AugustineandthePelagian

Controversy

byB.B.Warfield

TABLEOFCONTENTS

PartI:TheOrigin&NatureofPelagianism

PartII:TheExternalHistoryofThePelagianControversy

PartIII:Augustine'sPartinTheControversy

PartIV:TheTheologyofGrace

PartI:TheOrigin&NatureofPelagianism

ItwasinevitablethattheenergyoftheChurchinintellectuallyrealizingand defining its doctrines in relation to one another, should first bedirected towards the objective side of Christian truth. The chiefcontroversies of the first four centuries and the resulting definitions ofdoctrine, concerned the nature ofGod and the person of Christ; and itwas not until these theological and Christological questions were wellupon their way to final settlement, that the Church could turn itsattentiontothemoresubjectivesideoftruth.Meanwhilesheboreinherbosomafullrecognition,sidebyside,ofthefreedomofthewill,theevilconsequencesof the fall,and thenecessityofdivinegrace forsalvation.Individual writers, or even the several sections of the Church, mightexhibitatendencytothrowemphasisononeoranotheroftheelementsthatmadeupthisdepositoffaiththatwasthecommoninheritanceofall.TheEast,forinstance,laidespecialstressonfreewill:andtheWestdwelt

morepointedlyontheruinof thehumanraceandtheabsoluteneedofGod’sgraceforsalvation.ButneitherdidtheEasterntheologiansforgettheuniversalsinfulnessandneedofredemption,orthenecessity,fortherealizationofthatredemption,ofGod’sgraciousinfluences;nordidthoseoftheWestdenytheself-determinationoraccountabilityofmen.Alltheelementsof the compositedoctrineofmanwere everywhere confessed;but they were variously emphasized, according to the temper of thewritersorthecontroversialdemandsofthetimes.Suchastateofaffairs,however,wasaninvitationtoheresy,andaprophecyofcontroversy;justas the simultaneous confession of the unity of God and the Deity ofChrist,oroftheDeityandthehumanityofChrist,inevitablycarriedinitstrain a series of heresies and controversies, until the definitions of thedoctrinesoftheTrinityandofthepersonofChristwerecomplete.Inlikemanner,itwasinevitablethatsoonerorlatersomeoneshouldarisewhowouldsoone-sidedlyemphasizeoneelementortheotheroftheChurch’steaching as to salvation, as to throwhimself into heresy, and drive theChurch, through controversy with him, into a precise definition of thedoctrinesoffreewillandgraceintheirmutualrelations.

This new heresiarch came, at the opening of the fifth century, in thepersonof theBritishmonk,Pelagius.Thenoveltyof thedoctrinewhichhe taught is repeatedly asserted by Augustin1, and is evident to thehistorian;but it consistednot in the emphasis thathe laidon freewill,butratherinthefactthat,inemphasizingfreewill,hedeniedtheruinoftheraceandthenecessityofgrace.ThiswasnotonlynewinChristianity;itwas even anti-Christian. Jerome, aswell asAugustin, saw this at thetime, and speaks of Pelagianism as the “heresy of Pythagoras andZeno;”2andmodernwritersofthevariousschoolshavemoreorlessfullyrecognized it. Thus Dean Milman thinks that “the greater part” ofPelagius’ letter to Demetrias “might have been written by an ancientacademic;”3Dr.DePressenséidentifiesthePelagianideaoflibertywiththat of Paganism;4 and Bishop Hefele openly declares that theirfundamentaldoctrine,“thatmanisvirtuousentirelyofhisownmerit,notof thegiftofgrace,” seems tohim“tobea rehabilitationof thegeneralheathenviewof theworld,”andcompareswith itCicero’swords:5“Forgold, lands,andalltheblessingsof life,wehavetoreturnthankstotheGods; but no one ever returned thanks to the Gods for virtues.”6 The

struggle with Pelagianism was thus in reality a struggle for the veryfoundations of Christianity; and even more dangerously than in theprevious theological andChristological controversies, here the practicalsubstanceofChristianitywasinjeopardy.Therealquestionatissuewaswhether therewas anyneed forChristianity at all;whether by his ownpower man might not attain eternal felicity; whether the function ofChristianitywastosave,oronlytorenderaneternityofhappinessmoreeasilyattainablebyman.7

Geneticallyspeaking,Pelagianismwasthedaughteroflegalism;butwhenit itself conceived, it brought forthanessentialdeism. It isnotwithoutsignificance that its originatorswere “a certain sort ofmonks;” that is,laymenof ascetic life. From this point of view theDivine law is lookedupon as a collection of separate commandments,moral perfection as asimplecomplexofseparatevirtues,andadistinctvalueasameritoriousdemand on Divine approbation is ascribed to each good work orattainment in the exercises of piety. Itwasbecause thiswas essentiallyhispointofviewthatPelagiuscouldregardman’spowersassufficienttothe attainment of sanctity,—nay, that he could even assert it to bepossibleforamantodomorethanwasrequiredofhim.Butthisinvolvedanessentiallydeisticconceptionofman’srelationstohisMaker.GodhadendowedHiscreaturewithacapacity(possibilitas)orability(posse)foraction,anditwasforhimtouseit.Manwasthusamachine,which,justbecause it was well made, needed no Divine interference for its rightworking; and the Creator, having once framed him, and endowed himwiththeposse,henceforthleavesthevelleandtheessetohim.

At this point we have touched the central and formative principle ofPelagianism. It lies in theassumptionof theplenaryabilityofman;hisabilitytodoallthatrighteousnesscandemand,—toworkoutnotonlyhisownsalvation,butalsohisownperfection.Thisisthecoreofthewholetheory;andalltheotherpostulatesnotonlydependuponit,butariseoutofit.Bothchronologicallyandlogicallythisistherootofthesystem.

WhenwefirsthearofPelagius,heisalreadyadvancedinyears,livinginRomeintheodourofsanctity,8andenjoyingawell-deservedreputationfor zeal in exhorting others to a good life, which grew especiallywarmagainstthosewhoendeavouredtoshelterthemselves,whenchargedwith

their sins, behind the weakness of nature.9 He was outraged by theuniversalexcusesonsuchoccasions,—“Itishard!”“itisdifficult!”“wearenotable!”“wearemen!”—“Oh,blindmadness!”hecried:“weaccuseGodof a twofold ignorance,—that He does not seem to know what He hasmade, nor what He has commanded,—as if forgetting the humanweakness ofwhichHe isHimself theAuthor,He has imposed laws onman whichHe cannot endure.”10He himself tells us11 that it was hiscustom,therefore,wheneverhehadtospeakonmoralimprovementandtheconductofaholylife,tobeginbypointingoutthepowerandqualityofhumannature,andbyshowingwhat itwascapableofdoing.For(hesays) he esteemed it of small use to exhort men to what they deemedimpossible: hope must rather be our companion, and all longing andeffort die when we despair of attaining. So exceedingly ardent anadvocatewasheofman’sunaidedabilitytodoallthatGodcommanded,that when Augustin’s noble and entirely scriptural prayer—“Give whatThoucommandest,andcommandwhatThouwilt”—wasrepeatedinhishearing, he was unable to endure it; and somewhat inconsistentlycontradicted it with such violence as almost to become involved in astrife.12 The powers of man, he held, were gifts of God; and it was,therefore,a reproachagainstHimas ifHehadmademan illorevil, tobelieve that they were insufficient for the keeping of His law. Nay, dowhatwewill,we cannot rid ourselves of their sufficiency: “whetherwewill, orwhetherwewill not,we have the capacity of not sinning.”13 “Isay,”hesays, “thatman isable tobewithoutsin,andthathe isable tokeep thecommandmentsofGod;”and this sufficientlydirect statementofhumanabilityisinrealitythehingeofhiswholesystem.

Therewere threespecially importantcorollarieswhich flowed fromthisassertionofhumanability,andAugustinhimselfrecognizedtheseasthechief elements of the system.14 It would be inexplicable on such anassumption,ifnomanhadeverusedhisabilityinkeepingGod’slaw;andPelagius consistently asserted not only that allmight be sinless if theychose, but also thatmany saints, even before Christ, had actually livedfree fromsin.Again, it follows fromman’s inalienableability tobe freefromsin,thateachmancomesintotheworldwithoutentailmentofsinormoral weakness from the past acts of men; and Pelagius consistentlydeniedthewholedoctrineoforiginalsin.Andstillagain,itfollowsfrom

the same assumption of ability that man has no need of supernaturalassistanceinhisstrivingtoobeyrighteousness;andPelagiusconsistentlydeniedboththeneedandrealityofdivinegraceinthesenseofaninwardhelp(andespeciallyofaprevenienthelp)toman’sweakness.

It was upon this last point that the greatest stress was laid in thecontroversy,andAugustinwasmostofalldisturbedthatthusGod’sgracewas denied and opposed. No doubt the Pelagians spoke constantly of“grace,”buttheymeantbythistheprimalendowmentofmanwithfreewill,andthesubsequentaidgivenhiminorderto itsproperusebytherevelationofthelawandtheteachingofthegospel,and,aboveall,bytheforgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ’s holyexample.15Anythingfurtherthanthisexternalhelptheyutterlydenied;and they denied that this external help itself was absolutely necessary,affirmingthatitonlyrenderediteasierformantodowhatotherwisehehadplenary ability for doing.Chronologically, this contention seems tohave preceded the assertion whichmust logically lie at its base, of thefreedomofmanfromanytaint,corruption,orweaknessduetosin.Itwasinorderthattheymightdenythatmanneededhelp,thattheydeniedthatAdam’ssinhadanyfurthereffectonhisposteritythanmightarisefromhisbadexample.“Beforetheactionofhisownproperwill,”saidPelagiusplainly,“thatonlyis inmanwhichGodmade.”16“Asweareprocreatedwithoutvirtue,”hesaid,“soalsowithoutvice.”17Inaword,“Nothingthatis good and evil, on account of which we are either praiseworthy orblameworthy, is bornwithus,—it is ratherdonebyus; forwearebornwith capacity for either, but provided with neither.”18 So his laterfollower,Julian,plainlyassertshis“faiththatGodcreatesmenobnoxioustonosin,but fullofnatural innocence,andwithcapacity forvoluntaryvirtues.”19Sointrenchedisfreewillinnature,that,accordingtoJulian,it is “justas completeafter sinsas itwasbefore sins;”20andwhat thismeansmay be gathered fromPelagius’ definition in the “Confession ofFaith,”thathesenttoInnocent:“Wesaythatmanisalwaysablebothtosinandnottosin,soasthatwemayconfessthatwehavefreewill.”Thatsin in such circumstanceswas so commonas tobewell-nighuniversal,wasaccountedforbythebadexampleofAdamandthepowerofhabit,the latter being simply the result of imitation of the former. “Nothingmakes well-doing so hard,” writes Pelagius to Demetrias, “as the long

customofsinswhichbeginsfromchildhoodandgraduallybringsusmoreandmoreunderitspoweruntilitseemstohaveinsomedegreetheforceofnature(vimnaturæ).”Heisevenreadytoallowfortheforceofhabitina broad way, on the world at large; and so divides all history intoprogressiveperiods,markedbyGod’s(external)grace.Atfirstthelightofnaturewassostrong thatmenby italonecould live inholiness.And itwas only when men’s manners became corrupt and tarnished naturebegantobeinsufficientforholy living,thatbyGod’sgracetheLawwasgiven as an addition tomere nature; and by it “the original lustrewasrestoredtonatureafteritsblushhadbeenimpaired.”Andsoagain,afterthe habit of sinning once more prevailed among men, and “the lawbecameunequal to the taskofcuring it,”21Christwasgiven, furnishingmen with forgiveness of sins, exhortations to imitation of the exampleand the holy example itself.22 But though thus a progressivedeterioration was confessed, and such a deterioration as rendereddesirableatleasttwosupernaturalinterpositions(inthegivingofthelawandthecomingofChrist),yetnocorruptionofnature,evenbygrowinghabit,isreallyallowed.Itwasonlyanever-increasingfacilityinimitatingvicewhicharosefromsolongaschoolinginevil;andallthatwasneededto rescuemen from itwas a new explanation ofwhatwas right (in thelaw), or, at the most, the encouragement of forgiveness for what wasalreadydone,andaholyexample(inChrist)for imitation.Pelagiusstillassertedourcontinuouspossessionof“afreewillwhichisunimpairedforsinningandfornotsinning;”andJulian,that“ourfreewillisjustasfullafter sinsas itwasbefore sins;”althoughAugustindoesnot fail to twithimwithachargeofinconsistency.23

Thepeculiar individualismof thePelagianviewof theworld comesoutstronglyintheirfailuretoperceivetheeffectofhabitonnatureitself.Justas they conceived of virtue as a complex of virtuous acts, so theyconceivedofsinexclusivelyasanact,orseriesofdisconnectedacts.Theyappearnottohaverisenabovetheessentiallyheathenviewwhichhadnonotionofholinessapartfromaseriesofactsofholiness,orofsinapartfromalikeseriesofsinfulacts.24Thusthewillwasisolatedfromitsacts,andtheactsfromeachother,andallorganicconnectionorcontinuityoflifewasnotonlyoverlookedbutdenied.25Aftereachactofthewill,manstoodexactlywherehedidbefore:indeed,thisconceptionscarcelyallows

fortheexistenceofa“man”—onlyawillingmachineisleft,ateachclickof the action of which the spring regains its original position, and isequally ready as before to reperform its function. In such a conceptiontherewasnoplaceforcharacter:freedomofwillwasall.Thusitwasnotan unnatural mistake which they made, when they forgot the manaltogether, and attributed to the faculty of freewill, under thenameof“possibilitas” or “posse,” the ability that belonged rather to the manwhosefacultyitis,andwhoisproperlyresponsiblefortheusehemakesofit.Hereliestheessentialerroroftheirdoctrineoffreewill:theylookeduponfreedominitsformonly,andnotinitsmatter;and,keepingmaninperpetual and hopeless equilibrium between good and evil, theypermitted no growth of character and no advantage to himself to begainedbymaninhissuccessivechoicesofgood.Itneednotsurpriseusthat the type of thoughtwhich thusdissolved the organismof themanintoacongeriesofdisconnectedvoluntaryacts,failedtocomprehendthesolidarityof therace.To thePelagian,Adamwasaman,nothingmore;and it was simply unthinkable that any act of his that left his ownsubsequentactsuncommitted,couldentailsinandguiltuponothermen.The same alembic that dissolved the individual into a succession ofvoluntary acts, could not fail to separate the race into a heap ofunconnectedunits.Ifsin,asJuliandeclared,isnothingbutwill,andthewill itselfremainedintactaftereachact,howcouldtheindividualactofanindividualwillconditiontheactsofmenasyetunborn?By“imitation”ofhisactalonecould (undersuchaconception)othermenbeaffected.And this carried with it the corresponding view of man’s relation toChrist.Hecouldforgiveusthesinswehadcommitted;Hecouldteachusthetrueway;Hecouldsetusaholyexample;andHecouldexhortustoits imitation. ButHe could not touch us to enable us to will the good,withoutdestroyingtheabsoluteequilibriumofthewillbetweengoodandevil; and to destroy this was to destroy its freedom, which was thecrowninggoodofourdivinelycreatednature.SurelythePelagiansforgotthatmanwasnotmadeforwill,butwillforman.

In defending their theory, as we are told by Augustin, there were fiveclaimsthattheyespeciallymadeforit.26Itallowedthemtopraiseaswastheir due, the creature that God had made, the marriage that He hadinstituted,thelawthatHehadgiven,thefreewillwhichwasHisgreatest

endowment toman, and the saintswho had followedHis counsels. Bythis they meant that they proclaimed the sinless perfection of humannatureineverymanashewasbroughtintotheworld,andopposedthistothedoctrineoforiginalsin;thepurityandholinessofmarriageandthesexualappetites,andopposedthistothedoctrineofthetransmissionofsin;theabilityofthe law,aswellasandapartfromthegospel, tobringmenintoeternallife,andopposedthistothenecessityofinnergrace;theintegrityoffreewilltochoosethegood,andopposedthistothenecessityofdivine aid; and theperfectionof the livesof the saints, andopposedthis to thedoctrineofuniversal sinfulness.Otherquestions, concerningthe origin of souls, the necessity of baptism for infants, the originalimmortalityofAdam,laymoreontheskirtsofthecontroversy,andwererather consequences of their teaching than parts of it. As it was anobvious fact that allmendied, they couldnot admit thatAdam’sdeathwasaconsequenceofsinlesttheyshouldbeforcedtoconfessthathissinhadinjuredallmen;theythereforeassertedthatphysicaldeathbelongedtotheverynatureofman,andthatAdamwouldhavediedevenhadhenot sinned.27 So, as it was impossible to deny that the Churcheverywherebaptizedinfants,theycouldnotrefusethembaptismwithoutconfessing themselves innovators in doctrine; and therefore theycontended that infantswerenotbaptized for forgivenessof sins, but inordertoattainahigherstateofsalvation.Finally,theyconceivedthatifitwas admitted that soulswere directly created byGod for each birth, itcould not be asserted that they came into the world soiled by sin andundercondemnation;andtherefore they loudlychampionedthis theoryoftheoriginofsouls.

The teachings of the Pelagians, it will be readily seen, easily weldedthemselvesintoasystem,theessentialandformativeelementsofwhichwere entirely new in the Christian Church; and this startlingly newreadingofman’scondition,powers,anddependenceforsalvation,itwas,thatbrokelikeathunderboltupontheWesternChurchattheopeningofthefifthcentury,andforcedhertoreconsider,fromthefoundations,herwholeteachingastomanandhissalvation.

PartII:TheExternalHistoryofThePelagianControversy

Pelagius seems to have been already somewhat softened by increasingagewhenhecametoRomeabouttheopeningofthefifthcentury.Hewasalso constitutionally averse to controversy; and although in his zeal forChristianmorals,andinhisconvictionthatnomanwouldattempttodowhat he was not persuaded he had natural power to perform, hediligentlypropagatedhisdoctrinesprivately,hewascareful torousenoopposition,andwascontenttomakewhatprogresshecouldquietlyandwithoutopendiscussion.Hismethodsofworksufficientlyappearinthepages of his “Commentary on the Epistles of Saint Paul,” which waswritten and published during these years, and which exhibits learningand a sober and correct but somewhat shallow exegetical skill. In thiswork, he manages to give expression to all the main elements of hissystem,but always introduces them indirectly,not as the true exegesis,butbywayofobjectionstotheordinaryteaching,whichwereinneedofdiscussion. Themost important fruit of his residence inRomewas theconversion to his views of the Advocate Coelestius, who brought thecourage of youth and the argumentative training of a lawyer to thepropagationof thenew teaching. Itwas throughhim that it first brokeout into public controversy, and received its first ecclesiasticalexamination and rejection. Fleeing fromAlaric’s second raid onRome,the two friends landed together in Africa (A.D. 411), whence Pelagiussoon afterwards departed for Palestine, leaving the bolder and morecontentious28 Coelestius behind at Carthage. Here Coelestius soughtordination as a presbyter. But the Milanese deacon Paulinus stoodforward in accusation of him as a heretic, and thematterwas broughtbeforeasynodunderthepresidencyofBishopAurelius.29

Paulinus’ charge consisted of seven items,30 which asserted thatCoelestius taught the following heresies: that Adam was made mortal,andwouldhavedied,whetherhe sinned or didnot sin; that the sin ofAdaminjuredhimselfalone,notthehumanrace;thatnew-bornchildrenareinthatstateinwhichAdamwasbeforehissin;thatthewholehuman

racedoesnot,ontheonehand,dieonaccountofthedeathorthefallofAdam, nor, on the other, rise again on account of the resurrection ofChrist;thatinfants,eventhoughnotbaptized,haveeternallife;thatthelaw leads to thekingdomofheaven in thesamewayas thegospel;andthat, even before the Lord’s coming, there had been men without sin.Onlytwofragmentsoftheproceedingsofthesynodininvestigatingthischargehavecomedowntous;31butitiseasytoseethatCoelestiuswascontumacious, and refused to reject any of the propositions chargedagainst him, except the one which had reference to the salvation ofinfantsthatdieunbaptized,—thesoleonethatadmittedofsounddefence.Astouchingthetransmissionofsin,hewouldonlysaythatitwasanopenquestion in the Church, and that he had heard both opinions fromChurchdignitaries;sothatthesubjectneededinvestigation,andshouldnotbemade theground for a chargeofheresy.Thenatural resultwas,that, on refusing to condemn the propositions charged against him, hewas himself condemned and excommunicated by the synod. SoonafterwardshesailedtoEphesus,whereheobtainedtheordinationwhichhesought.

Meanwhile Pelagius was living quietly in Palestine, whither in thesummerof415ayoungSpanishpresbyter,PaulusOrosiusbyname,camewith letters fromAugustin to Jerome, andwas invited, near the endofJuly in that year, to a diocesan synod, presided over by John ofJerusalem. There he was asked about Pelagius and Coelestius, andproceeded to give an account of the condemnation of the latter at thesynod of Carthage, and of Augustin’s literary refutation of the former.Pelagiuswassent for,and theproceedingsbecameanexamination intohis teachings. The chief matter brought up was his assertion of thepossibility of men living sinlessly in this world; but the favour of thebishop towards him, the intemperance ofOrosius, and the difficulty ofcommunicationbetweenthepartiesarisingfromdifferenceof language,combined so to clogproceedings thatnothingwasdone; and thewholematter,asWesterninitsorigin,wasreferredtotheBishopofRomeforexaminationanddecision.32

SoonafterwardstwoGallicbishops,—HerosofArles,andLazarusofAix,—whoweretheninPalestine,lodgedaformalaccusationagainstPelagius

withthemetropolitan,EulogiusofCæsarea;andheconvenedasynodoffourteen bishops which met at Lydda (Diospolis), in December of thesameyear(415),forthetrialofthecase.Perhapsnogreaterecclesiasticalfarce was ever enacted than this synod exhibited.33 When the timearrived, theaccuserswereprevented frombeingpresentby illness, andPelagius was confronted only by the written accusation. This was bothunskilfully drawn, and was written in Latin which the synod did notunderstand.Itwas,therefore,notevenconsecutivelyread,andwasonlyheadbyhead rendered intoGreekby an interpreter.PelagiusbeganbyreadingaloudseveralletterstohimselffromvariousmenofreputationintheEpiscopate,—amongthemafriendlynotefromAugustin.ThoroughlyacquaintedwithbothLatinandGreek,hewasenabledskillfullytothreadeverydifficulty,andpasssafelythroughtheordeal.Jeromecalledthisa“miserable synod,” andnotunjustly: at the same time it is sufficient tovindicate the honesty and earnestness of the bishops’ intentions, thateveninsuchcircumstances,anddespitethemoreundevelopedopinionsof the East on the questions involved, Pelagius escaped condemnationonlybyacourseofmostingeniousdisingenuousness,andonlyatthecostbothofdisowningCoelestiusandhisteachings,ofwhichhehadbeenthereal father, and of leading the synod to believe that he wasanathematizing the very doctrines which he was himself proclaiming.There isreallynopossibilityofdoubting,asanyonewill seewhoreadsthe proceedings of the synod, that Pelagius obtained his acquittal hereeitherbya“lyingcondemnationoratrickyinterpretation”34ofhisownteachings;andAugustinisperfectlyjustifiedinassertingthatthe“heresywasnotacquitted,butthemanwhodeniedtheheresy,”35andwhowouldhimselfhavebeenanathematizedhadhenotanathematizedtheheresy.

Howeverobtained,theacquittalofPelagiuswasyetanaccomplishedfact.Neitherhenorhisfriendsdelayedtomakethemostwidelyextendeduseof their good fortune. Pelagius himself was jubilant. Accounts of thesynodal proceedings were sent to the West, not altogether free fromuncandidalterations;andPelagius soonput forthawork InDefenceofFree-Will, in which he triumphed in his acquittal and “explained hisexplanations” at the synod. Nor were the champions of the oppositeopinionidle.AssoonasthenewsarrivedinNorthAfrica,andbeforetheauthentic records of the synod had reached that region, the

condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius was re-affirmed in twoprovincial synods,—one, consisting of sixty-eight bishops, met atCarthage about midsummer of 416; and the other, consisting of aboutsixtybishops,metsoonafterwardsatMileve(Mila).ThusPalestineandNorth Africawere arrayed against one another, and it became of greatimportance to obtain the support of the Patriarchal See ofRome. Bothsides made the attempt, but fortune favored the Africans. Each of theNorth-AfricansynodssentasynodallettertoInnocentI.,thenBishopofRome,engaginghisassenttotheiraction:tothese,fivebishops,AureliusofCarthageandAugustinamongthem,addedathird“familiar”letteroftheirown, inwhichtheyurgeduponInnocenttoexamineintoPelagius’teaching,andprovidedhimwiththematerialonwhichhemightbaseadecision.The letters reachedInnocent in time forhimto takeadviceofhis clergy, and send favorable replies on Jan. 27, 417. In these heexpressed his agreement with the African decisions, asserted thenecessityofinwardgrace,rejectedthePelagiantheoryofinfantbaptism,anddeclaredPelagiusandCoelestiusexcommunicateduntiltheyshouldreturntoorthodoxy.Inaboutsixweeksmorehewasdead:butZosimus,his successor, was scarcely installed in his place before CoelestiusappearedatRomeinpersontopleadhiscause;whileshortlyafterwardsletters arrived from Pelagius addressed to Innocent, and by an artfulstatement of his belief and a recommendation from Praylus, latelybecomebishopofJerusaleminJohn’sstead,attemptingtoenlistRomeinhis favour. Zosimus, who appears to have been a Greek and thereforeinclined tomake little of themerits of thisWestern controversy, wentover to Coelestius at once, upon his profession of willingness toanathematize all doctrines which the pontifical see had condemned orshould condemn; and wrote a sharp and arrogant letter to Africa,proclaiming Coelestius “catholic,” and requiring the Africans to appearwithintwomonthsatRometoprosecutetheircharges,orelsetoabandonthem. On the arrival of Pelagius’ papers, this letter was followed byanother(September,417),inwhichZosimus,withtheapprobationoftheclergy,declaredbothPelagiusandCoelestiustobeorthodox,andseverelyrebukedtheAfricansfortheirhastyjudgment.ItisdifficulttounderstandZosimus’ action in thismatter: neither of the confessions presented bythe accused teachers ought tohavedeceivedhim, and if hewas seizingtheoccasiontomagnifytheRomansee,hismistakewasdreadful.Latein

417, or early in 418, the African bishops assembled at Carthage, innumbermore than twohundred, and replied to Zosimus that they haddecided that the sentence pronounced against Pelagius and Coelestiusshouldremaininforceuntiltheyshouldunequivocallyacknowledgethat“weareaidedbythegraceofGod,throughChrist,notonlytoknow,buttodowhatisright,ineachsingleact,sothatwithoutgraceweareunabletohave, think,speak,ordoanythingpertainingtopiety.”This firmnessmadeZosimuswaver.Heansweredswellinglybuttimidly,declaringthathehadmaturelyexaminedthematter,but ithadnotbeenhis intentionfinallytoacquitCoelestius;andnowhehadleftallthingsintheconditioninwhichtheywerebefore,butheclaimedtherightoffinal judgmenttohimself. Matters were hastening to a conclusion, however, that wouldleave him no opportunity to escape from themortification of an entirechangeoffront.Thisletterwaswrittenonthe21stofMarch,418;itwasreceived in Africa on the 29th of April; and on the very next day animperial decree was issued from Ravenna ordering Pelagius andCoelestius tobebanished fromRome,withallwhoheld theiropinions;while on the next day,May 1, a plenary council of about two hundredbishopsmetatCarthage,andinninecanonscondemnedalltheessentialfeaturesofPelagianism.Whetherthissimultaneousactionwastheresultofskillfularrangement,canonlybeconjectured:itseffectwasinanycasenecessarily crushing. There could be no appeal from the civil decision,anditplayeddirectlyintothehandsoftheAfricandefinitionofthefaith.The synod’s nine canons part naturally into three triads.36 The first ofthese deals with the relation of mankind to original sin, andanathematizesinturnthosewhoassertthatphysicaldeathisanecessityofnature,andnotaresultofAdam’ssin;thosewhoassertthatnew-bornchildrenderivenothingoforiginalsinfromAdamtobeexpiatedbythelaver of regeneration; and those who assert a distinction between thekingdomofheavenandeternallife,forentranceintotheformerofwhichalone baptism is necessary. The second triad deals with the nature ofgrace, and anathematizes those who assert that grace brings onlyremissionofpastsins,notaidinavoidingfutureones;thosewhoassertthat grace aidsusnot to sin, only by teachinguswhat is sinful, not byenablingustowillanddowhatweknowtoberight;andthosewhoassertthat graceonly enablesus todomore easilywhatwe shouldwithout itstillbeable todo.The third triaddealswith theuniversal sinfulnessof

therace,andanathematizesthosewhoassertthattheapostles’(1Johni.8) confession of sin is due only to their humility; those who say that“Forgive us our trespasses” in the Lord’s Prayer, is pronounced by thesaints,notforthemselves,butforthesinnersintheircompany;andthosewhosaythatthesaintsusethesewordsofthemselvesonlyoutofhumilityandnottruly.Hereweseeacarefultraversingofthewholegroundofthecontroversy,withaconsciousreferencetothethreechiefcontentionsofthePelagianteachers.37

The appeal to the civil power, by whomsoever made, was, of course,indefensible,althoughitaccordedwiththeopinionsoftheday,andwasentirelyapprovedbyAugustin.ButitwastheruinofthePelagiancause.Zosimus found himself forced either to go into banishment with hiswards, or to desert their cause. He appears never to have had anypersonalconvictionsonthedogmaticpointsinvolvedinthecontroversy,andso,all themorereadily,yieldedtothenecessityof themoment.Hecited Coelestius to appear before a council for a new examination; butthat heresiarch consulted prudence, and withdrew from the city.Zosimus, possibly in the effort to appear a leader in the cause he hadopposed,notonlycondemnedandexcommunicatedthemenwhomlessthan sixmonths before he had pronounced “orthodox” after a ‘matureconsiderationof thematters involved,’but, inobediencetothe imperialdecree, issued a stringent paper which condemned Pelagius and thePelagians,andaffirmedtheAfricandoctrinesastocorruptionofnature,truegrace,andthenecessityofbaptism.Tothisherequiredsubscriptionfromallbishopsasatestoforthodoxy.EighteenItalianbishopsrefusedtheirsignature,withJulianofEclanum,henceforthtobethechampionofthePelagianparty, at theirhead, andwere thereforedeposed, althoughseveral of them afterwards recanted, and were restored. In Julian, theheresyobtainedanadvocate,who, ifaughtcouldhavebeendonefor itsre-instatement,wouldsurelyhaveprovedsuccessful.Hewastheboldest,the strongest, at once themost acute and themost weighty, of all thedisputantsofhisparty.Buttheecclesiasticalstandingofthisheresywasalready determined. The policy of Zosimus’ test act was imposed byimperialauthorityonNorthAfricain419.TheexiledbishopsweredrivenfromConstantinople byAtticus in 424; and they are said to have beencondemnedataCiliciansynodin423,andatanAntiochianonein424.

Thus the East itself was preparing for the final act in the drama. Theexiled bishops were with Nestorius at Constantinople in 429; and thatpatriarch unsuccessfully interceded for them with Coelestine, thenBishop ofRome. The conjunctionwas ominous.And at the ecumenicalsynodatEphesusin431,weagainfindthe“Coelestians”sidebysidewithNestorius,sharersinhiscondemnation.

But Pelagianism did not so die as not to leave a legacy behind it.“Remainders of Pelagianism”38 soon showed themselves in SouthernGaul, where a body of monastic leaders attempted to find a middlegroundonwhichtheycouldstand,byallowingtheAugustiniandoctrineof assisting grace, but retaining the Pelagian conception of our self-determinationtogood.Wefirsthearofthemin428,throughlettersfromtwo laymen, Prosper and Hilary, to Augustin, as men who acceptedoriginalsinandthenecessityofgrace,butassertedthatmenbegantheirturning toGod,andGodhelped theirbeginning.They taught39 thatallmenaresinners,andthattheyderivetheirsinfromAdam;thattheycanbynomeans save themselves, but needGod’s assisting grace; and thatthisgraceisgratuitousinthesensethatmencannotreallydeserveit,andyetthatitisnotirresistible,norgivenalwayswithouttheoccasionofitsgift having been determined by men’s attitude towards God; so that,thoughnotgivenonaccountofthemeritsofmen,itisgivenaccordingtothosemerits, actual or foreseen. The leader of this newmovementwasJohnCassian,apupilofChrysostom(towhomheattributedallthatwasgood inhis life andwill), and the fountain-headofGallicmonasticism;anditschiefchampionatasomewhatlaterdaywasFaustusofRhegium(Riez).

