St. Augustine: On the Proceedings of Pelagius

---

Dispatched from the UK in 3 business days When will my order arrive? E a Wallis Budge. The School of Life. Home Contact Us Help Free delivery worldwide. Description "About the same time, in the East that is to say, in Palestinian Syria , Pelagius was summoned by certain catholic brethren before a tribunal of bishops, and was heard on his trial by fourteen prelates, in the absence of his accusers, who were unable to be present on the day of the synod.

On his condemning the very dogmas which were read from the indictment against him, as assailing the grace of Christ, they pronounced him to be a catholic. But when the Acts of this synod found their way into our hands, I wrote a treatise on them, to prevent the idea gaining ground that, because he had been in a manner acquitted, his opinions also were approved by the bishops; or that the accused could by any chance have escaped condemnation at their hands, unless he had condemned the opinions charged against him.

This treatise of mine begins with these words: Communist Manifesto Karl Marx. Essays and Aphorisms Arthur Schopenhauer. Godel, Escher, Bach Douglas R. The Seat of the Soul Gary Zukav. Michael Oakeshott Paul Franco. The Road Less Travelled M. On Liberty John Stuart Mill. On the Genealogy of Morals Friedrich Nietzsche. The Rebel Albert Camus. Discourses and Selected Writings Epictetus. Puchar od Pana Boga Pavel Ota. Essays In Love Alain de Botton.

Power of Myth Bill Moyers. The Imitation of Christ Thomas A. The Philosophy Book DK. The Poetics of Space Gaston Bachelard. Introduction to Tantra Lama Yeshe. Metaphors We Live by Mark Johnson. Metaphysical Meditations Paramahansa Yogananda. Second Edition Nassim Nicholas Taleb. So far, then, as they rule anything themselves, they rule it rightly, since they themselves are ruled by Him who is right and good. Another statement was read which Pelagius had placed in his book, to this effect: In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet so as by fire.

Since also they were absent who presented the indictment against Pelagius to the holy bishop Eulogius, there was no one to urge him that he ought to distinguish, by some exception, between those sinners who are to be saved by fire, and those who are to be punished with everlasting perdition. If, indeed, the judges had come to understand by these means the reason why the objection had been made to his statement, had he then refused to allow the distinction, he would have been justly open to blame.

But what Pelagius added, Who believes differently is an Origenist, was approved by the judges, because in very deed the Church most justly abominates the opinion of Origen , that even they whom the Lord says are to be punished with everlasting punishment, and the devil himself and his angels , after a time, however protracted, will be purged, and released from their penalties, and shall then cleave to the saints who reign with God in the association of blessedness. This additional sentence, therefore, the synod pronounced to be not opposed to the Church , — not in accordance with Pelagius, but rather in accordance with the Gospel , that such ungodly and sinful men shall be consumed by eternal fires as the Gospel determines to be worthy of such a punishment; and that he is a sharer in Origen's abominable opinion, who affirms that their punishment can possibly ever come to an end, when the Lord has said it is to be eternal.

Concerning those sinners, however, of whom the apostle declares that they shall be saved, yet so as by fire, after their work has been burnt up, inasmuch as no objectionable opinion in reference to them was manifestly charged against Pelagius, the synod determined nothing. Wherefore he who says that the ungodly and sinner, whom the truth consigns to eternal punishment, can ever be liberated therefrom, is not unfitly designated by Pelagius as an Origenist.

But, on the other hand, he who supposes that no sinner whatever deserves mercy in the judgment of God , may be designated by whatever name Pelagius is disposed to give to him, only it must at the same time be quite understood that this error is not received as truth by the Church. For he shall have judgment without mercy that has showed no mercy.

But how this judgment is to be accomplished, it is not easy to understand from Holy Scripture ; for there are many modes therein of describing that which is to come to pass only in one mode. In one place the Lord declares that He will shut the door against those whom He does not admit into His kingdom; and that, on their clamorously demanding admission, Open unto us,.

For if it were a solitary case only of the man who was cast into outer darkness for not having on the wedding garment, He would not have gone on at once to give it a plural turn, by saying: However, it would occupy us too long to discuss all these questions to the full. This brief remark, however, I may make, without prejudice as they say in pecuniary affairs to some better discussion, that by the many descriptions which are scattered throughout the Holy Scriptures there is signified to us but one mode of final judgment, which is inscrutable to us — with only the variety of deservings preserved in the rewards and punishments.

