by our natural free 
 choice so great a power of not sinning that we do more 
 even than has been commanded; since perpetual virginity 
 is preserved by many, though it is not commanded ; while 
 to be without sin it is enough to fulfil the commandments. 
 But the answer of Pelagius, which gained the Judges’ 
 approval, was not understood by them as meaning that they 
 necessarily keep all the Commandments of the Law and 
 the Gospel, who moreover maintain their virginity, which 
 is not commanded. But they understood it in this sense, 
 that virginity which is not commanded is something more 
 than conjugal chastity which is ; and that it is something 
 more to observe the former than the latter ; whereas 
 neither of them are possible without God’s grace. Since 
 1 Cor. vii. 7. the Apostle says in speaking of this subject, “ I would that 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PE IA GINS. 
 
 201 
 
 -all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his 
 proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another 
 after that.” And our Lord Himself, when His disciples 
 said to Him, “ If the case of the man be so with his wife, 
 it is not good to be given in marriage ”f (or as it would be 
 more accurately rendered “it is not good to marry”* 4 ) 
 answered “ All men cannot receive this saying, save they 
 to whom it is given.” This then the bishops declared that 
 the holy church accepted, that perpetual virginity, which is 
 not commanded, is more than nuptial chastity, which is. 
 But the judges did not know in what sense Pelagius or 
 Coelestius made the statement. 
 
 30. After that they objected against Pelagius some other 
 sentences of Coelestius which were pernicious * and doubt¬ 
 less worthy of condemnation: and had not Pelagius 
 anathematized them, he, as well as the sentences objected 
 to, would certainly have been condemned. They said that 
 in the third chapter Coelestius had written that the grace and 
 help of God are not given for separate actions, but consist in 
 free choice , or in the law and the teaching. And again that 
 the grace of God is given according to our merits ; because, if 
 He gives it to sinners , He seems to be unjust; and that he 
 went on to infer therefore even grace itself depe?ids upon 
 my will, whether I am worthy or unworthy. For if we 
 do all things by grace, when we are overcome by sin, it is 
 not we who are overcome, but the grace of God, which wished 
 to help us in every way arid could not. And again he 
 says : If it is by God's grace , when we overcome sins, then 
 He is to blame when we are overcome by sin ; because He 
 either could not, or would not, entirely protect us. To this 
 Pelagius replied : Whether these are the words of Coelestius 
 
 + nub ere. 
 
 * due ere. 
 
 Matt. xix. 
 10, 11. 
 
 * capitula 
 capitalia. 
 
202 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 let those see who say that they are; but I never so held\ and 
 I anathematize him who holds them. The Synod says : The 
 holy Synod accepts you thus condemning this objectionable 
 language. Certainly, on all these statements, there can be 
 no doubt about the answer of Pelagius who anathematized 
 them, and the most unqualified decision of the judges, 
 who condemned them. Whether they were, or are still,, 
 the opinions of Pelagius, or Coelestius, or both, or neither 
 of them, or of others either with them or writing in their 
 name, may be doubtful or unknown ; yet it was sufficiently 
 declared by this decision that they were condemned, and 
 that Pelagius would have been condemned as well, unless 
 he had also condemned them. Now certainly after this 
 decision, when we argue against opinions of this kind,, 
 we are arguing against a heresy which has been condemned.. 
 
 31. What I am going to say gives me greater pleasure. 
 Before this I was afraid that, when Pelagius said that 
 * x6. by the help of God's grace n.an can be without sin, he might,, 
 perhaps, mean by that grace the power of nature created 
 by God with free choice , as it is stated in that book, which 
 I received as his and which I answered; and that so 
 
 /■* 
 
 Pelagius was deceiving the judges in their ignorance.. 
 But now, when he anathematizes those who say that the 
 grace a?id help of God are not given for separate actions, 
 but consist in free choice, or in the law and the teaching 
 he shows clearly enough that he meant that grace which 
 is preached in the Church of Christ, and is given by 
 the ministration of the Holy Spirit, to help us in separate- 
 actions ; on which account we are constantly praying for 
 help in time of need, not to be brought into temptation.. 
 Nor am I any longer afraid that when he said that a' 
 
PR O CEE DINGS A GA INS T PE LA GIUS. 203 
 
 man cannot be without sin, unless he has the knowledge of \ 2 
 the law , and explained his words in such a way as to 
 make the help towards attaining sinlessness lie in the 
 knowledge of the law, he meant, perchance, that knowledge 
 of the law to constitute God’s grace. You see he ana¬ 
 thematizes those who hold this opinion ; you see he means 
 us to understand by the grace which helps us in separate 
 actions neither our natural free choice, nor the law 
 and the teaching. What, then, remains but that he must 
 mean that grace which the Apostle says is given by the 
 ministration of the Holy Spirit ? the grace of which 
 the Lord says, “Take no thought how or what ye shall Matt. x. 
 speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour what 
 ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the 
 Spirit of your Father Which speaketh in you.” And 
 again it is no longer to be feared, that when he said 
 all are governed by their own will and explained that he $ 5 - 
 said thus because of free choice which God helps when it 
 chooses good, he may possibly even here have meant that God 
 helps by the natural free choice and by the teaching of 
 the law. For, since he has, as he ought, anathematized 
 those who say that the grace and help of God are not given 
 for separate actions, but consist in free choice or in the laiv 
 and the teaching', then obviously the grace or help of 
 God is given for separate actions apart from free choice, 
 or the law and the teaching. And so we are governed 
 by God in separate actions, when we do rightly; nor 
 do we pray without reason and say, “ Order my steps 
 according to Thy word, that wickedness may not have 
 dominion over me.” 
 
 32. But what follows this again makes me anxious. For 
 
2 04 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 when objection was made against Pelagius, in treating of 
 the fifth book of Coelestius’s work, that they decla?'e that 
 some one man can have all virtues and graces, and take away 
 the diversity of graces which the Apostle teaches, Pelagius 
 answered, We did say it, hut they have shown malice and 
 ignorance in blaming us. For we do not take away the 
 diversity of graces ; hut we say that God gives to him who 
 has become worthy of receiving them all graces, just as He 
 gave them to the Apostle Paul. To this the Synod replied : 
 The opinion you have expressed concerning the gift of graces 
 which are mentioned by the Apostle Paul is reasonable, and 
 agrees with that of the Church. Here some one will say 
 “ Why then feel anxious ? Will you deny that the Apostle 
 had all virtues and graces ?” Certainly, if by atl are meant 
 all those which S. Paul himself has enumerated in one 
 particular passage. I do not hesitate to say that the 
 Apostle Paul had them. And these, I imagine, the 
 Bishops supposed that Pelagius meant, and therefore 
 approved of his statement and declared it to be uttered in 
 agreement with the opinion of the Church. For S. Paul 
 i Cor.xii.28 says, “ And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, 
 secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, 
 then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of 
 tongues.” What then ? Shall we say that the Apostle 
 Paul had not all these ? Who would dare to say this ? 
 For, from the very fact that he was an apostle, he had at 
 any rate the apostleship. But he had also prophecy. Is 
 1 Tim. iv. 1. not this which he wrote a prophecy, “For the Spirit 
 speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall 
 depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and 
 doctrines of devils ” ? He was himself also a teacher of 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 205 
 
 the Gentiles in faith and truth. And he wrought miracles 
 and healings ; for he shook oft' the viper that bit him from 
 his hand and it remained unhurt, and at his word the 
 paralytic at once regained his health and rose up. It is 
 not clear what the Apostle means by “ helps,” since the 
 meaning of this word is very wide ; yet who could say that 
 he had not this grace also, when the help he gave to the 
 salvation of men by his labour is so well known ? What 
 indeed can be more renowned than his government, when 
 through him God then governed so many Churches, and 
 through the influence of his epistles governs them still ? 
 
 And what diversities of tongues could he not have had, 
 when he says himself, “ I thank God that I speak with the 1C0r.xiv.18 
 tongues of you all ”? Because therefore we must believe that 
 S. Paul had every one of these, the judges approved the 
 answer of Pelagius, when he said that all graces were given him . 
 
 But there are also other graces which are not here enume¬ 
 rated. And though the Apostle Paul was a very superior 
 member of Christ’s Body, yet we must not suppose that no 
 more nor fuller graces were received by the Head itself of 
 the whole Body, whether in the flesh or in the soul of 
 man, which being His own creation the Word of God took 
 up into the unity of Plis Person, that He might become 
 our Head, and we His Body. And certainly, if single 
 individuals could be possessed of all, it would seem to no 
 purpose that the similitude taken from the members of our 
 body was given us to describe the thing we are discussing. 
 
