Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 38 part 1/5

II. ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS. After the ecclesiastical proceedings came into our hands, holy pope Aurelius — those in which Pelagius was pronounced catholic by fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine — my hesitation reached its end, that hesitation by which I was doubtful whether to discuss anything more fully and more confidently concerning his very defence.

For I had already read this defence in a certain little paper which he himself had sent me; but because I had received from him no letter given by his own hand together with that paper, I feared lest something might be found otherwise in my words than was read in the episcopal proceedings, and so, if perchance Pelagius should deny that he himself had sent me that paper — since he could not easily be convicted by a single witness — I might rather be accused by those who favoured his denial either of a fabricated falsehood or, to put it more mildly, of a rash credulity.

Now therefore, since I treat those things which the proceedings attest, your holiness and everyone who shall read will judge more easily and more surely — with all doubt removed as far as it seemed to me whether he pleaded for himself in this manner — both concerning his defence and concerning this work of ours. First, then, to the Lord God, our ruler and keeper, I give unspeakable thanks that my opinion did not deceive me concerning our holy brethren and fellow-bishops who sat as judges in that case. For not without merit did they approve his responses, not caring how he had set down in his works the things that were objected, but what he answered concerning these in the present examination. For it is one thing to have an unsound faith, another to have incautious speech.

Finally, among those matters which were recited from the document that our holy brethren and fellow-bishops, the Gauls Heros and Lazarus, presented — who, on account of the grave sickness of one of them (as we afterwards learned with better probability), were unable to be present at all — objections were made to Pelagius. The first is this, that in a certain book of his he writes: 'None can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law.' When this had been recited, the synod said: 'Did you publish these things, Pelagius?' And he answered: 'I did indeed say it, but not as they understand it. I did not say that he who has knowledge of the law cannot sin, but that he is helped through knowledge of the law not to sin, as it is written: He gave them the law for a help.' When this was heard, the synod said:

'The things spoken by Pelagius are not alien to the Church.' Plainly the things he answered are not alien; but that which was brought forward from his book sounds otherwise. Yet the bishops, being Greek men and hearing those words through an interpreter, did not take care to examine this, looking only at what he who was questioned said he had meant, not by what words the same opinion was said to be written in his book. But it is one thing that a man be helped to not sinning through knowledge of the law, and another that none can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law. For since we see, for example, threshing-floors threshed even without threshing-sledges — although these help, if they are at hand;

and that boys can go to school without tutors, although the helps of tutors are not useless for this; and that many recover from sickness without physicians, although the aids of physicians are manifest; and that men live on other foods without bread, although the help of bread is not denied to be of very great avail; and many other things which readily occur to one who reflects even while we are silent — surely we are reminded that there are two kinds of helps.

For some are such that without them that for which they help cannot be brought about — as without a ship no one sails, no one speaks without a voice, no one walks without feet, no one sees without light, and many things of this kind (whence also is that: no one lives rightly without the grace of God); but others are helps by which we are so helped that, even if they be absent, that for which we seek them can be brought about in another way — as are those which I mentioned: the threshing-sledge for threshing crops, the tutor for leading the boy, the medicine compounded by human art for recovering health, and other such things. It must be asked, therefore, to which of these two kinds knowledge of the law belongs — that is, in what way it helps toward not sinning.

If in such a way that without it this cannot be fulfilled, then not only did Pelagius answer truly in the judgment, but he also wrote truly in the book;

but if in such a way that it does indeed help if it be present, yet that toward which it helps can be brought about in another way even if it be absent, then he did indeed answer truly in the judgment — which deservedly pleased the bishops, namely that a man is helped to not sinning by knowledge of the law — but he did not write truly in the book, 'that a man cannot be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law.' This the judges left undiscussed, being ignorant of the Latin tongue and content with the confession of him who was pleading his cause, especially where no one stood on the opposing side who might compel the interpreter to lay open by exposition the words of his book, and might show whence the brethren were not moved without cause. For very few are skilled in the law;