Touching the particular point, indeed, which we have before us at present, it is sufficient to remark that, if Pelagius had actually said that all sinners whatever without exception would be punished in an eternity of punishment by everlasting fire , then whosoever had approved of this judgment would, to begin with, have brought the sentence down on his own head. For who will boast that he is pure from sins? It was further objected against Pelagius, as if he had written in his book, that evil does not enter our thoughts.

In reply, however, to this charge, he said: We made no such statement. What we did say was, that the Christian ought to be careful not to have evil thoughts. Of this, as it became them, the bishops approved. For who can doubt that evil ought not to be thought of? And, indeed, if what he said in his book about evil not being thought runs in this form, neither is evil to be thought of, the ordinary meaning of such words is that evil ought not even to be thought of.

Now if any person denies this, what else does he in fact say, than that evil ought to be thought of? And if this were true , it could not be said in praise of love that it thinks no evil! The thought, however, which contracts blame, and is justly forbidden, is never unaccompanied with assent. Possibly those men had an incorrect copy of Pelagius' writings, who thought it proper to object to him that he had used the words: Evil does not enter into our thoughts; that is, that whatever is evil never enters into the thoughts of righteous and holy men.

Which is, of course, a very absurd statement. For whenever we censure evil things, we cannot enunciate them in words, unless they have been thought. But, as we said before, that is termed a culpable thought of evil which carries with it assent. After the judges had accorded their approbation to this answer of Pelagius, another passage which he had written in his book was read aloud: The kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament. Upon this, Pelagius remarked in vindication: This can be proved by the Scriptures: I, however, simply followed the authority of the Scriptures when I said this; for in the prophet Daniel it is written: Neither is this opposed to the Church's faith.

Was it therefore without reason that our brethren were moved by his words to include this charge among the others against him? The fact is, that the phrase Old Testament is constantly employed in two different ways — in one, following the authority of the Holy Scriptures ; in the other, following the most common custom of speech.

For the Apostle Paul says, in his Epistle to the Galatians: Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. Which things are an allegory: For this is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and is conjoined with the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; whereas the Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all.

Since, however, as I have already remarked, we are accustomed, in our ordinary use of words, to designate all those Scriptures of the law and the prophets which were given previous to the Lord's incarnation , and are embraced together by canonical authority, under the name and title of the Old Testament , what man who is ever so moderately informed in ecclesiastical lore can be ignorant that the kingdom of heaven could be quite as well promised in those early Scriptures as even the New Testament itself, to which the kingdom of heaven belongs?

At all events, in those ancient Scriptures it is most distinctly written: Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will consummate a new testament with the house of Israel and with the house of Jacob; not according to the testament that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt. But then there had not yet risen the prophet Daniel to say: The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.

In the same manner did the same prophets foretell that Christ Himself would come, in whose blood the New Testament was consecrated. Of this Testament also the apostles became the ministers, as the most blessed Paul declares: He has made us able ministers of the New Testament ; not in its letter, but in spirit: Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and gifts of a similar kind are the promises of the Old Testament.

And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament ; but yet the man who lives under God's law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament , for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms of the Old Testament , as are the objects of his desire according to the condition of the old man. But whatever blessings are there figuratively set forth as appertaining to the New Testament require the new man to give them effect.

And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical distinction of the bond- woman and the free — attributing the children of the flesh to the Old, and to the New the children of the promise: They, says he, which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God ; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

But then the happy persons , who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth, were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament ; although they continued with perfect fitness to administer the Old Testament to the ancient people of God , because it was divinely appropriated to that people in God's distribution of the times and seasons.

A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius

How then should there not be a feeling of just disquietude entertained by the children of promise, children of the free Jerusalem, which is eternal in the heavens, when they see that by the words of Pelagius the distinction which has been drawn by Apostolic and catholic authority is abolished, and Agar is supposed to be by some means on a par with Sarah? On this account that I may put into as brief a space as I can what my own views are on the subject , as much injury is done to the New Testament , when it is put on the same level with the Old Testament , as is inflicted on the Old itself when men deny it to be the work of the supreme God of goodness.