The Augustinian opposition was at first led by the vigorouscontroversialist, Prosper of Aquitaine, and, in the next century, by thewise,moderate,andgoodCæsariusofArles,whobroughtthecontesttoaconclusioninthevictoryofasoftenedAugustinianism.Alreadyin431aletter was obtained from Pope Coelestine, designed to close thecontroversy in favor of Augustinianism, and in 496 Pope GelasiuscondemnedthewritingsofFaustusinthefirstindexofforbiddenbooks;while, near the end of the first quarter of the sixth century, PopeHormisdaswas appealed to for a renewed condemnation. The endwas

now in sight. The famous second Synod of Orange met under thepresidencyofCæsariusat thatancienttownonthe3dofJuly,529,anddrewup a series ofmoderate articleswhich received the ratification ofBoniface II. in the following year. In these articles there is affirmed ananxiously guarded Augustinianism, a somewhat weakenedAugustinianism, but yet a distinctive Augustinianism; and, so far as aformalcondemnationcouldreach, semi-Pelagianismwassuppressedbythem in the whole Western Church. But councils and popes can onlydecree; and Cassian and Vincent and Faustus, despite Cæsarius andBoniface and Gregory, retained an influence among their countrymenwhichneverdiedaway.

PartIII:Augustine'sPartinTheControversy

Bothbynatureandbygrace,Augustinwasformedtobethechampionoftruth in this controversy.Of a naturally philosophical temperament, hesawintothespringsoflifewithavividnessofmentalperceptiontowhichmost men are strangers; and his own experiences in his long life ofresistance to,and thenofyielding to, thedrawingsofGod’sgrace,gavehimaclearapprehensionofthegreatevangelicprinciplethatGodseeksmen,notmenGod,suchasnosophistrycouldcloud.Howevermuchhisphilosophyortheologymightundergochangeinotherparticulars,therewasoneconviction toodeeply imprinteduponhisheart ever to fadeoralter,—the convictionof the ineffablenessofGod’sgrace.Grace,—man’sabsolute dependence on God as the source of all good,—this was thecommon, nay, the formative element, in all stages of his doctrinaldevelopment, which wasmarked only by the ever growing consistencywithwhichhebuilthistheologyaroundthiscentralprinciple.Alreadyin397,—the year after he became bishop,—we find him enunciating withadmirable clearness all the essential elements of his teaching, as heafterwardsopposedthemtoPelagius.40Itwasinevitable,therefore,thatalthoughhewasrejoicedwhenheheard,someyearslater,ofthezealouslaboursofthispiousmonkinRometowardsstemmingthetideofluxuryand sin, and esteemed him for his devout life, and loved him for his

Christianactivity,heyetwasdeeplytroubledwhensubsequentrumoursreachedhimthathewas“disputingagainstthegraceofGod.”Hetellsusoverandoveragain, that thiswasa thingnopiousheartcouldendure;andwe perceive that, from thismoment, Augustinwas only biding histime, andawaitinga fittingopportunity to join issuewith thedenieroftheHoly of holies of hiswhole, Iwill not say theologymerely, but life.“Although Iwas grieved by this,” he says, “and it was toldme bymenwhomIbelieved, I yetdesired tohave somethingof such sort fromhisownlipsorinsomebookofhis,sothat,ifIbegantorefuteit,hewouldnot be able to deny it.”41 Thus he actually excuses himself for notenteringintothecontroversyearlier.WhenPelagiuscametoAfrica,then,itwasalmostasifhehaddeliberatelysoughthisfate.Butcircumstancessecured a lull before the storm. He visited Hippo; but Augustin wasabsent, although he did not fail to inform himself on his return thatPelagiuswhile there had not been heard to say “anything at all of thiskind.”Thecontroversyagainst theDonatistswasnowoccupyingall theenergiesoftheAfricanChurch,andAugustinhimselfwasarulingspiritinthegreatconferencenowholdingatCarthagewiththem.Whilethere,hewassoimmersedinthisbusiness,that,althoughheonceortwicesawthefaceofPelagius,hehadnoconversationwithhim;andalthoughhisearswerewoundedbyacasualremarkwhichheheard,totheeffect“thatinfantswere not baptized for remission of sins, but for consecration toChrist,”heallowedhimselftopassoverthematter,“becausetherewasnoopportunitytocontradictit,andthosewhosaiditwerenotsuchmenascouldcausehimsolicitudefortheirinfluence.”42

It appears from these facts, givenus by himself, thatAugustinwasnotonly ready for, but was looking for, the coming controversy. It canscarcely have been a surprise to himwhenPaulinus accusedCoelestius(412); and, although he was not a member of the council whichcondemnedhim,itwasinevitablethatheshouldatoncetaketheleadingpart in the consequent controversy. Coelestius and his friends did notsilentlysubmittothejudgmentthathadbeenpassedupontheirteaching:they could not openly propagate their heresy, but theywere diligent inspreading their plaints privately and by subterraneouswhispers amongthe people.43 This was met by the Catholics in public sermons andfamiliarcolloquiesheldeverywhere.Butthiswiserulewasobserved,—to

contend against the erroneous teachings, but to keep silence as to theteachers, that so (as Augustin explains44) “the men might rather bebroughttoseeandacknowledgetheirerrorthroughfearofecclesiasticaljudgment than be punished by the actual judgment.” Augustin wasabundantintheseorallabours;andmanyofhissermonsdirectedagainstPelagianerrorhavecomedowntous,althoughitisoftenimpossibletobesureastotheirdate.Foroneofthem(170)hetookhistextfromPhil.iii.6–16, “as touching the righteousness which is by the law blameless;howbeit what things were gain to me, those have I counted loss forChrist.”Hebeginsbyaskinghow theapostle couldcounthisblamelessconversation according to the righteousness which is from the law asdung and loss, and thenproceeds to explain thepurpose forwhich thelaw was given, our state by nature and under law, and the kind ofblamelessness that the lawcouldproduce, endingby showing thatmancanhavenorighteousnessexceptfromGod,andnoperfectrighteousnessexcept inheaven.Threeothers(174,175,176)hadas their text1Tim. i.15,16,anddevelopeditsteaching,thattheuniversalsinoftheworldandits helplessness in sin constituted the necessity of the incarnation; andespecially that the necessity of Christ’s grace for salvation was just asgreatforinfantsasforadults.Muchisveryforciblysaidinthesesermonswhich was afterwards incorporated in his treatises. “There was noreason,” he insists, “for the coming of Christ the Lord except to savesinners.Take awaydiseases, take awaywounds, and there isno reasonformedicine.IfthegreatPhysiciancamefromheaven,agreatsickmanwaslyingillthroughthewholeworld.Thatsickmanisthehumanrace”(175,1).“Hewhosays,‘Iamnotasinner,’or‘Iwasnot,’isungratefultothe Saviour.No one ofmen in thatmass ofmortalswhich flows downfromAdam,nooneatallofmenisnotsick:nooneishealedwithoutthegraceofChrist.WhydoyouaskwhetherinfantsaresickfromAdam?Forthey, too, arebrought to the church; and, if they cannot run thitherontheir own feet, they run on the feet of others that theymay be healed.Mother Church accommodates others’ feet to them so that they maycome,others’heartsothattheymaybelieve,others’tonguesothattheymayconfess;and,sincetheyaresickbyanother’ssin,sowhentheyarehealed theyare savedbyanother’s confession in theirbehalf.Let, then,no one buzz strangedoctrines to you. This theChurchhas always had,hasalwaysheld;thisshehasreceivedfromthefaithoftheelders;thisshe

willperseveringlyguarduntiltheend.Sincethewholehavenoneedofaphysician,butonlythesick,whatneed,then,hastheinfantofChrist, ifheisnotsick?Ifheiswell,whydoesheseekthephysicianthroughthosewholovehim?If,wheninfantsarebrought,theyaresaidtohavenosinofinheritance(peccatumpropaginis)atall,andyetcometoChrist,whyisitnotsaid in thechurchto those thatbring them, ‘take these innocentshence; the physician is not needed by the well, but by the sick; Christcamenottocallthejust,butsinners’?Itneverhasbeensaid,anditneverwillbesaid.Leteachonetherefore,brethren,speakforhimwhocannotspeak for himself. It is much the custom to intrust the inheritance oforphanstothebishops;howmuchmorethegraceofinfants!Thebishopprotectstheorphanlestheshouldbeoppressedbystrangers,hisparentsbeingdead.Lethimcryoutmorefortheinfantwho,hefears,willbeslainbyhisparents.WhocomestoChristhassomethinginhimtobehealed;andhewhohasnot,hasnoreasonforseekingthephysician.Letparentschooseoneof two things: let themeitherconfess that there is sin tobehealedintheirinfants,orletthemceasebringingthemtothephysician.Thisisnothingelsethantowishtobringawellpersontothephysician.Whydoyoubringhim?Tobebaptized.Whom?Theinfant.Towhomdoyoubringhim?ToChrist.ToHim,ofcourse,whocameintotheworld?Certainly, he says.Why did He come into the world? To save sinners.Then he whom you bring has in him that which needs saving?”45 Soagain: “He who says that the age of infancy does not need Jesus’salvation, says nothing else than that the Lord Christ is not Jesus tofaithful infants; i.e., to infants baptized in Christ. For whatisJesus?Jesusmeans saviour.He isnotJesus to thosewhomHedoesnotsave,whodonotneedtobesaved.Now,ifyourheartscanbearthatChristisnotJesustoanyofthebaptized,Idonotknowhowyoucanbeacknowledged tohave sound faith.They are infants, but they aremademembersofHim.Theyareinfants,buttheyreceiveHissacraments.Theyareinfants,buttheybecomepartakersofHistable,sothattheymayhavelife.”46Thepreveniencyofgrace isexplicitlyassertedinthesesermons.In one he says, “Zaccheus was seen, and saw; but unless he had beenseen,hewouldnothaveseen.For‘whomHepredestinated,themalsoHecalled.’Inorderthatwemaysee,weareseen;thatwemaylove,weareloved. ‘MyGod,mayHis pity preventme!’”47And in another, atmorelength:“Hiscallinghasprecededyou,sothatyoumayhaveagoodwill.

Cryout,‘MyGod,letThymercypreventme’(Ps.lviii.11).Thatyoumaybe, that you may feel, that you may hear, that you may consent, Hismercypreventsyou.Itpreventsyouinallthings;anddoyoutoopreventHisjudgmentinsomething.Inwhat,doyousay?Inwhat?InconfessingthatyouhaveallthesethingsfromGod,whateveryouhaveofgood;andfromyourselfwhateveryouhaveof evil” (176,5). “Weowe therefore toHimthatweare,thatwearealive,thatweunderstand:thatwearemen,thatwe livewell, thatweunderstandaright,weowetoHim.Nothingisours except the sin that we have. For what have we that we did notreceive?”(1Cor.ix.7)(176,6).

Itwas not long, however, before the controversywas driven out of theregion of sermons into that of regular treatises. The occasion forAugustin’s first appearance in a written document bearing on thecontroversy,was givenby certainquestionswhichwere sent tohim foranswer by “the tribune and notary” Marcellinus, with whom he hadcementedhisintimacyatCarthage,thepreviousyear,whenthisnotableofficialwaspresiding,bytheemperor’sorders,overthegreatconferenceof the catholics and Donatists. The mere fact that Marcellinus, still atCarthage,whereCoelestiushadbeenbroughttotrial,wrotetoAugustinatHippoforwrittenanswerstoimportantquestionsconnectedwiththePelagian heresy, speaks volumes for the prominent position he hadalready assumed in the controversy. The questions that were sent,concernedtheconnectionofdeathwithsin,thetransmissionofsin,thepossibility of a sinless life, and especially infants’ need ofbaptism.48 Augustin was immersed in abundant labours when theyreachedhim:49buthecouldnot resist thisappeal, and that the lessasthe Pelagian controversy had already grown to a place of the firstimportance in his eyes. The result was his treatise, On theMerits andRemissionofSinsandontheBaptismofInfants,consistingoftwobooks,andwrittenin412.Thefirstbookofthisworkisanargumentfororiginalsin,drawnfromtheuniversalreignofdeathintheworld(2–8),fromtheteachingofRom.v.12–21(9–20),andchieflyfromthebaptismofinfants(21–70).50ItopensbyexplodingthePelagiancontentionthatdeathisofnature,andAdamwouldhavediedevenhadhenotsinned,byshowingthat the penalty threatened to Adam included physical death (Gen. iii.19),andthatitisduetohimthatwealldie(Rom.viii.10,11;1Cor.xv.

21)(2–8).ThenthePelagianassertionthatweareinjuredinAdam’ssinonlybyitsbadexample,whichweimitate,notbyanypropagationfromit,istestedbyanexpositionofRom.v.12sq.(9–20).Andthenthemainsubject of the book is reached, and the writer sharply presses thePelagianswiththeuniversalandprimevalfactofthebaptismofinfants,asaproofoforiginal sin (21–70).He tracksoutall their subterfuges,—showingtheabsurdityof theassertionsthat infantsarebaptizedfortheremissionofsins that theyhave themselvescommittedsincebirth(22),orinordertoobtainahigherstageofsalvation(23–28),orbecauseofsincommittedinsomepreviousstateofexistence(31–33).Thenturningtothepositiveside,heshowsatlengththattheScripturesteachthatChristcametosavesinners, thatbaptismis fortheremissionofsins,andthatallthatpartakeof itareconfessedlysinners(34sq.);thenhepointsoutthat John ii. 7, 8, on which the Pelagians relied, cannot be held todistinguish between ordinary salvation and a higher form, under thenameof“thekingdomofGod”(58sq.);andheclosesbyshowingthattheverymanner inwhichbaptismwasadministered,with itsexorcismandexsufflation,impliedtheinfanttobeasinner(63),andbysuggestingthatthepeculiarhelplessnessofinfancy,sodifferentnotonlyfromtheearliestageofAdam,butalsofromthatofmanyyounganimals,maypossiblybeitself penal (64–69). The second book treats, with similar fulness, thequestion of the perfection of human righteousness in this life. After anexordiumwhichspeaksofthewillanditslimitations,andoftheneedofGod’s assisting grace (1–6), the writer raises four questions. First,whetheritmaybesaidtobepossible,byGod’sgrace,foramantoattaina condition of entire sinlessness in this life (7). This he answers in theaffirmative. Secondly, he asks, whether any one has ever done this, ormay ever be expected to do it, and answers in the negative on thetestimony of Scripture (8–25). Thirdly, he asks why not, and repliesbrieflybecausemenareunwilling,explainingatlengthwhathemeansbythis (26–33). Finally, he inquires whether any man has ever existed,existsnow,orwilleverexist,entirelywithoutsin,—thisquestiondifferingfromthesecondinasmuchasthataskedaftertheattainmentinthislifeofa state inwhich sinning should cease, while this seeks amanwho hasnever been guilty of sin, implying the absence of original as well as ofactual sin.Afteranswering this in thenegative (34),Augustindiscussesanew the question of original sin. Here after expounding from the

positiveside(35–38)theconditionofmaninparadise,thenatureofhisprobation, andof the fall and its effects bothonhimandhis posterity,andthekindofredemptionthathasbeenprovidedintheincarnation,heproceedstoanswercertaincavils(39sq.),suchas,“Whyshouldchildrenof baptized people need baptism?”—“How can a sin be remitted to thefatherandheldagainstthechild?”—“IfphysicaldeathcomesfromAdam,ought we not to be released from it on believing in Christ?”—andconcludes with an exhortation to hold fast to the exact truth, turningneither to the right nor left,—neither saying that we have no sin, norsurrenderingourselvestooursin(57sq.).

After these books were completed, Augustin came into possession ofPelagius’CommentaryonPaul’sEpistles,whichwaswrittenwhilehewaslivinginRome(before410),andfoundittocontainsomeargumentsthathehadnottreated,—sucharguments,hetellsus,ashehadnotimaginedcouldbeheldbyanyone.51Unwillingtore-openhisfinishedargument,he now began a long supplementary letter to Marcellinus, which heintended to serve as a third and concluding book to his work. He wassometimeincompletingthisletter.Hehadaskedtohavetheformertwobooks returned tohim;and it is a curious indicationofhisoverworkedstate of mind, that he forgot what he wanted with them:52 he visitedCarthagewhile the letterwas inhand, and sawMarcellinus personally;and even after his return to Hippo, it dragged along, amid manydistractions,slowlytowardscompletion.53Meanwhile,a long letterwaswritten to Honoratus, in which a section on the grace of the NewTestament was incorporated. At length the promised supplement wascompleted. Itwasprofessedly a criticismofPelagius’Commentary, andthereforenaturallymentionedhisname;butAugustin even goes out ofhisway to speak ashighly of his opponent ashe can,54—although it isapparentthathisesteemisnotveryhighforhisstrengthofmind,andiseven less high for themoral quality that led tohis odd, obliqueway ofexpressinghisopinions.ThereisevenahalfsarcasminthewayhespeaksofPelagius’careandcircumspection,whichwascertainlyjustifiedbytheevent. The letter opens by stating and criticising in a very acute andtellingdialectic, thenewargumentsofPelagius,whichweresuchas thefollowing: “If Adam’s sin injured even those who do not sin, Christ’srighteousnessoughtlikewisetoprofiteventhosewhodonotbelieve”(2–

4);“Nomancantransmitwhathehasnot;andhence,ifbaptismcleansesfrom sin, the children of baptized parents ought to be free from sin;”“Godremitsone’sownsins,andcanscarcely,therefore,imputeanother’sto us; and if the soul is created, itwould certainly be unjust to imputeAdam’saliensintoit”(5).Thestressoftheletter,however,islaidupontwo contentions,—1. That whatever else may be ambiguous in theScriptures, they are perfectly clear that no man can have eternal lifeexceptinChrist,whocametocallsinnerstorepentance(7);and2.Thatoriginal sin in infants has always been, in theChurch, one of the fixedfacts, to be used as a basis of argument, in order to reach the truth inothermatters,andhasneveritselfbeencalledinquestionbefore(10–14).At this point, the writer returns to the second and third of the newargumentsofPelagiusmentionedabove,anddiscusses themmore fully(15–20),closingwitha recapitulationof the threegreatpoints thathadbeenraised;viz.,thatbothdeathandsinarederivedfromAdam’ssinbyallhisposterity;thatinfantsneedsalvation,andhencebaptism;andthatnoman ever attains in this life such a state of holiness that he cannottrulypray,“Forgiveusourtrespasses.”

Augustin was now to learn that one service often entails another.Marcellinuswrotetosaythathewaspuzzledbywhathadbeensaidinthesecond book of this work, as to the possibility of man’s attaining tosinlessness in this life, while yet it was asserted that noman ever hadattained,oreverwouldattain, it.How,heasked,can thatbesaid tobepossiblewhichis,andwhichwillremain,unexampled?Inreply,Augustinwrote,duringthissameyear(412),andsenttohisnoblefriend,anotherwork,whichhecallsOn theSpiritand theLetter, fromtheprominencewhich he gives in it to thewords of 2Cor. iii. 6.55Hedidnot contenthimselfwithasimple,directanswertoMarcellinus’question,butgoesatlength into a profound disquisition into the roots of the doctrine, andthusgivesus,notamereexplanationofaformercontention,butanewtreatiseonanewsubject,—theabsolutenecessityofthegraceofGodforany good living. He begins by explaining to Marcellinus that he hasaffirmedthepossibilitywhiledenyingtheactualityofasinlesslife,onthegroundthatallthingsarepossibletoGod,—eventhepassageofacamelthroughtheeyeofaneedle,whichneverthelesshasneveroccurred(1,2).For,inspeakingofman’sperfection,wearespeakingreallyofaworkof

God,—and one which is none the less His work because it is wroughtthrough the instrumentalityofman,and in theuseofhis freewill.TheScriptures, indeed, teach thatnoman liveswithout sin,but this isonlytheproclamationofamatterof fact;andalthough it is thuscontrarytofactandScripturetoassertthatmenmaybefoundthatlivesinlessly,yetsuchanassertionwouldnotbe fatalheresy.What isunbearable, is thatmenshouldassertittobepossibleforman,unaidedbyGod,toattainthisperfection.ThisistospeakagainstthegraceofGod:itistoputinman’spowerwhatisonlypossibletothealmightygraceofGod(3,4).Nodoubt,even thesemen do not, in somany words, exclude the aid of grace inperfectinghuman life,—theyaffirmGod’shelp;but theymake itconsistinHisgift tomanofaperfectly freewill, and inHisaddition to thisofcommandmentsand teachingswhichmakeknown tohimwhathe is toseekandwhattoavoid,andsoenablehimtodirecthisfreewilltowhatisgood.What, however, does such a “grace” amount to? (5). Man needssomethingmorethantoknowtherightway:heneedstoloveit,orhewillnotwalk in it; and allmere teaching,which candonothingmore thanbringusknowledgeofwhatweoughttodo,isbuttheletterthatkilleth.Whatweneedissomeinward,Spirit-givenaidtothekeepingofwhatbythelawweknowoughttobekept.Mereknowledgeslays:whiletoleadaholy life is the gift ofGod,—not onlybecauseHehas givenuswill, noronly becauseHe has taught us the right way, but because by theHolySpirit He sheds love abroad in the hearts of all those whom He haspredestinated,andwillcallandjustifyandglorify(Rom.viii.29,30).Toprove this, he states to be the object of the present treatise; and afterinvestigating themeaning of 2Cor. iii. 6, and showing that “the letter”theremeansthelawasasystemofprecepts,whichrevealssinratherthantakesitaway,pointsoutthewayratherthangivesstrengthtowalkinit,and therefore slays the soul by shutting it up under sin,—while “theSpirit” isGod’sHolyGhostwho is shedabroad inourhearts togiveusstrength towalk aright,—he undertakes to prove this position from theteachingsoftheEpistletotheRomansatlarge.Thiscontention,itwillbeseen,cutat thevery rootsofPelagianism: ifallmere teachingslays thesoul, asPaul asserts, thenall thatwhat they called “grace” could,whenalone, do, was to destroy; and the upshot of “helping” man by simplygivinghimfreewill,andpointingoutthewaytohim,wouldbethelossofthewholerace.Notthatthelawissin:Augustinteachesthatitisholyand

good,andGod’sinstrumentinsalvation.Notthatfreewillisdoneaway:itisbyfreewillthatmenareledintoholiness.Butthepurposeofthelaw(heteaches)istomakemensofeeltheirlostestateastoseekthehelpbywhichalonetheymaybesaved;andwillisonlythenliberatedtodogoodwhengracehasmadeitfree.“Whatthelawofworksenjoinsbymenace,thatthelawoffaithsecuresbyfaith.Whatthelawofworksdoesistosay,‘DowhatIcommandthee;’butbythelawoffaithwesaytoGod,‘Givemewhatthoucommandest.’”(22).56Inthemidstofthisargument,Augustinis led to discuss the differentiating characteristics of the Old and NewTestaments;andheexpoundsatlength(33–42)thepassageinJer.xxxi.31–34, showing that, in the prophet’s view, the difference between thetwocovenants is that intheOld, the lawisanexternal thingwrittenonstones;whileintheNew,itiswritteninternallyontheheart,sothatmennow wish to do what the law prescribes. This writing on the heart isnothingelse,heexplains,thanthesheddingabroadbytheHolySpiritoflove inourhearts,so thatwe loveGod’swill,andtherefore freelydo it.Towards the end of the treatise (50–61), he treats in an absorbinglyinteresting way of the mutual relations of free will, faith, and grace,contending thatall co-existwithout thevoidingofany. It isby freewillthatwebelieve;butit isonlyasgracemovesus,thatweareabletouseourfreewillforbelieving;anditisonlyafterwearethusledbygracetobelieve, that we obtain all other goods. In prosecuting this analysis,Augustinisledtodistinguishverysharplybetweenthefacultyanduseoffreewill(58),aswellasbetweenabilityandvolition(53).Faithisanactofthemanhimself;butonlyasheisgiventhepowerfromonhightowilltobelieve,willhebelieve(57,60).

By thiswork,Augustin completed, in his treatment of Pelagianism, thecircle of that triad of doctrines which he himself looked upon asmostendangered by this heresy,57—original sin, the imperfection of humanrighteousness,thenecessityofgrace.Inhismind,thelastwasthekernelof thewhole controversy; and this was a subject which he could neverapproachwithout someheightened fervour.This accounts for the greatattractiveness of the present work,—through the whole fabric of whichruns the golden threadof thepraise ofGod’s ineffable grace. InCanonBright’sopinion,it“perhaps,nexttothe‘Confessions,’tellsusmostofthethoughts of that ‘rich, profound, and affectionate mind’ on the soul’s

relationstoitsGod.”58

Afterthepublicationofthesetreatises,thecontroversycertainlydidnotlull;butitrelapsedfornearlythreeyearsagain,intolesspubliccourses.Meanwhile,Augustinwasbusy,amongothermostdistractingcares(Ep.145, 1), still defending the grace ofGod, by letters and sermons. A fairillustration of his state ofmind at this time,may be obtained fromhislettertoAnastasius(145),whichassuredlymusthavebeenwrittensoonafter the treatise On the Spirit and the Letter. Throughout this letter,there are adumbrations of the same train of thought that filled thistreatise; and there is one passage which may almost be taken as asummaryofit.Augustinissowearyofthevexatiouscaresthatfilledhislife, thathe isreadyto longfor theeverlastingrest,andyetbewails theweaknesswhichallowedthesweetnessofexternalthingsstilltoinsinuateitselfintohisheart.Victoryover,andemancipationfrom,this,heasserts,“cannot,withoutGod’sgrace,beachievedbythehumanwill,whichisbynomeanstobecalledfreesolongasitissubjecttoenslavinglusts.”Thenhe proceeds: “The law, therefore, by teaching and commanding whatcannotbefulfilledwithoutgrace,demonstratestomanhisweakness, inorderthattheweakness,thusproved,mayresorttotheSaviour,bywhosehealing the will may be able to do what it found impossible in itsweakness.So,then,thelawbringsustofaith, faithobtainstheSpirit infullermeasure,theSpiritshedsloveabroadinus,andlovefulfilsthelaw.Forthisreasonthelawiscalledaschoolmaster,underwhosethreateningand severity ‘whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall bedelivered.’ But ‘how shall they call on Him in whom they have notbelieved?’Wherefore, that the letterwithout theSpiritmaynotkill, thelife-givingSpiritisgiventothosethatbelieveandcalluponHim;buttheloveofGodispouredoutintoourheartsbytheHolySpiritwhoisgiventous,sothatthewordsofthesameapostle, ‘Loveisthefulfillingofthelaw,’mayberealized.Thus the law isgood tohimthatuses it lawfully;and he uses it lawfully, who, understanding wherefore it was given,betakeshimself,underthepressureofitsthreatening,toliberatinggrace.Whoever ungratefully despises this grace by which the ungodly isjustified, and trusts in his own strength for fulfilling the law, beingignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish his ownrighteousness,isnotsubmittinghimselftotherighteousnessofGod;and

therefore the law ismade tohimnotahelp topardon,but thebondofguilt;notbecausethelawisevil,butbecause‘sin,’asitiswritten,‘worksdeathtosuchpersonsbythatwhichisgood.’Forbythecommandment,hesinsmoregrievously,who,bythecommandment,knowshowevilarethe sins which he commits.” Although Augustin states clearly that thisletteriswrittenagainstthose“whoarrogatetoomuchtothehumanwill,imagining that, the law being given, the will is, of its own strength,sufficienttofulfilthelaw,thoughnotassistedbyanygraceimpartedbytheHolyGhost, in addition to instruction in the law,”—he refrains stillfrommentioningthenamesoftheauthorsofthisteaching,evidentlyoutof a lingering tenderness in his treatment of them.Thiswill help us toexplainthecourtesyofanotewhichhesenttoPelagiushimselfataboutthistime,inreplytoaletterhehadreceivedsometimebeforefromhim;ofwhichPelagiusafterwards(attheSynodofDiospolis)made,tosaytheleastofit,anungeneroususe.Thisnote,59Augustintellsus,waswrittenwith“temperedpraises”(wherefromweseehislesseningrespectfortheman),andsoastoadmonishPelagiustothinkrightlyconcerninggrace,—sofarascouldbedonewithoutraisingthedregsofthecontroversyinaformal note. This he accomplished by praying from the Lord for him,those good things by which he might be good forever, and might liveeternallywithHimwho is eternal; andby askinghisprayers in return,thathe,too,mightbemadebytheLordsuchasheseemedtosupposehealready was. How Augustin could really intend these prayers to beunderstoodasanadmonitiontoPelagiustolooktoGodforwhathewasseekingtoworkoutforhimself,isfullyillustratedbytheclosingwordsofthis almost contemporary letter toAnastasius: “Pray, therefore, forus,”he writes, “that wemay be righteous,—an attainment wholly beyond aman’sreach,unlessheknowrighteousness,andbewillingtopractiseit,but onewhich is immediately realizedwhenhe is perfectlywilling; butthiscannotbe inhimunlesshe ishealedbythegraceof theSpirit,andaided tobeable.”Thepointhadalreadybeenmade in the controversy,that, by the Pelagian doctrine, so much power was attributed to thehumanwill,thatnooneoughttopray,“Leadusnotintotemptation,butdeliverusfromevil.”

IfhewasanxioustoavoidpersonalcontroversywithPelagiushimselfinthe hope that he might even yet be reclaimed, Augustin was equally

anxious to teach the truth on all possible occasions. Pelagius had beenintimate,whenatRome,withthepiousPaulinus,bishopofNola;anditwasunderstoodthattherewassometendencyatNolatofollowthenewteachings.Itwas,perhaps,aslateas414,whenAugustinmadereplyinalong letter,60 to a request of Paulinus’ for an exposition of certaindifficultScriptures,whichhadbeensenthimabout410.61Amongthemwas Rom. xi. 28; and, in explaining it, Augustin did not withhold atolerably complete account of his doctrine of predestination, involvingthe essence of his whole teaching as to grace: “For when he had said,‘according to the election they are beloved for their father’s sake,’ headded, ‘forthegiftsandcallingofGodarewithoutrepentance.’Youseethat those are certainly meant who belong to the number of thepredestinated.…‘Manyindeedarecalled,butfewchosen;’butthosewhoare elect, these are called ‘according to His purpose;’ and it is beyonddoubt that in themGod’s foreknowledge cannot be deceived. TheseHeforeknewandpredestinatedtobeconformedtotheimageofHisSon,inorderthatHemightbethefirstbornamongmanybrethren.But‘whomHepredestinated, themHealsocalled.’Thiscalling is ‘according toHispurpose,’thiscallingis‘withoutrepentance,’”etc.,quotingRom.v.28–31.Then continuing, he says, “Those are not in this vocation, who do notpersevereunto the end in the faith thatworkethby love, although theywalkinitalittlewhile.…Butthereasonwhysomebelongtoit,andsomedonot,caneasilybehidden,butcannotbeunjust.ForisthereinjusticewithGod?Godforbid!Forthisbelongstothosehighjudgmentswhich,sotosay,terrifiedthewonderingapostletolookupon.”