 For there are certain things common to all members, such 
 as health and life ; but there are other things which belong 
 specially to each, so that neither does the ear perceive 
 colours, nor the eye sounds, wherefore it is said, “If the 1 Cor.xii. 17 
 
206 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 whole body were an eye, where were the hearing ? If the 
 whole were hearing, where were the smelling ? ” And this 
 is not said as though it were impossible for God to give 
 even to ears the sense of seeing, and to eyes the sense of 
 hearing. But it is quite certain what God does in the Body 
 of Christ, which is the Church, and what diversity in the 
 * ecciesia- churches* the Apostle signified by the comparison of the 
 Benedictine divers members which were to have each its proper gift, 
 conjecture Wherefore we now see clearly why those who made that 
 
 irratiarum. J J 
 
 objection did not wish the distinction of graces to be done 
 away with, and why also the bishops were able to approve 
 of the answer of Pelagius, because in the Apostle Paul 
 we recognize all the gifts which he has enumerated in a 
 special passage. 
 
 33. What then is it which, as I said before, made 
 me anxious about this sentence ? It was these words 
 of Pelagius that God gives to him who has become worthy of 
 receiving them all graces, just as He gave them to the Apostle 
 Paul. I should not have been anxious about his 
 answer except as affecting this present matter, which 
 must of necessity be our greatest concern, lest, I 
 mean, while we are silent and ignore so great an evil, the 
 grace of God be assailed. Since then he does not say 
 that God gives them to whom He wills, but God gives to him 
 who has become worthy of receiving them all graces ; I 
 could not help feeling suspicious when I read the words. 
 Surely the very name grace, as well as the meaning of the 
 name, is taken away, if it is not given gratis, but is 
 received by him who is worthy. Will any one say 
 perchance that I am wronging the Apostle, because I say 
 that he was not worthy of grace ? Nay rather I should both 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEL A GINS. 
 
 207 
 
 wrong him and punish myself, if I believed not what he 
 says himself. Did he not define grace in such a way as to 
 show that it was called grace because it was given gratis ? 
 
 For he said himself : “ And if by grace, then is it no more Rora - 6 - 
 from works ; otherwise grace is no more grace.” And he 
 said also on the same subject, u Now to him that worketh Rom. iv. 4. 
 is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” Who¬ 
 ever therefore is worthy to him it is a debt: but if it 
 is a debt, it is not grace ; since grace is given, a debt is 
 paid. Grace then is given to the unworthy, that when 
 worthy a debt may be paid to them ; but it is He, Who 
 when they were unworthy gave them what they had not, 
 
 Who causes them when worthy to have whatever he will 
 pay to them. 
 
 34. This he will say perchance : I said that the Apostle 
 was worthy, not from works but from faith, of having such 
 wondrous graces given him ; for it was not his works, for he 
 had no good works before, but his faith which merited this. 
 
 What then ? Do we suppose that faith does not work ? 
 
 Nay, that must work most truly which worketh through Gal. v. 6. 
 
 love. For however much men may talk of the works of 
 
 unbelievers, we know the true and undeniable declaration 
 
 of the same Apostle, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Rom.xiv.23 
 
 But the reason why he often says that righteousness is 
 
 accounted to us not of works but of faith, whereas rather 
 
 faith works through love, is to prevent any one thinking 
 
 that we arrive at faith itself by the merits of works, when 
 
 faith is itself the origin from which good works begin ; 
 
 for, as it is said, “ whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” 
 
 Hence it is said to the Church in the Song of Songs, 
 
 “Thou shalt come, and pass over from the beginning of cf.iS. 
 
208 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 Rom. xii 
 
 i Cor. iv 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 
 
 i Cor. xv 
 
 Rom. ix. 
 
 2 Tim. i. 
 
 faith.” Wherefore, although faith obtains the grace of 
 working well, yet faith itself we have not merited by 
 any faith ; but the mercy of the Lord has prevented us 
 in giving it to us, that thereby we may follow Him. Have 
 we given it to ourselves, and made ourselves faithful ? 
 Nay, here again, 1 will cry out, “ It is Lie that hath made 
 us, and not we ourselves.” And this exactly agrees with 
 . 3- the teaching of the Apostle, when he says : “For I say 
 through the grace of God 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.” 
 
 • 7- To the same purport is also that other passage, “For what 
 
 hast thou that thou didst not receive”? Since we have 
 received even the source from which begins whatever 
 good we have in our actions. 
 
 7,8 35- ‘What then mean the words of the same Apostle, 
 
 “ I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I 
 have kept the faith : henceforth there remains for me a 
 crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous 
 judge, shall pay me at that day,” if such things are not paid 
 to the worthy, and given to the unworthy ?’ He who says 
 this does not sufficiently consider that the crown could not 
 have been paid to him when worthy, unless grace had been 
 given him when unworthy. For he says, “ I have fought 
 
 • 57 a good fight: ” but the same writer says himself, “ Thanks 
 
 be to God Which hath given us the victory through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ.” He says, “I have finished my course,” 
 16. but he says himself “ It is not of him that willeth, nor of him 
 that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” He says, “I 
 i2. have kept the faith ; ” but he says himself, “For I know 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINS! 1 PE LA GIGS. 
 
 209 
 
 Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able 
 to keep my deposit against that day,” that is, “ my trust.” 
 For some manuscripts do not read “deposit,* 4 ” but “trustf” 
 which is easier to understand. For what do we entrust to 
 God, except what we pray Him to keep, among which is 
 even our faith itself ? For in behalf of the Apostle 
 Peter* 4 what else did the Lord entrust (in the prayer 
 of which he says to him, “ I have prayed for thee, 
 Peter, that thy faith fail not ”), but that God would 
 preserve His faith, lest he should fail by yielding to 
 temptation ? Wherefore, O blessed Paul, great Preacher of 
 grace, let me speak and fear not—for who would be less 
 angry with me for saying that, than thou, who saidest it 
 for us to say, and taughtest it for us to teach—let me speak, 
 let me say it and fear not : thy merits are paid indeed their 
 crown y but thy merits are the gifts of God. 
 
 36. The reward therefore is paid as a debt to the 
 Apostle when worthy: but not as a debt did grace give 
 him the apostleship itself when unworthy. Shall I repent 
 of having said this? God forbid. For by Paul’s own 
 testimony I shall be defended from any imputation on 
 this score, nor will any one call me over-bold, unless he 
 has been bold enough first to call him a liar. He himself 
 calls out and he himself testifies that he may commend 
 the gifts of God within him and boast, not in himself but 
 in the Lord. He says not only that he had no good 
 merits to become an apostle, but even that his merits 
 were bad, that he may manifest and preach the grace of 
 God. “ I am not meet,”* 4 he says, “to be called an 
 apostle,” which certainly means “I am not worthy,”* 4 for 
 this is actually read in several Latin texts. This state- 
 
 * depositum 
 + commen¬ 
 dation. 
 
 * de Apos- 
 tolo Petro 
 suggestedby 
 Benedictine 
 editors. 
 MSS. have 
 Apostolo 
 Petro. 
 
 * idoneus. 
 1 Cor. xv. 9 
 
 * dignus. 
 
210 
 
 PROCEEDINGS A GAINS ! 1 PELAGIUS. 
 
 * In Latin 
 there is a 
 play on the 
 words oner- 
 abo and 
 honorabo. 
 