but the multitude of the members of Christ, spread everywhere and unskilled in a law so deep and manifold, is commended by the piety of a simple faith and a most firm hope in God and a sincere love — which multitude, endowed with these gifts of the grace of God, trusts that it can be cleansed from sins through Jesus Christ our Lord. To this, if perchance Pelagius should answer that he had meant this very knowledge of the law, without which a man cannot be free from sins — that knowledge which is handed down through the teaching of the faith to the newly enlightened and to little ones in Christ, by which also those to be baptized are catechized, so that they may know the creed — this is not indeed what is usually understood when anyone is said to have knowledge of the law, but rather that knowledge according to which men are called skilled in the law;

nevertheless, if he should call these words — few in number, but great in weight, and after the custom of all the churches faithfully imparted to those to be baptized — 'knowledge of the law,' asserting that it was of this that he had said 'None can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law,' which must needs be handed down to believers before they come to the very remission of sins: even so there would surround him an innumerable multitude of the baptized — not of disputants, but of wailing infants — of little ones, who would cry out not with words but with the very truth of innocence: 'What is it, what is it that you have written, that none can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law? Behold, we, a great flock of lambs, are without sin, and yet we do not have knowledge of the law!'

Surely these would compel him at least to be silent, even with tongue keeping silence; or perhaps even to confess either that he is now corrected from that perversity, or at least that he did indeed feel, even before, this which he now said in the ecclesiastical examination, but that he had not set down carefully considered words for that opinion, and that therefore his faith is to be approved, but his book to be amended. For there is, as it is written, one who slips with the tongue and not in the heart. But if he should say, or does say, this — who would not most readily pardon those same words written too incautiously and negligently, when he does not defend the opinion which those words contain, but says that his opinion is the one which the truth approves?

This too we must believe the devout judges considered — if indeed they were able sufficiently to understand this which is in his book in Latin, once it had been carefully interpreted — just as they judged his response, brought forth in Greek speech and therefore easily understood, not to be alien to the Church. But let us now see the rest. For the episcopal synod added and said: 'Let another chapter also be read'; and it was read that Pelagius had set down in that same book of his: 'All are ruled by their own will.' When this had been read, Pelagius answered: 'This too I said on account of free will, to which God is a helper of him who chooses good things; but the man who sins is himself in fault, as of free will.' When this was heard, the bishops said: 'Neither is this alien from ecclesiastical doctrine.'

For who would condemn free will or deny it, when it is together with it that the help of God is proclaimed? Wherefore the opinion of the respondent also deservedly pleased the bishops; and yet that which is set down in his book, 'All are ruled by their own will,' ought without doubt to have moved the brethren, who knew what these men are wont to argue against the grace of God. For it was said 'All are ruled by their own will' as though God rules no one, and it were written in vain: Save your people and bless your inheritance, and rule them and lift them up even unto everlasting — lest surely, if they are ruled by their own will without God, they remain as sheep having no shepherd, which be far from us. For beyond doubt it is more to be led than to be ruled;

for he who is ruled does something, and therefore is ruled, that he may act rightly; but he who is led is scarcely understood himself to do anything. And yet the grace of the Saviour so far avails our wills that the apostle does not hesitate to say: As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. Nor can free will do anything better in us than to commit itself, to be led, to Him who cannot act ill; and when it has done this, let it not doubt that it has been helped by Him to do it — to whom it is said in the psalm: My God, His mercy shall go before me.

Finally, in that book where Pelagius wrote those chapters, to this proposition — in which he said 'All are ruled by their own will and each one is left to his own desire' — he added something from the testimony of the Scriptures, whereby it may sufficiently appear that a man ought not to entrust himself to himself to be ruled. For he says concerning this very matter, in the Wisdom of Solomon: I too indeed am a mortal man, like all others, of the earthly race of him who was first fashioned — and the rest, up to the end of that chapter, where one reads: There is therefore for all one entrance to life and a like departure. Because of this I prayed, and understanding was given to me; and I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came into me.

Does it not appear clearer than light how this man, having considered the misery of human frailty, dared not entrust himself to himself to be ruled, but prayed, and understanding was given to him — concerning which the apostle says: But we have the mind of the Lord — and he called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came into him? For by this Spirit, not by the powers of their own will, are they ruled and led who are the sons of God. For that too which he set down from the Psalm in the same book of chapters, as though to prove that 'all are ruled by their own will' — He loved cursing, and it shall come to him; and he would not have blessing, and it shall be put far from him — who does not know that this is a vice not of nature, as God established it, but of the human will, which withdrew from God?