Among the most remarkable of the controversial sermons that werepreached about this time, especial mention is due to two that weredelivered at Carthage, midsummer of 413. The former of these62 waspreached on the festival of John the Baptist’s birth (June 24), andnaturally took the forerunner for its subject. The nativity of JohnsuggestingthenativityofChrist,thepreacherspokeofthemarveloftheincarnation.Hewhowasinthebeginning,andwastheWordofGod,andwasHimselfGod,andwhomadeall things,andinwhomwas life,eventhisone“cametous.Towhom?Totheworthy?Nay,buttotheunworthy!For Christ died for the ungodly, and for the unworthy, thoughHewasworthy.We indeedwereunworthywhomHepitied;butHewasworthy

whopitiedus,towhomwesay,‘ForThypity’ssake,Lord,freeus!’Notforthesakeofourprecedingmerits,but ‘forThypity’ssake,Lord,freeus;’and ‘forThyname’s sake bepropitious to our sins,’ not for ourmerit’ssake.…For themerit of sins is, of course,not reward,butpunishment.”Hethendweltuponthenecessityoftheincarnation,andthenecessityofa mediator between God and “the whole mass of the human racealienatedfromHimbyAdam.”Thenquoting1Cor.iv.7,heassertsthatitisnotourvaryingmerits,butGod’sgracealone,thatmakesusdiffer,andthatweareallalike,greatandsmall,oldandyoung,savedbyoneandthesameSaviour.“Whatthen,someonesays,”hecontinues,“eventheinfantneeds a liberator? Certainly he needs one. And the witness to it is themother that faithfully runs tochurchwith thechild tobebaptized.ThewitnessisMotherChurchherself,whoreceivesthechildforwashing,andeitherfordismissinghim[fromthislife]freed,ornurturinghiminpiety.…Lastofall,thetearsofhisownmiseryarewitnessinthechildhimself.…Recognizethemisery,extendthehelp.Letallputonbowelsofmercy.Byasmuchastheycannotspeakforthemselves,bysomuchmorepityinglyletusspeakforthelittleones,”—andthenfollowsapassagecallingontheChurchtotakethegraceofinfantsintheirchargeasorphanscommittedto their care, which is in substance repeated from a formersermon.63 The speaker proceeded to quoteMatt. i. 21, and apply it. IfJesus came to save from sins, and infants are brought toHim, it is toconfess that they, too, are sinners. Then, shall they be withheld frombaptism?“Certainly, if thechildcouldspeakforhimself,hewouldrepelthe voice of opposition, and cry out, ‘Giveme Christ’s life! In Adam Idied:givemeChrist’slife;inwhosesightIamnotclean,evenifIamaninfant whose life has been but one day in the earth.’” “No way can befound,”addsthepreacher,“ofcomingintothelifeofthisworldexceptbyAdam; noway can be found of escaping punishment in the nextworldexcept by Christ. Why do you shut up the one door?” Even John theBaptisthimselfwasborninsin;andabsolutelynoonecanbefoundwhowas born apart from sin, until you find one who was born apart fromAdam.“‘Byonemansinenteredintotheworld,andbysin,death;andsoit passed through upon all men.’ If these were my words, could thissentimentbeexpressedmoreexpressly,moreclearly,morefully?”

Three days afterwards,64 on the invitation of the Bishop of Carthage,

Augustin preached a sermon professedly directed against thePelagians,65 which takes up the threads hinted at in the formerdiscourse, anddevelops a full polemicwith reference to the baptismofinfants. He began, formally enough, with the determination of thequestion in dispute. The Pelagians concede that infants should bebaptized.Theonlyquestion is, forwhatare theybaptized?Wesay thattheywouldnototherwisehavesalvationandeternallife;buttheysayitisnotforsalvation,notforeternal life,butforthekingdomofGod.…“Thechild,theysay,althoughnotbaptized,bythedesertofhisinnocence, inthathehasnosinatall,eitheractualororiginal,eitherfromhimselforcontracted fromAdam,necessarilyhassalvationandeternal lifeeven ifnotbaptized;butistobebaptizedforthisreason,—thathemayenterintothe kingdom of God, i.e., into the kingdom of heaven.”He then showsthat there is no eternal life outside the kingdom of heaven, nomiddleplace between the right and left hand of the judge at the last day, andthat,therefore,toexcludeonefromthekingdomofGodistoconsignhimtothepainsofeternalfire;while,ontheotherside,nooneascendsintoheavenunlesshehasbeenmadeamemberofChrist,andthiscanonlybebyfaith,—which,inaninfant’scase,isprofessedbyanotherinhisstead.Hethentreats,atlength,someofthepuzzlingquestionswithwhichthePelagianswerewonttotrythecatholics;andthenbreakingoffsuddenly,he tookavolume inhishands. “Iaskyou,”he said, “tobearwithmealittle:Iwillreadsomewhat.ItisSt.CyprianwhomIholdinmyhand,theancientbishopof thissee.Whathe thoughtof thebaptismof infants,—nay,whathehasshownthattheChurchalwaysthought,—learninbrief.For it is not enough for them to dispute and argue, I know not whatimpious novelties: they even try to charge uswith asserting somethingnovel.ItisonthisaccountthatIreadhereSt.Cyprian,inorderthatyoumayperceivethattheorthodoxunderstandingandcatholicsenseresideinthewordswhichIhavebeenjustnowspeakingtoyou.Hewasaskedwhether an infant ought to be baptized before he was eight days old,seeing that by the ancient lawno infantwas allowed to be circumcisedunlesshewaseightdaysold.Aquestionarosefromthisastothedayofbaptism,—for concerning the origin of sin there was no question; andtherefore from this thingofwhich therewasnoquestion, thatquestionthathadarisenwassettled.”AndthenhereadtothemthepassageoutofCyprian’slettertoFidus,whichdeclaredthathe,andallthecouncilwith

him,unanimouslythoughtthatinfantsshouldbebaptizedattheearliestpossibleage, lesttheyshoulddieintheirinheritedsin,andsopassintoeternalpunishment.66Thesermonclosedwitha tenderwarning to theteachers of these strange doctrines: he might call them heretics withtruth, but hewill not; let the Church seek still their salvation, and notmournthemasdead;letthembeexhortedasfriends,notstrivenwithasenemies. “They disparage us,” he says, “we will bear it; let them notdisparage the rule [of faith], let themnot disparage the truth; let themnotcontradict theChurch,which labourseveryday for theremissionofinfants’ original sin. This thing is settled. The errant disputer may bebornewith inotherquestionsthathavenotbeenthoroughlycanvassed,that arenot yet settledby the full authority of theChurch,—their errorshouldbebornewith:itoughtnottoextendsofar,thattheyendeavourtoshake even the very foundation of theChurch!”Hehints that althoughthe patience hitherto exhibited towards them is “perhaps notblameworthy,” yet patience may cease to be a virtue, and becomeculpablenegligence:inthemeantime,however,hebegsthatthecatholicsshouldcontinueamicable,fraternal,placid,loving,longsuffering.

Augustinhimselfgivesusaviewoftheprogressofthecontroversyatthistimeinaletterwrittenin414.67ThePelagianshadeverywherescatteredtheseedsoftheirnewerror;andalthoughsome,byhisministryandthatofhisbrotherworkers,had,“byGod’smercy,”beencuredof theirpest,yet they still existed in Africa, especially about Carthage, and wereeverywhere propagating their opinions in subterraneous whispers, forfearofthejudgmentoftheChurch.Wherevertheywerenotrefuted,theywereseducingotherstotheirfollowing;andtheyweresospreadabroadthathedidnotknowwheretheywouldbreakoutnext.Nevertheless,hewasstillunwilling tobrand themasheretics,andwasmoredesirousofhealing them as sick members of the Church than of cutting them offfinallyastoodiseasedforcure.Jeromealsotellsusthatthepoisonwasspreading in both the East and theWest, andmentions particularly asseatswhereitshoweditself theislandsofRhodesandSicily.OfRhodesweknownothingfurther;butfromSicilyanappealcametoAugustinin414 from one Hilary,68setting forth that there were certain ChristiansaboutSyracusewhotaughtstrangedoctrines,andbeseechingAugustintohelp him in dealing with them. The doctrines were enumerated as

follows:“Theysay(1)thatmancanbewithoutsin,(2)andcaneasilykeepthecommandmentsofGodifhewill;(3)thatanunbaptizedinfant,ifheiscutoffbydeath,cannotjustlyperish,sinceheisbornwithoutsin;(4)thata richman that remains inhis riches cannotenter thekingdomofGod,excepthesellallthathehas;…(5)thatweoughtnottoswearatall;”(6)and,apparently,thattheChurchistobeinthisworldwithoutspotorblemish. Augustin suspected that these Sicilian disturbances were insomewaytheworkofCoelestius,andthereforeinhisanswer69informshiscorrespondentofwhathadbeendoneattheSynodofCarthage(412)againsthim.ThelongletterthathesentbackfollowstheinquiriesintheordertheywereputbyHilary.Tothefirsthereplies,insubstance,ashehad treated the samematter in the secondbookof the treatise,On theMeritsandForgivenessofSins,thatitwasopposedtoScripture,butwasless a heresy than the wholly unbearable opinion that this state ofsinlessnesscouldbeattainedwithoutGod’shelp.“Butwhentheysaythatfree will suffices to man for fulfilling the precepts of the Lord, eventhough unaided to goodworks byGod’s grace and the gift of theHolySpirit, it is to be altogether anathematized and detested with allexecrations. For those who assert this are inwardly alien from God’sgrace, because being ignorant of God’s righteousness, like the Jews ofwhomtheapostlespeaks,andwishingtoestablishtheirown,theyarenotsubject to God’s righteousness, since there is no fulfilment of the lawexcept love;andofcourse the loveofGod isshedabroad inourhearts,notbyourselves,norbytheforceofourownwill,butbytheHolyGhostwhoisgiventous.”Dealingnextwiththesecondpoint,hedriftsintothematter he hadmore fully developed in his work On the Spirit and theLetter.“FreewillavailsforGod’sworks,”hesays,“ifitbedivinelyaided,and this comes by humble seeking and doing; but when deserted bydivine aid,nomatterhowexcellentmaybe its knowledgeof the law, itwillbynomeanspossesssolidityofrighteousness,butonlytheinflationof ungodly pride and deadly arrogance. This is taught us by that sameLord’sPrayer;foritwouldbeanemptythingforustoaskGod‘Leadusnot into temptation,’ if thematterwas so placed in our power thatwewouldavailforfulfillingitwithoutanyaidfromHim.Forthisfreewillisfree in proportion as it is sound, but it is sound in proportion as it issubjecttodivinepityandgrace.Foritfaithfullyprays,saying,‘DirectmywaysaccordingtoThyword,andletnoiniquityreignoverme.’Forhow

isthatfreeoverwhichiniquityreigns?Butseewhoitisthatisinvokedbyit,inorderthatitmaynotreignoverit.Foritsaysnot,‘Directmywaysaccordingtofreewillbecausenoiniquityshallruleoverme,’but‘DirectmywaysaccordingtoThyword,andletnoiniquityruleoverme.’Itisaprayer,notapromise;itisaconfession,notaprofession;itisawishforfullfreedom,notaboastofpersonalpower.Foritisnoteveryone‘whoconfidesinhisownpower,’but‘everyonewhocallsonthenameofGod,thatshallbesaved.’‘ButhowshalltheycalluponHim,’hesays,‘inwhomthey have not believed?’ Accordingly, then, they who rightly believe,believeinordertocallonHiminwhomtheyhavebelieved,andtoavailfordoingwhattheyreceiveinthepreceptsofthelaw;sincewhatthelawcommands,faithpraysfor.”“God,therefore,commandscontinence,andgives continence; He commands by the law, He gives by grace; Hecommandsbytheletter,Hegivesbythespirit:forthelawwithoutgracemakesthetransgressiontoabound,andtheletterwithoutthespiritkills.He commands for this reason,—that we who have endeavoured to dowhatHe commands, and areworn out in ourweakness under the law,mayknowhowtoaskfortheaidofgrace;andifwehavebeenabletodoanygoodwork,thatwemaynotbeungratefultoHimwhoaidsus.”Theanswerto thethirdpoint traverses thegroundthatwas fullycovered inthe first book of the treatise On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,beginningbyopposingthePelagianstoPaulinRom.v.12–19:“Butwhentheysaythataninfant,cutoffbydeath,unbaptized,cannotperishsincehe is bornwithout sin,—it is not this that the apostle says; and I thinkthat it is better to believe the apostle than them.” The fourth and fifthquestions were new in this controversy; and it is not certain that theybelong properly to it, though the legalistic asceticism of the Pelagianleadersmay well have given rise to a demand on all Christians to sellwhat they had, and give to the poor. This one of the points, Augustintreatsatlength,pointingoutthatmanyofthesaintsofoldwererich,andthattheLordandHisapostlesalwayssospeakthattheircounselsavailtotherightuse,notthedestruction,ofwealth.Christiansoughtsotoholdtheir wealth that they are not held by it, and by nomeans prefer it toChrist.Equalgoodsenseandmildnessareshowninhistreatmentofthequestion concerning oaths,which he points outwere used by the LordandHis apostles, but advises tobeusedas little aspossible lest by thecustomoffrequentoathswelearntoswearlightly.Thequestionastothe

Church,hepassesoverashavingbeensufficientlytreatedinthecourseofhispreviousremarks.

To thenumberof thosewhohadbeenrescued fromPelagianismbyhisefforts,Augustinwasnowtohave thepleasureofadding twoothers, inwhomhe seems tohave takenmuchdelight.Timasius andJamesweretwoyoungmenofhonorablebirthandliberaleducation,whohad,bytheexhortationofPelagius,beenmovedtogiveupthehopethattheyhadinthis world, and enter upon the service of God in an asceticlife.70Naturally,theyhadturnedtohimforinstruction,andhadreceiveda book towhich they had given their study. Theymet somewherewithsomeofAugustin’swritings,however,andweredeeplyaffectedbywhathe said as to grace, andnowbegan to see that the teachingofPelagiusopposedthegraceofGodbywhichmanbecomesaChristian.Theygavetheirbook,therefore,toAugustin,sayingthatitwasPelagius’,andaskinghimforPelagius’sake,andforthesakeofthetruth,toanswerit.Thiswasdone, and the resulting book,OnNature andGrace, sent to the youngmen, who returned a letter of thanks71 in which they professed theirconversionfromtheirerror.Inthisbook,too,whichwaswrittenin415,AugustinrefrainedfrommentioningPelagiusbyname,72feelingitbettertosparethemanwhilenotsparinghiswritings.Buthetellsus,that,onreadingthebookofPelagiustowhichitwasananswer,itbecamecleartohim beyond any doubt that his teaching was distinctly anti-Christian;73andwhenspeakingofhisownbookprivatelytoafriend,heallows himself to call it “a considerable book against the heresy ofPelagius,whichhehadbeenconstrainedtowritebysomebrethrenwhomhe had persuaded to adopt his fatal error, denying the grace ofChrist.”74Thushisattitudetowardsthepersonsofthenewteacherswasbecomingevermoreandmorestrained,indespiteofhisfullrecognitionoftheexcellentmotivesthatmightliebehindtheir“zealnotaccordingtoknowledge.”ThistreatiseopenswitharecognitionofthezealofPelagius,which, as it burnsmost ardently against thosewho,when reproved forsin, take refuge in censuring their nature, Augustin compares with theheathen view as expressed in Sallust’s saying, “the human race falselycomplains of its own nature,”75 and which he charges with not beingaccordingtoknowledge,andproposestoopposebyanequalzealagainstallattemptstorenderthecrossofChristofnoneeffect.Hethengivesa

brief but excellent summary of the more important features of thecatholicdoctrineconcerningnatureandgrace(2–7).OpeningtheworkofPelagius,whichhadbeenplacedinhishands,heexamineshisdoctrineofsin, its nature and effects. Pelagius, he points out, draws a distinction,soundenough in itself,betweenwhat is “possible”andwhat is “actual,”but applies it unsoundly to sin, when he says that every man has thepossibility of being without sin (8–9), and therefore withoutcondemnation.Notso,saysAugustin;aninfantwhodiesunbaptizedhasnopossibilityofsalvationopentohim;and themanwhohas livedanddiedinalandwhereitwasimpossibleforhimtohearthenameofChrist,hashadnopossibilityopentohimofbecomingrighteousbynatureandfreewill.Ifthisbenotso,Christisdeadinvain,sinceallmenthenmighthave accomplished their salvation, even if Christ had never died (10).Pelagius, moreover, he shows, exhibits a tendency to deny the sinfulcharacterofallsinsthatareimpossibletoavoid,andsotreatsofsinsofignoranceastoshowthatheexcusesthem(13–19).Whenhearguesthatno sin, because it is not a substance, can change nature, which is asubstance, Augustin replies that this destroys the Saviour’s work,—forhowcanHesave fromsins if sinsdonot corrupt?And,again, if anactcannotinjureasubstance,howcanabstentionfromfood,whichisamereact,kill thebody? In the samewaysin isnota substance;butGod isasubstance,—yea,theheightofsubstance,andonlytruesustenanceofthereasonable creature; and the consequence of departure fromHim is tothe soulwhat refusalof food is to thebody (22).ToPelagius’ assertionthatsincannotbepunishedbymoresin,Augustinrepliesthattheapostlethinks differently (Rom. i. 21–31). Then putting his finger on themainpoint in controversy, he quotes the Scriptures as declaring the presentconditionofmantobethatofspiritualdeath.“Thetruththendesignatesas dead thosewhom thisman declares to be unable to be damaged orcorrupted by sin,—because, forsooth, he has discovered sin to be nosubstance!” (25). It was by free will thatman passed into this state ofdeath; but a deadman needs something else to revive him,—he needsnothinglessthanaVivifier.Butofvivifyinggrace,Pelagiusknewnothing;andbyknowingnothingofaVivifier,heknowsnothingofaSaviour;butrather by making nature of itself able to be sinless, he glorifies theCreator at the expense of the Saviour (39). Next is examined Pelagius’contentionthatmanysaintsareenumeratedintheScripturesashaving

lived sinlessly in thisworld.While declining to discuss the question offact as to the Virgin Mary (42), Augustin opposes to the rest thedeclarationofJohnin1Johni.8,asfinal,butstillpausestoexplainwhytheScripturesdonotmentionthesinsofall,andtocontendthatallwhoeverweresavedundertheOldTestamentortheNew,weresavedbythesacrificial death of Christ, and by faith in Him (40–50). Thus we arebrought, asAugustin says, to the core of the question,which concerns,notthefactofsinlessnessinanyman,butman’sabilitytobesinless.ThisabilityPelagiusaffirmsofallmen,andAugustindeniesofall“unlesstheyarejustifiedbythegraceofGodthroughourLordJesusChristandHimcrucified”(51).Thus,thewholediscussionisaboutgrace,whichPelagiusdoesnotadmitinanytruesense,butplacesonlyinthenaturethatGodhasmade (52).We are next invited to attend to another distinction ofPelagius’,inwhichhediscriminatessharplybetweenthenaturethatGodhasmade,thecrownofwhichisfreewill,andtheusethatmanmakesofthis freewill. The endowment of freewill is a “capacity;” it is, becausegiven by God in our making, a necessity of nature, and not in man’spowertohaveornothave.Itistherightuseofitonly,whichmanhasinhispower.Thisanalysis,Pelagiusillustratesatlength,byappealingtothedifferencebetween thepossessionanduseof thevariousbodily senses.Theabilitytosee,forinstance,hesays,isanecessityofournature;wedonotmakeit,wecannothelphaving it; it isoursonlytouse it.Augustincriticises thispresentationof thematterwithgreatsharpness (althoughheisnotaversetotheanalysisitself),—showingtheinapplicabilityoftheillustrationsused,—for,heasks,isitnotpossibleforustoblindourselves,andsonolongerhavetheabilitytosee?andwouldnotmanyamanliketocontrolthe“use”ofhis“capacity”tohearwhenascreechysawisintheneighbourhood?(55);andaswellthefalsityofthecontentionillustrated,since Pelagius has ignored the fall, and, even were that not so, has soignoredtheneedofGod’saidforallgood,inanystateofbeing,astodenyit (56).Moreover, it is altogethera fallacy,Augustinargues, to contendthat men have the “ability” to make every use we can conceive of ourfaculties. We cannot wish for unhappiness; God cannot deny Himself(57);andjustso,inacorruptnature,themerepossessionofafacultyofchoicedoesnotimplytheabilitytousethatfacultyfornotsinning.“Ofaman, indeed, who has his legs strong and sound, it may be saidadmissibly enough, ‘whether he will or not, he has the capacity of

walking;’butifhislegsbebroken,howevermuchhemaywish,hehasnotthe ‘capacity.’Thenatureofwhichourauthorspeaksiscorrupted”(57).What,then,canhemeanbysayingthat,whetherwewillornot,wehavethecapacityofnotsinning,—astatementsooppositetoPaul’sinRom.vii.15?SomespaceisnextgiventoanattemptedrebuttalbyPelagiusofthetestimonyofGal.v.17,onthegroundthatthe“flesh”theredoesnotreferto the baptized (60–70); and then the passages are examined whichPelagiushadquotedagainstAugustinoutofearlierwriters,—Lactantius(71),Hilary(72),Ambrose(75),JohnofConstantinople(76),Xystus,—ablunder of Pelagius, who quoted from a Pythagorean philosopher,mistaking him for the Roman bishop Sixtus (57), Jerome (78), andAugustin himself (80). All these writers, Augustin shows, admitted theuniversalsinfulnessofman,—andespeciallyhehimselfhadconfessedthenecessity of grace in the immediate context of the passage quoted byPelagius.Thetreatisecloses(82sq.)withanoblepanegyriconthatlovewhichGodshedsabroad in theheart,by theHolyGhost,andbywhichalonewecanbemadekeepersofthelaw.

ThetreatiseOnNatureandGracewasasyetunfinished,whentheover-busy76scriptoriumatHippowasinvadedbyanotheryoungmanseekinginstruction.ThistimeitwasazealousyoungpresbyterfromtheremotestpartofSpain, “from the shoreof theocean,”—PaulusOrosiusbyname,whose pious soul had been afflicted with grievous wounds by thePriscillianist andOrigenistheresies thathadbrokenout inhis country,andwhohadcomewitheagerhastetoAugustin,onhearingthathecouldget from him the instruction which he needed for confuting them.Augustinseemstohavegivenhimhisheartatonce;and,feelingtoolittleinformed as to the special heresies which he wished to be prepared tocontrovert,persuadedhimtogoontoPalestinetobetaughtbyJerome,and gavehim introductionswhichdescribedhimas one “who is in thebondofcatholicpeaceabrother, inpointofageason,andinhonourafellow-presbyter,—a man of quick understanding, ready speech, andburningzeal.”HisdeparturetoPalestinegaveAugustinanopportunitytoconsultwithJeromeontheonepointthathadbeenraisedinthePelagiancontroversyonwhichhehadnotbeenabletoseelight.ThePelagianshadearlyargued,77 that, if souls are createdanew formenat theirbirth, itwould be unjust in God to impute Adam’s sin to them. And Augustin

foundhimselfunableeithertoprovethatsoulsaretransmitted(traduced,asthephraseis),ortoshowthatitwouldnotinvolveGodininjusticetomake a soul only to make it subject to a sin committed by another.Jeromehadalreadyputhimselfonrecordasabeliever inbothoriginalsin and the creation of souls at the time of birth. Augustin feared thelogicalconsequencesofthisassertion,andyetwasunabletorefuteit.Hethereforeseizedthisoccasiontosendalongtreatiseontheoriginofthesoul to his friend, with the request that he would consider the subjectanew,andanswerhisdoubts.78Inthistreatisehestatedthathewasfullypersuadedthat thesoulhadfallen intosin,butbynofaultofGodorofnature, but of its own free will; and asked when could the soul of aninfanthavecontractedtheguilt,which,unlessthegraceofChristshouldcometoitsrescuebybaptism,wouldinvolveitincondemnation,ifGod(asJeromeheld,andashewaswillingtoholdwithhim,ifthisdifficultycouldbe clearedup)makeseach soul for each individualat the timeofbirth?He professed himself embarrassed on such a supposition by thepenalsufferingsofinfants,thepainstheyenduredinthislife,andmuchmore the danger they are in of eternal damnation, into which theyactuallygounlesssavedbybaptism.Godisgood,just,omnipotent:how,then, can we account for the fact that “in Adam all die,” if souls arecreated afresh for each birth? “If new souls are made for men,” heaffirms, “individually at their birth, I donot see, on theonehand, thattheycouldhaveanysinwhileyetininfancy;nordoIbelieve,ontheotherhand,thatGodcondemnsanysoulwhichHeseestohavenosin;”“andyet,whoeversaysthatthosechildrenwhodepartoutofthislifewithoutpartaking of the sacrament of baptism, shall be made alive in Christ,certainlycontradictstheapostolicdeclaration,”and“hethatisnotmadealiveinChristmustnecessarilyremainunderthecondemnationofwhichtheapostlesaysthatbytheoffenceofone,judgmentcameuponallmento condemnation.” “Wherefore,” he adds to his correspondent, “if thatopinionofyoursdoesnotcontradictthisfirmlygroundedarticleoffaith,let itbeminealso;but if itdoes, let itno longerbeyours.”79So far asobtaining lightwas concerned,Augustinmight have sparedhimself thepain of this composition: Jerome simply answered80 that he had noleisuretoreplytothequestionssubmittedtohim.ButOrosius’missiontoPalestinewasbigwithconsequences.Oncethere,hebecametheaccuserof Pelagius before John of Jerusalem, and the occasion, at least, of the

trialsofPelagiusinPalestineduringthesummerandwinterof415whichissuedsodisastrously,andusheredinanewphaseoftheconflict.

Meanwhile,however,AugustinwasignorantofwhatwasgoingonintheEast,andhadhisminddirectedagaintoSicily.AboutayearhadpassedsincehehadsentthitherhislonglettertoHilary.NowhisconjecturethatCoelestius was in some way at the bottom of the Sicilian outbreak,received confirmation from a paper which certain catholic brethrenbrought out of Sicily, andwhichwashanded toAugustinby two exiledSpanish bishops, Eutropius and Paul. This paper bore thetitle,DefinitionsAscribedtoCoelestius,andpresentedinternalevidence,instyleandthought,ofbeingcorrectlysoascribed.81Itconsistedofthreeparts,inthefirstofwhichwerecollectedaseriesofbriefandcompressed“definitions,” or “ratiocinations” as Augustin calls them, in which theauthortriestoplacethecatholicsinalogicaldilemma,andtoforcethemtoadmitthatmancanliveinthisworldwithoutsin.Inthesecondpart,headducedcertainpassagesofScriptureindefenceofhisdoctrine.Inthethird part, he undertook to deal with the texts that had been quotedagainsthiscontention,not,however,byexaminingintotheirmeaning,orseeking to explain them in the sense of his theory, but simply bymatchingthemwithotherswhichhethoughtmadeforhim.Augustinatonce(abouttheendof415)wroteatreatiseinanswertothis,whichbearsthetitleofOnthePerfectionofMan’sRighteousness.Thedistributionofthe matter in this work follows that of the treatise to which it is ananswer.Firstofall (1–16), the “ratiocinations”are takenuponebyoneandbrieflyanswered.Astheyallconcernsin,andhavefortheirobjecttoprovethatmancannotbeaccountedasinnerunlessheisable,inhisownpower,whollytoavoidsin,—thatis,toprovethataplenarynaturalabilityisthenecessarybasisofresponsibility,—Augustinarguespercontrathatman can entail a sinfulness on himself for which and for the deeds ofwhichheremainsresponsible, thoughhe isno longerable toavoidsin;thusadmittingthatfortherace,plenaryabilitymuststandattherootofsinfulness.Next(17–22)hediscussesthepassageswhichCoelestiushadadvanced in defence of his teachings, viz., (1) passages in which Godcommandsmentobewithoutsin,whichAugustinmeetsbysaying thatthe point is,whether these commands are to be fulfilledwithoutGod’said, in thebodyof thisdeath,whileabsent fromtheLord (17–20);and

(2) passages in which God declares that His commandments are notgrievous, which Augustin meets by explaining that all God’scommandmentsarefulfilledonlybyLove,whichfindsnothinggrievous;andthatthisloveisshedabroadinourheartsbytheHolyGhost,withoutwhom we have only fear, to which the commandments are not onlygrievous, but impossible. Lastly, Augustin patiently follows Coelestiusthroughhisodd“oppositionsoftexts,”explainingcarefullyallthathehadadduced, in an orthodox sense (23–42). In closing, he takes upCoelestius’statement,that“itisquitepossibleformannottosineveninword,ifGodsowill,”pointingouthowheavoidssaying“ifGodgivehimHis help,” and then proceeds to distinguish carefully between thedifferingassertionsofsinlessnessthatmaybemade.Tosaythatanymaneverlived,orwilllive,withoutneedingforgiveness,istocontradictRom.v.12,andmust implythathedoesnotneedaSaviour,againstMatt. ix.12, 13. To say that after his sins have been forgiven, any one has everremained without sin, contradicts 1 John i. 8 and Matt. vi. 12. Yet, ifGod’shelpbeallowed,thiscontentionisnotsowickedastheother;andthe great heresy is to deny the necessity of God’s constant grace, forwhichwepraywhenwesay,“Leadusnotintotemptation.”

Tidingswerenow (416)beginning to reachAfricaofwhatwasdoing inthe East. There was diligently circulated everywhere, and came intoAugustin’shands,anepistleofPelagius’own“filledwithvanity,”inwhichheboasted that fourteenbishopshad approvedhis assertion that “mancan livewithout sin, and easily keep the commandments if hewishes,”andhadthus“shut themouthofopposition inconfusion,”and“brokenupthewholebandofwickedconspiratorsagainsthim.”Soonafterwardsacopyofan“apologeticalpaper,”inwhichPelagiususedtheauthorityofthe Palestinian bishops against his adversaries, not altogether withoutdisingenuousness,was sent byhim toAugustin through thehands of acommon acquaintance, Charus by name. It was not accompanied,however,byanyletterfromPelagius;andAugustinwiselyrefrainedfrommaking public use of it. TowardsmidsummerOrosius camewithmoreauthentic information, and bearing letters fromJerome andHeros andLazarus.Itwasapparentlybeforehiscomingthatacontroversialsermonwaspreached,onlyafragmentofwhichhascomedowntous.82Sofaraswe can learn from the extant part, its subject seems to have been the

relation of prayer to Pelagianism; and what we have, opens with astrikinganecdote:“Whenthesetwopetitions—‘Forgiveusourdebtsaswealsoforgiveourdebtors,’and‘Leadusnotintotemptation’—areobjectedto the Pelagians, what do you think they reply? I was horrified, mybrethren,whenIheardit.Ididnot,indeed,hearitwithmyownears;butmy holy brother and fellow-bishopUrbanus, who used to be presbyterhere,andnowisbishopofSicca,”whenhewasinRome,andwasarguingwith one who held these opinions, pressed himwith the weight of theLord’sPrayer,and“whatdoyouthinkherepliedtohim?‘WeaskGod,’hesaid,‘nottoleadusintotemptation,lestweshouldsuffersomethingthatisnotinourpower,—lestIshouldbethrownfrommyhorse;lestIshouldbreakmyleg;lestarobbershouldslayme,andthelike.Forthesethings,’hesaid,‘arenotinmypower;butforovercomingthetemptationsofmysins, I both have ability if I wish to use it, and am not able to receiveGod’shelp.’83Yousee,brethren,”thegoodbishopadds,“howmalignantthisheresyis:youseehowithorrifiesallofyou.Haveacarethatyoubenottakenbyit.”HethenpressesthegeneraldoctrineofprayerasprovingthatallgoodthingscomefromGod,whoseaidisalwaysnecessarytous,andisalwaysattainablebyprayer;andclosesasfollows:“Consider,then,thesethings,mybrethren,whenanyonecomestoyouandsaystoyou,‘What, then, arewe todo ifwehavenothing in ourpower, unlessGodgivesallthings?Godwillnotthencrownus,butHewillcrownHimself.’You already see that this comes from that vein: it is a vein, but it haspoisoninit;itisstrickenbytheserpent;itisnotsound.ForwhatSatanisdoing to-day is seeking to cast out from the Church by the poison ofheretics, just as he once cast out from Paradise by the poison of theserpent.Letnoone tell you that thisonewasacquittedby thebishops:there was an acquittal, but it was his confession, so to speak, hisamendment, that was acquitted. For what he said before the bishopsseemed catholic; but what he wrote in his books, the bishops whopronouncedtheacquittalwereignorantof.Andperchancehewasreallyconvinced and amended. For we ought not to despair of themanwhoperchancepreferredtobeunitedtothecatholicfaith,andfledtoitsgraceandaid.Perchancethiswaswhathappened.But,inanyevent,itwasnottheheresythatwasacquitted,butthemanwhodeniedtheheresy.”84

The comingofOrosiusmusthavedispelledany lingeringhope that the

meaning of the council’s findingwas that Pelagius had really recanted.Councils were immediately assembled at Carthage andMileve, and thedocumentswhichOrosiushadbroughtwerereadbeforethem.Weknownothingof theirproceedingsexceptwhatwecangatherfromthe letterswhich they sent85 to Innocent at Rome, seeking his aid in theircondemnation of the heresy now so nearly approved in Palestine. Tothesetwoofficial letters,Augustin, incompanywith fourotherbishops,added a third private letter,86 in which they took care that Innocentshould be informed on all the points necessary to his decision. Thisimportant letter begins almost abruptly with a characterization ofPelagianismasinimicaltothegraceofGod,andhasgraceforitssubjectthroughout. It accounts for the action of the Palestinian synod, asgrowing out of a misunderstanding of Pelagius’ words, in which heseemed to acknowledge grace,which these catholic bishopsunderstoodnaturally tomean that grace of which they read in the Scriptures, andwhich they were accustomed to preach to their people,—the grace bywhichwearejustifiedfrominiquity,andsavedfromweakness;whilehemeant nothing more than that by which we are given free will at ourcreation. “For if these bishops had understood that hemeant only thatgracewhichwehaveincommonwiththeungodlyandwithall,alongwithwhomwearemen,whilehedeniedthatbywhichweareChristiansandthesonsofGod,theynotonlycouldnothavepatientlylistenedtohim,—they could not even have borne him before their eyes.” The letter thenproceedstopointoutthedifferencebetweengraceandnaturalgifts,andbetweengraceandthe law,andtotraceoutPelagius’meaningwhenhespeaksofgrace,andwhenhecontends thatmancanbesinlesswithoutany really inward aid. It suggests that Pelagius be sent for, andthoroughly examined by Innocent, or that he should be examined byletterorinhiswritings;andthathebenotcleareduntilheunequivocallyconfessedthegraceofGodinthecatholicsense,andanathematizedthefalseteachingsinthebooksattributedtohim.ThebookofPelagiuswhichwasansweredinthetreatiseOnNatureandGracewasenclosed,withthisletter,with themost important passagesmarked: and itwas suggestedthatmore was involved in thematter than the fate of one singleman,Pelagius,who,perhaps,wasalreadybroughttoabettermind;thefateofmultitudesalreadyledastray,oryettobedeceivedbythesefalseviews,wasindanger.

Ataboutthissametime(417),thetirelessbishopsentashortletter87toaHilary,whoseemstobeHilaryofNorbonne,whichisinterestingfromitsundertakingtoconveyacharacterizationofPelagianismtoonewhowasasyetignorantofit.ItthusbringsoutwhatAugustinconceivedtobeitsessentialfeatures.“Anefforthasbeenmade,”weread,“toraiseacertainnewheresy,inimicaltothegraceofChrist,againsttheChurchofChrist.It is not yet openly separated from theChurch. It is theheresy ofmenwho dare to attribute so much power to human weakness that theycontendthatthisonlybelongstoGod’sgrace,—thatwearecreatedwithfree will and the possibility of not sinning, and that we receive God’scommandments which are to be fulfilled by us; but, for keeping andfulfillingthesecommandments,wedonotneedanydivineaid.Nodoubt,the remissionof sins isnecessary forus; forwehavenopower to rightwhatwehavedonewrong inthepast.But foravoidingandovercomingsinsinthefuture,forconqueringalltemptationswithvirtue,thehumanwill is sufficient by its natural capacitywithout any aid ofGod’s grace.AndneitherdoinfantsneedthegraceoftheSaviour,soastobeliberatedby it through His baptism from perdition, seeing that they havecontractednocontagionofdamnationfromAdam.”88HeengagesHilaryin the destruction of this heresy, which ought to be “concordantlycondemned and anathematized by all who have hope in Christ,” as a“pestiferous impiety,” and excuses himself for not undertaking its fullrefutationinabriefletter.Amuchmoreimportantletterwassentoff,ataboutthesametime,toJohnofJerusalem,whohadconductedthefirstPalestinianexaminationofPelagius,andhadborneaprominentpart inthesynodatDiospolis.HesentwithitacopyofPelagius’bookwhichhehadexamined inhis treatiseOnNatureandGrace,aswellasa copyofthat reply itself, and asked John to send him an authentic copy of theproceedings at Diospolis. He took this occasion seriously to warn hisbrotherbishopagainstthewilesofPelagius,andbeggedhim,ifhelovedPelagius,toletmenseethathedidnotsolovehimastobedeceivedbyhim.Hepointedoutthatinthebooksentwiththeletter,PelagiuscallednothingthegraceofGodexceptnature;andthatheaffirmed,andevenvehementlycontended,thatbyfreewillalone,humannaturewasabletosuffice for itself for working righteousness and keeping all God’scommandments;whenceanyonecouldseethatheopposedthegraceofGodofwhichtheapostlesspokeinRom.vii.24,25,andcontradicted,as

well, all theprayers andbenedictionsof theChurchbywhichblessingswere sought formen fromGod’s grace. “If you lovePelagius, then,” hecontinued, “let him, too, love you as himself,—nay,more than himself;andlethimnotdeceiveyou.ForwhenyouhearhimconfessthegraceofGodandtheaidofGod,youthinkhemeanswhatyoumeanbyit.ButlethimbeopenlyaskedwhetherhedesiresthatweshouldprayGodthatwesinnot;whetherheproclaimstheassistinggraceofGod,withoutwhichwewoulddomuchevil;whetherhebelievesthatevenchildrenwhohavenotyetbeenable todogoodorevilarenevertheless,onaccountofonemanbywhomsinenteredintotheworld,sinnersinhim,andinneedofbeingdeliveredby thegraceofChrist.” Ifheopenlydeniessuch things,Augustinwouldbepleasedtohearofit.

Thuswesee thegreatbishopsitting inhis libraryatHippo,placinghishandsonthetwoendsoftheworld.Thatnothingmaybelackingtothepictureofhisuniversalactivity,wehaveanotherletterfromhim,comingfromaboutthissametime,thatexhibitshiscarefortheindividualswhohad placed themselves in some sort under his tutelage. Among therefugeesfromRomeintheterribletimeswhenAlaricwasasecondtimethreateningthecity,wasafamilyofnoblewomen,—Proba,Juliana,andDemetrias,89—grandmother,mother, and daughter,—who, finding anasylum in Africa, gave themselves to God’s service, and sought thefriendshipandcounselofAugustin. In413 thegranddaughter“took theveil”undercircumstancesthatthrilledtheChristianworld,andbroughtout lettersofcongratulationandadvicefromAugustinandJerome,andalso fromPelagius.This letterofPelagius seemsnot tohave fallen intoAugustin’swayuntilnow(416):hewassodisturbedbyitthathewrotetoJuliana a long letter warning her against its evil counsels.90 It was soshrewdly phrased, that, at first sight, Augustin was himself almostpersuadedthatitdidsomehowacknowledgethegraceofGod;butwhenhecompareditwithothersofPelagius’writings,hesawthathere,too,hewasusing ambiguous phrases in a non-natural sense. The object of hisletter(inwhichAlypiusisconjoined,asjointauthor)toJulianaistowarnherandherholydaughteragainstallopinionsthatopposedthegraceofGod,andespeciallyagainstthecovertteachingoftheletterofPelagiustoDemetrias.91 “In thisbook,”he says, “were it lawful for suchanone toreadit,avirginofChristwouldreadthatherholinessandallherspiritual

riches are to spring fromnoother source thanherself; and thusbeforesheattainstotheperfectionofblessedness,shewouldlearn—whichmayGodforbid!—tobeungrateful toGod.”Then,afterquoting thewordsofPelagius,inwhichhedeclaresthat“earthlyrichescamefromothers,butyourspiritualrichesnoonecanhaveconferredonyoubutyourself; forthese, then, you are justly praised, for these you are deservedly to bepreferred to others,—for they can exist only from yourself and inyourself,”hecontinues:“Farbeitfromanyvirgintolistentostatementslike these. Every virgin of Christ understands the innate poverty of thehumanheart,andthereforedeclinestobeadornedotherwisethanbythegifts of her spouse.…Let her not listen to him who says, ‘No one canconferthemonyoubutyourself,andtheycannotexistexcept fromyouand in you:’ but to him who says, ‘We have this treasure in earthenvessels, that theexcellencyof thepowermaybeofGod,andnotofus.’Andbenotsurprisedthatwespeakofthesethingsasyours,andnotfromyou;forwespeakofdailybreadas‘ours,’butyetadd‘giveittous,’lestitshouldbethoughtitwasfromourselves.”Again,hewarnsherthatgraceis notmere knowledge anymore thanmere nature; and that Pelagius,evenwhenusingtheword“grace,”meansnoinwardorefficientaid,butmerenatureorknowledgeorforgivenessofpastsins;andbeseecheshernot to forget the God of all grace from whom (Wisdom i. 20, 21)Demetriashadthatveryvirgincontinencewhichwassojustlyherboast.

Withtheopeningof417,cametheanswersfromInnocenttotheAfricanletters.92 And although they were marred by much boastful languageconcerningthedignityofhissee,whichcouldnotbutbedistastefultotheAfricans,theyadmirablyservedtheirpurposeinthesatisfactorymannerinwhichthey,ontheonehand,assertedthenecessityofthe“dailygrace,andhelpofGod,”forourgoodliving,and,ontheother,determinedthatthePelagianshaddenied thisgrace,anddeclared their leadersPelagiusand Coelestius deprived of the communion of the Church until theyshould“recovertheirsensesfromthewilesoftheDevilbywhomtheyareheld captive according to his will.” Augustin may be pardoned forsupposingthatacondemnationpronouncedbytwoprovincialsynodsinAfrica,andheartilyconcurredinbytheRomanbishop,whohadalreadyat Jerusalem been recognized as in some sort the fit arbiter of thisWestern dispute, should settle thematter. If Pelagius had been before

jubilant,Augustinfoundthisasuitabletimeforhisrejoicing.

About the same timewith Innocent’s letters, the official proceedings ofthesynodofDiospolisat last reachedAfrica,andAugustin lostno time(earlyin417)inpublishingafullaccountandexaminationofthem,thusprovidinguswith that inestimableboon, a full contemporaryhistoryofthe chief events connected with the controversy up to this time. Thistreatise,whichisaddressedtoAurelius,bishopofCarthage,openswithabrief explanation ofAugustin’s delay heretofore, in discussingPelagius’defence of himself in Palestine, as due to his not having received theofficialcopyoftheProceedingsoftheCouncilatDiospolis(1–2a).ThenAugustinproceedsatonce todiscussat length thedoingsof the synod,pointbypoint,followingtheofficialrecordstepbystep(2b-45).Hetreatsat largehereelevenitemsintheindictment,withPelagius’answersandthesynod’sdecision,showingthatinallofthemPelagiuseitherexplainedawayhis heresy, taking advantage of the ignorance of the judges of hisbooks,or elseopenly repudiatedoranathematized it.When the twelfthitem of the indictment was reached (41b-43), Augustin shows that thesynodwassoindignantatitscharacter(itchargedPelagiuswithteachingthat men cannot be sons of God unless they are sinless, and withcondoningsinsofignorance,andwithassertingthatchoiceisnotfreeifitdependsonGod’shelp,andthatpardonisgivenaccordingtomerit),that,withoutwaiting for Pelagius’ answer, it condemned the statement, andPelagius at once repudiated and anathematized it (43). How could thesynodact in such circumstances,heasks, exceptbyacquitting themanwho condemned the heresy? After quoting the final judgment of thesynod (44),Augustinbriefly characterizes it and its effect (45) asbeingindeed all that could be asked of the judges, but of nomoralweight tothose better acquainted than they were with Pelagius’ character andwritings. Inaword, theyapprovedhis answers to them,as indeed theyoughttohavedone;buttheybynomeansapproved,butboththeyandhecondemned,hisheresiesasexpressedinhiswritings.Tothisstatement,Augustin appends an account of the origin of Pelagianism, and of hisrelations to it from the beginning, which has the very highest value ashistory(46–49);andthenspeaksofthecharacteranddoubtfulpracticesofPelagius(50–58),returningattheend(59–65)toathoroughcanvassofthevalueoftheacquittalwhichheobtainedbysuchdoubtfulpractices

atthesynod.HecloseswithanindignantaccountoftheoutrageswhichthePelagianshadperpetratedonJerome(66).

Thisvaluable treatise isnot,however, theonlyaccountof thehistoricaloriginofPelagianismthatwehave,fromAugustin’shands.SoonafterthedeathofInnocent(March12,417),hefoundoccasiontowriteaverylongletter93tothevenerablePaulinusofNola,inwhichhesummarizedboththe history of and the arguments against this “worldly philosophy.”HebeginsbysayingthatheknowsPaulinushaslovedPelagiusasaservantofGod,butisignorantinwhatwayhenowloveshim.Forhehimselfnotonly has loved him, but loves him still, but in different ways. Once helovedhimasapparentlyabrotherinthetruefaith:nowheloveshiminthe longing that God will by His mercy free him from his noxiousopinions against God’s grace. He is not merely following report in sospeaking of him: no doubt report did for a long time represent this ofhim,buthegavethe lessheedto itbecausereport isaccustomedto lie.Butabookofhis94at lastcame intohishands,which leftnoroomfordoubt,sinceinitheassertedrepeatedlythatGod’sgraceconsistedofthegifttomanofthecapacitytowillandact,andthusreducedittowhatiscommon to pagans and Christians, to the ungodly and godly, to thefaithfuland infidels.He thengivesabriefaccountof themeasures thathadbeentakenagainstPelagius,andpassesontoatreatmentofthemainmattersinvolvedinthecontroversy,—allofwhichgatheraroundtheonemagicwordof“thegraceofGod.”Hearguesfirstthatwearealllost,—inonemassandconcretionofperdition,—andthatGod’sgracealonemakesus to differ. It is therefore folly to talk of deserving the beginnings ofgrace.Norcanafaithfulmansaythathemeritsjustificationbyhisfaith,although it is given to faith; foratoncehehears thewords, “whathastthouthatthoudidstnotreceive?”andlearnsthateventhedeservingfaithisthegiftofGod.Butif,peeringintoGod’sinscrutablejudgments,wegofarther,andaskwhy, fromthemassofAdam,allofwhichundoubtedlyhasfallenfromoneintocondemnation,thisvesselismadeforhonor,thatfordishonor,—wecanonlysaythatwedonotknowmorethanthefact;andGod’sreasonsarehidden,butHisactsarejust.CertainitisthatPaulteachesthatalldieinAdam;andthatGodfreelychooses,byasovereignelection,someoutof thatsinfulmass, toeternal life;andthatHeknewfromthebeginningtowhomHewouldgivethisgrace,andsothenumber

ofthesaintshasalwaysbeenfixed,towhomhegivesinduetimetheHolyGhost. Others, no doubt, are called; but no others are elect, or “calledaccording to his purpose.” On no other body of doctrines, can it bepossiblyexplainedthatsomeinfantsdieunbaptized,andarelost.IsGodunjusttopunishinnocentchildrenwitheternalpains?AndaretheynotinnocentiftheyarenotpartakersofAdam’ssin?Andcantheybesavedfrom that, save by the undeserved, and that is the gratuitous, grace ofGod? The account of the Proceedings at the Palestinian synod is thentaken up, and Pelagius’ position in his latest writings is quoted andexamined.“Butwhysaymore?”headds.…“Oughttheynot,sincetheycallthemselvesChristians,tobemorecarefulthantheJewsthattheydonotstumbleatthestoneofoffence,whiletheysubtlydefendnatureandfreewill just like philosophers of this world who vehemently strive to bethought,ortothinkthemselves, toattainforthemselvesahappylifebythe force of their ownwill? Let them take care, then, that they do notmakethecrossofChristofnoneeffectbythewisdomofword(1Cor. i.17),andthusstumbleattherockofoffence.Forhumannature,evenifithadremainedinthatintegrityinwhichitwascreated,couldbynomeanshave served its ownCreatorwithoutHis aid. Since then,withoutGod’sgrace it could not keep the safety it had received, how can it withoutGod’s grace repair what it has lost?” With this profound view of theDivine immanence, and of the necessity ofHismoving grace in all theacts of all his creatures, as over against the heathen-deistic view ofPelagius, Augustin touched in reality the deepest point in the wholecontroversy,andillustratedtheessentialharmonyofalltruth.95

The sharpest period of the whole conflict was now drawingon.96Innocent’sdeathbroughtZosimustothechairof theRomanSee,andtheeffortswhichhemadetore-instatePelagiusandCoelestiusnowbegan(September,417).HowlittletheAfricanswerelikelytoyieldtohisremarkable demands, may be seen from a sermon97 which Augustinpreachedonthe23dofSeptember,whileZosimus’letter(writtenonthe21stofSeptember)wason itsway toAfrica.Thepreacher tookhis textfrom John vi. 54–66. “We hear here,” he said, “the true Master, theDivine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending to us our ransom,His blood. He calls His body food, and His blood drink; and, incommendingsuchfoodanddrink,Hesays,‘UnlessyoueatMyflesh,and

drinkMyblood, ye shall haveno life in you.’What, then, is this eatinganddrinking,buttolive?Eatlife,drinklife;youshallhavelife,andlifeiswhole.Thiswillcome,—thatis,thebodyandbloodofChristwillbelifetoevery one,—if what is taken visibly in the sacrament is in real truthspiritually eatenand spirituallydrunk.But thatHemight teachus thateventobelieveinHimisofgift,notofmerit,Hesaid,‘NoonecomestoMe,excepttheFatherwhosentMedrawhim.’Drawhim,notleadhim.This violence is done to the heart, not the flesh.Why do youmarvel?Believe, and you come; love, and you are drawn. Think not that this isharsh and injurious violence; it is soft, it is sweet; it is sweetness itselfthat draws you. Is not the sheep drawnwhen the succulent herbage isshowntohim?AndIthinkthatthereisnocompulsionofthebody,butanassemblingof thedesire.So, too,doyoucometoChrist;wishnottoplanalongjourney,—whenyoubelieve,thenyoucome.FortoHimwhoiseverywhere,onecomesbyloving,notbytakingavoyage.Nodoubt,ifyoucomenot,itisyourwork;butifyoucome,itisGod’swork.Andevenafteryouhavecome,andarewalkingintherightway,becomenotproud,lest you perish from it: ‘happy are those that confide in Him,’ notinthemselves,butinHim.Wearesavedbygrace,notofourselves:it isthegiftofGod.WhydoIcontinuallysaythistoyou?Itisbecausetherearemenwhoareungratefultograce,andattributemuchtounaidedandwoundednature.Itistruethatmanreceivedgreatpowersoffreewillathiscreation;buthelostthembysinning.Hehasfallenintodeath;hehasbeenmadeweak;hehasbeen lefthalfdead in theway,byrobbers; thegoodSamaritanhasliftedhimupuponhisass,andbornehimtotheinn.Why should we boast? But I am told that it is enough that sins areremittedinbaptism.Butdoestheremovalofsintakeawayweaknesstoo?What!will you not see that after pouring the oil and thewine into thewoundsof themanlefthalfdeadbytherobbers,hemuststillgototheinnwherehisweaknessmaybehealed?Nay,solongasweareinthislifewebearafragilebody;it isonlyafterweareredeemedfromcorruptionthatweshallfindnosin,andreceivethecrownofrighteousness.Grace,that was hidden in the Old Testament, is now manifest to the wholeworld.EventhoughtheJewmaybeignorantofit,whyshouldChristiansbeenemiesofgrace?whypresumptuousof themselves?whyungratefultograce?For,whydidChristcome?Wasnotnaturealreadyhere,—thatvery nature by the praise of which you are beguiled?Was not the law

here?But theapostlesays, ‘Ifrighteousness isof the law, then isChristdeadinvain.’Whattheapostlesaysofthelaw,thatwesaytothesemenaboutnature: if righteousness isbynature, thenChrist isdead in vain.WhatthenwassaidoftheJews,thisweseerepeatedinthesemen.TheyhaveazealforGod:IbearthemwitnessthattheyhaveazealforGod,butnotaccordingtoknowledge.For,beingignorantofGod’srighteousness,and wishing to establish their own, they are not subject to therighteousness of God. My brethren, share my compassion. Where youfindsuchmen,wishnoconcealment;lettherebenoperversepityinyou:whereyoufindthem,wishnoconcealmentatall.Contradictandrefute,resist, or persuade them to us. For already two councils have, in thiscause,sentletterstotheApostolicSee,whencealsorescriptshavecomeback. The cause is ended: would that the error might some day end!Thereforewe admonish so that theymay take notice, we teach so thattheymaybe instructed,wepray so that theirwaybe changed.”Here iscertainlytendernesstothepersonsoftheteachersoferror;readinesstoforgive,andreadinesstogoallproperlengthsinrecoveringthemtothetruth. But here is also absolute firmness as to the truth itself, and amanifestoastopolicy.Certainly,onthelinesofthepolicyhereindicated,theAfricansfoughtoutthecomingcampaign.Theymetincouncilattheend of this year, or early in the next (418); and formally replied toZosimus, that the cause had been tried, andwas finished, and that thesentence that had been already pronounced against Pelagius andCoelestius should remain in force until they should unequivocallyacknowledgethat“weareaidedbythegraceofGodthroughChrist,notonlytoknow,buttodo,whatisright,andthatineachsingleact;sothatwithout grace we are unable to have, think, speak, or do anythingbelongingtopiety.”AswemayseeAugustin’shandinthis,so,doubtless,we may recognize it in that remarkable piece of engineering whichcrushedZosimus’planswithinthenextfewmonths.Thereis,indeed,nodirect proof that it was due to Augustin, or to the Africans under hisleading,ortotheAfricansatall,thattheStateinterferedinthematter;itis even in doubt whether the action of the Empire was put forth as arescript,orasaself-moveddecree:butsurelyitisdifficulttobelievethatsuchacoupdethéâtrecouldhavebeenpreparedforZosimusbychance;andasitiswellknown,boththatAugustinbelievedintherighteousnessof civil penalty for heresy, and invoked it on other occasions, and

defendedanduseditonthis,andthathehadinfluentialfriendsatcourtwith whom he was in correspondence, it seems, on internal grounds,altogetherprobable thathewas theDeus exmachinâwho let loose thethundersofecclesiasticalandcivilenactmentsimultaneouslyonthepoorPope’sdevotedhead.

The“greatAfricanCouncil”metatCarthage,onthe1stofMay,418;and,after its decrees were issued, Augustin remained at Carthage, andwatched the effect of the combinationofwhichhewasprobably oneofthemoving causes.He had now an opportunity to betake himself oncemoretohispen.WhilestillatCarthage,atshortnotice,andinthemidstofmuchdistraction,hewrotealargework,intwobookswhichhavecomedown tousunder the separate titlesofOn theGraceofChrist, andOnOriginal Sin, at the instance of another of those ascetic families whichformed so marked a feature in those troubled times. Pinianus andMelania, the daughter of Albina, were husband and wife, who, leavingRome amid the wars with Alaric, had lived in continence in Africa forsometime,butnowinPalestinehadseparated,he tobecomeheadofamonastery, and she an inmate of a convent.While in Africa, they hadlivedatSagasteunderthetutelageofAlypius,andintheenjoymentofthefriendshipand instructionofAugustin.Afterretiring toBethlehem, liketheotherholyasceticswhomhehadknowninAfrica,theykeptuptheirrelations with him. Like the others, also, they became acquainted withPelagiusinPalestine,andwerewell-nighdeceivedbyhim.TheywrotetoAugustin that they had begged Pelagius to condemn inwriting all thathadbeenallegedagainsthim,andthathehadrepliedinthepresenceofthemall,that“heanathematizedthemanwhoeitherthinksorsaysthatthe grace of God whereby Christ Jesus came into the world to savesinners isnotnecessary,notonlyforeveryhourandforeverymoment,butalsoforeveryactofourlives,”andassertedthat“thosewhoendeavorto disannul it are worthy of everlasting punishment.”98Moreover, theywrotethatPelagiushadreadtothem,outofhisbookthathehadsenttoRome,99hisassertion“that infantsought tobebaptizedwith thesameformulaofsacramentalwordsasadults.”100Theywrote that theyweredelightedtohearthesewordsfromPelagius,astheyseemedexactlywhatthey had been desirous of hearing; and yet they preferred consultingAugustin about them, before they were fully committed regarding

them.101 It was in answer to this appeal, that the present work waswritten; the two books of which take up the two points in Pelagius’asseveration,—the themeof the firstbeing “theassistanceof theDivinegracetowardsourjustification,bywhichGodco-operatesinallthingsforgood to thosewho loveHim, andwhomHe first loved, giving to themthatHemayreceivefromthem,”—whilethesubjectofthesecondis“thesinwhichbyonemanhasenteredtheworldalongwithdeath,andsohaspasseduponallmen.”102

Thefirstbook,OntheGraceofChrist,beginsbyquotingandexaminingPelagius’anathemaofallthosewhodenythatgraceisnecessaryforeveryaction (2 sq.). Augustin confesses that thiswould deceive allwhowerenot fortified by knowledge of Pelagius’writings; but asserts that in thelight of them it is clear that he means that grace is always necessary,becauseweneedcontinuallytoremembertheforgivenessofoursins,theexampleofChrist,theteachingofthelaw,andthelike.Thenheenters(4sq.) upon an examination of Pelagius’ scheme of human faculties, andquotesatlengthhisaccountofthemgiveninhisbook,InDefenceofFreeWill, wherein he distinguishes betweenthe possibilitas (posse), voluntas (velle), and actio (esse), and declaresthatthefirstonlyisfromGodandreceivesaidfromGod,whiletheothersare entirely ours, and in our own power. Augustin opposes to this thepassage in Phil. ii. 12, 13 (6), and then criticises (7 sq.) Pelagius’ambiguous acknowledgment that God is to be praised for man’s goodworks,“becausethecapacityforanyactiononman’spart is fromGod,”bywhichhereducesallgracetotheprimevalendowmentofnaturewith“capacity” (possibilitas, posse), and the help afforded it by the law andteaching.Augustinpointsoutthedifferencebetweenlawandgrace,andthepurposeof the formerasapedagoguetothe latter(9sq.),andthenrefutesPelagius’furtherdefinitionofgraceasconsistinginthepromiseoffuturegloryandtherevelationofwisdom,byanappealtoPaul’sthorninthe flesh, and his experience under its discipline (11 sq.). Pelagius’illustrations from our senses, of his theory of natural faculty, are thensharplytested(16);andthecriticismonthewholedoctrineisthenmadeandpressed (17 sq.), that itmakesGodequally sharer inourblame forevilactsas inourpraise forgoodones,since ifGoddoeshelp,andHishelp is only His gift to us of ability to act in either part, then He has

equally helped to the evil deeds as to the good. The assertion that this“capacityofeitherpart” is thefecundrootofbothgoodandevil is thencriticised (19 sq.), and opposed to Matt. vii. 18, with the result ofestablishingthatwemustseektworootsinourdispositionsforsodiverseresults,—covetousness for evil, and love for good,—not a single root forbothinnature.Man’s“capacity,”itisargued,istherootofnothing;butitiscapableofbothgoodandevilaccordingtothemovingcause,which,inthecaseofevil, isman-originated,while, in thecaseofgood, it is fromGod (21).Next, Pelagius’ assertion that grace is given according to ourmerits (23 sq.) is takenupandexamined. It is shown, that,despitehisanathema,Pelagiusholds to this doctrine, and in so extreme a formasexplicitlytodeclarethatmancomesandcleavestoGodbyhisfreedomofwillalone,andwithoutGod’said.HeshowsthattheScripturesteachjusttheopposite(24–26);andthenpointsouthowPelagiushasconfoundedthefunctionsofknowledgeandlove(27sq.),andhowheforgetsthatwecannot have merits until we love God, while John certainly assertsthatGodlovedusfirst(1Johniv.10).Therepresentationthatwhatgracedoesistorenderobedienceeasier(28–30),andthetwinviewthatprayerisonly relativelynecessary,arenextcriticised (32).ThatPelagiusneveracknowledgesrealgrace,isthendemonstratedbyadetailedexaminationofallthathehadwrittenonthesubject(31–45).Thebookcloses(46–80)witha full refutationofPelagius’appeal toAmbrose,as ifhesupportedhim;andexhibitionofAmbrose’scontrarytestimonyastograceanditsnecessity.

Theobjectofthesecondbook—OnOriginalSin—istoshow,that,inspiteof Pelagius’ admissions as to the baptism of infants, he yet denies thatthey inherit original sin and contends that they are born free fromcorruption.ThebookopensbypointingoutthatthereisnoquestionastoCoelestius’ teaching in this matter (2–8), as he at Carthage refused tocondemnthosewhosaythatAdam’ssininjurednoonebuthimself,andthatinfantsareborninthesamestatethatAdamwasinbeforethefall,and openly asserted at Rome that there is no sin ex traduce. As forPelagius,heissimplymorecautiousandmendaciousthanCoelestius:hedeceived theCouncilatDiospolis,but failed todeceive theRomans (5–13),and,asamatteroffact(14–18),teachesexactlywhatCoelestiusdoes.In support of this assertion, Pelagius’ Defence of Free Will is quoted,

wherein he asserts thatwe are born neither good nor bad, “butwith acapacityforeither,”and“aswithoutvirtue,sowithoutvice;andprevioustotheactionofourownproperwill,thatthataloneisinmanwhichGodhas formed” (14). Augustin also quotes Pelagius’ explanation of hisanathema against those who say Adam’s sin injured only himself, asmeaning that he has injuredman by setting a bad “example,” and hisevenmoresinuousexplanationofhisanathemaagainstthosewhoassertthat infantsareborn inthesameconditionthatAdamwas inbeforehefell, asmeaning that theyare infants andhewasaman! (16–18).Withthis introduction to them,Augustin next treats of Pelagius’ subterfuges(19–25),and thenanimadvertson the importanceof the issue (26–37),pointing out that Pelagianism is not amere error, but a deadly heresy,andstrikesattheverycentreofChristianity.AcounterargumentofthePelagiansisthenanswered(38–45),“Doesnotthedoctrineoforiginalsinmakemarriageanevilthing?”No,saysAugustin,marriageisordainedbyGod,andisgood;butitisadiseasedgood,andhencewhatisbornofitisagoodnaturemadebyGod,butthisgoodnatureinadiseasedcondition,—the result of the Devil’s work. Hence, if it be asked why God’s giftproducesanythingfortheDeviltotakepossessionof,itistobeansweredthatGod giveshis gifts liberally (Matt. v. 45), andmakesmen; but theDevil makes these men sinners (46). Finally, as Ambrose had beenappealedtointheformerbook,soattheendofthis it isshownthatheopenly proclaimed the doctrine of original sin, and here too, beforePelagius,condemnedPelagius(47sq.).

WhatAugustinmeansbywritingtoPinianusandhisfamilythathewasmoreoppressedbyworkatCarthagethananywhereelse,mayperhapsbeillustratedfromhisdiligenceinpreachingwhileinthatcapital.Heseemstohavebeenalmost constantly in thepulpit, during thisperiod “of thesharpestconflictwiththem,”103preachingagainstthePelagians.Thereisone series of his sermons, of the exact dates ofwhichwe canbeprettysure, whichmay be adverted to here,—Sermons 151 and 152, preachedearly inOctober,418;Sermon155onOct. 14, 156onOct.17,and26onOct.18;thusfollowingoneanotheralmostwiththeregularityofthedays.The first of these was based on Rom. vii. 15–25, which he declares tocontaindangerouswords ifnotproperlyunderstood; formenarepronetosin,andwhentheyheartheapostlesospeakingtheydoevil,andthink

theyarelikehim.Theyaremeanttoteachus,however,thatthelifeofthejustinthisbodyisawar,notyetatriumph:thetriumphwillcomeonlywhendeathisswallowedupinvictory.Itwould,nodoubt,bebetternottohaveanenemy thaneven to conquer. Itwouldbebetternot tohaveevildesires:butwehavethem;therefore,letusnotgoafterthem.Iftheyrebelagainstus,letusrebelagainstthem;iftheyfight,letusfight;iftheybesiege,letusbesiege:letuslookonlytothis,thattheydonotconquer.Withsomeevildesiresweareborn:otherswemake,bybadhabit.Itisonaccountof thosewithwhichweareborn, that infantsarebaptized;thatthey may be freed from the guilt of inheritance, not from any evil ofcustom,which,ofcourse,theyhavenot.Anditisonaccountofthese,too,thatourwarmustbeendless:theconcupiscencewithwhichweareborncannot bedone away as long aswe live; itmaybediminished, but notdoneaway.Neithercanthelawfreeus,foritonlyrevealsthesintoourgreaterapprehension.Where,then,ishope,saveinthesuperabundanceofgrace?Thenextsermon(152)takesupthewordsinRom.viii.1–4,andpointsout that the inwardaidof theSpiritbringsall thehelpweneed.“We, like farmers in the field,work fromwithout:but, if therewerenoonewhoworkedfromwithin,theseedwouldnottakerootintheground,norwouldthesproutariseinthefield,norwouldtheshootgrowstrongandbecomeatree,norwouldbranchesandfruitandleavesbeproduced.Therefore the apostle distinguishes between the work of the workmenandoftheCreator(1Cor.iii.6,7).IfGodgivenottheincrease,emptyisthis soundwithin your ears; but if he gives, it avails somewhat thatweplantandwater,andourlaborisnotinvain.”Hethenappliesthistotheindividual,strivingagainsthislusts;warnsagainstManicheanerror;anddistinguishesbetweenthethreelaws,—thelawofsin,thelawoffaith,andthe law of deeds,—defending the latter, the law of Moses, against theManicheans;andthenhecomestothewordsofthetext,andexplainsitschiefphrases,closingthus:“WhatotherdowereadherethanthatChristis a sacrifice for sin?…Behold by what ‘sin’ he condemned sin: by thesacrificewhichhemadeforsins,hecondemnedsin.ThisisthelawoftheSpiritoflifewhichhasfreedyoufromthelawofsinanddeath.Forthatother law, the lawof the letter, the lawthatcommands, is indeedgood;‘the commandment is holy and just and good:’ but ‘itwasweak by theflesh,’andwhatitcommandeditcouldnotbringaboutinus.Thereforethereisonelaw,asIbeganbysaying,thatrevealssintoyou,andanother

thattakesitaway:thelawoftheletterrevealssin,thelawofgracetakesitaway.”Sermon155coversthesameground,andmore,takingthebroadertext, Rom. viii. 1–11, and fully developing its teaching, especially asdiscriminatingbetweenthelawofsinandthelawofMosesandthelawoffaith;thelawofMosesbeingtheholylawofGodwrittenwithHisfingeronthetablesofstone,whilethelawoftheSpiritof lifeisnothingotherthan the same lawwritten in theheart, as theprophet (Jer. xxx. 1, 33)clearlydeclares.Sowritten,itdoesnotterrifyfromwithout,butsoothesfromwithin.Greatcareisalsotaken,lestbysuchphrasesas,“walkintheSpirit, not in the flesh,” “who shall deliver me from the body of thisdeath?”ahatredofthebodyshouldbebegotten.“Thusyoushallbefreedfromthebodyofthisdeath,notbyhavingnobody,butbyhavinganotherone and dying no more. If, indeed, he had not added, ‘of this death,’perchanceanerrormighthavebeensuggestedtothehumanmind,anditmighthavebeensaid,‘YouseethatGoddoesnotwishustohaveabody.’ButHesays, ‘thebodyof thisdeath.’Takeawaydeath,and thebody isgood.Letourlastenemy,death,betakenaway,andmydearfleshwillbemineforeternity.Fornoonecanever‘hatehisownflesh.’Althoughthe‘spirit lusts against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit,’ althoughthereisnowabattleinthishouse,yetthehusbandisseekingbyhisstrifenot the ruin of, but concord with, his wife. Far be it, far be it, mybrethren,thatthespiritshouldhatethefleshinlustingagainstit!Ithatesthe vices of the flesh; it hates the wisdom of the flesh; it hates thecontention of death. This corruption shall put on incorruption,—thismortalshallputonimmortality;itissownanaturalbody;itshallriseaspiritualbody;andyoushallseefullandperfectconcord,—youshallseethe creature praise the Creator.” One of the special interests of suchpassagesistoshow,that,evenatthisearlydate,Augustinwascarefultoguardhishearers fromManicheanerrorwhileproclaimingoriginal sin.Oneofthesermonswhich,probably,waspreachedaboutthistime(153),isevenentitled, “Against theManicheansopenly,but tacitlyagainst thePelagians,” and bears witness to the early development of the methodthathewassomewhat latertouseeffectivelyagainstJulian’schargesofManicheanismagainstthecatholics.104Threedaysafterwards,Augustinpreachedonthenextfewverses,Rom.viii.12–17,butcanscarcelybesaidtohaverisentotheheightofitsgreatargument.Thegreaterpartofthesermonisoccupiedwithadiscussionofthelaw,whyitwasgiven,howit

is legitimately used, and its usefulness as a pedagogue to bring us toChrist; then of the need of a mediator; and then, of what it is to liveaccordingtotheflesh,whichincludeslivingaccordingtomerelyhumannature; and the need of mortifying the flesh in this world. All this, ofcourse, gave full opportunity for opposing the leading Pelagian errors;and the sermon is brought to a close by a direct polemic against theirassertion that the function of grace is only tomake itmore easy to dowhatisright.“Withthesailmoreeasily,withtheoarwithmoredifficulty:neverthelessevenwiththeoarwecango.Onabeastmoreeasily,onfootwithmoredifficulty:neverthelessprogresscanbemadeonfoot.Itisnottrue!ForthetrueMasterwhoflattersnoone,whodeceivesnoone,—thetruthfulTeacherandverySaviourtowhomthemostgrievouspedagoguehasledus,—whenhewasspeakingaboutgoodworks,i.e.,aboutthefruitsofthetwigsandbranches,didnotsay, ‘Withoutme,indeed,youcandosomething,butyouwilldoitmoreeasilywithme;’Hedidnotsay, ‘Youcanmakeyourfruitwithoutme,butmorerichlywithme.’Hedidnotsaythis! Read what He said: it is the holy gospel,—bow the proud necks!Augustindoesnotsaythis:theLordsaysit.WhatsaystheLord?‘Withoutmeyoucandonothing!’”Ontheverynextday,hewasagaininthepulpit,andtakingforhistextchieflytheninety-fourthPsalm.105Thepreacherbegan106byquotingthesixthverse,andlayingstressonthewords“ourMaker.” ‘No Christian,’ he said, ‘doubted that God hadmade him, andthatinsuchasensethatGodcreatednotonlythefirstman,fromwhomallhavedescended,butthatGodto-daycreateseveryman,—asHesaidtooneofHissaints,“BeforethatIformedtheeinthewomb,Iknewthee.”AtfirstHecreatedmanapartfromman;nowHecreatesmanfromman:nevertheless,whethermanapartfromman,ormanfromman,“it isHethat made us, and not we ourselves.” Nor has He made us and thendesertedus;Hehasnotcaredtomakeus,andnotcaredtokeepus.WillHewhomadeuswithout being asked, desert uswhenHe is besought?But is itnot justas foolish tosay,as somesayorare ready tosay, thatGodmadethemmen,buttheymakethemselvesrighteous?Why,then,dowe pray to God tomake us righteous? The firstman was created in anaturethatwaswithoutfaultorflaw.Hewasmaderighteous:hedidnotmakehimselfrighteous;whathedidforhimselfwastofallandbreakhisrighteousness.ThisGoddidnotdo:Hepermitted it, as ifHehad said,“LethimdesertMe;lethimfindhimself;andlethismiseryprovethathe

hasno abilitywithoutMe.” In thiswayGodwished to showmanwhatfreewill wasworthwithoutGod.O evil freewill withoutGod! Behold,manwasmadegood;andbyfreewillmanwasmadeevil!Whenwilltheevilmanmakehimselfgoodbyfreewill?Whengood,hewasnotabletokeephimselfgood;andnowthatheisevil, ishetomakehimselfgood?Nay,behold,Hethatmadeushasalsomadeus“Hispeople”(Ps.xciv.7).Thisisadistinguishinggift.Natureiscommontoall,butgraceisnot.Itisnot to be confounded with nature; but if it were, it would still begratuitous.Forcertainlynoman,beforeheexisted,deservedtocomeintoexistence.AndyetGodhasmadehim,and thatnot like thebeastsorastockorastone,but inHisown image.Whohasgiventhisbenefit?Hegave itwhowas in existence: he received itwhowasnot.And onlyHecoulddo this,whocalls the things thatarenotas though theywere:ofwhom the apostle says that “He chose us before the foundation of theworld.” We have been made in this world, and yet the world was notwhen we were chosen. Ineffable! wonderful! They are chosen who arenot:neitherdoesHeerrinchoosing,norchooseinvain.Hechooses,andhaselectwhomHeistocreatetobechosen:HehastheminHimself;notindeed in His nature, but in His prescience. Let us not, then, glory inourselves,ordisputeagainstgrace.Ifwearemen,Hemadeus.Ifwearebelievers,Hemadeusthistoo.HewhosenttheLambtobeslainhas,outofwolves,madeussheep.This isgrace.And it isanevengreatergracethan that grace of nature by which we were all made men.’ “I amcontinually endeavouring to discuss such things as these,” said thepreacher, “against a new heresy which is attempting to rise; because Iwishyoutobe fixed in thegood,untouchedby theevil.…For,disputingagainst grace in favorof freewill, theybecameanoffence topious andcatholicears.Theybegantocreatehorror;theybegantobeavoidedasafixedpest;itbegantobesaidofthem,thattheyarguedagainstgrace.Andthey foundsuchadeviceas this: ‘Because Idefendman’s freewill,andsaythatfreewillissufficientinorderthatImayberighteous,’saysone,‘Idonotsaythat it iswithoutthegraceofGod.’Theearsofthepiousareprickedup,andhewhohearsthis,alreadybeginstorejoice:‘ThanksbetoGod!HedoesnotdefendfreewillwithoutthegraceofGod!Thereisfreewill,butitavailsnothingwithoutthegraceofGod.’If,then,theydonotdefendfreewillwithoutthegraceofGod,whatevildotheysay?Expoundtous,Oteacher,whatgraceyoumean?‘WhenIsay,’hesays,‘thefreewill

ofman,youobservethatIsay“ofman”?’Whatthen?‘Whocreatedman?’God.‘Whogavehimfreewill?’God.‘If,then,Godcreatedman,andGodgavemanfreewill,whatevermanisabletodobyfreewill,towhosegracedoesheowe it,except toHiswhomadehimwith freewill?’Andthis iswhattheythinktheysaysoacutely!Yousee,nevertheless,mybrethren,how they preach that general grace by which we were created and bywhich we are men; and, of course, we are men in common with theungodly,andareChristiansapartfromthem.ItisthisgracebywhichweareChristians, thatwewish them topreach, this thatwewish them toacknowledge,thisthatwewish,—ofwhichtheapostlesays,‘IdonotmakevoidthegraceofGod,forifrighteousnessisbythelaw,Christisdeadinvain.’”Thenthetruefunctionofthelawisexplained,asarevealerofoursinfulness,andapedagoguetoleadustoChrist:theManicheanviewoftheOld Testament law is attacked, but its insufficiency for salvation ispointedout;andsowearebroughtbacktothenecessityofgrace,whichisillustratedfromthestoryoftheraisingofthedeadchildin2Kingsiv.18–37,—the dead child being Adam; the ineffective staff (by which weought to walk), the law; but the living prophet, Christ with his grace,whichwemustpreach.“Thepropheticstaffwasnotenoughforthedeadboy:woulddeadnatureitselfhavebeenenough?Eventhis,bywhichweare made, although we nowhere read of it under this name, wenevertheless,becauseitisgivengratuitously,confesstobegrace.Butweshowtoyouagreatergracethanthis,bywhichweareChristians.…ThisisthegracebyJesusChristourLord:itwasHethatmadeus,—bothbeforewewereatall,itwasHethatmadeus,andnow,afterwearemade,itisHethathasmadeusallrighteous,—andnotweourselves.”Therewasbutone mass of perdition from Adam, to which nothing was due butpunishment; and from that mass vessels have beenmade unto honor.“Rejoicebecauseyouhaveescaped;youhaveescapedthedeaththatwasdue,—youhavereceivedthelifethatwasnotdue.‘But,’youask,‘whydidHemakemeuntohonor,andanotheruntodishonor?’Willyouwhowillnot hear the apostle saying, ‘Oman,who art thou that repliest againstGod?’ hear Augustin?…Do you wish to dispute with me? Nay, wonderwithme,andcryoutwithme,‘Ohthedepthoftheriches!’Letusbothbeafraid,—letusbothcryout,‘Ohthedepthoftheriches!’Letusbothagreeinfear,lestweperishinerror.”

Augustinwasnotlessbusywithhispen,duringthesemonths,thanwithhisvoice.Quiteaseriesoflettersbelongtothelasthalfof418,inwhichhearguestohisdistantcorrespondentsonthesamethemeswhichhewassoiterantlytryingtomakecleartohisCarthaginianauditors.Oneofthemostinterestingofthesewaswrittentoafellow-bishop,Optatus,ontheorigin of the soul.107 Optatus, like Jerome, had expressed himself asfavoringthetheoryofaspecialcreationofeachatbirth;andAugustin,inthisletterasinthepapersenttoJerome,laysgreatstressonsoholdingourtheoriesonsoobscureamatterastoconformtotheindubitablefactof the transmissionof sin.This fact, suchpassages as 1Cor. xv. 21 sq.,Rom. v. 12 sq., make certain; and in stating this, Augustin takes theopportunitytooutlinethechiefcontentsofthecatholicfaithoveragainstthePelagiandenialoforiginalsinandgrace:thatallarebornunderthecontagionofdeathandinthebondofguilt; thatthereisnodeliveranceexcept in the oneMediator, Christ Jesus; that before His comingmenreceivedhimaspromised,nowasalreadycome,butwiththesamefaith;that the lawwasnot intended to save, but to shutupunder sin and soforceusbackupontheoneSaviour;andthatthedistributionofgraceissovereign. Augustin pries into God’s sovereign counsels somewhatmorefreelyherethanisusualwithhim.“Butwhythosealsoarecreatedwho,theCreatorforeknew,wouldbelongtodamnation,nottograce,theblessed apostle mentions with as much succinct brevity as greatauthority. For he says that God, ‘wishing to show His wrath anddemonstrate His power,’ etc. (Rom. ix. 22). Justly, however, would heseemunjustinformingvesselsofwrathforperdition,ifthewholemassfromAdamwerenotcondemned.That,therefore,theyaremadeonbirthvessels of anger, belongs to thepunishmentdue to them;but that theyaremadebyre-birthvesselsofmercy,belongstothegracethatisnotduetothem.God,therefore,showshiswrath,—not,ofcourse,perturbationofmind,suchasiscalledwrathamongmen,butajustandfixedvengeance.…He showsalsohispower,bywhichhemakesa gooduseof evilmen,and endows them with many natural and temporal goods, and bendstheireviltoadmonitionandinstructionofthegoodbycomparisonwithit,sothatthesemaylearnfromthemtogivethankstoGodthattheyhavebeenmade todiffer fromthem,notby theirowndesertswhichwereoflikekindinthesamemass,butbyHispity.…Butbycreatingsomanytobebornwho,Heforeknew,wouldnotbelongtohisgrace,sothattheyare

more by an incomparable multitude than those whom he deigned topredestinateaschildrenofthepromiseintothegloryofHisKingdom,—HewishedtoshowbythisverymultitudeoftherejectedhowentirelyofnomomentitistothejustGodwhatisthemultitudeofthosemostjustlycondemned. And that hence also those who are redeemed from thiscondemnationmayunderstand,thatwhattheyseerenderedtosogreatapartof themasswas thedueof thewholeof it,—notonlyof thosewhoaddmanyotherstooriginalsin,bythechoiceofanevilwill,butaswellofsomanychildrenwhoaresnatchedfromthislifewithoutthegraceoftheMediator, bound by no bond except that of original sin alone.” Withrespect to the question more immediately concerning which the letterwas written, Augustin explains that he is willing to accept the opinionthat souls are created formen as they are born, if only it can bemadeplain that it is consistent with the original sin that the Scriptures soclearlyteach.InthepapersenttoJerome,thedifficultiesofcreationismaresufficientlyurged;thisletterisinterestingonaccountofitsstatementof some of the difficulties of traducianism also,—thus evidencingAugustin’s clear view of the peculiar complexity of the problem, andjustifying his attitude of balance and uncertainty between the twotheories. ‘Thehumanunderstanding,’hesays, ‘canscarcelycomprehendhowasoularisesfromaparent’ssoulintheoffspring;oristransmittedtotheoffspringasacandle is lightedfromacandleandthenceanotherfire comes into existence without loss to the former one. Is there anincorporealseedforthesoul,whichpasses,bysomehiddenandinvisiblechannelofitsown,fromthefathertothemother,whenitisconceivedinthe woman?Or, evenmore incredible, does it lie enfolded and hiddenwithin the corporeal seed?’ He is lost in wonder over the questionwhether,whenconceptiondoesnot takeplace, the immortal seedofanimmortal soul perishes; or, does the immortality attach itself to it onlywhen it lives? He even expresses the doubt whether traducianism willexplainwhat it is called in toexplain,muchbetter thancreationism; inanycase,whodeniesthatGodisthemakerofeverysoul?Isaiah(lvii.16)says,“Ihavemadeeverybreath;”andtheonlyquestionthatcanariseisas to method,—whether He “makes every breath from the one firstbreath, justasHemakeseverybodyofmanfromtheonefirstbody;orwhetherhemakesnewbodiesindeed,fromtheonebody,butnewsoulsout of nothing.” Certainly nothing but Scripture can determine such a

question;butwheredotheScripturesspeakunambiguouslyuponit?ThepassagestowhichthecreationistspointonlyaffirmtheadmittedfactthatGodmakesthesoul;andthetraducianistsforgetthattheword“soul”inthe Scriptures is ambiguous, and can mean “man,” and even a “deadman.”Whatmorecanbedone,then,thantoassertwhatiscertain,viz.,thatsinispropagated,andleavewhatisuncertaininthedoubtinwhichGodhaschosentoplaceit?

This letter was written not long after the issue of Zosimus’ Tractoria,demandingthesignatureofalltoAfricanorthodoxy;andAugustinsendsOptatus“copiesoftherecentletterswhichhavebeensentforthfromtheRoman see,whether specially to theAfrican bishops or generally to allbishops,” on thePelagian controversy, “lest perchance theyhadnot yetreached” his correspondent, who, it is very evident, he was anxiousshould thoroughly realize “that the authors, or certainly the mostenergetic and noted teachers,” of these new heresies, “had beencondemned in the whole Christian world by the vigilance of episcopalcouncils aidedby theSaviourwhokeepsHisChurch, aswell asby twovenerable overseers of the Apostolical see, Pope Innocent and PopeZosimus, unless they should show repentance by being convinced andreformed.”TothiszealweoweitthatthelettercontainsanextractfromZosimus’Tractoria,oneofthetwobrieffragmentsofthatdocumentthathavereachedourday.

There was another ecclesiastic in Rome, besides Zosimus, who wasstronglysuspectedof favoring thePelagians,—thepresbyterSixtus,whoafterwards became Pope Sixtus III. But when Zosimus sent forth hiscondemnation of Pelagianism, Sixtus sent also a short letter to Africaaddressed to Aurelius of Carthage, which, though brief, indicated aconsiderablevigoragainsttheheresywhichhewascommonlybelievedtohavebeforedefended,108 andwhich claimed him as its own.109 Somemonthsafterwards,hesentanothersimilar,butlonger,lettertoAugustinandAlypius,morefullyexpoundinghisrejectionof“thefataldogma”ofPelagius,andhisacceptanceof“thatgraceofGodfreelygivenbyHimtosmall and great, towhich Pelagius’ dogmawas diametrically opposed.”Augustinwasoverjoyedwiththesedevelopments.Hequicklyrepliedinashortletter110inwhichheexpressesthedelighthehasinlearningfrom

Sixtus’ownhandthatheisnotadefenderofPelagius,butapreacherofgrace. And close upon the heels of this he sent another much longerletter,111 in which he discusses the subtler arguments of the Pelagianswithananxiouscarethatseemstobearwitnesstohisdesiretoconfirmandsupporthiscorrespondentinhisnewopinions.BothletterstestifytoAugustin’s approval of the persecuting measures which had beeninstituted by theRoman see in obedience to the emperor; and urge onSixtus his duty not only to bring the open heretics to deservedpunishment,buttotrackoutthosewhospreadtheirpoisonsecretly,andeven to remember those whom he had formerly heard announcing theerrorbefore it hadbeen condemned, andwhowerenow silent throughfear,andtobringthemeithertoopenrecantationoftheirformerbeliefs,ortopunishment.Itispleasantertorecallourthoughtstothedialecticoftheseletters.Thegreaterpartofthesecondisgiventoadiscussionofthegratuitousness of grace, which, just because grace, is given to noprecedingmerits.Many subtle objections to this doctrinewere broughtforwardbythePelagians.Theysaidthat“freewillwastakenawayifweassertedthatmandidnothaveevenagoodwillwithouttheaidofGod;”thatwemade“Godanaccepterofpersons,ifwebelievedthatwithoutanyprecedingmeritsHehadmercyonwhomHewould,andwhomHewouldHecalled,andwhomHewouldHemadereligious;”that“itwasunjust,inoneandthesamecase,todeliveroneandpunishanother;”that,ifsuchadoctrineispreached,“menwhodonotwishtoliverightlyandfaithfully,will excuse themselves by saying that they have done nothing evil bylivingill,sincetheyhavenotreceivedthegracebywhichtheymightlivewell;” that it is a puzzle “how sin can pass over to the children of thefaithful, when it has been remitted to the parents in baptism;” that“childrenrespondtrulybythemouthoftheirsponsorsthattheybelievein remission of sins, but not because sins are remitted to them, butbecausetheybelievethatsinsareremittedinthechurchorinbaptismtothoseinwhomtheyarefound,nottothoseinwhomtheydonotexist,”andconsequentlytheysaidthat“theywereunwillingthatinfantsshouldbe so baptizedunto remission of sins as if this remission tookplace inthem,”for(theycontend)“theyhavenosin;buttheyaretobebaptized,although without sin, with the same rite of baptism through whichremissionofsinstakesplaceinanythataresinners.”Thislastobjectionis especially interesting112because it furnishesuswith the replywhich

the Pelagiansmade to the argument that Augustin so strongly pressedagainst them from the very act and ritual of baptism, as implyingremissionofsins.113Hisrejoindertoithereistopointtotheotherpartsof the same ritual, and to ask why, then, infants are exorcised andexsufflated in baptism. “For, it cannot be doubted that this is donefictitiously,iftheDevildoesnotruleoverthem;butifherulesoverthem,and they are therefore not falsely exorcised and exsufflated, why doesthat prince of sinners rule over them except because of sin?” On thefundamental matter of the gratuitousness of grace, this letter is veryexplicit.“Ifweseekforthedeservingofhardening,weshallfindit.…Butifweseekforthedeservingofpity,weshallnotfindit;forthereisnone,lestgracebemadeavanityifitisnotgivengratis,butrenderedtomerits.But,shouldwesaythatfaithprecededandinit thereisdesertofgrace,whatdesertdidmanhavebeforefaiththatheshouldreceivefaith?For,whatdidhehavethathedidnotreceive?andifhereceivedit,whydoeshe glory as if he received it not? For asman would not have wisdom,understanding,prudence,fortitude,knowledge,piety,fearofGod,unlesshe had received (according to the prophet) the spirit of wisdom andunderstanding, of prudence and fortitude, of knowledge and piety andthefearofGod;ashewouldnothavejustice,love,continence,exceptthespiritwasreceivedofwhomtheapostlesays,‘Foryoudidnotreceivethespirit of fear, but of virtue, and love, and continence:’ so hewould nothavefaithunlesshereceivedthespiritoffaithofwhomthesameapostlesays,‘Havingthenthesamespiritoffaith,accordingtowhatiswritten,“Ibelieved and therefore spoke,”we too believe and therefore speak.’ ButthatHe is not received by desert, but byHismercywho hasmercy onwhom He will, is manifestly shown where he says of himself, ‘I haveobtainedmercytobefaithful.’”“Ifweshouldsaythatthemeritofprayerprecedes, that the gift of gracemay follow,…even prayer itself is foundamong the gifts of grace” (Rom. viii. 26). “It remains, then, that faithitself,whenceall righteousness takesbeginning;…it remains, I say, thatevenfaithitselfisnottobeattributedtothehumanwillwhichtheyextol,nortoanyprecedingmerits,sincefromitbeginwhatevergoodthingsaremerits:butitistobeconfessedtobethegratuitousgiftofGod,sinceweconsiderittruegrace,thatis,withoutmerits,inasmuchaswereadinthesameepistle,‘Goddividesoutthemeasureoffaithtoeach’(Rom.xii.3).Now, good works are done by man, but faith is wrought in man, and

withoutitthesearenotdonebyanyman.Forallthatisnotoffaithissin”(Rom.xiv.23).

By the same messenger who carried this important letter to Sixtus,Augustin sent also a letter toMercator,114 anAfrican laymanwhowasthen apparently at Rome, but who was afterwards (in 429) to renderservice by instructing the Emperor Theodosius as to the nature andhistoryofPelagianism,andsopreventingtheappealof thePelagianstohimfrombeinggranted.Nowheappearsasaninquirer:Augustin,whileat Carthage, had received a letter fromhim inwhich he had consultedhim on certain questions that the Pelagians had raised, but in such amanner as to indicate his opposition to them. Press of business hadcompelledthepostponementofthereplyuntilthislaterdate.Oneofthequestions that Mercator had put concerned the Pelagian account ofinfantssharingintheonebaptismuntoremissionofsins,whichwehaveseenAugustinansweringwhenwritingtoSixtus.Inthisletterhereplies:“Let them, then, hear the Lord (John iii. 36). Infants, therefore, whomadebelieversbyothers,bywhomtheyarebrought tobaptism,are,ofcourse,unbelieversbyothers, if theyare inthehandsofsuchasdonotbelieve that they should be brought, inasmuch as they believe they arenothingprofited;andaccordingly, if theybelievebybelievers,andhaveeternallife,theyareunbelieversbyunbelievers,andshallnotseelife,butthewrathofGodabidethonthem.Foritisnotsaid,‘itcomesonthem,’but‘itabidethonthem,’becauseitwasonthemfromthebeginning,andwill not be taken from them except by the grace ofGod through JesusChrist,ourLord.…Therefore,whenchildrenarebaptized,theconfessionismadethattheyarebelievers,anditisnottobedoubtedthatthosewhoarenotbelieversarecondemned:letthem,then,daretosaynow,iftheycan,thattheycontractnoevilfromtheirorigintobecondemnedbythejust God, and have no contagion of sin.” The other matter on whichMercator sought light concerned the statement that universal deathproveduniversal sin:115he reported that thePelagians replied thatnotevendeathwasuniversal,—thatEnoch,forinstance,andElijah,hadnotdied. Augustin adds those who are to be found living at the secondadvent,whoarenottodie,butbe“changed;”andrepliesthatRom.v.12isperfectlyexplicitthatthereisnodeathintheworldexceptthatwhichcomesfromsin,andthatGodaSaviour,andwecannotatall“denythat

Heisabletodothat,now,inanythathewishes,withoutdeath,whichweundoubtinglybelieveistobedoneinsomanyafterdeath.”HeaddsthatthedifficultquestionisnotwhyEnochandElijahdidnotdie,ifdeathisthe punishment of sin; butwhy, such being the case, the justified everdie; and he refers his correspondent to his book On the Baptism ofInfants116foraresolutionofthisgreaterdifficulty.

It was probably at the very end of 418 that Augustin wrote a letter ofsome length117 to Asellicus, in reply to one which he had written on“avoiding the deception of Judaism,” to the primate of the Bizaceneprovince,andwhichthatecclesiastichadsenttoAugustinforanswering.HediscussesinthisthelawoftheOldTestament.Heopensbypointingout that the apostle forbids Christians to Judaize (Gal. ii. 14–16), andexplainsthatitisnotmerelytheceremoniallawthatwemaynotdependupon,“butalsowhatissaidinthelaw, ‘Thoushaltnotcovet’(whichnoone, of course, doubts is to be said to Christians too), does not justifyman,exceptbyfaithinJesusChristandthegraceofGodthroughJesusChristourLord.”Hethenexpoundstheuseofthelaw:“This,then,istheusefulnessofthelaw:thatitshowsmantohimself,sothathemayknowhisweakness, and see how, by the prohibition, carnal concupiscence israther increased than healed.…The use of the law is, thus, to convincemanofhisweakness,andforcehimtoimplorethemedicineofgracethatisinChrist.”“Sincethesethingsareso,”headds,“thosewhorejoicethatthey are Israelites after the flesh, and glory in the law apart from thegrace of Christ, these are those concerningwhom the apostle said that‘being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish theirown, they are not subject toGod’s righteousness;’ since he calls ‘God’srighteousness’thatwhichisfromGodtoman;and‘theirown,’whattheythinkthatthecommandmentssufficeforthemtodowithoutthehelpandgift of Himwho gave the law. But they are like those who, while theyprofesstobeChristians,soopposethegraceofChrist,thattheysupposethattheyfulfilthedivinecommandsbyhumanpowers,and, ‘wishingtoestablishtheirown,’are‘notsubjecttotherighteousnessofGod,’andso,not indeed in name, but yet in error, Judaize. This sort of men foundheadsforthemselvesinPelagiusandCoelestius,themostacuteassertersofthis impiety,whobyGod’srecent judgment, throughhisdiligentandfaithful servants,havebeendeprivedevenof catholic communion, and,

onaccountofanimpenitentheart,persiststillintheircondemnation.”

Atthebeginningof419,aconsiderableworkwaspublishedbyAugustinononeofthemoreremotecorollarieswhichthePelagiansdrewfromhisteachings. It had come to his ears, that they asserted that his doctrinecondemnedmarriage:“ifonlysinfuloffspringcomefrommarriage,”theyasked, “is not marriage itself made a sinful thing?” The book whichAugustin composed in answer to this query, he dedicated to, and sentalongwithanexplanatoryletterto,theComesValerius,atrustedservantoftheEmperorHonorius,andoneofthemoststeadyopponentsatcourtof the Pelagian heresy. Augustin explains118 why he has desired toaddressthebooktohim:first,becauseValeriuswasastrikingexampleofthose continent husbands of which that age furnishes us with manyinstances,and,therefore,thediscussionwouldhaveespecialinterestforhim;secondly,becauseofhiseminenceasanopponentofPelagianism;and, thirdly,becauseAugustinhad learned thathehad readaPelagiandocumentinwhichAugustinwaschargedwithcondemningmarriagebydefending original sin.119 The book in question is the first book of thetreatiseOnMarriageandConcupiscence.Itis,naturally,tinged,orratherstained,withtheprevalentasceticnotionsoftheday.Itsdoctrineisthatmarriageisgood,andGodisthemakeroftheoffspringthatcomesfromit, althoughnow there can be no begetting andhence no birthwithoutsin. Sin made concupiscence, and now concupiscence perpetuatessinners. The specific object of the work, as it states it itself, is “todistinguish between the evil of carnal concupiscence, fromwhichman,whoisborntherefrom,contractsoriginalsin,andthegoodofmarriage”(I.1).Afterabriefintroduction,inwhichheexplainswhyhewrites,andwhy he addresses his book to Valerius (1–2), Augustin points out thatconjugalchastity, like itshighersister-graceofcontinence, isGod’sgift.Thus copulation, but only for the propagation of children, has divineallowance(3–5).Lust,or“shamefulconcupiscence,”however,heteaches,isnotoftheessence,butonlyanaccident,ofmarriage.ItdidnotexistinEden,althoughtruemarriageexistedthere;butarosefrom,andthereforeonlyafter,sin(6–7).Itsadditiontomarriagedoesnotdestroythegoodofmarriage:itonlyconditionsthecharacteroftheoffspring(8).Henceitisthat the apostle allowsmarriage, but forbids the “disease of desire” (1Thess.iv.3–5);andhencetheOld-Testamentsaintswereevenpermitted

more than onewife, because, bymultiplyingwives, itwasnot lust, butoffspring,thatwasincreased(9–10).Nevertheless,fecundityisnottobethought the only good of marriage: true marriage can exist withoutoffspring, and even without cohabitation (11–13), and cohabitation isnow,undertheNewTestament,nolongeradutyasitwasundertheOldTestament(14–15),buttheapostlepraisescontinenceaboveit.Wemust,then,distinguishbetweenthegoodsofmarriage,andseekthebest(16–19).But thus it follows that it isnotdue toany inherentandnecessaryevil inmarriage, but only to the presence, now, of concupiscence in allcohabitation, that childrenarebornunder sin, even the childrenof theregenerate, just as from the seedofolivesonlyoleasters grow (20–24).And yet again, concupiscence is not itself sin in the regenerate; it isremitted as guilt in baptism: but it is the daughter of sin, and it is themotherof sin,and in theunregenerate it is itself sin,as toyield to it iseven to the regenerate (25–39). Finally, as so often, the testimony ofAmbroseisappealedto,anditisshownthathetooteachesthatallbornfromcohabitationarebornguilty (40). In thisbook,Augustin certainlyseems to teach that the bond of connection by which Adam’s sin isconveyed to his offspring is not mere descent, or heredity, or mereinclusioninhim,inarealisticsense,aspartakersofthesamenumericalnature, but concupiscence. Without concupiscence in the act ofgeneration,theoffspringwouldnotbeapartakerofAdam’ssin.Thishehadtaughtalsopreviously,as,e.g., inthetreatiseOnOriginalSin,fromwhich a fewwordsmaybeprofitably quoted as succinctly summinguptheteachingof thisbookonthesubject: “It is, then,manifest, that thatmustnotbelaidtotheaccountofmarriage,intheabsenceofwhichevenmarriage would still have existed.…Such, however, is the presentconditionofmortalmen, that the connubial intercourseand lust areatthe same time in action.…Hence it follows that infants, althoughincapableofsinning,areyetnotbornwithoutthecontagionofsin,…not,indeed, because of what is lawful, but on account of that which isunseemly: for, from what is lawful, nature is born; from what isunseemly,sin”(42).

Towards the end of the same year (419), Augustin was led to take upagainthevexedquestionoftheoriginofthesoul,—bothinanewlettertoOptatus,120 by the zeal of the samemonk,Renatus,who had formerly

brought Optatus’ inquiries to his notice,—in an elaborate treatiseentitledOntheSoulanditsOrigin,bywayofreplytoarashadventureofa young man named Vincentius Victor, who blamed him for hisuncertaintyonsuchasubject,andattemptedtodetermineallthepuzzlesof the question, though, as Augustin insists, on assumptions that werepartly Pelagian and partlyworse.Optatus hadwritten in the hope thatAugustinhadheardbythistimefromJerome,inreplytothetreatisehehadsenthimonthissubject.Augustin,inansweringhisletter,expresseshis sorrow thathehasnot yet beenworthyof an answer fromJerome,although five years had passed away since hewrote, but his continuedhopethatsuchananswerwillinduetimecome.Forhimself,heconfessesthathehasnotyetbeenable to seehowthesoul cancontract sin fromAdam and yet not itself be contracted fromAdam; and he regrets thatOptatus,althoughholdingthatGodcreateseachsoulforitsbirth,hasnotsent him the proofs onwhich he depends for that opinion, normet itsobviousdifficulties.HerebukesOptatusforconfoundingthequestionofwhetherGodmakes the soul,with the entirely different one of howhemakes it, whether ex propagine or sive propagine. No one doubts thatGodmakesthesoul,asnoonedoubtsthatHemakesthebody.Butwhenwe consider how hemakes it, sobriety and vigilance become necessarylest we should unguardedly fall into the Pelagian heresy. Augustindefends his attitude of uncertainty, and enumerates the points as towhich he has no doubt: viz., that the soul is spirit, not body; that it isrationalorintellectual;thatitisnotofthenatureofGod,butissofaramortalcreaturethatitiscapableofdeteriorationandofalienationfromthelifeofGod,andsofarimmortalthatafterthislifeitlivesoninblissorpunishment forever; that itwasnot incarnatedbecauseof,oraccordingto,precedingdesertsacquiredinapreviousexistence,yetthatitisunderthe curse of sinwhich it derives fromAdam, and therefore in all casesalikeneedsredemptioninChrist.

Thewholesubjectofthenatureandoriginofthesoul,however,ismostfullydiscussed in the fourbookswhicharegatheredtogetherunder thecommontitleofOntheSoulanditsOrigin.VincentiusVictorwasayounglaymanwhohad recently been converted from theRogatianheresy; onbeingshownbyhisfriendPeter,apresbyter,asmallworkofAugustin’sontheoriginofthesoul,heexpressedsurprisethatsogreatamancould

professignoranceonamattersointimatetohisverybeing,and,receivingencouragement,wroteabookforPeterinwhichheattackedandtriedtosolve all the difficulties of the subject. Peter received the work withtransports of delighted admiration; but Renatus, happening that way,lookeduponitwithdistrust,and,findingthatAugustinwasspokenofinitwithscantcourtesy, felt ithisdutytosendhimacopyof it,whichhedidinthesummerof419.Itwasprobablynotuntillateinthefollowingautumn that Augustin found time to take up the matter; but then hewrote to Renatus, to Peter, and two books to Victor himself, and it isthese four books together which constitute the treatise that has comedowntous.ThefirstbookisalettertoRenatus,andisintroducedbyanexpression of thanks to him for sending Victor’s book, and of kindlyfeelingtowardsandappreciationfor thehighqualitiesofVictorhimself(1–3).ThenVictor’serrorsarepointedout,—astothenatureofthesoul(4–9),includingcertainfar-reachingcorollariesthatflowfromthese(10–15),aswellas,astotheoriginofthesoul(16–30);andthelettercloseswithsomeremarksonthedangerofarguingfromthesilenceofScripture(31),ontheself-contradictionsofVictor(34),andontheerrorsthatmustbe avoided in any theory of the origin of the soul that hopes to beacceptable,—towit,thatsoulsbecomesinfulbyanalienoriginalsin,thatunbaptized infants need no salvation, that souls sinned in a previousstate, and that they are condemned for sins which they have notcommittedbutwouldhavecommittedhadtheylivedlonger.Thesecondbook isa letter toPeter,warninghimof theresponsibility that restsonhimasVictor’strustedfriendandaclergyman,tocorrectVictor’serrors,andreprovinghimfor theuninstructeddelighthehad taken inVictor’scrudities.ItopensbyaskingPeterwhatwastheoccasionofthegreatjoywhichVictor’sbookbroughthim?coulditbethathelearnedfromit,forthe first time, theoldandprimary truths it contained? (2–3);orwas itduetothenewerrorsthatitproclaimed,—sevenofwhichheenumerates?(4–16).Then,afteranimadvertingonthedilemmainwhichVictorstood,ofeitherbeingforcedtowithdrawhisviolentassertionofcreationism,orelseofmakingGodunjustinHisdealingswithnewsouls(17),hespeaksofVictor’sunjustifiabledogmatisminthematter(18–21),andcloseswithseverelysolemnwordstoPeteronhisresponsibilityinthepremises(22–23). In the third and fourth books, which are addressed to Victor, thepolemic,ofcourse,reachesitsheight.Thethirdbookisentirelytakenup

withpointingouttoVictor,asafathertoason,theerrorsintowhichhehasfallen,andwhich,inaccordancewithhisprofessionsofreadinessforamendment,heoughttocorrect.Elevenareenumerated:1.Thatthesoulwasmade byGod out ofHimself (3–7); 2. That Godwill continuouslycreatesoulsforever(8);3.Thatthesoulhasdesertofgoodbeforebirth(9);4.(contradictingly),Thatthesoulhasdesertofevilbeforebirth(10);5. That the soul deserved to be sinful before any sin (11); 6. Thatunbaptized infants are saved (12); 7. ThatwhatGodpredestinatesmaynotoccur(13);8.ThatWisd.iv.1isspokenofinfants(14);9.Thatsomeof themansionswith theFather are outside ofGod’s kingdom (15–17);10.ThatthesacrificeofChrist’sbloodmaybeofferedfortheunbaptized(18); 11.That theunbaptizedmayattainat the resurrectioneven to thekingdom of heaven (19). The book closes by reminding Victor of hisprofessions of readiness to correct his errors, andwarning him againsttheobstinacythatmakestheheretic(20–23).Thefourthbookdealswiththemorepersonalelementsofthecontroversy,anddiscussesthepointsin which Victor had expressed dissent from Augustin. It opens with astatementofthetwogroundsofcomplaintthatVictorhadurgedagainstAugustin; viz., that he refused to express a confident opinion as to theoriginof thesoul,andthatheaffirmedthat thesoulwasnotcorporeal,butspirit(1–2).Thesetwocomplaintsarethentakenupatlength(2–16and17–37).Tothefirst,Augustinrepliesthatman’sknowledgeisatbestlimited, andoftenmost limited about the thingsnearest tohim;wedonot know the constitution of our bodies; and, above most others, thissubject of the origin of the soul is one on which no one but God is acompetentwitness.Whoremembershisbirth?Whorememberswhatwasbefore birth?But this is just one of the subjects onwhichGodhas notspokenunambiguouslyintheScriptures.Woulditnotbebetter,then,forVictor to imitate Augustin’s cautious ignorance, than that Augustinshould imitate Victor’s rash assertion of errors? That the soul is notcorporeal, Augustin argues (18–35) from the Scriptures and from thephenomena of dreams; and then shows, in opposition to Victor’strichotomy, that the Scriptures teach the identity of “soul” and “spirit”(36–37).ThebookcloseswitharenewedenumerationofVictor’selevenerrors(38),andafinaladmonitiontohisrashness(39).ItispleasanttoknowthatAugustinfoundinthiscase,also,thatrighteousnessisthefruitof the faithful wounds of a friend. Victor accepted the rebuke, and

professedhisbetterinstructionatthehandsofhismodestbutresistlessantagonist.

The controversy now entered upon a new stage. Among the evictedbishopsofItalywhorefusedtosignZosimus’EpistolaTractoria,JulianofEclanum was easily the first, and at this point he appears as thechampionofPelagianism.ItwasasadfatethatarrayedthisbelovedsonofhisoldfriendagainstAugustin,justwhenthereseemedtobereasontohope that the controversywas at an end, and the victorywon, and theplaudits of the world were greeting him as the saviour of theChurch.121Butthenowfast-agingbishopwastofind,that,inthis“veryconfidentyoungman,”hehadyettomeetthemostpersistentandmostdangerousadvocateofthenewdoctrinesthathadarisen.Julianhadsent,atanearlierperiod,twoletterstoZosimus,oneofwhichhascomedownto us as a “Confession of Faith,” and the other of which attempted toapproachAugustinianformsofspeechasmuchaspossible;theobjectofboth being to gain standing ground in the Church for the ItalianPelagians. Now he appears as a Pelagian controversialist; and inoppositiontothebookOnMarriageandConcupiscence,whichAugustinhad sent Valerius, he published an extended work in four thick booksaddressedtoTurbantius.ExtractsfromthefirstofthesebooksweresentbysomeonetoValerius,andwereplacedbyhiminthehandsofAlypius,whowastheninItaly,fortransmissiontoAugustin.Meanwhile,aletterhadbeensenttoRomebyJulian,122designedtostrengthenthecauseofPelagianism there; and a similar one, in the names of the eighteenPelagianizing Italian bishops, was addressed to Rufus, bishop ofThessalonica,andrepresentativeoftheRomanseeinthatportionoftheEasternEmpirewhichwasregardedasecclesiasticallyapartoftheWest,thedesignofwhichwastoobtainthepowerfulsupportofthisimportantmagnate,perhaps,also,arefugefrompersecutionwithinhisjurisdiction.These two letters came into the hands of the new Pope, Boniface, whogave themalso toAlypius for transmission toAugustin.Thusprovided,AlypiusreturnedtoAfrica.ThetacticsofallthesewritingsofJulianwereessentiallythesame;heattemptednotsomuchtodefendPelagianism,astoattackAugustinianism,andthus literallytocarrythewar intoAfrica.He insisted that the corruption of nature which Augustin taught wasnothingelsethanManicheism;thatthesovereigntyofgrace,astaughtby

him,wasonlytheattributionof“acceptanceofpersons,”andpartiality,toGod; and that his doctrine of predestination was mere fatalism. Heaccused the anti-Pelagians of denying the goodness of the nature thatGodhadcreated,ofthemarriagethatHehadordained,ofthelawthatHehadgiven,of the freewill thatHehad implanted inman,aswellas theperfection of His saints.123 He insisted that this teaching also diddishonourtobaptismitselfwhichitprofessedsotohonour,inasmuchasit asserted the continuance of concupiscence after baptism,—and thustaughtthatbaptismdoesnottakeawaysins,butonlyshavesthemoffasone shaves his beard, and leaves the roots whence the sins may growanew,andneedcuttingdownagain.Hecomplainedbitterlyofthewayinwhich Pelagianism had been condemned,—that bishops had beencompelled to sign a definition of dogma, not in council assembled, butsittingathome;andhedemandedarehearingofthewholecasebeforealawfulcouncil,lestthedoctrineoftheManicheesshouldbeforcedupontheacceptanceoftheworld.

AugustinfeltastrongdesiretoseethewholeworkofJulianagainsthisbookOnMarriageandConcupiscencebeforeheundertookareplytotheexcerpts sent him by Valerius; but he did not feel justified in delayingobediencetothatofficer’srequest,andsowroteatoncetwotreatises,oneananswerto theseexcerpts, for thebenefitofValerius,constitutingthesecondbookofhisOnMarriageandConcupiscence;andtheother,afarmoreelaborateexaminationof the letterssentbyBoniface,whichbearsthetitle,AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians.ThepurposeofthesecondbookofOnMarriageandConcupiscence,Augustinhimself states, in itsintroductory sentences, to be “to reply to the taunts of his adversarieswithallthetruthfulnessandscripturalauthorityhecouldcommand.”Hebegins(2)by identifying thesourceof theextracts forwardedtohimbyValerius,withJulian’sworkagainsthisfirstbook,andthenremarksuponthegarbledforminwhichheisquotedinthem(3–6),andpassesontostateandrefuteJulian’schargethatthecatholicshadturnedManicheans(7–9).Atthispoint,therefutationofJulianbeginsingoodearnest,andthemethodthatheproposestouseisstated;viz.,toadducetheadversestatements,andrefutethemonebyone(10).Beginningatthebeginning,he quotes first the title of the paper sent him,which declares that it isdirectedagainst“thosewhocondemnmatrimony,andascribeitsfruitto

theDevil”(11),whichcertainly,saysAugustin,doesnotdescribehimorthe catholics. The next twenty chapters (10–30), accordingly, followingJulian’s order, labour to prove thatmarriage is good, and ordained byGod,butthatitsgoodincludesfecundityindeed,butnotconcupiscence,which arose from sin, and contracts sin. It is next argued, that thedoctrineoforiginalsindoesnotimplyaneviloriginforman(31–51);andinthecourseof thisargument, the followingpropositionsareespeciallydefended: thatGodmakes offspring for good and bad alike, just asHesendstherainandsunshineonjustandunjust(31–34);thatGodmakeseverything to be found inmarriage except its flaw, concupiscence (35–40); thatmarriage isnot thecauseoforiginal sin,butonly thechannelthrough which it is transmitted (41–47); and that to assert that evilcannot arise from what is good leaves us in the clutches of that veryManicheismwhichissounjustlychargedagainstthecatholics—for,ifevilbe not eternal, what else was there from which it could arise butsomething good? (48–51). In concluding, Augustin recapitulates, andarguesespecially,thatshamefulconcupiscenceisofsin,andtheauthorofsin,andwasnotinparadise(52–54);thatchildrenaremadebyGod,andonlymarredbytheDevil(55);thatJulian,inadmittingthatChristdiedfor infants, admits that they need salvation (56); that what the Devilmakes in children isnota substance,butan injury toa substance (57–58); and that to suppose that concupiscence existed in any form inparadiseintroducesincongruities inourconceptionof life inthatabodeofprimevalbliss(59–60).

The long and important treatise, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians,consistsoffourbooks,thefirstofwhichrepliestothelettersenttoRome,and the other three to that sent to Thessalonica. After a shortintroduction, in which he thanks Boniface for his kindness, and givesreasons why heretical writings should be answered (1–3), Augustinbeginsatoncetorebutthecalumnieswhichtheletterbeforehimbringsagainst the catholics (4–28). These are seven in number: 1. That thecatholicsdestroyfreewill;towhichAugustinrepliesthatnoneare“forcedintosinbythenecessityoftheirflesh,”butallsinbyfreewill,thoughnomancanhavearighteouswillsavebyGod’sgrace,andthatitisreallythePelagiansthatdestroyfreewillbyexaggeratingit(4–8);2.ThatAugustindeclaresthatsuchmarriageasnowexistsisnotofGod(9);3.Thatsexual

desire and intercourse are made a device of the Devil, which is sheerManicheism (10–11); 4.That theOld-Testament saints are said tohavediedinsin(12);5.ThatPaulandtheotherapostlesareassertedtohavebeenpollutedbylustalltheirdays;Augustin’sanswertowhichincludesarunning commentary on Rom. vii. 7 sq., in which (correcting his olderexegesis) he shows that Paul is giving here a transcript of his ownexperience as a typical Christian (13–24); 6. That Christ is said not tohave been free from sin (25); 7. That baptism does not give completeremissionof sins, but leaves roots fromwhich theymayagaingrow; towhich Augustin replies that baptism does remit all sins, but leavesconcupiscence, which, although not sin, is the source of sin (26–28).Next,thepositivepartofJulian’sletteristakenup,andhisprofessionoffaithagainstthecatholicsexamined(29–41).ThesevenaffirmationsthatJulian makes here are designed as the obverse of the seven chargesagainstthecatholics.Hebelieved:1.Thatfreewillisinallbynature,andcouldnotperishbyAdam’ssin (29);2.Thatmarriage,asnowexistent,wasordainedbyGod (30);3.That sexual impulse andvirility are fromGod (31–35); 4. Thatmen are God’s work, and no one is forced to dogoodorevilunwillingly,butareassistedbygracetogood,andincitedbytheDevil to evil (36–38); 5.That the saintsof theOldTestamentwereperfected in righteousness here, and so passed into eternal life (39); 6.ThatthegraceofChrist(ambiguouslymeant)isnecessaryforall,andallchildren—eventhoseofbaptizedparents—aretobebaptized(40);7.Andthat baptism gives full cleansing from all sins; to which Augustinpointedly asks, “What does it do for infants, then?” (41). The bookconcludeswithananswertoJulian’sconclusion,inwhichhedemandsageneralcouncil,andchargesthecatholicswithManicheism.

The second, third, and fourth books deal with the letter to Rufus in asomewhat similarway, the secondand thirdbooksbeingoccupiedwiththe calumnies brought against the catholics, and the fourth with theclaimsmadebythePelagians.ThesecondbeginsbyrepellingthechargeofManicheismbroughtagainstthecatholics(1–4),towhichthepointedremarkisadded,thatthePelagianscannothopetoescapecondemnationbecause they arewilling to condemn another heresy; and then defends(withlesssuccess)theRomanclergyagainstthechargeofprevaricationintheirdealingwiththePelagians(5–8), inthecourseofwhichallthat

can be said in defence of Zosimus’ wavering policy is said well andstrongly. Next the charges against catholic teaching are taken up andanswered (9–16), especially the two important accusations that theymaintainfateunderthenameofgrace(9–12),andthattheymakeGodan“accepterofpersons” (13–16).Augustin’s replies to thesechargesare inevery way admirable. The charge of “fate” rests solely on the catholicdenialthatgraceisgivenaccordingtoprecedingmerits;butthePelagiansdonotescapethesamechargewhentheyacknowledgethatthe“fates”ofbaptizedandunbaptizedinfantsdodiffer.Itis,intruth,notaquestionof“fate,”butofgratuitousbounty;and“itisnotthecatholicsthatassertfateunder the name of grace, but the Pelagians that choose to call divinegracebythenameof‘fate’”(12).Asto“acceptanceofpersons,”wemustdefine what we mean by that. God certainly does not accept one’s“person”aboveanother’s;HedoesnotgivetooneratherthantoanotherbecauseHe sees something to pleaseHim in one rather than another:quitetheopposite.HegivesofHisbountytoonewhilegivingalltheirduetoall,asintheparable(Matt.xx.9sq.).ToaskwhyHedoesthis,istoaskinvain:theapostleanswersbynotanswering(Rom.ix.);andbeforethedumbinfants,whoareyetmadetodiffer,allobjectiontoGodisdumb.From this point, the book becomes an examination of the Pelagiandoctrine of prevenient merit (17–23), concluding that God gives all bygracefromthebeginningtotheendofeveryprocessofdoinggood.1.Hecommandsthegood;2.Hegivesthedesiretodoit;and,3.Hegivesthepowertodoit:andall,ofHisgratuitousmercy.ThethirdbookcontinuesthediscussionofthecalumniesofthePelagiansagainstthecatholics,andenumeratesandanswerssixofthem:viz.,thatthecatholicsteach,1.ThattheOld-Testamentlawwasgiven,nottojustifytheobedient,buttoserveas cause of greater sin (2–3); 2. That baptism does not give entireremissionofsins,butthebaptizedarepartlyGod’sandpartlytheDevil’s(4–5);3.ThattheHolyGhostdidnotassistvirtueintheOldTestament(6–13);4.ThattheBiblesaintswerenotholy,butonlylesswickedthanothers (14–15); 5. That Christ was a sinner by necessity of His flesh(doubtless,Julian’sinferencefromthedoctrineofrace-sin)(16);6.ThatmenwillbegintofulfilGod’scommandmentsonlyaftertheresurrection(17–23).Augustinshowsthatatthebasisofallthesecalumnieslieseithermisapprehension or misrepresentation; and, in concluding the book,enumerates the three chief points in the Pelagian heresy, with the five

claims growing out of them, of which they most boasted, and thenelucidatesthemutualrelationsof thethreeparties,catholics,Pelagians,and Manicheans, with reference to these points, showing that thecatholics stand asunder from both the others, and condemn both (24–27). This conclusion is really a preparation for the fourth book, whichtakes up these five Pelagian claims, and, after showing the catholicpositiononthemallinbrief(1–3),discussestheminturn(4–19):viz.,thepraiseofthecreature(4–8),thepraiseofmarriage(9),thepraiseofthelaw (10–11), thepraiseof freewill (12–16), and thepraiseof the saints(17–18).Attheend,AugustincallsonthePelagianstoceasetoopposetheManicheans, only to fall into as bad heresy as theirs (19); and then, inreply to their accusation that the catholics were proclaiming noveldoctrine, he adduces the testimony of Cyprian and Ambrose, both ofwhomhadreceivedPelagius’praise,oneachofthethreemainpointsofPelagianism (20–32),124 and then closes with the declaration that the“impious and foolish doctrine,” as they called it, of the catholics, isimmemorialtruth(33),andwithadenialoftherightofthePelagianstoaskforageneralcounciltocondemnthem(34).Allheresiesdonotneedanecumenicalsynodfortheircondemnation;usually it isbest tostampthem out locally, and not allow what may be confined to a corner todisturbthewholeworld.

Thesebookswerewrittenlatein420,orearlyin421,andAlypiusappearsto have conveyed them to Italy during the latter year. Before its close,Augustin, havingobtained and read thewhole of Julian’s attack on thefirst book of his work On Marriage and Concupiscence, wrote out acomplete answer to it,125—a task that he was all the more anxious tocomplete,onperceivingthattheextractssentbyValeriuswerenotonlyallfromthefirstbookofJulian’streatise,butweresomewhatalteredintheextracting.Theresultingwork,AgainstJulian,oneofthelongestthathe wrote in the whole course of the Pelagian controversy, shows itsauthorathisbest:accordingtoCardinalNoris’sjudgment,heappearsinit“almostdivine,”andAugustinhimselfclearlysetgreatstorebyit.Inthefirst book of this noble treatise, after professing his continued love forJulian,“whomhewasunablenottolove,whateverhe[Julian]shouldsayagainsthim”(35),heundertakestoshowthatinaffixingtheopprobriousname of Manicheans on those who assert original sin, Julian is

incriminatingmany of themost famous fathers, both of the Latin andGreekChurches.Inproofofthis,hemakesappropriatequotationsfromIrenæus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Ambrose, GregoryNazianzenus,Basil, JohnofConstantinople.126Thenheargues, that, sofar from the catholics falling into Manichean heresy, Julian plays,himself, into the hands of the Manicheans in their strife against thecatholics,bymanyunguardedstatements,suchas,e.g.,whenhesaysthatanevil thingcannotarise fromwhat isgood, that theworkof theDevilcannotbesufferedtobediffusedbymeansofaworkofGod,thatarootof evil cannot be placedwithin a gift of God, and the like. The secondbook advances to greater detail, and adduces the five great argumentswhichthePelagiansurgedagainstthecatholics,inordertotestthembythevoiceofantiquity.Theseargumentsarestatedasfollows(2):“Foryousay,‘Thatwe,byassertingoriginalsin,affirmthattheDevilisthemakerofinfants,condemnmarriage,denythatallsinsareremittedinbaptism,accuse God of the guilt of sin, and produce despair of perfection.’ Youcontend that all these are consequences, if we believe that infants arebornboundbythesinofthefirstman,andarethereforeundertheDevilunlesstheyarebornagaininChrist.For,‘ItistheDevilthatcreates,’yousay,‘iftheyarecreatedfromthatwoundwhichtheDevilinflictedonthehumannaturethatwasmadeatfirst.’‘Andmarriageiscondemned,’yousay,‘ifitistobebelievedtohavesomethingaboutitwhenceitproducesthoseworthyofcondemnation.’‘Andallsinsarenotremittedinbaptism,’you say, ‘if there remains any evil in baptized couples whence eviloffspring are produced.’ ‘And how is God,’ you ask, ‘not unjust, if He,while remitting their own sins to baptized persons, yet condemns theiroffspring, inasmuch as, although it is created byHim, it yet ignorantlyandinvoluntarilycontractsthesinsofothersfromthoseveryparentstowhomtheyareremitted?’‘Norcanmenbelieve,’youadd,‘thatvirtue—towhichcorruptionistobeunderstoodtobecontrary—canbeperfected,ifthey cannot believe that it can destroy the inbred vices, although, nodoubt,thesecanscarcelybeconsideredvices,sincehedoesnotsin,whois unable to be other than hewas created.’” These arguments are thentested, one by one, by the authority of the earlier teachers who wereappealedtointhefirstbook,andshowntobecondemnedbythem.TheremainingfourbooksfollowJulian’sfourbooks,argumentbyargument,refutinghimindetail.Inthethirdbookit isurgedthatalthoughGodis

good,andmademangood,and institutedmarriagewhich is, therefore,good,neverthelessconcupiscenceisevil,andinitthefleshlustsagainstthespirit.Althoughchastespousesusethisevilwell,continentbelieversdobetterinnotusingitatall.Itispointedout,howfarallthisisfromthemadnessoftheManicheans,whodreamofmatterasessentiallyevilandco-eternal with God; and shown that evil concupiscence sprang fromAdam’sdisobedienceand,beingtransmittedtous,canberemovedonlybyChrist.It isshown,also, thatJulianhimselfconfesses lust tobeevil,inasmuchashespeaksofremediesagainstit,wishesittobebridled,andspeaks of the continent waging a glorious warfare. The fourth bookfollows the second book of Julian’s work, and makes two chiefcontentions: that unbelievers have no true virtues, and that even theheathenrecognizeconcupiscenceasevil. Italsoargues thatgrace isnotgivenaccordingtomerit,andyetisnottobeconfoundedwithfate;andexplainsthetextthatassertsthat‘Godwishesallmentobesaved,’inthesensethat‘allmen’means‘allthataretobesaved’sincenonearesavedexcept by His will.127 The fifth book, in like manner, follows Julian’sthirdbook,andtreatsofsuchsubjectsasthese:thatitisduetosinthatany infants are lost; that shame arose in our first parents through sin;thatsincanwellbethepunishmentofprecedingsin;thatconcupiscenceisalwaysevil, even in thosewhodonotassent to it; that truemarriagemayexistwithoutintercourse;thatthe“flesh”ofChristdiffersfromthe“sinfulflesh”ofothermen;andthelike.Inthesixthbook,Julian’sfourthbookisfollowed,andoriginalsinisprovedfromthebaptismofinfants,the teaching of the apostles, and the rites of exorcism and exsufflationincorporatedintheformofbaptism.Then,bythehelpoftheillustrationdrawn from the olive and the oleaster, it is explained how Christianparentscanproduceunregenerateoffspring;andtheoriginallyvoluntarycharacterofsinisasserted,eventhoughitnowcomesbyinheritance.

Afterthecompletionofthisimportantwork,theresucceededalullinthecontroversy, of some years duration; and the calm refutation ofPelagianism and exposition of Christian grace, which Augustin gave inhisEnchiridion,128mightwellhaveseemedtohimhisclosingwordonthisall-absorbingsubject.Buthehadnotyetgiventheworldallhehadintreasure for it, and we can rejoice in the chance that five or six yearsafterwards drew from him a renewed discussion of some of the more

important aspects of the doctrine of grace. The circumstances whichbroughtthisaboutaresufficientlyinterestinginthemselves,andopenuptousanunwontedviewintothemonasticlifeofthetimes.Therewasanimportant monastery at Adrumetum, the metropolitan city of theprovinceofByzacium,129fromwhichamonknamedFloruswentoutona journey of charity to his native country of Uzalis about 426. On thejourneyhemetwithAugustin’slettertoSixtus,130inwhichthedoctrinesof gratuitous and prevenient grace were expounded. He was muchdelightedwithit,and,procuringacopy,sentitbacktohismonasteryfortheedificationofhisbrethren,whilehehimselfwentontoCarthage.Atthe monastery, the letter created great disturbance: without theknowledgeoftheabbot,Valentinus,itwasreadaloudtothemonks,manyofwhomwereunskilledintheologicalquestions;andsomefiveormoreweregreatlyoffended,anddeclaredthatfreewillwasdestroyedbyit.Asecretstrifearoseamongthebrethren,sometakingextremegroundsonbothsides.Ofall this,Valentinus remained ignorantuntil the returnofFlorus,whowasattackedastheauthorofallthetrouble,andwhofeltithisdutytoinformtheabbotofthestateofaffairs.Valentinusappliedfirstto the bishop, Evodius, for such instruction as wouldmake Augustin’sletter clear to themost simple. Evodius replied, praising their zeal anddeprecatingtheircontentiousness,andexplainingthatAdamhadfullfreewill,butthatitisnowwoundedandweak,andChrist’smissionwasasaphysiciantocureandrecuperateit.“Letthemread,” ishisprescription,“thewordsofGod’selders.…Andwhentheydonotunderstand,letthemnotquickly reprehend, butpray tounderstand.”Thisdidnot, however,curethemalecontents,andtheholypresbyterSabrinuswasappealedto,and sent a book with clear interpretations. But neither was thissatisfactory;andValentinus,at last,reluctantlyconsentedthatAugustinhimself shouldbe consulted,—fearing,he says, lest bymaking inquirieshe should seem to waver about the truth. Two members of thecommunitywere consequently permitted to journey toHippo, but theytookwiththemnointroductionandnocommendationfromtheirabbot.Augustin, nevertheless, received them without hesitation, as they borethemselves with too great simplicity to allow him to suspect them ofdeception.Nowwe get a glimpse of life in the great bishop’smonastichome.Themonkstoldtheirstory,andwerelistenedtowithcourtesyandinstructedwithpatience; and, as theywere anxious to get homebefore

Easter,theyreceivedaletterforValentinus131inwhichAugustinbrieflyexplains thenatureof themisapprehension thathadarisen, andpointsout that both grace and free will must be defended, and neither soexaggerated as to deny the other. The letter of Sixtus, he explains,waswrittenagainstthePelagians,whoassertthatgraceisgivenaccordingtomerit, and briefly expounds the true doctrine of grace as necessarilygratuitousandthereforeprevenient.Whenthemonkswereonthepointof starting home, they were joined by a third companion fromAdrumetum, and were led to prolong their visit. This gave him theopportunityhecravedfortheirfullerinstruction:hereadwiththemandexplainedtothemnotonlyhislettertoSixtus,fromwhichthestrifehadrisen, but much of the chief literature of the Pelagiancontroversy,132 copiesofwhichalsoweremade for them to takehomewiththem;andwhentheywerereadytogo,hesentbythemanotherandlongerlettertoValentinus,andplacedintheirhandsatreatisecomposedfortheirespecialuse,which,moreover,heexplainedtothem.Thislongerletterisessentiallyanexhortation“toturnasideneithertotherighthandnor to the left,”—neither to the left hand of the Pelagian error ofupholding freewill in suchamanner as todenygrace,nor to the righthand of the equal error of so upholding grace as if we might yieldourselves to evil with impunity. Both grace and free will are to beproclaimed;anditistrueboththatgraceisnotgiventomerits,andthatweare tobe judgedat the lastdayaccording toourworks.The treatisewhichAugustincomposedforafullerexpositionofthesedoctrinesistheimportant work On Grace and Free Will. After a brief introduction,explaining the occasion of his writing, and exhorting the monks tohumilityandteachablenessbeforeGod’srevelations(1),AugustinbeginsbyassertingandprovingthetwopropositionsthattheScripturesclearlyteachthatmanhasfreewill(2–5),and,asclearly,thenecessityofgracefor doing any good (6–9). He then examines the passages which thePelagians claim as teaching that wemust first turn to God, before HevisitsuswithHisgrace(10–11),andthenundertakestoshowthatgraceisnot given tomerit (12 sq.), appealing especially to Paul’s teaching andexample,andreplyingtotheassertionthatforgivenessistheonlygracethatisnotgivenaccordingtoourmerits(15–18),andtothequery,“Howcaneternal lifebebothofgraceandofreward?”(19–21).Thenatureofgrace,whatitis,isnextexplained(22sq.).Itisnotthelaw,whichgives

onlyknowledgeofsin(22–24),nornature,whichwouldrenderChrist’sdeath needless (25), normere forgiveness of sins, as the Lord’s Prayer(whichshouldbereadwithCyprian’scommentsonit)isenoughtoshow(26).Norwillitdotosaythatitisgiventothemeritofagoodwill,thusdistinguishingthegoodworkwhichisofgracefromthegoodwillwhichprecedesgrace (27–30); for theScripturesoppose this,andourprayersforothersprovethatweexpectGodtobethefirstmover,asindeedbothScriptureandexperienceprovethatHeis.Itisnextshownthatbothfreewillandgraceareconcernedintheheart’sconversion(31–32),andthatlove is thespringofallgood inman(33–40),which,however,wehaveonlybecauseGodfirstlovedus(38),andwhichiscertainlygreaterthanknowledge,althoughthePelagiansadmitonlythe lattertobefromGod(40). God’s sovereign government of men’s wills is then proved fromScripture (41–43), and the wholly gratuitous character of grace isillustrated(44),whiletheonlypossibletheodicyisfoundinthecertaintythattheLordofalltheearthwilldoright.For,thoughnooneknowswhyHetakesoneandleavesanother,weallknowthatHehardensjudiciallyand saves graciously,—that He hardens none who do not deservehardening,butnonethatHesavesdeservetobesaved(45).Thetreatisecloseswithanexhortationtoitsprayerfulandrepeatedstudy(46).

TheonerequestthatAugustinmade,onsendingthisworktoValentinus,was that Florus, through whom the controversy had arisen, should besenttohim,thathemightconversewithhimandlearnwhetherhehadbeen misunderstood, or himself had misunderstood Augustin. In duetimeFlorusarrivedatHippo,bringingaletter133fromValentinuswhichaddresses Augustin as “Lord Pope” (domine papa), thanks him for his“sweet” and “healing” instruction, and introduces Florus as one whosetrue faith could be confided in. It is very clear, both from Valentinus’letterandfromthehintsthatAugustingives,thathislovingdealingwiththe monks had borne admirable fruit: “none were cast down for theworse,somewerebuiltupforthebetter.”134Butitwasreportedtohimthat some one at the monastery had objected to the doctrine he hadtaught them, that “noman ought, then, to be rebuked for not keepingGod’s commandments; but onlyGod should be besought that hemightkeepthem.”135Inotherwords,itwassaidthatifallgoodwas,inthelastresort,fromGod’sgrace,manoughtnottobeblamedfornotdoingwhat

he couldnotdo, butGodought tobebesought todo formanwhatHealonecoulddo:weought,inaword,toapplytothesourceofpower.Thisoccasioned the composition of yet another treatise On Rebuke andGrace,136 the object of which was to explain the relations of grace tohuman conduct, and especially tomake it plain that the sovereignty ofGod’sgracedoesnotsupersedeourdutytoourselvesorourfellow-men.It begins by thanking Valentinus for his letter and for sending Florus(whomAugustinfindswellinstructedinthetruth),thankingGodforthegoodeffectofthepreviousbook,andrecommendingitscontinuedstudy,andthenbybrieflyexpoundingtheCatholicfaithconcerninggrace,free-will,andthe law(1–2).Thegeneralpropositionthat isdefended is thatthe gratuitous sovereignty of God’s grace does not supersede humanmeans for obtaining and continuing it (3 sq.). This is shown by theapostle’sexample,whousedallhumanmeansfortheprosecutionofhiswork, and yet confessed that it was “God that gave the increase” (3).Objectionsarethenanswered(4sq.),—especiallythegreatonethat“itisnotmyfaultifIdonotdowhatIhavenotreceivedgracefordoing”(6);to which Augustin replies (7–10), that we deserve rebuke for our veryunwillingnesstoberebuked,thatonthesamereasoningtheprescriptionof the law and the preaching of the gospel would be useless, that theapostle’s example opposes such a position, and that our consciousnesswitnesses that we deserve rebuke for not persevering in the right way.Fromthispointanimportantdiscussionarises,inthisinterest,ofthegiftof perseverance (11–19), and of God’s election (20–24); the teachingbeing that no one is saved who does not persevere, and all that arepredestinatedor“calledaccordingtothepurpose”(Augustin’sphraseforwhatweshouldcall“effectualcalling”)willpersevere,andyetthatweco-operateby ourwill in all gooddeeds, anddeserve rebuke ifwedonot.Whether Adam received the gift of perseverance, and, in general, thedifferencebetweenthegracegiventohim(whichwasthatgracebywhichhecouldstand)andthatnowgiventoGod’schildren(whichisthatgraceby which we are actually made to stand), are next discussed (26–38),withtheresultofshowingthesuperiorgreatnessofthegiftsofgracenowto thosegivenbefore the fall.ThenecessityofGod’smercyatall times,andourconstantdependenceonit,arenextvigorouslyasserted(39–42);eveninthedayofjudgment,ifwearenotjudged“withmercy”wecannotbe saved (41). The treatise is brought to an end by a concluding

applicationofthewholediscussiontothespecialmatterinhand,rebuke(43–49). Seeing that rebuke is one of God’smeans of working out hisgraciouspurposes, itcannotbeinconsistentwiththesovereigntyofthatgrace;for,ofcourse,Godpredestinatesthemeanswiththeend(43).Norcanweknow,inourignorance,whetherourrebukeis, inanyparticularcase, to be the means of amendment or the ground of greatercondemnation. How dare we, then, withhold it? Let it be, however,graduatedtothefault,andletusalwaysrememberitspurpose(46–48).Aboveall,letusnotdareholditback,lestweholdbackfromourbrotherthe means of his recovery, and, as well, disobey the command of God(49).

Itwasnotlongafterwards(about427)whenAugustinwascalledupontoattempttoreclaimaCarthaginianbrother,Vitalisbyname,whohadbeenbroughttotrialonthechargeofteachingthatthebeginningoffaithwasnot the gift of God, but the act of man’s own free will (ex propriavoluntatis). This was essentially the semi-Pelagian position which wassubsequentlytomakesolargeafigureinhistory;andAugustintreats itnow as necessarily implying the basal idea of Pelagianism. In theimportant letter which he sent to Vitalis,137 he first argues that hisposition is inconsistent with the prayers of the church. He, Augustin,prays that Vitalismay come to the true faith; but does not this prayerascribetheoriginationofrightfaithtoGod?TheChurchsopraysforallmen: the priest at the altar exhorts the people to pray God forunbelievers,thatHemayconvertthemtothefaith;forcatechumens,thatHemaybreatheintothemadesireforregeneration;forthefaithful,thatbyHisaidtheymaypersevereinwhattheyhavebegun:willVitalisrefusetoobeytheseexhortations,because,forsooth,faithisoffreewillandnotof God’s gift? Nay, will a Carthaginian scholar array himself againstCyprian’sexpositionoftheLord’sPrayer?forhecertainlyteachesthatwearetoaskofGodwhatVitalissaysistobehadofourselves.Wemaygofarther:itisnotCyprian,butPaul,whosays,“LetuspraytoGodthatwedonoevil”(2Cor.xiii.7);itisthePsalmistwhosays,“ThestepsofmanaredirectedbyGod”(Ps.xxxvi.23).“Ifwewishtodefendfreewill,letusnotstriveagainstthatbywhichitismadefree.Forhewhostrivesagainstgrace, bywhich thewill ismade free for refusing evil and doing good,wisheshiswilltoremaincaptive.Tellus,Ibegyou,howtheapostlecan

say,‘WegivethankstotheFatherwhomadeusfittohaveourlotwiththesaints in light, who delivered us from the power of darkness, andtranslatedusintothekingdomoftheSonofHislove’(Col.i.12,13),ifnotHe,butitself,freesourchoice?Itis,then,afalserenderingofthankstoGod,asifHedoeswhatHedoesnotdo;andhehaserredwhohassaidthat‘Hemakesusfit,etc.’‘ThegraceofGod,’therefore,doesnotconsistin the nature of free-will, and in law and teaching, as the Pelagianperversity dreams; but it is given for each single act by His will,concerningwhomit iswritten,”—quotingPs. lxvii.10.Aboutthemiddleof the letter, Augustin lays down twelve propositions against thePelagians,whichareimportantascommunicatingtouswhathethought,at the end of the controversy, were the chief points in dispute. “Since,therefore,”hewrites, “wearecatholicChristians:1.Weknowthatnew-bornchildrenhavenotyetdoneanythingintheirownlives,goodorevil,neither have they come into the miseries of this life according to thedesertsofsomepreviouslife,whichnoneofthemcanhavehadintheirown persons; and yet, because they are born carnally afterAdam, theycontract the contagion of ancient death, by the first birth, and are notfreedfromthepunishmentofeternaldeath(whichiscontractedbyajustcondemnation, passing over from one to all), except they are by gracebornagaininChrist.2.WeknowthatthegraceofGodisgivenneithertochildren nor to adults according to our deserts. 3. We know that it isgiventoadultsforeachseveralact.4.Weknowthatitisnotgiventoallmen;andtothosetowhomitisgiven,itisnotonlynotgivenaccordingtothemerits of works, but it is not even given to them according to themerits of their will; and this is especially apparent in children. 5. Weknowthattothosetowhomitisgiven,itisgivenbythegratuitousmercyofGod.6.Weknowthattothosetowhomitisnotgiven,itisnotgivenbythe just judgmentofGod.7.WeknowthatweshallallstandbeforethetribunalofChrist,andeachshallreceiveaccordingtowhathehasdonethrough the body,—not according towhat hewould have done, had helivedlonger,—whethergoodorevil.8.Weknowthatevenchildrenaretoreceiveaccordingtowhattheyhavedonethroughthebody,whethergoodorevil.Butaccordingtowhat“theyhavedone”notbytheirownact,butby the act of those by whose responses for them they are said both torenounce the Devil and to believe in God, wherefore they are countedamongthenumberofthefaithful,andhavepartinthestatementofthe

LordwhenHe says, “Whosoever shall believe andbebaptized, shall besaved.” Therefore also, to those who do not receive this sacrament,belongs what follows, “But whosoever shall not have believed, shall bedamned”(Markxvi.16).Whencethesetoo,asIhavesaid, if theydie inthat early age, are judged, of course, according towhat theyhavedonethroughthebody,i.e., inthetimeinwhichtheywereinthebody,whentheybelieveordonotbelievebytheheartandmouthoftheirsponsors,whentheyarebaptizedornotbaptized,whentheyeatordonoteatthefleshofChrist,whentheydrinkordonotdrinkHisblood,—accordingtothosethings,then,whichtheyhavedonethroughthebody,notaccordingtothosewhich,hadtheylivedlonger,theywouldhavedone.9.WeknowthatblessedarethedeadthatdieintheLord;andthatwhattheywouldhavedonehad they lived longer, is not imputed to them. 10.Weknowthatthosethatbelieve,withtheirownheart, intheLord,dosobytheirown freewill and choice. 11.We know thatwewho already believe actwithrightfaithtowardsthosewhodonotwishtobelieve,whenweprayto God that they may wish it. 12. We know that for those who havebelieved out of this number, we both ought and are rightly and trulyaccustomedtoreturnthankstoGod,asforhisbenefits.”Certainlysuchabodyof propositions commends their author tous asChristianboth inhead and heart: they are admirable in every respect; and even in thematterofthesalvationofinfants,wherehehadnotyetseenthelightoftruth, he expresses himself in a way as engaging in its hearty faith inGod’sgoodnessasitishonorableinitsloyaltytowhathebelievedtobetruth and justice. Here his doctrine of the Church ran athwart andcloudedhisviewof the reachofgrace;butwe seem to seebetween thelinesthepromiseofthebrighterdawnoftruththatwasyettocome.Therest of the epistle is occupiedwith an exposition and commendationofthese propositions, which ranks with the richest passages of the anti-Pelagian writings, and which breathes everywhere a yearning for hiscorrespondentwhichwecannothelphopingprovedsalutarytohisfaith.

It is not without significance, that the error of Vitalis took a semi-Pelagianform.PurePelagianismwasbythistimenolongeralivingissue.Augustinwashimself,nodoubt,notyetdonewithit.Thesecondbookofhis treatiseOnMarriageandConcupiscence,whichseems tohavebeentakentoItalybyAlypius,in421,receivedatoncetheattentionofJulian,

and was elaborately answered by him, during that same year, in eightbooks addressed toFlorus.But Julianwasnow inCilicia, andhis bookwasslowinworkingitswaywestward.ItwasfoundatRomebyAlypius,apparentlyin427or428,andheatoncesetabouttranscribingitforhisfriend’s use. An opportunity arising to send it to Africa before it wasfinished,he forwarded toAugustin the fivebooks thatwere ready,withanurgentrequestthattheyshouldreceivehisimmediateattention,andapromise to send the other three as soon as possible. Augustin gives anaccount of his progress in his reply to them in a letter written toQuodvultdeus,apparentlyin428.138ThisdeaconwasurgingAugustintogivetheChurchasuccinctaccountofallheresies;andAugustinexcuseshimselffromimmediatelyundertakingthattaskbythepressofworkonhishands.HewaswritinghisRetractations,andhadalreadyfinishedtwobooksof them, inwhichhehaddealtwith twohundredand thirty-twoworks.Hislettersandhomiliesremainedandhehadgiventhenecessaryreading tomany of the letters.Also, he tells his correspondent, hewasengaged on a reply to the eight books of Julian’s new work. Workingnightandday,hehadalreadycompletedhisresponsetothefirstthreeofJulian’s books, and had begun on the fourth while still expecting thearrival of the last threewhichAlypiushadpromised to send. If hehadcompletedtheanswertothefivebooksofJulianwhichhealreadyhadinhand,beforetheotherthreereachedhim,hemightbegintheworkwhichQuodvultdeus so earnestly desired him to undertake. In due time,whatevermay have been the trials and labours that needed first to bemet, thedesired treatiseOnHeresieswaswritten (about428), and theeighty-eighthchapterofitgivesusawelcomecompressedaccountofthePelagianheresy,whichmaybeacceptedastheobverseoftheaccountofcatholictruthgiveninthelettertoVitalis.139Butthecompositionofthisworkwasnot the only interruptionwhichpostponed the completion ofthesecondelaborateworkagainstJulian.ItwasintheprovidenceofGodthatthelifeofthisgreatleaderinthebattleforgraceshouldbeprolongeduntilhecoulddealwithsemi-Pelagianismalso.Informationastotheriseof thisnew formof theheresyatMarseilles andelsewhere inSouthernGaul was conveyed to Augustin along with entreaties, that, as “faith’sgreatpatron,”hewouldgivehis aid towardsmeeting it, by two laymenwith whom he had already had correspondence,—Prosper andHilary.140Theypointedout141thedifferencebetweenthenewpartyand

thorough-going Pelagianism; but, at the same time, the essentiallyPelagianizingcharacterofitsformativeelements.Itsrepresentativeswereready, as a rule, to admit that allmenwere lost in Adam, and no onecouldrecoverhimselfbyhisownfreewill,butallneededGod’sgraceforsalvation. But they objected to the doctrines of prevenient and ofirresistible grace; and asserted that man could initiate the process ofsalvation by turning first toGod, that allmen could resistGod’s grace,andnogracecouldbegivenwhich theycouldnot reject, andespeciallytheydenied that thegiftsofgracecame irrespectiveofmerits,actualorforeseen.Theysaid thatwhatAugustin taughtas to thecallingofGod’select according to His own purpose was tantamount to fatalism, wascontrarytotheteachingofthefathersandthetrueChurchdoctrine,and,eveniftrue,shouldnotbepreached,becauseofitstendencytodrivemeninto indifferenceordespair.Hence,ProsperespeciallydesiredAugustinto point out the dangerous nature of these views, and to show thatprevenientandco-operatinggraceisnotinconsistentwithfreewill,thatGod’s predestination is not founded on foresight of receptivity in itsobjects,andthatthedoctrinesofgracemaybepreachedwithoutdangertosouls.

Augustin’s answer to these appeals was a work in two books, On thePredestinationoftheSaints,thesecondbookofwhichisusuallyknownunder the separate title of The Gift of Perseverance. The former bookbeginswithacarefuldiscriminationofthepositionofhisnewopponents:theyhavemadearightbeginninginthattheybelieveinoriginalsin,andacknowledge thatnonearesaved fromit savebyChrist,and thatGod’sgrace leadsmen’s wills, andwithout grace no one can suffice for gooddeeds.Thesethingswillfurnishagoodstarting-pointfortheirprogresstoanacceptanceofpredestinationalso(1–2).Thefirstquestionthatneedsdiscussion in such circumstances is, whether God gives the verybeginnings of faith (3 sq.); since they admit that what Augustin hadpreviouslyurgedsufficedtoprovethatfaithwasthegiftofGodsofarasthat the increaseof faithwasgivenbyHim,butnot so farbut that thebeginningof faithmaybeunderstood tobeman’s, towhich, then,Godadds all other gifts (compare 43). Augustin insists that this is no otherthanthePelagianassertionofgraceaccordingtomerit(3),isopposedtoScripture(4–5),andbegetsarrogantboastinginourselves(6).Hereplies

totheobjectionthathehadhimselfonceheldthisview,byconfessingit,andexplainingthathewasconvertedfromitby1Cor.iv.7,asappliedbyCyprian (7–8), and expounds that verse as containing in its narrowcompassasufficientanswerto thepresent theories(9–11).Heanswers,further,theobjectionthattheapostledistinguishesfaithfromworks,andworksalonearemeantinsuchpassages,bypointingtoJohnvi.28,andsimilarstatementsinPaul(12–16).Thenheanswerstheobjectionthathehimself had previously taught that God acted on foresight of faith, byshowing that he was misunderstood (17–18). He next shows that noobjection lies against predestination that does not lie with equal forceagainst grace (19–22),—since predestination is nothing but God’sforeknowledge of and preparation for grace, and all questions ofsovereigntyandthelikebelongtograce.DidGodnotknowtowhomhewasgoingtogivefaith(19)?ordidhepromisetheresultsoffaith,works,without promising the faith without which, as going before, the workswere impossible?Would not this place God’s fulfilment of his promiseoutofHispower,andmakeitdependonman(20)?Whyaremenmorewilling to trust in theirweakness than inGod’sstrength?do theycountGod’s promises more uncertain than their own performance (22)? Henextprovesthesovereigntyofgrace,andofpredestination,whichisbutthepreparationforgrace,bythestrikingexamplesofinfants,and,aboveall,ofthehumannatureofChrist(23–31),andthenspeaksofthetwofoldcalling,oneexternalandone“accordingtopurpose,”—thelatterofwhichis efficacious and sovereign (32–37). In closing, the semi-Pelagianposition is carefully defined and refuted as opposed, alike with thegrosserPelagianism,totheScripturesofbothTestaments(38–42).

Thepurposeof thesecondbook,whichhascomedowntousunder theseparate title of On the Gift of Perseverance, is to show that thatperseverance which endures to the end is as much of God as thebeginning of faith, and that nomanwhohas been “called according toGod’spurpose,”andhasreceivedthisgift,canfallfromgraceandbelost.Thefirsthalfofthetreatiseisdevotedtothistheme(1–33).Itbeginsbydistinguishing between temporary perseverance, which endures for atime,andthatwhichcontinuestotheend(1),andaffirmsthatthelatteriscertainlyagiftofGod’sgrace,andis,therefore,askedfromGodwhichwouldotherwisebebutamockingpetition(2–3).This,theLord’sPrayer

itself might teach us, as under Cyprian’s exposition it does teach us,—eachpetitionbeingcapableofbeingreadasaprayerforperseverance(4–9).Ofcourse,moreover, itcannotbe lost,otherwise itwouldnotbe“tothe end.” Ifman forsakesGod, of course it ishe thatdoes it, andhe isdoubtlessundercontinualtemptationtodoso;butifheabideswithGod,it is God who secures that, and God is equally able to keep one whendrawntoHim,asHeistodrawhimtoHim(10–15).Hearguesanewatthispoint,thatgraceisnotaccordingtomerit,butalwaysinmercy;andexplains and illustrates the unsearchableways ofGod inHis sovereignbutmercifuldealingwithmen(16–25),andclosesthispartofthetreatiseby a defence of himself against adverse quotations fromhis earlyworkon FreeWill, which he has already corrected in his Retractations. Thesecond half of the book discusses the objections thatwere being urgedagainst the preaching of predestination (34–62), as if it opposed andenervated the preaching of the Gospel. He replies that Paul and theapostles, andCyprian and the fathers, preachedboth together; that thesameobjectionswilllieagainstthepreachingofGod’sforeknowledgeandgrace itself, and, indeed, against preaching any of the virtues, as, e.g.,obedience,whiledeclaring themGod’sgifts.Hemeets theobjections indetail,andshowsthatsuchpreachingisfoodtothesoul,andmustnotbewithheldfrommen;butexplainsthatitmustbegivengently,wisely,andprayerfully.ThewholetreatiseendswithanappealtotheprayersoftheChurchastestifyingthatallgoodisfromGod(63–65),andtothegreatexampleofunmeritedgraceandsovereignpredestinationinthechoiceofonehumannaturewithoutprecedingmerit, tobeunited inonepersonwith the Eternal Word,—an illustration of his theme of the gratuitousgraceofGodwhichheisnevertiredofadducing(66–67).

These books were written in 428–429, and after their completion theunfinished work against Julian was resumed. Alypius had sent theremaining threebooks, andAugustin slowly toiled on to the endof hisreplytothesixthbook.Buthewastobeinterruptedoncemore,andthistimebythemostseriousofallinterruptions.Onthe28thofAugust,430,withtheVandalsthunderingatthegatesofHippo,fullofgoodworksandoffaith,heturnedhisfaceawayfromthestrifes—whethertheologicalorsecular—ofearth,andenteredintorestwiththeLordwhomheloved.ThelastworkagainstJulianwasalreadyoneofthemostconsiderableinsize

of all his books; but it was never finished, and retains until to-day thesignificant title of The Unfinished Work. Augustin had hesitated toundertakethiswork,becausehefoundJulian’sargumentstoosillyeithertodeserverefutation,or toaffordoccasion forreallyedifyingdiscourse.AndcertainlytheresultfallsbelowAugustin’susuallevel,thoughthisisnotdue,as issooftensaid, to failingpowersandgreatage; fornothingthathewrotesurpassesinmellowbeautyandchastenedstrengththetwobooks,OnthePredestinationoftheSaints,whichwerewrittenafterfourbooks of this work were completed. The plan of the work is to stateJulian’sargumentsinhisownwords,andfollowitwithhisremarks;thusgiving it something of the form of a dialogue. It follows Julian’s work,bookbybook.ThefirstbookstatesandanswerscertaincalumnieswhichJulianhadbroughtagainstAugustinandthecatholicfaithonthegroundof their confessionoforiginal sin.Julianhadargued, that, sinceGod isjust, He cannot impute another’s sins to innocent infants; since sin isnothingbutevilwill,therecanbenosinininfantswhoarenotyetintheuse of their will; and, since the freedom of will that is given to manconsistsinthecapacityofbothsinningandnotsinning,freewillisdeniedtothosewhoattributesintonature.Augustinrepliestothesearguments,and answers certain objections that aremade to hisworkOnMarriageand Concupiscence, and then corrects Julian’s false explanations ofcertain Scriptures from John viii., Rom. vi., vii., and 2 Timothy. ThesecondbookisadiscussionofRom.v.12,whichJulianhadtried,liketheotherPelagians,toexplainbythe“imitation”ofAdam’sbadexample.Thethird book examines the abuse by Julian of certain Old-Testamentpassages—inDeut. xxiv., 2Kingsxiv.,Ezek. xviii.—inhis effort to showthatGoddoesnotimputethefather’ssinstothechildren;aswellashissimilar abuse of Heb. xi. The charge of Manicheism, which was sorepetitiously brought by Julian against the catholics, is then examinedand refuted. The fourth book treats of Julian’s strictures onAugustin’sOnMarriageandlxviConcupiscenceii.4–11,andprovesfrom1Johnii.16thatconcupiscenceisevil,andnottheworkofGod,butoftheDevil.Hearguesthattheshamethataccompaniesitisduetoitssinfulness,andthattherewasnoneofitinChrist;also,thatinfantsarebornobnoxioustothefirstsin,andprovesthecorruptionoftheiroriginfromWisd.x.10,11.ThefifthbookdefendsOnMarriageandConcupiscenceii.12sq.,andargues that a sound nature could not have shame on account of its

members,andtheneedofregenerationforwhatisgeneratedbymeansofshamefulconcupiscence.ThenJulian’sabuseof1Cor.xv.,Rom.v.,Matt.vii. 17 and33,with reference toOnMarriage andConcupiscence ii. 14,20,26, isdiscussed;andthentheoriginofevil,andGod’s treatmentofevil in the world. The sixth book traverses Julian’s strictures on OnMarriageandConcupiscenceii.34sq.,andarguesthathumannaturewaschangedfor theworseby thesinofAdam,andthuswasmadenotonlysinful,butthesourceofsinners;andthattheforcesoffreewillbywhichmancouldatfirstdorightlyifhewished,andrefrainfromsinifhechose,werelostbyAdam’ssin.HeattacksJulian’sdefinitionoffreewillas“thecapacity for sinning and not sinning” (possibilitas peccandi et nonpeccandi);andprovesthattheevilsofthislifearethepunishmentofsin,—including,firstofall,physicaldeath.Attheend,hetreatsof1Cor.xv.22.

Althoughthegreatpreacherofgracewastakenawaybydeathbeforethecompletion of this book, yet his work was not left incomplete. In thecourse of the next year (431) the Ecumenical Council of Ephesuscondemned Pelagianism for thewholeworld; and an elaborate treatiseagainst the pure Pelagianism of Julian was already in 430 ananachronism.Semi-Pelagianismwasyettorunitscourse,andtoworkitswaysointotheheartofacorruptchurchasnottobeeasilydisplaced;butPelagianismwas todiewith the first generationof its advocates.AswelookbacknowthroughthealmostmillenniumandahalfofyearsthathasintervenedsinceAugustin livedandwrote, it is tohisPredestinationoftheSaints,—a completed, andwell-completed, treatise,—andnot toTheUnfinished Work, that we look as the crown and completion of hislaboursforgrace.

PartIV:TheTheologyofGrace

The theologywhichAugustin opposed, in his anti-Pelagianwritings, totheerrorsofPelagianism,is,shortly,thetheologyofgrace.Itsrootswereplanteddeeply inhisownexperience,andintheteachingsofScripture,especiallyofthatapostlewhomhedelightstocall“thegreatpreacherofgrace,”andtofollowwhom,inhismeasure,washisgreatestdesire.Thegrace of God in Jesus Christ, conveyed to us by the Holy Spirit andevidencedby the love thatHe shedsabroad inourhearts, is the centrearoundwhich thiswhole side142 ofHis system revolves, and the germout of which it grows. He was the more able to make it thus centralbecause of the harmony of this view of salvation with the generalprinciple of his whole theology, which was theocentric and revolvedaroundhisconceptionofGodastheimmanentandvitalspiritinwhomallthingsliveandmoveandhavetheirbeing.143Inlikemanner,Godistheabsolutegood,andallgoodiseitherHimselforfromHim;andonlyasGodmakesusgood,areweabletodoanythinggood.

Thenecessityofgracetoman,AugustinarguedfromtheconditionoftheraceaspartakersofAdam’ssin.Godcreatedmanupright,andendowedhimwithhumanfaculties,includingfreewill;144andgavetohimfreelythatgracebywhichhewasabletoretainhisuprightness.145Beingthusputonprobation,146withdivineaidtoenablehimtostandifhechose,Adamusedhisfreechoiceforsinning,andinvolvedhiswholeraceinhisfall.147Itwasonaccountofthissinthathediedphysicallyandspiritually,and this double death passes over from him to us.148 That all hisdescendants by ordinary generation are partakers in Adam’s guilt andcondemnation,AugustinissurefromtheteachingsofScripture;andthisisthefactoforiginalsin,fromwhichnoonegeneratedfromAdamisfree,andfromwhichnooneisfreedsaveasregeneratedinChrist.149Buthowwearemadepartakersofit,heislesscertain:sometimeshespeaksasifitcamebysomemysteriousunityoftherace,sothatwewereallpersonallypresentintheindividualAdam,andthusthewholeracewastheonemanthat sinned;150sometimes he speaks more in the sense of modernrealists, as if Adam’s sin corrupted the nature, and the nature now

corruptsthosetowhomitiscommunicated;151sometimeshespeaksasifitwereduetosimpleheredity;152sometimes,again,asifitdependedonthepresenceofshamefulconcupiscenceintheactofprocreation,sothatthe propagation of guilt depends on the propagation of offspring bymeansofconcupiscence.153Howevertransmitted,it isyetafactthatsinis propagated, and allmankind became sinners inAdam. The result ofthisisthatwehavelostthedivineimage,thoughnotinsuchasensethatno lineaments of it remain to us;154and, the sinning soul making thefleshcorruptible,ourwholenatureiscorrupted,andweareunabletodoanythingofourselvestrulygood.155Thisincludes,ofcourse,aninjurytoour will. Augustin, writing for the popular eye, treats this subject inpopular language. But it is clear that he distinguished, in his thinking,betweenwillasa facultyandwill inabroadersense.Asamere faculty,will is and always remains an indifferent thing,156—after the fall, asbefore it, continuing poised in indifferency, and ready, like aweathercock,tobeturnedwhithersoeverthebreezethatblowsfromtheheart(“will,”inthebroadersense)maydirect.157Itisnotthefacultyofwilling, but the man who makes use of that faculty, that has sufferedchange from the fall. In paradise man stood in full ability: he hadthepossenonpeccare,butnotyetthenonpossepeccare;158thatis,hewasendowedwithacapacity foreitherpart,andpossessedthegraceofGodbywhichhewasabletostandifhewould,butalsothepoweroffreewill by which he might fall if he would. By his fall he has suffered achange,iscorrupt,andunderthepowerofSatan;hiswill(inthebroadersense)isnowinjured,wounded,diseased,enslaved,—althoughthefacultyofwill(inthenarrowsense)remainsindifferent.159Augustin’scriticismof Pelagius’ discrimination160 of “capacity” (possibilitas, posse), “will”(voluntas, velle), and “act” (actio, esse), does not turn on thediscriminationitself,butontheincongruityofplacingthepower,abilityin themere capacity or possibility, rather than in the living agentwho“wills”and “acts.”Hehimself adoptsanessentially similardistribution,withonlythiscorrection;161andthuskeepsthefacultyofwillindifferent,butplacesthepowerofusingitintheactiveagent,man.According,then,tothecharacterofthisman,willtheuseofthefreewillbe.Ifthemanbeholy hewillmake a holy use of it, and if he be corrupt hewillmake asinful use of it: if he be essentially holy, he cannot (like GodHimself)makeasinfuluseofhiswill;andifhebeenslavedtosin,hecannotmake

agooduseofit.Thelastisthepresentconditionofmenbynature.Theyhavefreewill;162 the facultybywhich theyact remains in indifferency,andtheyareallowedtouseitjustastheychoose:butsuchastheycannotdesire and therefore cannot choose anything but evil;163 and thereforethey,andthereforetheirchoice,andthereforetheirwilling,isalwayseviland never good. They are thus the slaves of sin, which they obey; andwhiletheirfreewillavailsforsinning,itdoesnotavailfordoinganygoodunless theybe first freedby thegraceofGod. It isundeniable that thisview is in consonancewithmodernpsychology: let us once conceive of“the will” as simply the wholeman in the attitude of willing, and it isimmediately evident, that, however abstractly free the “will” is, it isconditionedandenslavedinall itsactionbythecharacterofthewillingagent:abadmandoesnotceasetobebadintheactofwilling,andagoodmanremainsgoodeveninhisactsofchoice.

Initsnature,graceisassistance,helpfromGod;andalldivineaidmaybeincluded under the term,—aswell whatmay be called natural, aswhatmay be called spiritual, aid.164 Spiritual grace includes, no doubt, allexternalhelp thatGodgivesman forworkingouthissalvation,suchasthelaw,thepreachingofthegospel,theexampleofChrist,bywhichwemaylearntherightway;itincludesalsoforgivenessofsins,bywhichweare freed from the guilt already incurred; but above all it includes thathelpwhichGodgivesbyHisHolySpirit,workingwithin,notwithout,bywhichmanisenabledtochooseandtodowhathesees,bytheteachingsof the law, or by the gospel, or by the natural conscience, to beright.165Withinthisaidare includedall thosespiritualexerciseswhichwecallregeneration,justification,perseverancetotheend,—inaword,allthedivineassistancebywhich,inbeingmadeChristians,wearemadetodiffer fromothermen.Augustin is fondof representing thisgraceas inessencethewritingofGod’slaw(orofGod’swill)onourhearts,sothatitappearshereafterasourowndesireandwish;andevenmoreprevalentlyasthesheddingabroadofloveinourheartsbytheHolyGhost,giventous in Christ Jesus; therefore, as a change of disposition, by which wecome to loveand freely choose, in co-operationwithGod’said, just thethingswhichhithertowehavebeenunabletochoosebecauseinbondagetosin.Grace,thus,doesnotmakevoidfreewill:166itactsthroughfreewill,andactsuponitonlybyliberatingitfromitsbondagetosin,i.e.,by

liberatingtheagentthatusesthefreewill,sothatheisnolongerenslavedbyhisfleshlylusts,andisenabledtomakeuseofhisfreewillinchoosingthegood; and thus it is onlyby grace that freewill is enabled to act ingoodpart.Butjustbecausegracechangesthedisposition,andsoenablesman,hithertoenslavedtosin,forthefirsttimetodesireandusehisfreewill for good, it lies in the very nature of the case that it isprevenient.167 Also, as the very name imports, it is necessarilygratuitous;168sincemanisenslavedtosinuntilitisgiven,allthemeritsthathecanhavepriortoitarebadmerits,anddeservepunishment,notgiftsof favour.When, then, it is asked,on thegroundofwhat, grace isgiven,itcanonlybeanswered,“onthegroundofGod’sinfinitemercyandundeservedfavour.”169There isnothing inman tomerit it, and it firstgives merit of good to man. All men alike deserve death, and all thatcomes to them in the way of blessing is necessarily of God’s free andunmerited favour. This is equally true of all grace. It is pre-eminentlyclearofthatgracewhichgivesfaith,therootofallothergraces,whichisgivenofGod,nottomeritsofgood-willorincipientturningtoHim,butofHissovereigngoodpleasure.170Butequallywithfaith,itistrueofallother divine gifts: we may, indeed, speak of “merits of good” assucceedingfaith;butasall thesemeritsfindtheirroot infaith,theyarebut“graceongrace,”andmenneedGod’smercyalways,throughoutthislife,andevenonthejudgmentdayitself,when,iftheyarejudgedwithoutmercy,theymustbecondemned.171Ifweask,then,whyGodgivesgrace,wecanonlyanswerthatitisofHisunspeakablemercy;andifweaskwhyHegivesittooneratherthantoanother,whatcanweanswerbutthatitis of His will? The sovereignty of grace results from its verygratuitousness:172 where none deserve it, it can be given only of thesovereign good pleasure of the great Giver,—and this is necessarilyinscrutable,butcannotbeunjust.Wecanfaintlyperceive,indeed,somereasonswhyGodmaybesupposednottohavechosentogiveHissavinggracetoall,173oreventothemost;174butwecannotunderstandwhyHehaschosentogiveittojusttheindividualstowhomHehasgivenit,andtowithholditfromjustthosefromwhomHehaswithheldit.Herewearedriventotheapostle’scry,“OhthedepthoftherichesbothofthemercyandthejusticeofGod!”175

Theeffectsofgraceareaccordingtoitsnature.Takenasawhole,itisthe

recreativeprinciplesentforthfromGodfortherecoveryofmanfromhisslaverytosin,andforhisreformationinthedivineimage.Consideredastothetimeof itsgiving, it iseitheroperatingorco-operatinggrace, i.e.,eitherthegracethatfirstenablesthewilltochoosethegood,orthegracethat co-operateswith thealreadyenabledwill todo thegood;and it is,therefore,alsocalledeitherprevenientorsubsequentgrace.176It isnotto be conceived of as a series of disconnected divine gifts, but as aconstanteffluxfromGod;butwemaylookuponitinthevariousstepsofitsoperation inmen,asbringing forgivenessof sins, faith,which is thebeginning of all good, love toGod, progressive power of goodworking,and perseverance to the end.177 In any case, and in all its operationsalike,justbecauseitispowerfromonhighandthelivingspringofanewandre-created life, it is irresistibleandindefectible.178ThoseonwhomtheLordbestowsthegiftoffaithworkingfromwithin,notfromwithout,of course, have faith, and cannot help believing. Those to whomperseverancetotheendisgivenmustperseveretotheend.Itisnottobeobjectedtothis,thatmanyseemtobeginwellwhodonotpersevere:thisalsoisofGod,whohasinsuchcasesgivengreatblessingsindeed,butnotthis blessing, of perseverance to the end.Whatever of goodmen have,thatGodhasgiven;andwhattheyhavenot,why,ofcourse,Godhasnotgiven it.Nor can it be objected, that this leaves all uncertain: it is onlyunknowntous,butthisisnotuncertainty;wecannotknowthatwearetohaveanygiftwhichGodsovereignlygives,ofcourse,untilitisgiven,andwethereforecannotknowthatwehaveperseveranceuntotheenduntilweactuallyperseveretotheend;179butwhowouldcallwhatGoddoes,andknowsHeistodo,uncertain,andwhatmanistodocertain?Norwillitdotosaythatthusnothingisleftforustodo:nodoubt,allthingsareinGod’shands,andweshouldpraiseGodthat this isso,butwemustco-operatewithHim;anditisjustbecauseitisHethatisworkinginusthewillingandthedoing,thatitisworthourwhiletoworkoutoursalvationwith fear and trembling. God has not determined the end withoutdeterminingtheappointedmeans.180

Now,Augustinargues,sincegracecertainlyisgratuitous,andgiventonopreceding merits,—prevenient and antecedent to all good,—and,therefore, sovereign, andbestowedonlyon thosewhomGodselects forits reception; we must, of course, believe that the eternal God has

foreknownallthisfromthebeginning.HewouldbesomethinglessthanGod,hadHenotforeknownthatHeintendedtobestowthisprevenient,gratuitous,andsovereigngraceonsomemen,andhadHenotforeknownequally the precise individuals on whomHe intended to bestow it. Toforeknow is to prepare beforehand. And this is predestination.181 Heargues that there can be no objection to predestination, in itselfconsidered, in themind of anymanwho believes in a God: whatmenobject to is the gratuitous and sovereign grace to which no additionaldifficultyisaddedbythenecessaryassumptionthatitwasforeknownandpreparedforfrometernity.Thatpredestinationdoesnotproceedontheforeknowledgeofgoodoroffaith,182followsfromitsbeingnothingmorethan the foresight and preparation of grace, which, in its very idea, isgratuitousandnotaccordingtoanymerits,sovereignandaccordingonlytoGod’spurpose,prevenientandinordertofaithandgoodworks.It isthesovereigntyofgrace,notitsforesightorthepreparationforit,whichplaces men in God’s hands, and suspends salvation absolutely on hisunmeritedmercy.ButjustbecauseGodisGod,ofcourse,noonereceivesgracewhohasnotbeenforeknownandafore-selectedforthegift;and,asmuchofcourse,noonewhohasbeenforeknownandafore-selectedforit,failstoreceiveit.Thereforethenumberofthepredestinatedisfixed,andfixed by God.183 Is this fate? Men may call God’s grace fate if theychoose;butitisnotfate,butundeservedloveandtendermercy,withoutwhich none would be saved.184 Does it paralyze effort? Only to thosewhowillnotstrivetoobeyGodbecauseobedienceisHisgift.Isitunjust?Far from it: shall not God do what He will with His own undeservedfavour? It is nothingbut gratuitousmercy, sovereignly distributed, andforeseenandprovidedforfromalleternitybyHimwhohasselectedusinHisSon.

WhenAugustincomestospeakofthemeansofgrace,i.e.,ofthechannelsandcircumstancesof itsconference tomen,heapproaches themeetingpoint of two very dissimilar streams of his theology,—his doctrine ofgraceandhisdoctrineoftheChurch,—andheissadlydeflectedfromthenaturalcourseofhistheologybythealieninfluence.Hedoesnot,indeed,bindtheconferenceofgracetothemeansinsuchasensethatthegracemustbegivenattheexacttimeoftheapplicationofthemeans.Hedoesnotdenythat“Godisable,evenwhennomanrebukes,tocorrectwhom

Hewill,andtoleadhimontothewholesomemortificationofrepentancebythemosthiddenandmostmightypowerofHismedicine.”185ThoughtheGospelmustbeknowninorderthatmanmaybesaved186(forhowshall theybelievewithoutapreacher?),yet thepreacher isnothing,andthepreachment isnothing,butGodonly thatgives the increase.187Heevenhassomething likeadistantglimpseofwhathassincebeencalledthe distinction between the visible and invisible Church,—speaking ofmen not yet born as among those who are “called according to God’spurpose,” and, therefore, of the savedwho constitute theChurch,188—asserting that those who are so called, even before they believe, are“already children ofGod enrolled in thememorial of their Fatherwithunchangeablesurety,”189and,at thesametime,allowingthattherearemany already in the visible Church who are not of it, and who canthereforedepartfromit.ButheteachesthatthosewhoarethuslostoutofthevisibleChurcharelostbecauseofsomefatalflawintheirbaptism,or on account of post-baptismal sins; and that those who are of the“calledaccordingtothepurpose”arepredestinatednotonlytosalvation,but tosalvationbybaptism.Grace isnot tied to themeans in thesensethatitisnotconferredsaveinthemeans;butitistiedtothemeansinthesensethatitisnotconferredwithoutthemeans.Baptism,forinstance,isabsolutelynecessaryforsalvation:noexceptionisallowedexceptsuchassave the principle,—baptism of blood (martyrdom),190 and, somewhatgrudgingly,baptismofintention.Andbaptism,whenworthilyreceived,isabsolutelyefficacious:“ifamanweretodieimmediatelyafterbaptism,hewouldhavenothingatalllefttoholdhimliabletopunishment.”191Inaword, while there are many baptized who will not be saved, there arenonesavedwhohavenotbeenbaptized;itisthegraceofGodthatsaves,butbaptismisachannelofgracewithoutwhichnonereceiveit.192

The saddest corollary that flowed from this doctrinewas that bywhichAugustin was forced to assert that all those who died unbaptized,includinginfants,arefinallylostanddepartintoeternalpunishment.Hedid not shrink from the inference, although he assigned the place oflightestpunishmentinhelltothosewhowereguiltyofnosinbutoriginalsin,butwhohaddeparted this lifewithouthavingwashed this away inthe“laverofregeneration.”Thisisthedarksideofhissoteriology;butitshould be remembered that it was not his theology of grace, but the

universalandtraditionalbeliefinthenecessityofbaptismforremissionofsins,whichheinheritedincommonwithallofhistime,thatforceditupon him. The theology of grace was destined in the hands of hissuccessors,whohaverejoicedtoconfessthattheyweretaughtbyhim,toremove this stumbling-blockalso fromChristian teaching;and ifnot toAugustin, it is to Augustin’s theology that the Christianworld owes itsliberationfromsoterribleandincredibleatenet.Alongwiththedoctrineof infant damnation, another stumbling-block also, not so much ofAugustinian,butofChurchtheology,hasgone.Itwasnotbecauseofhistheology of grace, or of his doctrine of predestination, that Augustintaughtthatcomparativelyfewofthehumanracearesaved.Itwas,again,because he believed that baptism and incorporation into the visibleChurchwerenecessaryforsalvation.AnditisonlybecauseofAugustin’stheology of grace, which places man in the hands of an all-mercifulSaviourandnotinthegraspofahumaninstitution,thatmencanseethatin the salvation of all who die in infancy, the invisible Church of Godembracesthevastmajorityofthehumanrace,—savednotbythewashingof water administered by the Church, but by the blood of ChristadministeredbyGod’sownhandoutsideoftheordinarychannelsofhisgrace.We are indeed born in sin, and those that die in infancy are, inAdam,childrenofwrathevenasothers;butGod’shandisnotshortenedbythelimitsofHisChurchonearth,thatitcannotsave.InChristJesus,all souls are the Lord’s, and only the soul that itself sinneth shall die(Ezek.xviii.1–4);andtheonlyjudgmentwherewithmenshallbejudgedproceedsontheprinciplethatasmanyashavesinnedwithoutlawshallalsoperishwithout law,andasmanyashavesinnedunder lawshallbejudgedbythelaw(Rev.ii.12).

Thus, althoughAugustin’s theologyhad a very strong churchly elementwithinit, itwas,onthesidethatispresentedinthecontroversyagainstPelagianism, distinctly anti-ecclesiastical. Its central thought was theabsolute dependence of the individual on the grace of God in JesusChrist. It made everything that concerned salvation to be of God, andtracedthesourceofallgoodtoHim.“Withoutmeyecandonothing,”istheinscriptionononesideofit;ontheotherstandswritten,“Allthingsare yours.” Augustin held that he who builds on a human foundationbuilds on sand, and founded all his hope on theRock itself. And there

also he founded his teaching; as he distrusted man in the matter ofsalvation, sohedistrustedhim in the formof theology.Nootherof thefathers so conscientiously wrought out his theology from the revealedWord; no other of them so sternly excluded human additions. Thesubjectsofwhichtheologytreats,hedeclares,aresuchas“wecouldbynomeans find out unless we believed them on the testimony of HolyScripture.”193 “Where Scripture gives no certain testimony,” he says,“human presumption must beware how it decides in favor of eitherside.”194“WemustfirstbendourneckstotheauthorityofScripture,”heinsists, “in order that we may arrive at knowledge and understandingthrough faith.”195 And this was not merely his theory, but hispractice.196Notheologywasever,itmaybemorebroadlyasserted,moreconscientiouslywroughtoutfromtheScriptures.Isitwithouterror?No;butitserrorsareonthesurface,notoftheessence.ItleadstoGod,anditcamefromGod;andinthemidstofthecontroversiesofsomanyagesithasshownitselfanedificewhosesolidcoreisbuiltoutofmaterial“whichcannotbeshaken.”197

Endnotes:

1. On the Merits and Remission of Sins, iii. 6, 11, 12; Against TwoLettersofthePelagians,iv.32;AgainstJulian,i.4;OnHeresies,88;and often elsewhere. Jerome found roots for the theory in Origenand Rufinus (Letter 133, 3), but this is a different matter.CompareOnOriginalSin,25.

2. PrefacetoBookiv.ofhisworkonJeremiah.3. LatinChristianity,i.166,note2.4. TroisPrem.Siécles,ii.375.5. DeNaturaDeorum,iii.36.6. HistoryoftheCouncilsoftheChurch(E.T.),ii.446,note3.7. Compare theexcellentstatement inThomasius’Dogmengeschichte,

i.483.8. OntheProceedingsofPelagius,46;OntheMeritsandRemissionof

Sins,iii.1;Epistle186,etc.9. OnNatureandGrace,1.10. EpistletoDemetrias,16.

11. Do.2and19.12. OntheGiftofPerseverance,53.13. OnNatureandGrace,49.14. OntheGiftofPerseverance,4;AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,

iii.24;iv.2sq.15. On the Spirit and the Letter, 4; OnNature andGrace, 53; On the

ProceedingsofPelagius,20,22,38;OntheGraceofChrist,2,3,8,31,42,45;AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,iv.11;OnGraceandFreeWill,23-26,andoften.

16. OnOriginalSin,14.17. OnOriginalSin,14.18. OnOriginalSin,14.19. TheUnfinishedWork,iii.82.20. Do. i. 91; compare do. i. 48, 60; ii. 20. “There is nothing of sin in

man,ifthereisnothingofhisownwill.”“Thereisnooriginalsinininfantsatall.”

21. OnOriginalSin,30.22. OntheGraceofChrist,43.23. TheUnfinishedWork,i.91;compare69.24. Dr. Matheson finely says (Expositor, i. ix. 21), “There is the same

differencebetweentheChristianandPaganideaofprayerasthereisbetween the Christian and Pagan idea of sin. Paganism knowsnothing of sin, it knows only sins: it has no conception of theprinciple of evil, it comprehends only a succession of sinful acts.”ThisisPelagianismtoo.

25. Compare Schaff, Church History, iii. 804; andThomasius’Dogmengeschichte,i.487-8.

26. AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,iii.25,andiv.atthebeginning.27. This belongs to the earlier Pelagianism; Julianwas ready to admit

thatdeathcamefromAdam,butnotsin.28. OnOriginalSin,13.29. Earlyin412,or,lessprobably,accordingtotheBalleriniandHefele

411.30. See On Original Sin, 2, 3, 12; On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 23.

TheyarealsogivenbyMariusMercator(Migne,xlviii.69,70),andthe fifth item (on the salvation of unbaptized infants) omitted,—thoughapparentlybyanerror.

31. PreservedbyAugustin,OnOriginalSin,3,4.32. AnaccountofthissynodisgivenbyOrosiushimselfinhisApology

fortheFreedomoftheWill.33. AfullaccountandcriticismoftheproceedingsaregivenbyAugustin

inhisOntheProceedingsofPelagius.34. OnOriginalSin,13,attheend.35. Augustin’sSermons(Migne,v.1511).36. Compare Canon Bright’s Introduction in his Select Anti-Pelagian

Treatises,p.xli.37. Seeabove,p.xv.,andthepassagesinAugustincitedinnote3.38. Prosper’sphrase.39. Augustingives their teachingcarefully inhisOnthePredestination

oftheSaints,2.40. Compare his work written this year, On Several Questions to

Simplicianus. For the development of Augustin’s theology, see theadmirablestatementinNeander’sChurchHistory,E.T.,ii.625sq.

41. OntheProceedingsofPelagius,46.42. OntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,iii.12.43. Epistle157,22.44. OntheProceedingsofPelagius,46.45. Sermon176,2.46. Sermon174.47. Do.48. OntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,iii.1.49. OntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,i.1.CompareEpistle139.50. Ontheprominenceofinfantbaptisminthecontroversy,andwhyit

wasso,seeSermon165,7sq.“Whatdoyousay?‘Justthis,’hesays,‘thatGodcreateseverymanimmortal.’Why,thendoinfantchildrendie?ForifIsay,‘Whydoadultmendie?’youwouldsaytome,‘Theyhavesinned.’ThereforeIdonotargueabouttheadults:Iciteinfancyas a witness against you,” and so on, eloquently developing theargument.

51. OntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,iii.1.52. Letter139,3.53. Letter140.54. Seechaps.1and5.55. Sermon163treatsthetextsimilarly.

56. SeethisprayerbeautifullyillustratedfromScriptureinOntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,ii.5.

57. Seeabove,p.xv.58. Asquotedabove,p.xx.59. Epistle146.SeeOntheProceedingsofPelagius,50,51,52.60. Epistle149.Seeespecially18sq.61. Epistle121.62. Sermon293.63. Sermon176,2.64. Theinscriptionsays,“VCalendusJulii,”i.e.,June27;butitalsosays,

“In natalis martyris Guddentis,” whose day appears to have beenJuly 18. Some of the martyrologies assign 28th of June toGaudentius (which some copies read here), but possibly none toGuddene.

65. Sermon294.66. Thepassage isquotedat length inOntheMeritsandRemissionof

Sins,iii.10.CompareAgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,iv.23.67. Epistle157,22.68. Epistle156,amongAugustin’sLetters.69. Epistle,157,22.70. Epistles177,6;and179,2.71. Epistle168.OntheProceedingsofPelagius,48.72. OntheProceedingsofPelagius,47;andEpistle186,1.73. CompareOnNatureandGrace,7;andEpistle186,1.74. Epistle169,13.75. OnNatureandGrace,1.Sallust’sJugurtha,prologue.76. ForAugustin’spressofworkjustnow,seeEpistle169,1and13.77. The argument occurs in Pelagius’ Commentary on Paul, written

before 410, and is already before Augustin in On the Merits andForgivenessofSins,etc.,iii.5.

78. Epistle166.79. An almost contemporary letter toOceanus (Epistle 180,written in

416)advertstothesamesubjectandinthesamespirit,showinghowmuchitwasinAugustin’sthoughts.CompareEpistle180,2and5.

80. Epistle172.81. SeeOnthePerfectionofMan’sRighteousness,1.82. Migne’sEditionofAugustin’sWorks,vol.v.pp.1719-1723.

83. ComparethewordsofCiceroquotedabove,p.xiv.84. ComparethesimilarwordsinEpistle177,3,whichwaswritten,not

onlyafterwhathadoccurredinPalestinewasknown,butalsoafterthecondemnatorydecisionsoftheAfricansynods.

85. Epistles175and176inAugustin’sLetters.86. Epistle177.TheotherbishopswereAurelius,Alypius,Evodius,and

Possidius.87. Epistle178.88. Epistle179.89. See vol. i. of this series, p. 459, and the references there given.

CompareCanonRobertson’svividaccountoftheminhisHistoryoftheChristianChurch,ii.18,145.

90. Epistle188.91. Compare On the Grace of Christ, 40. In the succeeding sections,

someofitsstatementsareexamined.92. Epistles181,182,183,amongAugustin’sLetters.93. Epistle186,writtenconjointlywithAlypius.94. ThebookgivenhimbyTimasiusandJames,towhichOnNatureand

Graceisareply.95. Compare also Innocent’s letter (Epistle 181) to the Carthaginian

Council, chap. 4, which also Neander, History of the ChristianChurch, E.T., ii. 646, quotes in this connection, as showing thatInnocent“perceivedthatthisdisputewasconnectedwithadifferentwayofregardingtherelationofGod’sprovidencetocreation.”AsifAugustindidnotseethistoo!

96. The book addressed to Dardanus, in which the Pelagians areconfuted, but not named, belongs about at this time.CompareRetractations,ii.49.

97. Sermon131,preachedatCarthage.98. OntheGraceofChrist,2.99. 99Theso-calledConfessionofFaithsenttoInnocentaftertheSynod

ofDiospolis,butwhicharrivedafterInnocent’sdeath.100. OnOriginalSin,1.101. Do.,5.102. OntheGraceofChrist,55.103. OntheGiftofPerseverance,55.104. Compare,below,pp.lv-lviii.Neander,inthesecondvolume(E.T.)of

hisHistory of theChristianChurch, discusses thematter in a veryfairspirit.

105. Englishversion,xcv.,seeverse6.106. Sermon26.107. Epistle190.108. SeeEpistle194,1.109. SeeEpistle191,1.110. Epistle191.111. Epistle194.112. It appears to have been first reported to Augustin, by Marius

Mercator,inaletterreceivedatCarthage.SeeEpistle193,3.113. As,forexample,inOntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,etc.,i.114. Epistle193.115. CompareOnDulcitius’EightQuestions,3.116. Thatis,OntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,etc.,ii.30sq.117. Epistle196.118. OnMarriageandConcupiscence,i.2.119. ComparetheBenedictinePrefacetoTheUnfinishedWork.120. Epistle202,bis.CompareEpistle190.121. CompareEpistle195.122. Julian afterwards repudiated this letter, perhaps because of some

falsificationsithadsuffered;itseemstohavebeencertainlyhis.123. CompareAgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,iii.24:andseeabove,

p.xv.124. To wit: Cyprian’s testimony on original sin (20-24), on gratuitous

grace(25-26),ontheimperfectionofhumanrighteousness(27-28),and Ambrose’s testimony on original sin (29), on gratuitous grace(30),andontheimperfectionofhumanrighteousness(31).

125. CompareEpistle207,writtenprobablyinthelatterhalfof421.126. Thatis,Chyrsostom.127. CompareOnRebukeandGrace,44,andthefootnotethere.128. Seevol.iii.ofthisseries,pp.227sq.129. NowaportionofTunis.130. Epistle194.131. Epistle214.132. Epistle215,2sq.133. Epistle216.

134. OnRebukeandGrace,1.135. Retractions,ii.67.CompareOnRebukeandGrace,5sq.136. On the importance of this treatise for Augustin’s doctrine of

predestination, seeWiggers’ Augustinianism and Pelagianism, E.T.p. 236,where a sketch of thehistory of this doctrine inAugustin’swritingsmaybefound.

137. Epistle217.138. Epistle224.139. The account given of Pelagianism is as follows: “They are in such

degree enemies of the grace of God, by which we have beenpredestined into theadoptionofsonsbyJesusChristuntoHimself(Eph. i. 5), and by which we are delivered from the power ofdarknesssoastobelieveinHim,andbetranslatedintoHiskingdom(Col. i. 13)—whereforeHesays, ‘Nomancomes toMe,except itbegiven him ofMy Father’ (John vi. 66)—and by which love is shedabroadinourhearts(Rom.v.5),sothatfaithmayworkbylove:thatthey believe that man is able, without it, to keep all the Divinecommandments,—whereas, if thiswere true, itwould clearly be anempty thing that the Lord said, ‘Without Me ye can do nothing’(Johnxv.5).WhenPelagiuswasat lengthaccusedbythebrethren,because he attributed nothing to the assistance of God’s gracetowards the keeping of His commandments, he yielded to theirrebuke, so far as not to place this grace above free will, but withfaithless cunning to subordinate it, saying that itwasgiven tomenforthispurpose;viz.,thattheymightbeablemoreeasilytofulfilbygrace,whattheywerecommandedtodobyfreewill.Bysaying,‘thattheymightbeablemoreeasily,’he,ofcourse,wishedittobebelievedthat, although with more difficulty, nevertheless men were ablewithoutdivinegracetoperformthedivinecommands.Butthatgraceof God, without whichwe can do nothing good, they say does notexist except in free will, which without any preceding merits ournaturereceivedfromHim;andthatHeaddsHisaidonlyinthatbyHislawandteachingwemaylearnwhatweoughttodo,butnotinthatbythegiftofHisSpiritwemaydowhatwehavelearnedoughtto be done. Accordingly, they confess that knowledge by whichignorance isbanished isdivinelygiven tous,butdeny that lovebywhich we may live a pious life is given; so that, forsooth, while

knowledge,which,without love,puffethup, is thegift ofGod, loveitself,whichedifieth so thatknowledgemaynotpuffup, isnot thegiftofGod(1Cor.viii. 11).Theyalsodestroy theprayerswhichtheChurchoffers,whether for those that are unbelieving and resistingGod’s teaching, that they may be converted to God; or for thefaithful,thatfaithmaybeincreasedinthem,andtheymayperseverein it. For they contend thatmen do not receive these things fromHim,buthavethemfromourselves,saying,thatthegraceofGod,bywhichwe are freed from impiety, is given according to ourmerits.Pelagius was compelled, no doubt, to condemn this by his fear ofbeingcondemnedby theepiscopal judgment inPalestine;buthe isfoundtoteachitstillinhislaterwritings.Theyalsoadvancedsofarastosaythatthelifeoftherighteousinthisworldiswithoutsin,andthe Church of Christ is perfected by them in thismortality, to thepointofbeingentirelywithout spotorwrinkle (Eph.v.27); as if itwerenottheChurchofChrist,that,inthewholeworld,criestoGod,‘Forgiveusourdebts.’Theyalsodenythatchildren,whoarecarnallybornafterAdam,contractthecontagionofancientdeathfromtheirfirstbirth.Fortheyassertthattheyarebornsowithoutanybondoforiginalsin,thatthereisabsolutelynothingthatoughttoberemittedtotheminthesecondbirth,yettheyaretobebaptized;butforthisreason, that, adopted in regeneration, theymaybe admitted to thekingdomofGod,andthusbetranslatedfromgoodintobetter,—notthattheymaybewashedbythatrenovationfromanyeviloftheoldbond. For although they be not baptized, they promise to them,outside the kingdom of God indeed, but nevertheless, a certaineternal and blessed life of their own. They also say that Adamhimself, evenhadhenot sinned,wouldhavedied in thebody,andthat thisdeathwouldnothavecomeasadesert toa fault,butasaconditionofnature.Certainother thingsalsoareobjected to them,but these are the chief, andalso either all, ornearly all, theothersmaybeunderstoodtodependonthese.”

140. CompareEpistles225,1,and156.Itis,ofcourse,notcertainthatthisis the sameHilary thatwrote toAugustin fromSicily, but it seemsprobable.

141. InLetters225and226.142. This is anecessary limitation, for there is another side—achurchly

side—ofAugustin’s theology,whichwasonly laid alongsideof, andartificially combined with, his theology of grace. This was thetraditionalelementinhisteaching,butwasfarfromthedeterminingor formative element. As Thomasius truly points out(Dogmengeschichte, i. 495),bothhis experienceand theScripturesstoodwithhimabovetradition.

143. ItisonlyoneofthestrangeassertionsinProfessorAllen’sContinuityofChristianThought, thathemakes“theAugustinian theologyrestupon the transcendenceofDeityas itscontrollingprinciple” (p.3),which is identifiedwith “a tacit assumptionofdeism” (p. 171), andexplained to includea “localizationofGodas aphysical essence inthe infinite remoteness,” “separated from the world by infinitereachesofspace.”Asamatterofmerefact,Augustin’sconceptionofGod was that of an immanent Spirit, and his tendency wasconsequently distinctly towards a pantheistic rather than a deisticview of His relation to His creatures. Nor is this true only “at acertain stage of his career” (p. 6), which is but Professor Allen’sattempttoreconcilefactwithhistheory,butofhiswholelifeandallhisteaching.He,nodoubt,didnotsoteachtheDivineimmanenceastomakeGodtheauthoroftheformaswellasthematterofallactsofHis creatures, or to render it impossible for His creatures to turnfrom Him; this would be to pass the limits that separate theconception of Christian immanence from pure pantheism, and tomakeGodtheauthorofsin,andallHiscreaturesbutmanifestationsofHimself.

144. OnRebukeandGrace,27,28.145. OnRebukeandGrace,29,31sq.146. OnRebukeandGrace,28.147. OnRebukeandGrace,28.148. OntheCityofGod,xiii.2,12,14;OntheTrinity,iv.13.149. OntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,i.15,andoften.150. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iv. 7; On the Merits and

ForgivenessofSins,iii.14,15.151. OnMarriageandConcupiscence,ii.57;OntheCityofGod,xiv.1.152. AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,iv.7.153. OnOriginalSin,42.154. Retractations,ii.24.

155. Against Julian, iv. 3, 25, 26. CompareThomasius’Dogmengeschichte,i.501and507.

156. OntheSpiritandtheLetter,58.157. OntheMeritsandForgivenessofSins,ii.30.158. OnRebukeandGrace,11.159. OntheSpiritandtheLetter,58.160. OntheGraceofChrist,4sq.161. OnthePredestinationoftheSaints,10.162. AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,i.5.Epistle215,4andoften.163. AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,i.7.Comparei.5,6.164. Sermon26.165. OnNatureandGrace,62.OntheGraceofChrist,13.OnRebukeand

Grace,2sq.166. OntheSpiritandLetter,52;OnGraceandFreeWill,1sq.167. OntheSpiritandLetter,60,andoften.168. OnNatureandGrace,4,andoften.169. OntheGraceofChrist,27,andoften.170. OntheGraceofChrist,34,andoften.171. OnGraceandFreeWill,21.172. OnGraceandFreeWill,30,andoften.173. OntheGiftofPerseverance,16;AgainstTwoLettersofthePelagians,

ii.15.174. EpistletoOptatus,190.175. OnthePredestinationoftheSaints,17,18.176. OnGraceandFreeWill,17;OntheProceedingsofPelagius,34,and

often.177. CompareThomasius’Dogmengeschichte,i.510.178. OnRebukeandGrace,40,45;On thePredestinationof theSaints,

13.179. OnRebukeandGrace,40.180. OntheGiftofPerseverance,56.181. OnthePredestinationoftheSaints,36sq.182. OntheGiftofPerseverance,41sq.,47.183. OnRebukeandGrace,39.Compare14.184. On the Gift of Perseverance, 29; Against Two Letters of the

Pelagians,ii.9sq.185. OnRebukeandGrace,1.

186. On the Predestination of the Saints, 17, 18; if the gospel is notpreachedatanygivenplace,itisproofthatGodhasnoelectthere.

187. OntheMeritsandForgivenessofSins,etc.,ii.37.188. OnRebukeandGrace,23.189. Do.,20.190. OntheSoulanditsOrigin,i.11;ii.17.191. OntheMeritsandForgivenessofSins,etc.,ii.46.192. On Augustin’s teaching as to baptism, see Rev. James Field

Spalding’sTheTeachingandInfluenceofAugustin,pp.39sq.193. OntheSoulanditsOrigin,iv.14.194. OntheMeritsandForgivenessofSins,etc.,ii.59.195. OntheMeritsandForgivenessofSins,i.29.196. CompareOntheSpiritandtheLetter,63.197. Onthesubjectofthiswholesection,compareReuter’sAugustinische

Studien,whichhascometohandonlyafterthewholewasalreadyintype, but which in all essential matters—such as the formativeprinciple,thesources,andthemainoutlinesofAugustin’stheology—isinsubstantialagreementwithwhatisheresaid.

MONERGISMBOOKS

AugustineandthePelagianControversybyB.B.Warfield,Copyright©2019

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions.Bypaymentoftherequiredfees,youhavebeengrantedthenon-exclusive,non-transferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverseengineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofMonergismBooks.

ePub, .mobi&.pdfEditionsJune2019Requests for informationshould

be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn, Oregon,97068