 * Si sensum 
 sequeremur. 
 
 ment is just what we are looking for. For in that gift of 
 apostleship all those graces were contained. For it was not 
 fitting nor meet that an Apostle should not have prophecy, 
 or not be a teacher, or not be conspicuous for miracles 
 and gifts of healings, or not give help, or not govern 
 Churches, or not excel in different kinds of tongues. For 
 all these are comprised in the one name of apostleship. 
 Let us consult Paul himself, or rather let us listen to what 
 he says ; let us say to him, “ Holy Apostle Paul, the monk 
 Pelagius says that thou wast worthy to receive all the 
 graces of thine apostleship ; what dost thou say thyself ? ” 
 “ I am not worthy,” he says, “ to be called an apostle.” 
 And so to do honour to Paul, shall I presume to believe 
 what Pelagius says about him, rather than Paul himself ? 
 I will not; for I should be doing what is onerous * to 
 myself, rather than an honour * to him. Let us hear then 
 why he is not worthy to be called an apostle: “ Because,” 
 he says, “ I persecuted the Church of God.” If we 
 followed our natural feelings,* who would not think that 
 he ought to have been condemned by Christ rather than 
 called ? Who would so love the preacher as not to hate 
 the persecutor ? He himself therefore says truly and most 
 rightly, “ I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because 
 I persecuted the Church of God.” “ When you were 
 doing such great evil, whence did you merit such great 
 good?” Let all nations listen to his answer: “But by 
 the grace of God I am what I am.” Is grace here com¬ 
 mended on any other grounds, except because it was given 
 to him when unworthy of it? “And His grace,” he says, 
 “ in me was not in vain.” He teaches this to others also 
 that he may show the choice of will, when he says, “ Now 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 2 11 
 
 we exhort you and beseech you, that ye receive not the 2 Cor vi. 1. 
 grace of God in vain.” And by what follows he proves 
 that God’s grace in him was not in vain. “ But I laboured 
 more than they all.” This shows that he did not labour in 
 order to receive grace, but received it in order that he 
 might labour; and so from the same source from which he 
 was made worthy to receive rewards as a debt, he received 
 grace freely when unworthy. And yet even that very 
 labour he did not presume to claim as his own. For 
 immediately after saying “ I laboured more than they all,” 
 he went on to say “ Not I, but the grace of God which 
 was with me.” O great teacher, confessor, preacher, of 
 grace ! what means this, “I laboured more, not I ”? Where 
 will extolled itself a little, then piety was at once on the 
 watch, and humility trembled, because weakness recognized 
 itself. 
 
 37. It was natural that, as the minutes show, the holy John, 
 
 Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, should have made use 
 of this same quotation, as he told our fellow-bishops 
 who were present in the trial, when they asked what had 
 happened in the proceedings which took place previously 
 under his superintendence. He said, When some were 
 beginning to mutter and to say that Pelagius said that man 
 could be perfected, that is, as he had said before, could be 
 without sin, without God’s grace ; I blamed him and argued 
 on this point from the fact that even the Apostle Paul, when 
 labouring abundantly, yet not by his own power but by the 
 grace of God, said: “ I laboured more abundantly than they 
 all; yet not 1 , but the g?'ace of God which 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 : 
 
2 I 2 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEL A GINS. 
 
 “ Except the Lord build the house, their labour is but lost 
 that build it.” And we made many other similar quotations , 
 from Holy Scripture. But when they did not receive 
 the quotations which we made from Holy Scripture, but 
 still muttered , Pelagius said: “And I, too, so believe; let him 
 be anathema who says that man can advance to all virtues 
 without God's help.” 
 
 38. This is what was told by Bishop John in the hearing 
 of Pelagius, who certainly might have said respectfully: 
 Your holiness is deceived, you have made a slip of memory; 
 / did not say with reference to the quotations which you made 
 from Scripture that I so believed; I do not understand them as 
 implying that God's grace so labours with man, that his not 
 sinning is “ not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth , 
 but of God that showeth mercy.” 
 
 39. For there are certain commentaries on Paul’s 
 epistle to the Romans, which are said to be the work of 
 Pelagius himself, in which the words “It is not of him that 
 willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth 
 mercy,” are asserted to be uttered by S. Paul not as his 
 own statement, but as given in the form of a question and 
 in a tone of reproof, as though this were a thing that 
 certainly ought not to be said. So then, when Bishop 
 John plainly regarded this as the Apostle’s opinion, and 
 expressly quoted it to prevent Pelagius thinking that any 
 one can be without sin without God’s grace, and said that 
 Pelagius had answered, And I too so believe ; even though 
 Pelagius was present and heard the story, yet he did not 
 answer, I do not so believe. Pelagius ought either to deny 
 the authorship of that perverted exposition (in which the 
 writer aimed at showing that this was not the Apostle’s 
 
 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 213 
 
 opinion, but that he said it rather by way of reproof), or 
 without hesitation to correct it and amend it. For what¬ 
 ever Bishop John said about our brethren in their absence 
 (whether our fellow-bishops Heros and Lazarus, or the 
 presbyter Orosius, or others whose names are not 
 mentioned in the minutes), I believe that he does not 
 mean it to be understood as said to their prejudice. For 
 had they been present, they might, perhaps, I certainly will 
 not say have convicted him of lying, but have perchance 
 mentioned something which he had perhaps forgotten, or 
 in which he had been misled by the Latin interpreter, not 
 with any intention of deceit, but from the difficulties 
 arising out of a foreign language imperfectly understood. 
 
 And this was all the more likely as the proceedings were 
 
 carried on without minutes, a most useful institution 
 
 to prevent dishonest people lying, and honest people 
 
 forgetting. But if any one will put a question on this 
 
 point to our brethren above mentioned, and summon them 
 
 to an episcopal tribunal, they will do their best to answer 
 
 for themselves*': but, when even the judges themselves, *sibi aderunt 
 
 after the account given by our fellow-bishop, were unwilling 
 
 to make any declaration on this matter, what is the use of 
 
 our labouring to do so ? 
 
 40. Since, therefore, Belagius, who had been present when 
 those quotations were made, admitted by his silence 
 that he had said that he so believed , how is it that when 
 he recollected the passage in the Apostle which occurs 
 just before, and found that S. Paul had said “ I am not 
 worthy 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 see that he should not have 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PE IA GIGS. 
 
 214 
 
 said, when treating of the abundance of graces which 
 the same Apostle received, that he was worthy to receive 
 them. For the Apostle himself not only stated that 
 he was unworthy, but proved it, giving another reason, 
 and by that very statement commended grace as truly 
 grace. But if by chance he could not bring to mind 
 or remember the facts of the holy John’s account because 
 they happened so long before, he might have considered 
 i 24. his own answer so recently made, and thought of the 
 anathemas he had just pronounced against the sentences 
 quoted against him from Coelestius’s work. For among 
 other things objection was made to Coelestius having 
 said that God's grace is given according to our merits. If 
 then Pelagius was sincere in anathematizing this, what 
 does he mean by saying that all graces were given to the 
 Apostle according to merit ? Is there any difference between 
 being worthy to receive and receiving according to merit ? 
 and can he show, by any subtlety of argument, that 
 a person is worthy of a thing, but does not deserve it ? 
 But Coelestius, or whoever that writer may be, all of 
 whose opinions he anathematized before, does not allow 
 him to put forward misty ambiguities about this word 
 and hide himself behind them. For that writer drives him 
 into a corner and says : Even grace itself is placed in my power r 
 whether I am worthy or unworthy. If then Pelagius rightly 
 and sincerely condemned the statement that grace is given 
 according to merits and to the worthy , how has he the mind 
 to think, the voice to utter, what he says: We say that 
 God gives all graces to him who is worthy to receive them 1 
 Who, if he considered carefully those words, would not 
 feel anxious about his answer or his defence ? 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PE LA GIUS. 
 
 215 
 
 41. “Why then,” says some one, “did the judges 
 approve of this?” I confess that on this point I am 
 myself in difficulty ; but most probably they failed, 
 naturally enough, either to catch or to grasp so short 
 an expression, or they may have supposed that his words 
 might somehow have a right interpretation when they 
 seemed to have his clear confessions on this subject, 
 and so did not think it right to raise adverse issues 
 upon a single word. And this might have happened 
 even to ourselves if we had been sitting in that trial. 
 For supposing instead of the word worthy , which we 
 actually find, we were to substitute the word predestined 
 or something of the kind, there would certainly be 
 nothing objectionable to vex and disturb us. But 
 supposing we were to say that he who is justified by the 
 election of grace is (though certainly not by any ante¬ 
 cedent good merits, yet by the fact of predestination) 
 called worthy , just as he is called elect , it is difficult to 
 decide whether we could, either with perfect accuracy or 
 with some very slight strain on the sense, use such an 
 expression. For, as far as I am personally concerned, I 
 would willingly stop quarrelling over this word, had I not 
 been made anxious about Pelagius’s meaning by the book 
 that I answered, in which he admits no other grace of 
 God at all except our nature with free choice, a * grace of 
 creation. I fear, therefore, lest perchance he purposely 
 inserted this word not by carelessness of speech, but 
 as an intentional statement of doctrine. 
 
 The last statements which afterwards followed made 
 the judges so indignant that they pronounced them 
 worthy of condemnation before Pelagius had replied. 
 