Nevertheless, if he had not loved cursing and had willed blessing, and in this very thing had denied that his will was helped by divine grace, then, ungrateful and impious, he would be left to himself to be ruled, so that, cast headlong without God his ruler, he might learn by punishments that he could not be ruled by himself. So too in that testimony which he subjoined to the same title in the same book: He has set before you water and fire; stretch out your hand to whichever you will; before man are good and evil, life and death; whatever shall please him shall be given him. It is manifest that, if he puts his hand to the fire and evil and death please him, the man's will works this; but if he loves good and life, not only does the will do this, but it is helped from on high.

For the eye suffices to itself for not seeing — that is, for darkness; but for seeing it does not suffice to itself by its own light, unless the aid of clear light be furnished to it from without. But far be it that those who are called according to the purpose — whom He foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son — should be left to their own desire so as to perish. For this the vessels of wrath suffer, which are perfected unto destruction, in whose very destruction also God makes known the riches of His glory upon the vessels of His mercy. For on account of this, when He had said, My God, His mercy shall go before me, He straightway subjoined, My God shall show me among my enemies. To those therefore is done that which is written:

God delivered them up to the desires of their heart. But this is not done to the predestined, whom the Spirit of God rules, since not empty is their cry: Deliver me not, O Lord, to the sinner from my desire — inasmuch as it is thus prayed even against these very desires, that it is said: Take from me the greeds of the belly, and let not the desire of lust seize me. This God grants to those whom He rules as subjects, but not to those who think themselves fit to rule themselves and, with the presumptuous neck of their own will, disdain to have Him as their ruler.

Since these things are so, how could the sons of God, who know this and rejoice that they are ruled and led by the Spirit of God, be moved when they heard or read written by Pelagius, 'All are ruled by their own will and each one is left to his own desire'? And yet, because, being asked by the bishops what evil those words sounded, he perceived it and answered that he had said this on account of free will, straightway subjoining, 'to which God is a helper of him who chooses good things;

but the man who sins is himself in fault, as of free will' — the devout judges, approving this opinion also, were unwilling to consider or inquire how incautiously, or in what sense, those words were set down in his book, deeming it sufficient that he had thus confessed free will, namely that God is a helper to him who chooses good things, but that the one sinning is himself in fault, his own will sufficing him for this. And by this God rules those to whom He is a helper when they choose good things; and therefore they rule well whatever they rule, since they themselves are ruled by the Good. Likewise it was recited that Pelagius had set down in his book: 'In the day of judgment the unrighteous and sinners are not to be spared, but to be burned with eternal fires.'

This had moved the brethren, so that it was thought fit to be objected, because it was said in such a way as though all sinners were to be punished with eternal torment, not excepting those who have Christ for their foundation, even though they build upon it wood, hay, stubble — concerning whom the apostle says: If any man's work shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. But when Pelagius had answered that 'he had said this according to the Gospel, where it is said concerning sinners:

These shall go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal' — the evangelical and dominical sentence could in no way displease Christian judges who did not know what in the words brought forth from Pelagius's book had moved the brethren, who had been accustomed to hear his disputations or those of his disciples; since, in the absence of those who had presented the document against Pelagius to the holy bishop Eulogius, no one pressed that he should distinguish, by some exception, sinners to be saved through fire from sinners to be punished with eternal torment, and so, with the judges thus understanding why that had been objected, if he were unwilling to distinguish, he might deservedly be blamed. But as for what Pelagius added:

'And if anyone believes otherwise, he is an Origenist' — this the judges understood in that sense which the Church most worthily detests in Origen: namely, that even those whom the Lord says are to be punished with eternal torment, and the devil himself and his angels, shall after a time — however long — be purged and freed from their punishments, and shall cleave to the saints reigning with God in the fellowship of blessedness.