Now, when Pelagius in his answer gave as his reason for saying that even in the Old Testament there was a promise of the kingdom of heaven , the testimony of the prophet Daniel, who most plainly foretold that the saints should receive the kingdom of the Most High, it was fairly decided that the statement of Pelagius was not opposed to the catholic faith , although not according to the distinction which shows that the earthly promises of Mount Sinai are the proper characteristics of the Old Testament ; nor indeed was the decision an improper one, considering that mode of speech which designates all the canonical Scriptures which were given to men before the Lord's coming in the flesh by the title of the Old Testament.

The kingdom of the Most High is of course none other than the kingdom of God ; otherwise, anybody might boldly contend that the kingdom of God is one thing, and the kingdom of heaven another. The next objection was to the effect that Pelagius in that same book of his wrote thus: A man is able, if he likes, to be without sin ; and that writing to a certain widow he said, flatteringly: In you piety may find a dwelling-place, such as she finds nowhere else; in you righteousness, though a stranger, can find a home; truth , which no one any longer recognises, can discover an abode and a friend in you; and the law of God , which almost everybody despises, may be honoured by you alone.

And in another sentence he writes to her: O how happy and blessed are you, when that righteousness which we must believe to flourish only in heaven has found a shelter on earth only in your heart! In another work addressed to her, after reciting the prayer of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , and teaching her in what manner saints ought to pray , he says: He worthily raises his hands to God , and with a good conscience does he pour out his prayer , who is able to say, 'Thou, O Lord, know how holy , and harmless, and pure from all injury and iniquity and violence , are the hands which I stretch out to You; how righteous, and pure, and free from all deceit, are the lips with which I offer to You my supplication, that You would have mercy upon me.

We asserted that a man could be without sin , and could keep God's commandments if he wished; for this capacity has been given to him by God. But we never said that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from infancy to old age, had committed sin: As for the other statements which they have made against us, they are not to be found in our books, nor have we at any time said such things.

Upon hearing this vindication, the synod put this question to him: You have denied having ever written such words; are you therefore ready to anathematize those who do hold these opinions? I anathematize them as fools, not as heretics , for there is no dogma.

The bishops then pronounced their judgment in these words: Since now Pelagius has with his own mouth anathematized this vague statement as foolish verbiage, justly declaring in his reply, 'That a man is able with God's assistance and grace to be without sin ,' let him now proceed to answer the other heads of accusation against him.

Well, now, had the judges either the power or the right to condemn these unrecognised and vague words, when no person on the other side was present to assert that Pelagius had written the very culpable sentences which were alleged to have been addressed by him to the widow? In such a matter, it surely could not be enough to produce a manuscript, and to read out of it words as his, if there were not also witnesses forthcoming in case he denied, on the words being read out, that they ever dropped from his pen.

But even here the judges did all that lay in their power to do, when they asked Pelagius whether he would anathematize the persons who held such sentiments as he declared he had never himself propounded either in speech or in writing. And when he answered that he did anathematize them as fools, what right had the judges to push the inquiry any further on the matter, in the absence of Pelagius' opponents? But perhaps the point requires some consideration, whether he was right in saying that such as held the opinions in question deserved anathema , not as heretics , but as fools, since it was no dogma.

The question, when fairly confronted, is no doubt far from being an unimportant one — how far a man deserves to be described as a heretic ; on this occasion, however, the judges acted rightly in abstaining from it altogether. If any one, for example, were to allege that eaglets are suspended in the talons of the parent bird, and so exposed to the rays of the sun, and such as wink are flung to the ground as spurious, the light being in some mysterious way the gauge of their genuine nature, he is not to be accounted a heretic , if the story happens to be untrue.

And, since it occurs in the writings of the learned and is very commonly received as fact, ought it to be considered a foolish thing to mention it, even though it be not true? Much less ought our credit, which gains for us the name of being trustworthy, to be affected, on the one hand injuriously if the story be believed by us, or beneficially if disbelieved.

Access Check

If, to go a step further in illustration, any one were from this opinion to contend that there existed in birds reasonable souls , from the notion that human souls at intervals passed into them, then indeed we should have to reject from our mind and ears alike an idea like this as the rankest heresy ; and even if the story about the eagles were true as there are many curious facts about bees before our eyes, that are true , we should still have to consider, and demonstrate, the great difference that exists between the condition of creatures like these, which are quite irrational, however surprising in their powers of sensation, and the nature which is common not to men and beasts, but to men and angels.