 * gratxam 
 creaturam. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 216 
 
 42 . For a statement in the sixth chapter of Coelestius’s book 
 was objected to, namely, that men cannot be called sons of 
 God, unless they have been made entirely without sin. It was 
 said that, if this was the case, not even the Apostle Paul, 
 according to Coelestius, was a son of God, for he said, 
 Phil. iii. 12. Not as though I had already attained, either were already 
 perfect. Again, objection was made to a statement in 
 the seventh chapter that forgetfulness and ignorance do 
 not co7ne under sin, because they co77ie to pass 710 1 by will , 
 Ps. xxv. 7. but by necessity ; whereas David says, “ Remember not 
 the offences of my youth and of my ignorance,” and 
 Lev - lv - again in the law sacrifices are offered for ignorance just 
 as they are for sin. In the tenth chapter they objected 
 to the statement that choice is not free, if it 7ieeds God's 
 help, because upon a 771071 ’’s own will depe7ids his power of 
 doing or not doing a paiiicular thing; and in the twelfth 
 chapter the statement that our victory co7nes not f7’07n God's 
 help but fro77i free choice. This point he was said to have 
 argued in these words, The victory is ours, because by our 
 oivn will we took up arms; just as, on the C07iti'ary, when 
 we a7'e vanquished, the defeat is ou/'s, because by our oivn 
 will we ivere too proud to arm ourselves. And he quoted 
 2Pet. i. 4. the words of the Apostle Peter that we are “partakers 
 of the Divine Nature,” and he is said to have made the 
 following syllogism : If the soul can7iot be without 
 sin, then God, too, is subject to sin ; because a paid of Him, 
 na7nely the soul, is liable to it. In the thirteenth chapter 
 he says, Pardo7i is not given to penite7its, acco7'dmg 
 to God's grace and mercy, but according to the merits and 
 labours of those who by penitence have beco77ie woiihy of 
 mercy . 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 2 I 7 
 
 43. When these quotations had been recited the holy Synod 
 said : What does the monk Pelagius here present say to these 
 Pauses which have been read ? For this is repudiated by 
 the holy Synod and the holy Catholic Church of God. 
 Pelagius replied, I again say that these statenients were 
 not made by me , as even their own testimony shows; and 
 I am not obliged , as I said , to give satisfaction concerning 
 them; whereas statements which I have acknowledged as 
 mine , these I still hold to be right. But those which I have 
 declared were not mine , I repudiate according to the 
 decision of the Holy Church , anathematizing everyone who 
 •contravenes and contradicts the doctrines of the Holy Catholic 
 Church. For I believe in a Trinity of one Substance , and 
 ■all other doctrines which accord with the teaching of the 
 Holy Catholic Church ; but if anyone holds doctrines contrary 
 to her teaching , let him be anathema. 
 
 44. The Synod said, Now since we have been satisfied with 
 the examination* of the monk Pelagius now before us , who 
 agrees with the godly doctrines , but repudiates and 
 anathematizes what is contrary to the faith of the Church , we 
 ■acknowledge him as belonging to the communion of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 45. If such is the character of the proceedings in which 
 the friends of Pelagius rejoice that he has been cleared of 
 the charge of heresy, we for our part ought not to rejoice 
 too readily in such an acquittal, which is rather a matter of 
 belief than of clear demonstration: and that though we 
 certainly wish and desire his salvation in Christ; especially 
 as he was anxious enough to prove our friendship towards 
 him by producing our private letters and quoting them in 
 this trial, as we find them inserted in the minutes. And in 
 
 * prosecu- 
 tionibus. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 218 
 
 thus giving my opinion, I am not accusing the judges of 
 carelessness, or of connivance, or of, what was certainly 
 very far from being the case, any complicity in the impious 
 doctrines. But while I approve and praise their decision 
 as it justly deserves, nevertheless, it does not seem to me 
 that Pelagius has been cleared of heresy, in the opinion of 
 those to whom he is better, and more thoroughly, known. 
 For the judges who were giving their decision about one 
 whom they practically did not know, especially in the 
 absence of those who had handed in the indictment against 
 him, were certainly quite unable to examine the man with 
 greater care ; while the heresy itself, if those who defended 
 his perverse doctrine would be guided by their decision,, 
 they utterly condemned. But those who are well acquainted 
 with what Pelagius has been in the habit of teaching, 
 whether they have opposed his disputations, or are 
 rejoicing in having been set free from that error, must 
 necessarily suspect him when they read his confession. 
 For it is not a simple condemnation of past errors, but is 
 so couched as to make it seem that he has never thought 
 otherwise than what was approved of in his answer at that 
 tribunal. 
 
 46. For to speak of myself especially, at first when 
 Pelagius was absent and was settled at Rome, I heard 
 his name mentioned with great praise. Afterwards, a 
 story began to reach us, that he was disputing against 
 the grace of God. Though this caused me pain and 
 was told me by trustworthy witnesses, yet I desired to 
 know something about the matter either from his own 
 lips or in some book of his, so that if I began to refute 
 him, he might be unable to deny it. But after he came 
 
PR O CEE DINGS A GAINS T PE LA GIUS. 2 19 
 
 to Africa, in my absence he landed on our coast, I mean 
 that of Hippo. And there, as I learnt from our people,, 
 nothing whatever of this sort was heard uttered by him; 
 for he left sooner than was expected. Afterwards I saw 
 his face at Carthage, once or twice, as far as I can 
 remember, when I was very busy with the cares of the 
 Conference which we were about to hold with the Donatist 
 heretics. But he hurried oft' over the sea again. Mean¬ 
 while, those opinions were eagerly propagated through 
 the mouths of those who were believed to be his disciples. 
 And so Coelestius was brought before an ecclesiastical 
 tribunal, and received such a sentence as his perversity 
 deserved.' Yet we thought it a healthier way of proceeding 
 against them to get their errors themselves refuted and 
 reproved without mentioning their names; we hoped that 
 thus the men might be corrected by the fear of ecclesiastical 
 judgment, rather than actually proceeded against and 
 punished. Therefore we ceased not to argue against 
 those wicked doctrines both in books and public addresses. 
 
 47. But after a while I received from the servants of 
 God, the good and honourable men Timasius and James, 
 that book in which Pelagius most expressly brings forward 
 the question of God’s grace, as though raised by an 
 adversary and already made the cause of bitter antagonism, 
 and seems most clearly to solve it by maintaining that 
 God’s grace is merely nature created with free choice ; 
 sometimes joining with it in a feeble and by no means 
 clear way, either the help of the law or even the forgive¬ 
 ness of sins. I then saw distinctly, beyond any doubt, 
 how dangerous to Christian health was the poison of 
 that perversity. But even so I did not insert the name 
 
220 
 
 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PE LA GIUS. 
 
 of Pelagius in the work by which I refuted that book, 
 thinking that I should gain an easier success if I preserved 
 our friendship and still spared his feelings, even though 
 I could not spare his writings. This is why I feel 
 
 indignant at his saying in this trial in a certain place, 
 
 I anathematize those who hold such opinions, or have ever 
 held them. It would have been quite enough to have 
 said, who hold such opinions, so that we might believe 
 that he had corrected his views. But when he added 
 
 or have ever held them , how unjust, in the first place, 
 
 was it that he should presume to condemn those innocent 
 people who have given up their error .which they had 
 learnt from the instruction of himself or others ! And, 
 in the second place, who of those who know that he 
 not only once held them, but even taught them, would 
 not naturally suspect that he was insincere in anathe¬ 
 matizing those who hold these opinions, when he did not 
 hesitate to anathematize in the same way those who have 
 ever held them , among whom they will remember that he 
 was himself the master ? Now, not to speak of others, 
 how will he look at or face Timasius and James, who 
 were his friends and once his disciples, to whom I wrote 
 the book in which I answered his ? Thinking it not 
 right to leave unnoticed the answer I received from them 
 in reply, I have inserted below a copy of their letter. 
 
 48. To their truly blessed lord and right reverend father 
 Bishop Augustine, Timasius and James send greeting in the 
 Lord. The grace of God administered by your words, O blessed 
 lord and right reverend father, has so refreshed and restoi'ed us 
 that we may say sincerely, “He sent His word and healed them A 
 Indeed we find that your holiness has so carefully sifted the 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PE LA GINS. 
 
 221 
 
 text of that book that we are astounded at the answers given 
 on the several points, whether on statements which a Christian 
 ought to refute, detest, and flee away from, or on those in which 
 Pelagius is not clearly proved to have erred, although he 
 cunningly believed that he could thereby suppress the grace of 
 God. But there is one thing that disappoints us, in spite of 
 this great boon, that this gift of God's grace has so slowly 
 shone out in all its brightness, since it has happened that 
 some have been obliged to leave us who needed for their blindness 
 that illumination of clear truth. To these, though slower 
 than we might have wished, we doubt not of the same grace 
 coming through the kindness of God, Who willeth all men to be 
 saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. But we, 
 although we have long ago, instructed by your spirit of love, cast 
 aiuay our subjection to his error, have this further j'eason for 
 thankfulness that we now have learnt to explain to others what 
 we have already believed, a broad and easy way being opened out 
 to us by the rich discourse of your holiness. And in another 
 hand, May God's mercy glorify for ever your blessedness, 
 preserving it in safety and keeping it mindful of us ! 
 