This therefore the synod said 'is not alien to the Church' — not according to Pelagius, but rather according to the Gospel — namely, that such unrighteous and sinners are to be burned with eternal fires as the Gospel judges worthy of such torment, and that whoever should say that their punishment, which the Lord said to be eternal, can at some time be ended, holds a detestable opinion with Origen. But concerning those sinners whom the apostle says shall be saved, as by fire, their work being burned up, they judged nothing, since nothing was evidently objected to Pelagius about these. Wherefore, whoever says that the unrighteous and sinners, whom the Truth condemns to eternal punishment, can at some time be freed from it, Pelagius not unfittingly calls an Origenist;

but on the other hand, whoever reckons no sinner worthy of mercy in the judgment of God, let him impose upon such a one whatever name he will, provided only that he understands this error too is not received by ecclesiastical truth; for judgment shall be without mercy to him who has not shown mercy. But how this judgment shall be brought about can be comprehended in the holy Scriptures only with difficulty; for that which is to be in one way is signified in many ways. For sometimes the Lord says, against those whom He does not receive into His kingdom, that He will shut the door, and to them crying out and saying, Open to us; in your name we have eaten and drunk, and the rest which it is written that they say, He will answer, I know you not, you who work iniquity;

sometimes He recounts that He will command that those who would not have Him reign be brought to Him and slain before Him; sometimes He says He will come with His angels in His majesty, so that all the nations shall be gathered before Him, and He shall divide them and set some on the right hand, whose good works, recounting them, He shall carry back into life eternal, and others on the left, upon whom, imputing barrenness of good works, He shall condemn them to eternal fire; sometimes He commands that the wicked and slothful servant, who neglected to lay out His money, or even the man found at the feast not having a wedding garment, be cast, with hands and feet bound, into the outer darkness; sometimes, having received the five prudent ones, He shuts the door against the other five foolish virgins.

These things, and whatever else there may be which does not occur at present, are spoken concerning the judgment to come — which surely is to be exercised not upon one or five, but upon many. For if there were but one who, from the feast which he had entered not having a wedding garment, was commanded to be cast into the darkness, there would not straightway follow and be said: For many are called, but few are chosen — since rather, with one cast out and condemned, many would seem to have remained in the house. But to discuss all these things now, as much as would suffice, would be very long.

This much, however, I can say briefly, without prejudice — as is wont to be said in monetary reckonings — to a better examination: that there is some one mode of judgment, which is inscrutable to us, the diversity of merits being at least preserved in rewards and punishments, which is signified in many ways through the holy Scriptures. But as for what suffices for this cause of which we now treat: if Pelagius had said that absolutely all sinners are to be punished with eternal fire and eternal torment, whoever had approved that judgment would first of all have pronounced sentence against his very own self; for who shall boast that he is clean from sins?

But because he said neither 'all' nor 'certain ones,' but set it down indefinitely, and answered that he had said this according to the Gospel, a true opinion has indeed been confirmed by the episcopal judgment; but as yet whether Pelagius holds some other view does not appear, and even after this episcopal judgment it is not impudent to inquire. It was objected to Pelagius also that in his book he had written, 'that evil should not even come into thought.' But he answered: 'We did not set it down thus, but we said that a Christian ought to strive that he think no evil.' Which, as was fitting, the bishops approved. For who doubts that evil ought not to be thought? And indeed in his book, near the word 'evil,' 'more cautiously' it is read thus: 'nor is it to be thought.' Which in this is usually understood:

that evil ought not even to be thought. But he who denies this, what else does he say than that evil ought to be thought? And if this were true, it would not be said in praise of charity: It thinks no evil. Yet that it should come into the thought of the righteous and holy is for this reason not so improperly asserted, because thought is wont to be called even when something comes into the mind, though consent does not follow. But thought which contracts guilt and is deservedly forbidden does not lack consent. It could therefore have happened that those who judged this to be objected in such a way read a faulty codex, as though Pelagius had said 'that evil does not come into thought' — that is, that what is evil does not come into the mind of the righteous and holy. Which opinion is surely most absurd;

for when we reprove evils, we cannot express them in words unless they be thought. But that, as we have said, is called a culpable thought of evil, which draws in consent. When therefore the judges had approved this response of Pelagius also, another thing was recited, which he had written in his little book: 'the kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament.' To which Pelagius said: 'This too it is possible to prove through the Scriptures; but heretics, to the injury of the Old Testament, deny this. I, however, following the authority of the Scriptures, said it, since it is written in the prophet Daniel: And the saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.' When his response had been received, the synod said: 'Neither is this alien from the faith of the Church.'