There are, to be sure, a great many foolish things said by foolish and ignorant persons , which yet fail to prove them heretics. One might instance the silly talk so commonly heard about the pursuits of other people, from persons who have never learned these pursuits — equally hasty and untenable whether in the shape of excessive and indiscriminate praise of those they love , or of blame in the case of those they happen to dislike. The same remark might be made concerning the usual curent of human conversation: Many persons , indeed, when gently reminded of their reckless gossip, have afterwards much regretted their conduct; they scarcely recollected what they had never uttered with a fixed purpose, but had poured forth in a sheer volley of casual and unconsidered words.

It is, unhappily, almost impossible to be quite clear of such faults. Who is he that slips not in his tongue, and offends not in word? It, however, makes all the difference in the world, to what extent, and from what motive, and whether in fact at all, a man when warned of his fault corrects it, or obstinately clings to it so as to make a dogma and settled opinion of that which he had not at first uttered on purpose, but only in levity. Although, then, it turns out eventually that every heretic is a fool, it does not follow that every fool must immediately be named a heretic.

The judges were quite right in saying that Pelagius had anathematized the vague folly under consideration by its fitting designation for even if it were heresy , there could be no doubt of its being foolish prattle. Whatever, therefore, it was, they designated the offense under a general name. But whether the quoted words had been used with any definitely dogmatic purpose, or only in a vague and indeterminate sense, and with an unmeaningness which should be capable of an easy correction, they did not deem it necessary to discuss on the present occasion, since the man who was on his trial before them denied that the words were his at all, in whatever sense they had been employed.

Now it so happened that, while we were reading this defense of Pelagius in the small paper which we received at first, there were present certain holy brethren, who said that they had in their possession some hortatory or consolatory works which Pelagius had addressed to a widow lady whose name did not appear, and they advised us to examine whether the words which he had abjured for his own occurred anywhere in these books. They were not themselves aware whether they did or not. The said books were accordingly read through, and the words in question were actually discovered in them.

Moreover, they who had produced the copy of the book, affirmed that for now almost four years they had had these books as Pelagius', nor had they once heard a doubt expressed about his authorship. Considering, then, from the integrity of these servants of God , which was very well known to us, how impossible it was for them to use deceit in the matter, the conclusion seemed inevitable, that Pelagius must be supposed by us to have rather been the deceiver at his trial before the bishops ; unless we should think it possible that something may have been published, even for so many years, in his name, although not actually composed by him; for our informants did not tell us that they had received the books from Pelagius himself, nor had they ever heard him admit his own authorship.

Now, in my own case, certain of our brethren have told me that sundry writings have found their way into Spain under my name. Such persons , indeed, as had read my genuine writings could not recognise those others as mine; although by other persons my authorship of them was quite believed. There can be no doubt that what Pelagius has acknowledged as his own is as yet very obscure. I suppose, however, that it will become apparent in the subsequent details of these proceedings.

We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin , and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin ; but that if any person were converted from his sins , he could by his own exertion and God's grace be without sin ; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards.

Now it is quite uncertain what he means in these words by the grace of God ; and the judges, catholic as they were, could not possibly understand by the phrase anything else than the grace which is so very strongly recommended to us in the apostle's teaching. This grace is not the knowledge of the law, but is that of which the apostle says: I will not make void the grace of God: I had not known lust , unless the law had said, You shall not covet. But sin , taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. The law indeed is holy , and the commandment holy , and just, and good.

Was then that which is good made death unto me? But sin , that it might appear sin , wrought death in me by that which is good. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I know not: If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. There is in his mind , therefore, a knowledge of the holy law of God , but still his evil concupiscence is not cured.

He has a good will within him, but still what he does is evil. O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death? The grace of God , through Jesus Christ our Lord. It is not nature, therefore, which, sold as it is under sin and wounded by the offense, longs for a Redeemer and Saviour; nor is it the knowledge of the law — through which comes the discovery, not the expulsion, of sin — which delivers us from the body of this death; but it is the Lord's good grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This grace is not dying nature, nor the slaying letter, but the vivifying spirit; for already did he possess nature with freedom of will, because he said: To will is present with me.

Top Authors

I know that in me that is, in my flesh dwells nothing good. What I would, that do I not; but what I hate , that do I. This grace , then, which was most completely known in the catholic Church as the bishops were well aware , they supposed Pelagius made confession of, when they heard him say that a man , when converted from his sins , is able by his own exertion and the grace of God to be without sin. For my own part, however, I remembered the treatise which had been given to me, that I might refute it, by those servants of God , who had been Pelagius' followers.

They, notwithstanding their great affection for him, plainly acknowledged that the passage was his; when, on this question being proposed, because he had already given offense to very many persons from advancing views against the grace of God , he most expressly admitted that what he meant by God's grace was that, when our nature was created, it received the capacity of not sin ning, because it was created with free will. On account, therefore, of this treatise, I cannot help feeling still anxious, while many of the brethren who are well acquainted with his discussions, share in my anxiety, lest under the ambiguity which notoriously characterizes his words there lies some latent reserve, and lest he should afterwards tell his followers that it was without prejudice to his own doctrine that he made any admissions, — discoursing thus: I no doubt asserted that a man was able by his own exertion and the grace of God to live without sin ; but you know very well what I mean by grace ; and you may recollect reading that grace is that in which we are created by God with a free will.

Accordingly, while the bishops understood him to mean the grace by which we have by adoption been made new creatures, not that by which we were created for most plainly does Holy Scripture instruct us in the former sense of grace as the true one , ignorant of his being a heretic , they acquitted him as a catholic. I must say that my suspicion is excited also by this, that in the work which I answered, he most openly said that righteous Abel never sinned at all. Now, however, he thus expresses himself: But we did not say that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from infancy to old age, has committed sin ; but that, if any man were converted from his sins , he could by his own labour and God's grace be without sin.

When speaking of righteous Abel, he did not say that after being converted from his sins he became sinless in a new life, but that he never committed sin at all. If, then, that book be his, it must of course be corrected and amended from his answer. For I should be sorry to say that he was insincere in his more recent statement; lest perhaps he should say that he had forgotten what he had previously written in the book we have quoted. Let us therefore direct our view to what afterwards occurred.

Now, from the sequel of these ecclesiastical proceedings, we can by God's help show that, although Pelagius, as some suppose, cleared himself in his examination, and was at all events acquitted by his judges who were, however, but human beings after all , that this great heresy , which we should be most unwilling to see making further progress or becoming aggravated in guilt, was undoubtedly itself condemned. These have been so objected to, that they are even said to have been, after a full hearing, condemned at Carthage by your holiness and other bishops associated with you.

I was not present on that occasion, as you will recollect; but afterwards, on my arrival at Carthage , I read over the Acts of the synod, some of which I perfectly well remember, but I do not know whether all the tenets now mentioned occur among them. But what matters it if some of them were possibly not mentioned, and so not included in the condemnation of the synod when it is quite clear that they deserve condemnation? Sundry other points of error were next alleged against him, connected with the mention of my own name.

They had been transmitted to me from Sicily , some of our Catholic brethren there being perplexed by questions of this kind; and I drew up a reply to them in a little work addressed to Hilary, who had consulted me respecting them in a letter. My answer, in my opinion, was a sufficient one.

These are the errors referred to: That a man is able to be without sin if he wishes. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men, even if they are baptized , unless they renounce all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them; neither can they possess the kingdom of God. The following, as the proceedings testify, was Pelagius' own answer to these charges against him: Concerning a man's being able indeed to be without sin , we have spoken, says he, already; concerning the fact, however, that before the Lord's coming there were persons without sin , we say now that, previous to Christ's advent, some men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures.

The rest were not said by me, as even their testimony goes to show, and for them, I do not feel that I am responsible. But for the satisfaction of the holy synod, I anathematize those who either now hold, or have ever held, these opinions. After hearing this answer of his, the synod said: With regard to these charges aforesaid, Pelagius has in our presence given us sufficient and proper satisfaction, by anathematizing the opinions which were not his. We see, therefore, and maintain that the most pernicious evils of this heresy have been condemned, not only by Pelagius, but also by the holy bishops who presided over that inquiry: Now, by reason of these questions, and the very contentious assertions of these tenets, which are everywhere accompanied with heated feelings, many weak brethren were disturbed.

We have accordingly, in the anxiety of that love which it becomes us to feel towards the Church of Christ through His grace , and out of regard to Marcellinus of blessed memory who was extremely vexed day by day by these disputers, and who asked my advice by letter , been obliged to write on some of these questions, and especially on the baptism of infants.

On this same subject also I afterwards, at your request, and assisted by your prayers , delivered an earnest address, to the best of my ability, in the church of the Majores , holding in my hands an epistle of the most glorious martyr Cyprian, and reading therefrom and applying his words on the very matter, in order to remove this dangerous error out of the hearts of sundry persons , who had been persuaded to take up with the opinions which, as we see, were condemned in these proceedings.

These opinions it has been attempted by their promoters to force upon the minds of some of the brethren, by threatening, as if from the Eastern Churches, that unless they adopted the said opinions, they would be formally condemned by those Churches. Observe, however, that no less than fourteen bishops of the Eastern Church, assembled in synod in the land where the Lord manifested His presence in the days of His flesh, refused to acquit Pelagius unless he condemned these opinions as opposed to the Catholic faith.

Since, therefore, he was then acquitted because he anathematized such views, it follows beyond a doubt that the said opinions were condemned. This, indeed, will appear more clearly still, and on still stronger evidence, in the sequel. Let us now see what were the two points out of all that were alleged which Pelagius was unwilling to anathematize , and admitted to be his own opinions, but to remove their offensive aspect explained in what sense he held them.

That a man , says he, is able to be without sin has been asserted already.

A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius - St Augustine - Häftad () | Bokus

Asserted no doubt , and we remember the assertion quite well; but still it was mitigated, and approved by the judges, in that God's grace was added, concerning which nothing was said in the original draft of his doctrine. Touching the second, however, of these points, we ought to pay careful attention to what he said in answer to the charge against him. Concerning the fact, indeed, says he, that before the Lord's coming there were persons without sin , we now again assert that previous to Christ's advent some men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures.

He did not dare to say: For he perceived how dangerous such a statement was, and into what trouble it would bring him. So he reduced the sentence to these harmless dimensions: We again assert that before the coming of Christ there were persons who led holy and righteous lives. Of course there were: But to say this is a very different thing from saying that they lived without sin. Because, indeed, those ancient worthies lived holy and righteous lives, they could for that very reason better confess: If we say that we have no sin , we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors. We must now treat in detail of the topics which still remain, to the best of our ability. Pelagius was charged with having said: That the Church here is without spot or wrinkle. It was on this point that the Donatists also were constantly at conflict with us in our conference.

We used, in their case, to lay special stress on the mixture of bad men with good, like that of the chaff with the wheat; and we were led to this idea by the similitude of the threshing-floor. We might apply the same illustration in answer to our present opponents, unless indeed they would have the Church consist only of good men, whom they assert to be without any sin whatever, that so the Church might be without spot or wrinkle.

If this be their meaning, then I repeat the same words as I quoted just now; for how can they be members of the Church , of whom the voice of a truthful humility declares, If we say that we have no sin , we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us? In short, they must themselves submit to be strictly catechised respecting themselves: If their answer is in the negative, then they must be plainly told that they are deceiving themselves, and the truth is not in them. If, however, they shall acknowledge that they do commit sin , what is this but a confession of their own wrinkle and spot?

They therefore are not members of the Church ; because the Church is without spot and wrinkle, while they have both spot and wrinkle. But to this objection he replied with a watchful caution such as the catholic judges no doubt approved. It has, says he, been asserted by me — but in such a sense that the Church is by the laver cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and in this purity the Lord wishes her to continue. Whereupon the synod said: Of this also we approve. And who among us denies that in baptism the sins of all men are remitted, and that all believers come up spotless and pure from the laver of regeneration?

Or what catholic Christian is there who wishes not, as his Lord also wishes, and as it is meant to be, that the Church should remain always without spot or wrinkle? For in very deed God is now in His mercy and truth bringing it about, that His holy Church should be conducted to that perfect state in which she is to remain without spot or wrinkle for evermore. But between the laver, where all past stains and deformities are removed, and the kingdom, where the Church will remain for ever without any spot or wrinkle, there is this present intermediate time of prayer , during which her cry must of necessity be: Forgive us our debts.

Hence arose the objection against them for saying that the Church here on earth is without spot or wrinkle; from the doubt whether by this opinion they did not boldly prohibit that prayer whereby the Church in her present baptized state entreats day and night for herself the forgiveness of her sins. On the subject of this intervening period between the remission of sins which takes place in baptism , and the perpetuity of sinlessness which is to be in the kingdom of heaven , no proceedings ensued with Pelagius, and no decision was pronounced by the bishops.

Only he thought that some brief indication ought to be given that he had not expressed himself in the way which the accusation against him seemed to state. As to his saying, This has been asserted by me — but in such a sense, what else did he mean to convey than the idea that he had not in fact expressed himself in the same manner as he was supposed to have done by his accusers? That, however, which induced the judges to say that they were satisfied with his answer was baptism as the means of being washed from our sins ; and the kingdom of heaven , in which the holy Church, which is now in process of cleansing, shall continue in a sinless state for ever: These indeed he expatiates on rather fully; they, however, who presented the indictment against Pelagius said that they had been unable at the moment to adduce all the words.

That we do more than is commanded us in the law and the gospel. To this Pelagius replied: This they have set down as my statement. What we said, however, was in keeping with the apostle's assertion concerning virginity , of which Paul writes: This also the Church receives. Now he made this statement obviously with the view of persuading us that we possess through the nature of free will so great an ability for avoiding sin , that we are able to do more than is commanded us; for a perpetual virginity is maintained by very many persons , and this is not commanded; whereas, in order to avoid sin , it is sufficient to fulfil what is commanded.

When the judges, however, accepted Pelagius' answer, they did not take it to convey the idea that those persons keep all the commandments of the law and the gospel who over and above maintain the state of virginity , which is not commanded — but only this, that virginity , which is not commanded, is something more than conjugal chastity , which is commanded; so that to observe the one is of course more than to keep the other; whereas, at the same time, neither can be maintained without the grace of God , inasmuch as the apostle, in speaking of this very subject, says: But I would that all men were even as I myself.

Every man, however, has his proper gift of God , one after this manner, and another after that. All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. That God's grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine. That God's grace is given in proportion to our deserts; because, were He to give it to sinful persons , He would seem to be unrighteous. And from these words he inferred that therefore grace itself has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it.

For if we do all things by grace , then whenever we are overcome by sin , it is not we who are overcome, but God's grace , which wanted by all means to help us, but was not able. And once more he says: If, when we conquer sin , it is by the grace of God ; then it is He who is in fault whenever we are conquered by sin , because He was either altogether unable or unwilling to keep us safe. To these charges Pelagius replied: For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views; on the contrary, I anathematize every one who does entertain them.

Then the synod said: This holy synod accepts you for your condemnation of these impious words. Now certainly there can be no mistake, in regard to these opinions, either as to the clear way in which Pelagius pronounced on them his anathema , or as to the absolute terms in which the bishops condemned them. Now, after this trial, it is certain that whenever we enter on a controversy touching opinions of this kind, we only discuss an already condemned heresy. I shall make my next remark with greater satisfaction.

In a former section I expressed a fear that, when Pelagius said that a man was able by the help of God's grace to live without sin , he perhaps meant by the term grace the capability possessed by nature as created by God with a free will , as it is understood in that book which I received as his and to which I replied; and that by these means he was deceiving the judges, who were ignorant of the circumstances.

Now, however, since he anathematizes those persons who hold that God's grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine, it is quite evident that he really means the grace which is preached in the Church of Christ , and is conferred by the ministration of the Holy Ghost for the purpose of helping us in our single actions, whence it is that we pray for needful and suitable grace that we enter not into any temptation.

Nor, again, have I any longer a fear that, when he said, No man can be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law, and added this explanation of his words, that he posited in the knowledge of the law, help towards the avoidance of sin , he at all meant the said knowledge to be considered as tantamount to the grace of God ; for, observe, he anathematizes such as hold this opinion.

See, too, how he refuses to hold our natural free will , or the law and doctrine, as equivalent to that grace of God which helps us through our single actions. What else then is left to him but to understand that grace which the apostle tells us is given by the supply of the Spirit? Take no thought how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.

For inasmuch as he rightly anathematized the persons who hold that God's grace or assistance is not given for single actions, but lies in the gift of free will , or in the law and doctrine, it follows, of course, that God's grace or assistance is given us for single actions, — free will , or the law and the doctrine, being left out of consideration; and thus through all the single actions of our life, when we act rightly, we are ruled and directed by God ; nor is our prayer a useless one, wherein we say: Order my steps according to Your word, and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.

But what comes afterwards again fills me with anxiety. We have certainly said so much; but yet they have laid against us a malignant and blundering charge. We do not take away the diversity of graces; but we declare that God gives to the person, who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul.

Hereupon the Synod said: You accordingly do yourself hold the doctrine of the Church touching the gift of the graces, which are collectively possessed by the apostle. Here some one may say, Why then is he anxious? Do you on your side deny that all the powers and graces were combined in the apostle? For my own part, indeed, if all those are to be understood which the apostle has himself mentioned together in one passage — as, I suppose, the bishops understood Pelagius to mean when they approved of his answer, and pronounced it to be in keeping with the sense of the Church — then I do not doubt that the apostle had them all; for he says: And God has set some in the Church , first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles ; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Shall we say that the Apostle Paul did not possess all these gifts himself? Who would be bold enough to assert this? The very fact that he was an apostle showed, of course, that he possessed the grace of the apostolate. He possessed also that of prophecy ; for was not that a prophecy of his in which he says: In the last times some shall depart from the faith , giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils?

Then as to his possessing the grace of government , what could be more excellent than his administration, when the Lord at that time governed so many churches by his personal agency, and governs them still in our day through his epistles? And in respect of the diversities of tongues , what tongues could have been wanting to him, when he says himself: I thank my God that I speak with tongues more than you all?

But there are other graces in addition to these which are not mentioned here. For it is not to be supposed, however greatly the Apostle Paul excelled others as a member of Christ's body, that the very Head itself of the entire body did not receive more and ampler graces still, whether in His flesh or His soul as man; for such a created nature did the Word of God assume as His own into the unity of His Person, that He might be our Head, and we His body.

And in very deed, if all gifts could be in each member, it would be evident that the similitude, which is used to illustrate this subject, of the several members of our body is inapplicable; for some things are common to the members in general, such as life and health, while other things are peculiar to the separate members, since the ear has no perception of colors, nor the eye of voices.

Hence it is written: If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? However, what He does in Christ's body, which is the Church , and what the apostle meant by diversity of graces as if through the different members, there might be gifts proper even to every one separately, is clearly known. Why, too, and on what ground they who raised the objection were so unwilling to have taken away all difference in graces, why, moreover, the bishops of the synod were able to approve of the answer given by Pelagius in deference to the Apostle Paul , in whom we admit the combination of all those graces which he mentioned in the one particular passage, is by this time clear also.

What, then, is the reason why, as I said just now, I felt anxious on the subject of this head of his doctrine? It is occasioned by what Pelagius says in these words: That God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul. Now, I should not have felt any anxiety about this answer of Pelagius, if it were not closely connected with the cause which we are bound to guard with the utmost care — even that God's grace may never be attacked, while we are silent or dissembling in respect of so great an evil.

As, therefore, he does not say, that God gives to whom He will, but that God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them , all these graces, I could not help being suspicious, when I read such words. For the very name of grace , and the thing that is meant by it, is taken away, if it is not bestowed gratuitously, but he only receives it who is worthy of it. Will anybody say that I do the apostle wrong, because I do not admit him to have been worthy of grace?

Passar bra ihop

Nay, I should indeed rather do him wrong, and bring on myself a punishment, if I refused to believe what he himself says. Well, now, has he not pointedly so defined grace as to show that it is so called because it is bestowed gratuitously? These are his own very words: And if by grace , then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace , but of debt. Grace, therefore, is given to those who are unworthy, that a debt may be paid to them when they become worthy.

He, however, who has bestowed on the unworthy the gifts which they possessed not before, does Himself take care that they shall have whatever things He means to recompense to them when they become worthy. He will perhaps say to this: It was not because of his works, but in consequence of his faith , that I said the apostle was worthy of having all those great graces bestowed upon him. His faith deserved this distinction, but not his works, which were not previously good.

Well, then, are we to suppose that faith does not work?

Surely faith does work in a very real way, for it works by love. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Accordingly, it is said to the Church , in the Song of Songs: You shall come and pass by from the beginning of faith. Was it we ourselves that gave it to us? Did we ourselves make ourselves faithful? I must by all means say here, emphatically:

• Special Mommy Chronicles
• Lords And Ladies: (Discworld Novel 14) (Discworld series)
• Who Will Hug the Sun? (In My Sisters World Book 2)
• Health Care Budgeting and Financial Management for Non-Financial Managers
• The Danger of Raising Nice Kids: Preparing Our Children to Change Their World