 49. If then he too were to confess that he had been 
 once in error, as a man already busied with other concerns, 
 but that he now anathematized those who hold such 
 opinions, the man who should not congratulate him, as 
 now holding the way of truth, would be wanting in the 
 bowels of love. But now he was not content to have 
 refused to admit that he has been freed from that pest, 
 but must needs anathematize those who are already freed, 
 and who love him so much as to desire his freedom also. 
 Among them are those who have shown their benevolence 
 towards him by these letters addressed to me, for they 
 
222 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 were thinking of him especially when they said that they 
 were disappointed that I was so slow in writing that book, 
 since it has happened, they said, that some have been obliged to 
 leave us, who needed for their blindness that illumination of 
 clear truth. To these, though slower than we might have wished, 
 they add, we doubt not of the same grace coming by the kindness 
 of God. They thought it best still to leave unmentioned 
 the name or names of those referred to, in order that, 
 while friendship lived, the error of their friends might 
 rather die. 
 
 50. But now, if Pelagius thinks of God, if he is not 
 ungrateful for the mercy of Him, Who led him to the 
 trial by the bishops, in order that he might not dare 
 afterwards to defend these anathematized doctrines, and 
 might know that they must now be detested and rejected ; 
 he will more gratefully receive our letters, when by 
 mentioning his name we prefer to open his wound for 
 healing, than he received those in which, from fear of 
 giving him pain, we are sorry to find that we aggravated 
 his tumour. Now if he was angry with me, let him 
 consider how unjust it was ; and, to overcome his anger, 
 let him at length ask for God’s grace, which in this trial 
 he confessed was given for our separate actions, that by 
 God’s help he may obtain a real victory. For of what 
 advantage to him are the loud praises in the letters of 
 bishops, which he thought fit to mention, nay to read and 
 allege, on his own behalf, as though all who were accus¬ 
 tomed to hear his vehement, I might almost say his 
 burning, exhortations to good life, could have easily known 
 that he held these perverse opinions ? 
 
 51. As far as I am concerned, in the letter of mine 
 
PR OCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 223 
 
 which he brought forward, I not only refrained from 
 praising him, but, as well as I could without actually 
 raising the question, I advised him to be right-minded 
 concerning God’s grace. It is true I called him lord , a 
 title we are accustomed to use in letters even when writing 
 to those who are not Christians. Nor are we guilty of 
 falsehood in so doing, since we owe to all a free service, 
 so to speak, to help them to obtain the salvation which is 
 in Christ. I called him dearly beloved , and this I still call 
 him, and will call him, even if he is angry with me ; since 
 if I do not keep my love for him when he is angry, I shall 
 be injuring myself rather than him. I called him most 
 desired , since I was very anxious to have an interview with 
 him, for I had already heard that he was openly striving to 
 contend against the grace by which we are justified, when¬ 
 ever mention was made of this subject. Lastly what I am 
 saying is clear from the short text of this very letter. For 
 I first thanked him for the great pleasure he had given me 
 through his letter, by assuring me of the health of himself 
 and his friends ; for surely -we ought to wish them the 
 enjoyment of bodily health, even though we wish them 
 corrected of their errors. And a little further on I 
 expressed a hope that he might be rewarded by the Lord 
 with good things , meaning not such as belong to bodily 
 health, but rather those which he used to think, or perhaps 
 still thinks, to depend only upon the choice of the will and 
 man’s own power, wishing him at the same time, and 
 because of this, eternal life. And after this, because he had 
 in the letter which I was answering praised me, in a kind 
 way and with some profuseness, for having some good 
 gifts of. the kind I just mentioned, I here also took 
 
224 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PELA GIUS. 
 
 occasion to ask him to pray for me, that I might rather 
 become, by the Lord’s help, what he already believed I 
 was. And this I did to remind him that, contrary to his 
 opinions, even righteousness itself, which he thoughtworthy 
 of praise in me, is not of him that willeth nor of him that 
 runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 
 
 This is all which that short letter of mine contains,. 
 * dictataest, and it was with that object that I wrote* it. It is as 
 
 i.e. dictated 
 
 to an follows I- 
 
 amanuensis. 
 
 52. To my dearly beloved lord , and much desired brother 
 Pelagius, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord. I thank you very 
 much that you have been pleased to delight me by your letter, 
 and that you assure me of your good health. May God 
 reward you with good things , to make you ever good and 
 insure your eternal life with the eternal God , my well-beloved 
 lord and most desired brother. But , while I do not admit 
 the praises which you laid upon me in your kind letter, 
 yet I cannot but be grateful for the kind spirit you show 
 towards your humble friend; at the same time I recommend 
 that you should rather pray for me, that by the Lord 1 s help 
 I may become what you think I already am. And in another 
 hand, Remember us ; may you be safe and please the Lord, 
 dearly beloved lord and most desired brother ! 
 
 53. And even in this subscription, by desiring that he 
 might please the Lord, I showed that this rested on His 
 grace rather than man’s will alone, since I did not express 
 it as an exhortation, or a direction, or an instruction,, 
 but as a wish. But just as, by expressing it as an 
 exhortation, or a direction, or an instruction, I might 
 have shown that this belongs to free choice, without, 
 however, derogating from God’s grace ; so, in expressing 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINS ! 1 PE LAG/US. 
 
 225 
 
 it as a will, I commended God’s grace, and yet did not do 
 away with the choice of the will. How came he then to 
 bring forward this letter at the trial ? For had he from 
 the first held the opinions therein recommended, he would 
 never, perhaps, have been summoned to the episcopal 
 trial by brethren who, though kindly disposed, were 
 nevertheless offended by the perverse character of his 
 disputations. So, then, just as I have given an account of 
 this letter of mine, so too might they have done whose 
 letters he adduced, and have explained either what they 
 thought, or what they did not know, or why they wrote what 
 they did. It matters not, therefore, how much Pelagius 
 boasts of the friendship of holy men, how much he reads 
 letters which sing his praises, how much he produces 
 accounts describing his acquittal from the charge of 
 heresy ; if he does not confess and anathematize what 
 he is proved on the authority of competent witnesses 
 to have stated in his books, and then write and argue 
 against these very statements, he will never be believed 
 to have corrected his errors by those who know him well. 
 
 54. Now I will mention what has happened since this 
 trial, and has tended rather to increase my suspicion. 
 A letter came into our hands, which was said to be 
 the work of Pelagius himself. He was writing to a 
 friend of his, a certain presbyter, who had kindly written 
 to warn him, as this letter shows, against being the cause 
 of any one separating himself from the body of the Church. 
 Among other things, which are too long and quite 
 unnecessary to insert, Pelagius says, Our assertion that 
 man can be without sin and easily keep God's commandments if 
 he wishes , was approved by the decision of fourteen bishops. 
 
226 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 This decision, he says, has utterly confounded the mouth of 
 contradiction, and scattered abroad all the congregation of 
 evil conspirators. Whether, therefore, Pelagius really wrote 
 that letter, or it was forged by some one or other under 
 his name, who can but see how this error boasts even 
 of the sentence by which it was convicted and condemned, 
 as though of a victory ? For he quoted the words referred 
 to in the form in which they occur in that book of his 
 which is called the Book of Sentences, not in that in 
 which they were objected to in the trial, or repeated 
 in his answer. For even those who made the objection, 
 by some carelessness, omitted a word about which there 
 5 16. has been no small controversy. For they quoted his 
 words as man can, if he wishes, be without sin, and keep, 
 if he wishes, God's commandments; but nothing was said 
 about doing it easily. And afterwards, in his answer, he 
 said, ive did say that man can indeed be without sin, and 
 keep God's commandments if he wishes, but he, too, did 
 See $5 23,24. not say easily keep, but only keep. So also in another 
 place, among the things about which Hilarius consulted 
 me and I answered him, objection was made to the 
 statement that man can be without sin, if he wishes. And 
 this he answered in these words, that man can be without 
 sin I have said already before. FI ere too, then, the word easily 
 was inserted neither by the objectors nor by himself in 
 ? 37- his reply. And also above in the account given by the 
 holy Bishop John it was thus related, When they pressed 
 him and said “he is a heretic; for he says that man can, 
 if he wishes, be without sin "; and we interrogated him 
 on this point, he answered, “ I did not say that man's nature 
 has received impeccability; but that he who wishes to toil 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PELA GIUS. 227 
 
 and strive for his own salvation has from God this power 
 of not sinning and walking in God'’s preceptsThen when 
 some were beginning to mutter and to say that Pelagius said 
 that man could be perfected without God’s grace, I blamed 
 him, and argued on this point from the fact that even the 
 Apostle Paul, when labouring abundantly, yet not by his 
 own power, but by the grace of God, said, “ I laboured more 
 abundantly than they all; yet not /, but the grace of God, 
 which was with mef and so on, as I have already related. 
 
 55. What then is the meaning of their presuming to 
 boast so triumphantly of having persuaded the fourteen 
 bishops who tried their cause, not only of the possibility 
 of not sinning, but also of its easiness, as it is worded in 
 the Book of Sentences written by Pelagius, whereas the 
 word easily nowhere occurs in the clause so often objected 
 to and recited at the trial ? Surely this word is contrary to 
 the actual defence and answer which Pelagius gave, both 
 when Bishop John stated that the answer which Pelagius 
 gave him was intended to convey the impression that man 
 can be without sin who wishes to toil and strive for his salvation, 
 and again when Pelagius himself pleaded and made his 
 defence in the proceedings and said that man can by his 
 owji labour and the grace of God be without sin. Plow then 
 does he do it easily if he toils to do it ? For I think that 
 all common sense agrees with us in saying that where 
 there is toil, a thing is not done easily. And yet that 
 letter, puffed up with carnal boasting and conceit, flies on 
 its way, and by its speedy flight anticipates the coming of 
 the official minutes, and gets first into men’s hands. And in 
 this letter they find it stated that fourteen eastern bishops 
 decided not only that man can be without sin and keep God’s 
 
 5 16 . 
 
228 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEL A GINS. 
 
 commandments, but can keep them easily, without any mention 
 of God’s help, but only if he wishes. And so by leaving 
 out God’s grace, for which the battle raged so furiously, 
 there is nothing left to read in that epistle but only 
 unhappy human pride deceiving itself in thinking that 
 it has won the victory. As though John had not said 
 that he had blamed this statement, and had hurled down, 
 with the three thunderbolts, as it were, of Scripture 
 quotations, those mountains of the giants piled up against 
 the overtowering height of heavenly grace. Or as though, 
 indeed, those other bishops, too, who sat in judgment 
 would have endured, or even patiently listened to, Pelagius 
 when he said, We did say that man can indeed be without 
 sin and keep God’s commandments, if he wishes, unless he 
 had at once added, for this power God has given him (for 
 they did not know that he was here referring to nature, 
 not to the grace they knew of in the Apostle’s preaching); 
 and unless he had continued, but we did not say that 
 there can be found any one who, in any stage of life, from 
 infancy to old age, has never sinned ; but that, if a man turns 
 from sins, he can, by his own labour and the grace of God, 
 be without sin. That this was their feeling they showed 
 also by their decision. For they said that he answered 
 rightly that man can, by God’s help and grace, be without 
 sin ; fearing that, by denying this, they would seem to 
 wrong not man’s power, but actually the grace of God 
 itself. And though it was determined that man can, 
 by the help of God’s grace, be without sin, it was not 
 defined when he is so. It was not, I mean, defined 
 whether, in this flesh which lusteth against the spirit, there 
 has been or is or will be any one, who, while using even now 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TELA GIGS. 
 
 229 
 
 his reason and choice of will, (either among the crowds 
 
 of men, or in the solitary abodes of the monks) does 
 
 not need in this present life to pray “ forgive us our 
 
 debts,” not for others only but also for himself; or whether 
 
 on the other hand this gift will then be perfected when 
 
 “we shall be like him,” when “we shall see Him as He 1 John iii. 2. 
 
 is,” when men will not still fighting say, “I see another law Rom.vii.23. 
 
 in my members warring against the law of my mind,” but 
 
 will say in triumph, “ O death, where is thy victory ? O 
 
 death where is thy sting ?”* And this is a question which 1C0r.xv.55. 
 
 should perhaps be discussed not between Catholics and * So b c s 
 
 &c. 
 
 heretics, but among Catholics themselves, without wrang¬ 
 ling. 
 
 56. How can any one believe that Pelagius, supposing 
 of course that this letter is his, sincerely acknowledged 
 God’s grace (which is neither nature with free choice, nor 
 the knowledge of the law, nor merely the remission of 
 sins, but that grace which is necessary for our separate 
 actions), and sincerely anathematized whoever held con¬ 
 trary opinions ; when he did mention in his letter the 
 easiness of not sinning, about which no question was 
 ever raised in this trial, pretending that the judges 
 were actually in favour of this expression, but did not 
 mention God’s grace, by acknowledging and inserting 
 which he escaped the punishment of the Church’s con¬ 
 demnation ? 
 
 57. There is also another point which I must not pass 
 over in silence. In the document containing his defence, 
 which he sent me by a certain Charus, a native of Hippo 
 and so a fellow-citizen of mine, though a deacon in the 
 east, he represented one matter very differently from the 
 
23° 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 * cum sibi 
 adesset. 
 Sec \ 39 note 
 
 account given of it in the minutes of the bishops. But as 
 contained in the minutes it exhibits a much better and 
 firmer and a far more explicit defence of the Catholic truth 
 against the pest of that heresy. For when I read that 
 pamphlet, before I had received the minutes, I was not 
 aware that he had uttered the very words which he did in 
 his defence * at the trial. 
 
 Now there are a few things in which these accounts do 
 not differ much ; about these I do not much care. But I 
 was very indignant, because he might have been supposed 
 from his letter to have reserved for himself the defence of 
 some of the opinions of Coelestius, whereas with the help 
 of the minutes it becomes quite clear that he anathematized 
 them. For some of those opinions he declared were not 
 his, and that he was not obliged to give satisfaction con¬ 
 cerning them; but he was not willing to anathematize them 
 in that document. The opinions I refer to are these: That 
 Adam was created mortal, and was destined to die , whether 
 he sinned or not: that Adam's sin injured himself alone, 
 and not the human race : that the Law admits to the 
 Kingdom just as much as the Gospel: that newborn infants 
 are in the same state that Adam was before the transgression : 
 that neither by the death nor the transgression of Adam does 
 the whole human race die, nor by the Resurrection of Christ 
 does the whole human race rise again : that infants, even 
 though unbaptized, have eternal life : that rich men , though 
 baptized, unless they give up all that they have, whatever good 
 they may seem to do is not accounted to them, nor will they 
 have the kingdom of Heaven. According to that document 
 his answer to these charges was as follows : All these 
 statements, as their own testimony shows, were never made 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEL A GINS. 
 
 231 
 
 by me, and I am not obliged to give satisfaction concerning 
 them; but according to the minutes Pelagius’s answer 
 to these same sentences was, As their own testimony shows, 
 they were never said by me, and I am not obliged to satisfy 
 my judges concerning them, but nevertheless for the satisfaction 
 of the Holy Synod I anathematize those who hold such 
 opinions, or have ever held them. Why then was it not also 
 thus written in the document ? It would not, I imagine, 
 have involved a great cost of ink, or space, or time, or 
 even of paper itself, to have done this. For who would 
 not think that good care was purposely taken, that that 
 document might pass everywhere current as a short 
 abstract of the minutes ? For it would be supposed from 
 this document that he still had full liberty to defend 
 any one of those opinions, as being only alleged 
 against him without being proved to be his, but not 
 that they were anathematized and condemned. 
 
 58. He afterwards massed together in the document the 
 many sentences out of the book of Coelestius which have 
 been objected against him : and he did not insert between 
 them, as in the minutes, two answers in which he 
 anathematized those sentences, but included all in a 
 general anathema which he added at the end. I might 
 have supposed that this was done for the sake of brevity, 
 had I not perceived of what great importance it is to the 
 matter which troubles us. For [in his document] he thus 
 concluded : I again say that these statements were not made 
 by me, as even their own testimony shews , and I am not 
 obliged to give satisfaction concerning them ; whereas statements 
 which I have acknowledged as mine, these I still hold to be 
 right. But those which J have declared were not mine, 
 
 cf. 5 43. 
 
232 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEL A GI US. 
 
 I repudiate according to the decision of the Holy Church, 
 anathematizing every one who contravenes the doctrines of 
 the Holy and Catholic Church, and in like manner 
 those, too, who, by fabricating falsehoods, have calumniated 
 us. This last sentence is not in the minutes, but has 
 nothing to do with the matter which rightly makes 
 us anxious. Certainly let them be anathema, who, by 
 fabricating falsehoods, have calumniated them. But when 
 I first read the words, But those which I have declared 
 were not mine I repudiate, according to the decision of the 
 Holy Church, not knowing that the decision of the Church 
 had already been given (as there was no mention of 
 it, and I had not read the minutes) I certainly supposed 
 that he had promised that he would agree with its decision 
 about these sentences, not as one which had been already 
 given, but whenever it should be given ; and that he would 
 repudiate not what the Church had already repudiated, 
 but whenever the Church should repudiate them. And 
 I similarly understood the words which followed, anathema¬ 
 tizing everyone who contravenes or contradicts the doctrines 
 of the Holy Catholic Church. But, in fact, as the minutes 
 show, the decision of the Church about these sentences 
 had already been given by the fourteen bishops; and 
 it was in accordance with this decision that he declared 
 that he repudiated all those opinions, and anathematized 
 those who, by holding them, contravene that decision 
 which the minutes show to have been already given. 
 For the judges had already said, What does the monk 
 Pelagius here present say to these sentences which have been 
 read ? For this is repudiated by the Holy Synod, and the 
 Holy Catholic Church of God. But those who do not know 
 
PR O CEE DINGS A GAINST PE LA GIUS. 233 
 
 this, and read that document, think that some of these 
 sentences may be lawfully defended, under the impression 
 that they have not been decided to be contrary to Catholic 
 doctrine, and thinking that Pelagius said that he was 
 prepared to hold that opinion about them which should 
 be, not which had been already, decided by the Church. 
 He did not then write in that document, about which 
 we are speaking, in such a way as to show what rests 
 on the trustworthy authority of the minutes, namely that all 
 those doctrines, by which that heresy was making its stealthy 
 progress, and that contentious audacity was gaining strength, 
 had been condemned by the ecclesiastical tribunal under 
 the presidency of fourteen bishops. If he was afraid 
 of making these facts known as they really are, it would 
 be better that he should correct himself than be angry 
 with what little watchfulness against heresy I have shown, 
 late though it be. But if it is not true that he was afraid, 
 and being but men we are naturally suspicious, let him 
 pardon us for thinking so ; only let him for the future 
 attack the doctrines which were anathematized and 
 repudiated in the proceedings in which he was heard, 
 lest, by sparing them, he should seem not only to have 
 believed them before, but to be believing them still. 
 
 59. My object then in writing to your reverence this 
 long book, yet perhaps not too long considering the 
 gravity and importance of the question, was that, if your 
 judgment approved of it, it might be put into the hands of 
 those to whom you thought it would be useful, receiving 
 the weight of your own authority, which is far more 
 influential than my own humble efforts. I hoped that thus 
 I might crush the vain contentions of those who think that 
 
234 PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 by acquitting Pelagius the eastern bishops who judged the 
 cause approved of those doctrines, which, when they spring 
 up to the great hurt of the Christian faith and the grace 
 of God by which we are called and justified, are always 
 condemned by Christian truth. And they were condemned 
 also by the authority of those fourteen bishops, by which 
 authority Pelagius too would have been condemned, had 
 he not anathematized the doctrines. Now, therefore, 
 having shown him, as was due, the concern prompted by 
 our brotherly love, and having faithfully expressed our 
 anxiety on his account and on his behalf, let us consider 
 the matter as briefly as possible. We shall see that even 
 though he was obviously enough acquitted by a human 
 verdict, yet nevertheless the heresy itself, which is always 
 worthy of condemnation by the judgment of God, was 
 also condemned by the judgment of the fourteen eastern 
 bishops. 
 
 60. The last sentence in that judgment is as follows. 
 
 $ 44- The Synod said, Now since we have been satisfied with the 
 examination of the monk Pelagius now before us, who agrees 
 with the godly doctrines but repudiates and anathematizes 
 what is contrary to the faith of the Church, we acknowledge 
 him as belonging to the communion of the Catholic Church. 
 The holy bishops who sat in judgment comprised in that 
 short sentence two very obvious things about the monk 
 Pelagius; the first that he agreed with the godly doctrines, 
 the second that he repudiated and anathematized what is 
 contrary to the faith of the Church. It was because of 
 these two things that Pelagius was declared to belong to 
 the communion of the Catholic Church. Let us then, by 
 giving a brief recapitulation of the whole matter, see what 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PE IA GIGS. 
 
 2 35 
 
 words Pelagius used from time to time to make these two 
 points clear to those who, as men, conld only judge at the 
 time from evidence which seemed obviously conclusive. 
 
 For, in the case of the sentences objected against him, it 
 is said that he repudiated and anathematized doctrines 
 contrary [to the Church’s teaching]. Let us then, if we 
 can, briefly sum up the whole case as follows : 
 
 61. Since it was necessary that the Apostle Paul’s pre¬ 
 diction should be fulfilled, “there must be also heresies, that iCor. xi. 
 they which are approved may be made manifest among you 
 
 a new heresy, in addition to those of ancient times, has 
 lately been introduced not by bishops, or presbyters, or any 
 clerics at all, but by certain persons professing to be monks. 
 
 The tendency of this heresy is, under the pretext of de¬ 
 fending free choice, to argue against God’s grace which we 
 receive through Jesus Christ our Lord, and to endeavour to 
 overturn the firm foundation of the Christian faith, about 
 
 which it is written, “By one man came death, and by one iCor.xv. 
 
 22 . 
 
 man came also the resurrection of the dead ; for as in Adam 
 all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” It aims 
 further at denying God’s help in our actions by saying that, 
 to enable us to be without sin and to fulfil righteousness, human 
 nature, which was created with f ree choice, may suffice; and that 
 God's grace consists in the fact that we were so made as to be 
 able to effect these results by our will, and in God having given 
 us the help of His law and commandments , and in His forgiving 
 past sins in those who turn to Him." They say that God’s 
 grace should be understood to lie in these things only, not in 
 help given to our separate actions, and that man can be without 
 sin and keep God's commandments easily if he wishes. 
 
 62. When this heresy had deceived very many, and was 
 
236 PR OCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GINS. 
 
 disturbing the minds of those brethren whom it had not 
 deceived, a certain Coelestius, who held these opinions, 
 was brought to trial before the Church of Carthage, and 
 condemned by a verdict of bishops. Some years after 
 that, Pelagius, who was said to be his master, was charged 
 with the same heresy, and was himself too brought to a 
 trial before bishops. At this trial they recited the whole 
 contents of an indictment which had been handed in 
 against him by Heros and Lazarus, bishops in Gaul, though 
 they were themselves absent, excusing themselves because 
 one of them was ill. Pelagius replied to all these charges, 
 and in consequence of his answers was pronounced free 
 from the perversity of this heresy by fourteen bishops of 
 the province of Palestine, who nevertheless condemned 
 the heresy without the slightest hesitation. For they 
 approved of him because in answer to the objections he 
 replied that man is helped to be without sin by the knowledge 
 of the taw, as it is written, “ He gave them the law to help 
 them .” They did not, however, by so saving approve of the 
 view that this knowledge of the law was that grace of God 
 of which it is written, “ Who shall deliver me from the 
 body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord.” Nor did they approve of Pelagius saying 
 that all are governed by their will, in such a sense as to imply 
 that God did not govern them. For he replied that he said 
 this because of free choice, which God helps when it chooses good, 
 but man when he sins is himself to blame, as being endowed 
 with free choice. They approved also his saying that the 
 wicked and sinners are ?iot to be spared in the day of judgment, 
 but to be punished with eternal fire ; because he replied that 
 his statement was made in accordance with the Gospel, in which 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINS r P PELAG1US. 
 
 2 37 
 
 it is written , “ These shall go into eternal punishment , but the 
 righteous into eternal life.” For he had not said that all 
 sinners were liable to everlasting punishment, so that he 
 could rightly be supposed to have contradicted the Apostle, 
 who says that some will be saved, “yet so as by fire.” His 
 statement that the kingdom of Heaven was promised even in $ I3 . 
 the Old Covenant they approved, because he quoted the pass¬ 
 age from the prophet Daniel in which it is said, “And the 
 saints shall take thekingdomof the Most High,” understand¬ 
 ing that in this statement of his Pelagius meant by the Old 
 Covenant not only the Covenant that was made on Mount 
 Sinai, but the whole of the canonical Scriptures which 
 were delivered to men before the advent of Our Lord. 
 
 The statement that man can be without sin if he ivishes was 5516,23. 
 not approved of in the sense in which Pelagius seems to 
 have made it in his book, as though it rested only in man’s 
 power through free choice (which was argued to have been 
 his meaning by his saying if he wishes ), but in the sense 
 that he implied in his answer at that time, or, as the judges 
 expressed it more briefly and clearly in their decision,* *ione erl °Se! 
 that ma?i with the help and grace of God can be without sin. $2 4 note - 
 It was not however defined when the saints will attain that 
 perfection, whether in the body of this death or when death 
 shall be swallowed up in victory. 
 
 63. Of the things which Coelestius was declared to have 
 said or written, and which were objected against Pelagius as 
 being the opinions of his disciple, some even he acknowledged 
 as his own sentiments, but said that he meant them in a 
 different sense from that in which they were objected to. 
 
 Of such a kind is this explanation of Pelagius that before 5523,24. 
 Christ’s coming certain men lived holy and righteous lives , 
 
238 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 whereas Coelestius was related to have asserted that they 
 were without sin. It was also objected that Coelestius had 
 said that the Church was without spot or wrinkle. But Pela- 
 $2 27,28. gius answered that he certainly had said it, hut in the sense 
 that the Church is by “ the Washing ” purged from all spot and 
 ? 29. wrinkle, and God wishes it to remain so. Another statement 
 of Coelestius was that we do more than is commanded in the 
 Laiv and the Gospel. But Pelagius answered that he said it 
 of the virgin life, of which Paul says, I have no commandment 
 *32. of the Lord. It was likewise objected that Coelestius 
 
 declared that some one man can have all virtues and graces, 
 
 and so took away the diversity of graces, which the Apostle 
 
 teaches. But Pelagius answered that he did not take away 
 
 the diversity of graces, hut said that God gives to him, who 
 has become worthy of receiving them, all graces, just as He 
 gave them to the Apostle Paul. 
 
 64. These four opinions quoted under Coelestius’s 
 name, the judges did not approve of in the sense in 
 which Coelestius was said to have held them, but in 
 that which Pelagius implied in his answer. For they 
 saw that being without sin is a different thing- from 
 living a holy and righteous life, such as Scripture 
 testifies that some lived even before Christ’s comma:. 
 And although the Church here is not without spot or 
 wrinkle, nevertheless they saw that by the “Washing of 
 regeneration ” it is purged from all spot and wrinkle, 
 and also that God wishes it so to remain. For it 
 actually will so remain, because it is certainly without 
 spot or wrinkle that it will reign in eternal bliss. They 
 saw, too, that perpetual virginity, which is not commanded, 
 is undoubtedly something more than conjugal chastity, 
 
PROCEEDINGS A GAINST PEL A GIUS. 
 
 2 39 
 
 which is ; although many preserve their virgin state, 
 who, nevertheless, are not without sin. They saw, too, 
 that the Apostle Paul had all those graces which he 
 enumerates in one passage. And either they may have 
 understood, somehow, the assertion that he was worthy of 
 receiving them, not as according to merits, but rather as 
 according to predestination (for he himself says “ I am 
 not worthy,” or am not meet “ to be called an Apostle ”), or 
 the word worthy may have escaped their attention, though 
 Pelagius himself must have known how he used it. These 
 are the things in which the bishops declared that Pelagius 
 agreed with the godly doctrine. 
 
 65. Now by a second short and careful recapitulation of 
 a similar kind let us see what things they said he. repudiated 
 and anathematized as contrary [to the faith of the Church .] 
 For herein rather the whole of the heresy consists. We 
 may omit, then, what he was said to have written in books 
 of his addressed to some widow or other by way of flattery, 
 because he said they were not in his books, adding that he 
 had never said anything of the sort, and anathematizing 
 those who held such opinions, not as heretics but as fools. 
 And we shall find that such are the other doctrines which 
 he anathematized (doctrines by which the thickets of that 
 heresy are daily growing denser, and threaten alas to 
 become a forest): That Adam was created mortal and ivas 
 destined to die , whether he shined or not: that Adam’s sin 
 injured himself alone and not the human race : that the Law 
 admits to the Kingdom just as much as the Gospel: that new¬ 
 born infants are in the same state that Adam was before the 
 transgression : that neither by the death nor the transgression 
 of Adam does the ivhole human race die , nor by the Resuri'ection 
 
 \ 23. 
 
240 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PE LA GINS. 
 
 of Christ does the whole human race rise again : that infants, 
 though unbaptized, have eternal life: that rich men , though 
 baptized, unless they give up all that they have, whatever good 
 they may seem to have done is not accounted to them, 7107 can they 
 
 \ 30. have the Kingdom of God: that the grace and help of God are 
 7 iot given for separate actions, but consist in free choice, and in 
 the Law and the teaching: that the grace of God is given 
 according to our merits ; and therefore even grace itself depends 
 upon mads zvill, whether he becomes worthy or unworthy: 
 
 $ 42. that men cannot be called softs of God unless they have been 
 made entirely without sin : that forgetfulness and ignorance do 
 not come under sin, because they come to pass, not by will, but 
 by necessity : that choice is not free if it needs God's help, 
 because every man has his own will to determine whether he does 
 a thing or not: that our victory comes not from God's help, 
 but from free choice: that it follows from Peter's words, 
 “we at'e partakers of the Divine nature," that the soul can be 
 without sin just as God is! For in the eleventh chapter 
 of the book, which has not got the name of its author, 
 but is said to be the work of Coelestius, I have found 
 this view stated thus : How can anyone, the author 
 writes, be said to be a partaker of a thing, if he be defined 
 * statu ct as entirely without its condition and powerP Therefore 
 
 virtute. 
 
 the brethren who objected to the statement m question 
 understood him to imply that the soul and God are of 
 the same nature, and that the soul is part of God; for 
 so they explained his opinion that the soul is of the same 
 condition and power as God. And in the last of the sentences 
 objected to it was stated that pardon is not give?i to penitents 
 accoj'ding to God's grace and mercy, but according to the 
 merits a?id labour of those who, by penitence, have become 
 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 241 
 
 worthy of mercy. All these things, and whatever arguments 
 were added here and there to confirm them, Pelagius 
 denied to be his and anathematized; so the judges 
 approved of him, and therefore they declared that he 
 had condemned what was contrary to the faith of the 
 Church by repudiating and anathematizing it. And, there¬ 
 fore, in whatever sense Coelestius may have asserted them 
 or not, or Pelagius have understood them or not, let us 
 rejoice that such great evils of such a novel heresy as 
 this have been condemned by that ecclesiastical sentence, 
 and let us thank God and praise Him. 
 
 66. Now the outrages which are said to have been com¬ 
 mitted in that place after the trial with incredible audacity 
 by a troop of wicked men reported as taking the very 
 worst side of Pelagius’s opinions, so that servants and hand¬ 
 maids of God under the charge of holy Jerome the Pres¬ 
 byter were most wickedly slaughtered, a deacon slain, the 
 monastic buildings set on fire, and himself scarce saved by 
 the mercy of God in some strongly fortified tower from the 
 violence and attack of these \yicked men :—all this I think 
 it best to pass over in silence, and to wait till we hear 
 what steps our brethren the bishops think good to take 
 concerning such great crimes. Who w r ould suppose that 
 these criminals will succeed in making the bishops believe 
 their innocence ? For impious doctrines of men of this 
 kind ought to be reproved by all Catholics, even by those 
 who live in distant lands, to prevent the possibility of their 
 doing harm in any countries which they may succeed in 
 reaching. But impious actions, being subject to the 
 coercion and discipline of bishops, are best punished with 
 diligence and pious severity at their hands in the country 
 
 16 
 
242 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PELAGIUS. 
 
 where they are perpetrated. For it is better that cognizance 
 should be taken of them by those who live on the spot, or 
 at least those at hand. We therefore, who live so far away, 
 must hope that such a decision will be made in this matter 
 in that country, that no further adjudication will be neces¬ 
 sary any where else, but that it will be our best interest 
 rather to make it known ; that so the minds of all, griev¬ 
 ously wounded by the widespread report of those crimes 
 may be healed by the help of God’s mercy. And here I 
 must end this book, which I hope, if it shall succeed in 
 approving itself to your judgment, will by God’s help be 
 useful to my readers; for your name which has more 
 authority than my own, and your diligence in publishing 
 it, will give it a larger and wider influence. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 012 01012 7019 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 6lC4»*. 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 iL«; >? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 t0^b 
 
 
 
 
 ijg&k 
 
 A. 
 
 
 
 .■*“ ..Li-.- 
 
 ^.£4 
 
 
 
 syfAY 2 
 
 !. TIWB 
 
 
 
 #V ;■ 
 
 -•- - r Si.- ' j 
 
 
 
 Miv 9 
 
 
 
 
 “A f c 
 
 . T ( 
 
 ■) ?ftii 
 
 
 
 uUl 1 
 
 J tha\& Uw 
 
 
 
 Hay o 
 
 9 2QJS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Demco, Inc. 38-293