Did our brethren, then, without cause raise these words, so as to bring this forward among the rest of the charges? By no means. But the name 'Old Testament' is customarily used in two ways: in one according to the authority of the divine Scriptures, in another according to the most common usage of ordinary speech. For the Apostle Paul says to the Galatians: 'Tell me,' he says, 'you who desire to be under the Law, have you not heard the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman. These things are said by way of allegory. For these are the two testaments: the one indeed from Mount Sinai, bringing forth unto bondage, which is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is joined to that Jerusalem which now is; for she serves in bondage with her children.'

'But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.' Since, therefore, the Old Testament pertains to bondage — whence also it was said, 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac' — while the kingdom of heaven pertains to freedom, how can the kingdom of heaven also pertain to the Old Testament?

But since, as I have said, we are also accustomed so to speak that we call by the name of the Old Testament all the Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets which were administered before the Lord's incarnation and are contained under canonical authority, who that is even moderately instructed in ecclesiastical letters does not know that the kingdom of heaven could be promised in those Scriptures just as also in that New Testament to which the kingdom of heaven pertains? For assuredly it is most plainly written in those writings: 'Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Jacob a new testament, not according to the testament which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.' For this was done on Mount Sinai.

But at that time the prophet Daniel did not yet exist, who had said: 'The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.' For by these words he was prophesying the reward not of the Old but of the New Testament, just as the same prophets did indeed proclaim that Christ himself would come, by whose blood the New Testament was consecrated, of which testament the apostles were made ministers, as most blessed Paul says: 'Who also has made us fit to be ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.' But in that testament which is properly called Old and was given on Mount Sinai, nothing is found most plainly promised save earthly happiness.

Whence that land, into which the people was brought after being led through the wilderness, is called the land of promise; in it peace and kingdom, and the winning of victories over enemies, and abundance of children and of earthly fruits, and whatever is of this kind — these are the promises of the Old Testament. And although by these are figured the spiritual things pertaining to the New Testament, nevertheless he who receives God's law for the sake of those earthly things is himself an heir of the Old Testament. For those things are promised and bestowed according to the Old Testament which are desired according to the old man; but the things which are there figured as pertaining to the New Testament seek out new men.

For that great apostle was not ignorant of what he was saying, who declared that the two testaments were distinguished in the bondwoman and the free woman by an allegorical signification, attributing to the Old the children of the flesh, to the New the children of promise. 'It is not the children of the flesh,' he says, 'who are the children of God, but the children of promise are counted for the seed.' The children of the flesh, therefore, pertain to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; but the children of promise pertain to that which is above, the free woman, our eternal mother in the heavens. Whence it is perceived who belong to the earthly kingdom and who to the kingdom of heaven.

Those who even in that time, understanding this distinction through the grace of God, were made children of promise, were reckoned in God's hidden counsel as heirs of the New Testament, even though they fittingly administered the Old Testament, which by the distribution of the times had been divinely given to the ancient people. How, then, would the children of promise not rightly be moved — the children of the free Jerusalem, eternal in the heavens — when this apostolic and catholic distinction seemed by the words of Pelagius to be taken away, and Hagar was in a certain manner believed to be made equal to Sarah?

He, therefore, with heretical impiety does injury to the Scripture of the Old Testament, who with the effrontery of sacrilegious impiety denies it to be from the good, supreme, and true God — as Marcion did, as Manichaeus did, and whatever other pestilence holds this opinion. Wherefore, to embrace what I feel about this matter with what brevity I can: just as injury is done to the Old Testament if it is denied to be from the good and supreme God, so also injury is done to the New if the Old is made equal to it. But since Pelagius had answered why he had said that the kingdom of heaven is promised even in the Old Testament, citing the testimony of the prophet Daniel, who most plainly prophesied that the saints would receive the kingdom of the Most High, it was rightly judged that this was not foreign to the catholic faith: