Book
I.
————————————
1. Atticus. I hear, Critobulus, that you have written
that man can be without sin, if he chooses; and that the commandments
of God are easy. Tell me, is it true?
Critobulus. It is true, Atticus; but our rivals do not
take the words in the sense I attached to them.
A. Are they then so ambiguous as to give rise to a
difference as to their meaning? I do not ask for an answer to two
questions at once. You laid down two propositions; the one, that5143
| 5143 See S. Aug. De
Sp. et Lit., c. i. |
man can be without
sin, if he
chooses: the other, that
God’s
commandments are easy. Although,
therefore, they were uttered together, let them be discussed
separately, so that, while our
faith appears to be one, no
strife may
arise through our misunderstanding each other.
C. I said, Atticus, that man can be without sin, if he
chooses; not, as some maliciously make us say, without the grace of God
(the very thought is impiety), but simply that he can, if he chooses;
the aid of the grace of God being presupposed.
A. Is God, then, the author of your evil works?
C. By no means. But if there is any good in me, it is
brought to perfection through His impulse and assistance.
A. My question does not refer to natural constitution,
but to action. For who doubts that God is the Creator of all things? I
wish you would tell me this: the good you do, is it your’s or
God’s?
C. It is mine and God’s: I work and He
assists.
A. How is it then that everybody thinks you do away with
the grace of God, and maintain that all our actions proceed from our
own will?
C. I am surprised, Atticus, at your asking me for the
why and wherefore of other people’s mistakes, and wanting to know
what I did not write, when what I did write is perfectly clear. I said
that man can be without sin, if he chooses. Did I add, without the
grace of God?
A. No; but the fact that you added nothing implies your
denial of the need of grace.
C. Nay, rather, the fact that I have not denied grace
should be regarded as tantamount to an assertion of it. It is unjust to
suppose we deny whatever we do not assert.
A. You admit then that man can be sinless, if he
chooses, but with the grace of God.
C. I not only admit it, but freely proclaim it.
A. So then he who does away with the grace of God is in
error.
C. Just so. Or rather, he ought to be thought impious,
seeing that all things are governed by the pleasure of God, and that we
owe our existence and the faculty of individual choice and desire to
the goodness of God, the Creator. For that we have free will, and
according to our own choice incline to good or evil, is part of His
grace who made us what we are, in His own image and likeness.
2. A. No one doubts, Critobulus, that all things depend
on the judgment of Him Who is Creator of all, and that whatever we have
ought to be attributed to His goodness. But I should like to know
respecting this faculty, which you attribute to the grace of God,
whether you reckon it as part of the gift bestowed in our creation, or
suppose it energetic in our separate actions, so that we avail
ourselves of its assistance continually; or is it the case that, having
been once for all created and endowed with free will, we do what we
choose by our own choice or strength? For I know that very many of your
party refer all things to the grace of God in such a sense that they
understand the power of the will to be a gift not of a particular, but
of a general character, that is to say, one which is bestowed not at
each separate moment, but once for all at creation.
C. It is not as you affirm; but I maintain both
positions, that it is by the grace of God we were created such as we
are, and also that in our several actions we are supported by His
aid.
A. We are agreed, then, that in good works, besides our
own power of choice, we lean on the help of God; in evil works we are
prompted by the devil.
C. Quite so; there is no difference of opinion on that
point.
A. They are wrong, then, who strip us of the help of God
in our separate actions. The Psalmist sings:5144
“Except the
Lord build the
house,
they labour in
vain who build it. Except the
Lord keep the city, the
watchman waketh but in
vain;” and there are similar passages. But
these men endeavour by
perverse, or rather ridiculous interpretations,
to twist his words to a different meaning.
3. C. Am I bound to contradict others when you have my
own answer?
A. Your answer to
what effect? That they are right, or wrong?
C. What necessity compels me to set my opinion against
other men’s?
A. You are bound by the rules of discussion, and by
respect for truth. Do you not know that every assertion either affirms,
or denies, and that what is affirmed or denied ought to be reckoned
among good or bad things? You must, therefore, admit, and no thanks to
you, that the statement to which my question relates is either a good
thing or a bad.
C. If in particular actions we must have the help of
God, does it follow that we are unable to make a pen,5145
or mend it when it is made? Can we not
fashion the letters, be
silent or speak, sit, stand,
walk or
run, eat
or fast,
weep or
laugh, and so on, without
God’s assistance?
A. From my point of view it is clearly impossible.
C. How then have we free will, and how can we guard the
grace of God towards us, if we cannot do even these things without
God?
4. A. The bestowal of the grace of free will is not such
as to do away with the support of God in particular actions.
C. The help of God is not made of no account; inasmuch
as creatures are preserved through the grace of free will once for all
given to them. For if without God, and except He assist me in every
action, I can do nothing. He can neither with justice crown me for my
good deeds, nor punish me for my evil ones, but in each case He will
either receive His own or will condemn the assistants He gave.
A. Tell me, then, plainly, why you do away with the
grace of God. For whatever you destroy in the parts you must of
necessity deny in the whole.
C. I do not deny grace when I assert that I was so
created by God, that by the grace of God it was put within the power of
my choice either to do a thing or not to do it.
A. So God falls asleep over our good actions, when once
the faculty of free will has been given; and we need not pray to Him to
assist us in our separate actions, since it depends upon our own choice
and will either to do a thing if we choose, or not to do it if we do
not choose.
5. C. As in the case of other creatures, the conditions
of elicit creation are observed; so, when once the power of free will
was granted, everything was left to our own choice.
A. It follows, as I said, that I ought not to beg the
assistance of God in the details of conduct, because I consider it was
given once for all.
C. If He co-operates with me in everything the result is
no longer mine, but His Who assists, or rather works in and with me;
and all the more because I can do nothing without Him.
A. Have you not read, pray,5146
“that it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth
mercy!”
From this we understand that to will and to
run is ours, but the
carrying into effect our willing and running pertains to the
mercy of
God, and is so effected that on the one
hand in willing and running
free will is
preserved; and on the other, in consummating our willing
and running, everything is left to the
power of
God. Of course, I ought
now to adduce the
frequent testimony of Scripture to show that in the
details of
conduct the
saints intreat the help of
God, and in their
several actions desire to have Him for their
helper and protector. Read
through the Psalter, and all the utterances of the
saints, and you will
find their actions never unaccompanied by prayer to
God. And this is a
clear
proof that you either deny the
grace which you banish from the
parts of
life; or if you concede its presence in the parts, a
concession plainly much against your will, you must have come over to
the views of us who
preserve free will for man, but so limit it that we
do not deny the assistance of
God in each action.
6. C. That is a sophistical conclusion and a mere
display of logical skill. No one can strip me of the power of free
will; otherwise, if God were really my helper in what I do, the reward
would not be due to me, but to Him who wrought in me.
A. Make the most of your free will; arm your tongue
against God, and therein prove yourself free, if you will, to
blaspheme. But to go a step farther, there is no doubt as to your
sentiments, and the delusions of your profession have become as clear
as day. Now, let us turn back to the starting-point of our discussion.
You said just now that, granted God’s assistance, man may be
sinless if he chooses. Tell me, please, for how long? For ever, or only
for a short time?
C. Your question is unnecessary. If I say for a short
time, for ever will none the less be implied. For whatever you allow
for a short time, you will admit may last for ever.
A. I do not quite understand your meaning.
C. Are you so senseless that you do not recognize plain
facts?
7. A. I am not ashamed of my ignorance. And both sides ought to be well agreed on a
definition of the subject of dispute.
C. I maintain this: he who can keep himself from sin one
day, may do so another day: if he can on two, he may on three; if on
three, on thirty: and so on for three hundred, or three thousand, or as
long as ever he chooses to do so.
A. Say then at once that a man may be without sin for
ever, if he chooses. Can we do anything we like?
C. Certainly not, for I cannot do all I should like; but
all I say is this, that a man can be without sin, if he chooses.
A. Be so good as to tell me this: do you think I am a
man or a beast?
C. If I had any doubt as to whether you were a man, or a
beast, I should confess myself to be the latter.
A. If then, as you say, I am a man, how is it that when
I wish and earnestly desire not to sin, I do transgress?
C. Because your choice is imperfect. If you really
wished not to sin, you really would not.
A. Well then, you who accuse me of not having a real
desire, are you free from sin because you have a real desire?
C. As though I were talking of myself whom I admit to be
a sinner, and not of the few exceptional ones, if any, who have
resolved not to sin.
8. A. Still, I who question, and you who answer, both
consider ourselves sinners.
C. But we are capable of not being so, if we please.
A. I said I did not wish to sin, and no doubt your
feeling is the same. How is it then that what we both wish we can
neither do?
C. Because we do not wish perfectly.
A. Show me any of our ancestors who had a perfect will
and the power in perfection.
C. That is not easy. And when I say that a man may be
without sin if he chooses, I do not contend that there ever have been
such; I only maintain the abstract possibility—if he chooses. For
possibility of being is one thing, and is expressed in Greek by
τῇ
δυνάμει (possibility);
being is another, the equivalent for which is τῇ ἐνεργεί&
139· (actuality). I can be a physician; but meanwhile I am
not. I can be an artisan; but I have not yet learnt a trade. So,
whatever I am able to be, though I am not that yet, I shall be if I
choose.
9. A. Art is one thing, that which is5147
| 5147 Reading quod
super artes est. |
above art is another. Medical skill,
craftsmanship, and so on, are found in many persons; but to be always
without
sin is a characteristic of the
Divine power only. Therefore,
either give me an instance of those who were for ever without
sin; or,
if you cannot find one, confess your impotence, lay aside bombast, and
do not
mock the
ears of
fools with this
being and
possibility
of being of yours. For who will grant that a man can do what no man
was ever able to do? You have not learnt even the rudiments of logic.
For if a man is able, he is no longer unable. Either grant that some
one was able to do what you maintain was possible to be done; or if no
one has had this
power, you must, though against your will, be held to
this position, that no one is able to effect what yet you profess to be
possible. That was the point at issue between the
powerful logicians,
5148
| 5148 That is,
Diodorous, surnamed Cronus, who lived at Alexandria in the reign of
Ptolemy Soter (b.c. 323–285). He was the
teacher of Philo. For his discussions On the Possible,
Zeller’s “Socrates and the Socratic Schools,”
Reichel’s translation, pp. 272, 273, and authorities there cited,
may be consulted. |
Diodorus and
5149
| 5149 Died b.c. 207, aged 73. He was the first to base the
Stoic doctrine on something like systematic reasoning. |
Chrysippus, in their discussion of
possibility. Diodorus says that alone can possibly happen which is
either true or will be true. And whatever will be, that, he says, must
of necessity happen. But whatever will not be, that cannot possibly
happen. Chrysippus, however, says that things which will not be might
happen; for instance, this
pearl might be broken, even though it never
will. They, therefore, who say that a man can be without
sin if he
chooses, will not be able to
prove the
truth of the assertion, unless
they show that it will come to pass. But whereas the whole future is
uncertain, and especially such things as have never occurred, it is
clear that they say something will be which will not be. And
Ecclesiastes supports this decision: “All that shall be, has
already been in former ages.”
10. C. Pray answer this question: has God given possible
or impossible commands?
A. I see your drift. But I must discuss it later on,
that we may not, by confusing different questions, leave our audience
in a fog. I admit that God has given possible commands, for otherwise
He would Himself be the author of injustice, were He to demand the
doing of what cannot possibly be done. Reserving this until later,
finish your argument that a man can be without sin, if he chooses. You
will either give instances of such ability, or, if no one has had the
power, you will clearly confess that a man cannot avoid sin always.
C. Since you press me to give what I am not bound to
give, consider what our Lord says,5150
“That
it is easier for a
camel to go through a
needle’s
eye, than for a
rich
man to enter into the
kingdom of
heaven.” And yet he said a thing
might possibly happen, which never has happened. For no
camel has ever
gone through a
needle’s
eye.
A. I am surprised at a prudent man submitting evidence
which goes against himself. For the passage in question does not speak
of a possibility, but one impossibility is compared with another. As a
camel cannot go through a needle’s eye, so neither will a rich
man enter the kingdom of heaven. Or, if you should be able to show that
a rich man does enter the kingdom of heaven, it follows, also, that a
camel goes through a needle’s eye. You must not instance Abraham
and other rich men, about whom we read in the Old Testament, who,
although they were rich, entered the kingdom of heaven; for, by
spending their riches on good works, they ceased to be rich; nay,
rather, inasmuch as they were rich, not for themselves, but for others,
they ought to be called God’s stewards rather than rich men. But
we must seek evangelical perfection, according to which there is the
command,5151
“If thou wilt be
perfect, go
and sell all that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and come, follow
Me.”
11. C. You are caught unawares in your own snare.
A. How so?
C. You quote our Lord’s utterance to the effect
that a man can be perfect. For when He says, “If thou wilt be
perfect, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and come,
follow Me,” He shows that a man, if he chooses, and if he does
what is commanded, can be perfect?
A. You have given me such a terrible blow that I am
almost dazed. But yet the very words you quote, “If thou wilt be
perfect,” were spoken to one who could not, or rather would not,
and, therefore, could not; show me now, as you promised, some one who
would and could.
C. Why am I compelled to produce instances of
perfection, when it is clear from what the Saviour said to one, and
through one to all, “If thou wilt be perfect” that it is
possible for men to be perfect?
A. That is a mere shuffle. You still stick fast in the
mire. For, either, if a thing is possible, it has occurred at some time
or other; or, if it never has happened, grant that it is
impossible.
12. C. Why do I any longer delay? You must be vanquished
by the authority or Scripture. To pass over other passages, you must be
silenced by the two in which we read the praises of Job, and of
Zacharias and Elizabeth. For, unless I am deceived, it is thus written
in the book of Job:5152
“There
was a man in the
land of
Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was
perfect and upright, a true worshipper of
God, and one who kept himself
from every
evil thing.” And again:
5153
| 5153 This appears to
be an inaccurate quotation made from memory. |
“Who is he that reproveth one
that is
righteous and free from
sin, and speaketh words without
knowledge?” Also, in the
Gospel according to Luke, we read:
5154
“There was in the days of
Herod,
king of Judæa, a certain
priest named Zacharias, of the course of
Abijah: and he had a
wife of the
daughters of
Aaron, and her name was
Elizabeth. And they were both
righteous before
God, walking in all the
commandments and
ordinances of the
Lord blameless.” If a true
worshipper of
God is also without spot and without
offence, and if
those who walked in all the
ordinances of the
Lord are
righteous before
God, I suppose they are free from
sin, and lack nothing that pertains
to
righteousness.
A. You have cited passages which have been detached not
only from the rest of Scripture, but from the books in which they
occur. For even Job, after he was stricken with the plague, is
convicted of having spoken many things against the ruling of God, and
to have summoned Him to the bar:5155
| 5155 Job xvi. 21. Vulg. R.V. Margin—“That one
might plead for a man with God as a son of man pleadeth for his
neighbour.” |
“Would that a man stood with
God in the
judgment as a son of man
stands with his fellow.” And again:
5156
“Oh that I had one to hear me!
that the
Almighty might hear my desire, and that the
judge would
himself
write a book!” And again:
5157
“Though I be
righteous, mine own
mouth shall
condemn me: though I be
perfect, it shall
prove me
perverse. If I
wash myself with
snow-
water, and make my
hands never so
clean, Thou hast dyed me again and again with
filth. Mine own
clothes
have
abhorred me.” And of Zacharias it is written, that when the
angel promised the
birth of a son, he said:
5158
“Whereby shall I know this? for
I am an old man, and my
wife well stricken in years.” For which
answer he was at once
condemned to
silence:
5159
“Thou shalt be
silent, and not
able to speak, until the day that these things shall come to pass,
because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their
season.” From this it is clear that men are called
righteous, and
said to be without fault; but that, if negligence comes over them, they may fall; and that a man
always occupies a middle place, so that he may slip from the height of
virtue into vice, or may rise from vice to
virtue; and that he is never
safe, but must dread
shipwreck even in fair
weather; and, therefore,
that a man cannot be without
sin.
Solomon says,
5160
“There is not a
righteous man upon
earth that doeth good and sinneth not”; and likewise in the book
of Kings:
5161
“There is no man that
sinneth not.” So, also, the
blessed David says:
5162
“Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse Thou me from hidden faults, and keep back Thy
servant from
presumptuous
sins.” And again:
5163
“Enter not into
judgment with Thy
servant, for in Thy sight shall
no man living be justified.” Holy Scripture is full of passages
to the same effect.
13. C. But what answer will you give to the famous
declaration of John the Evangelist:5164
“We
know that whosoever is begotten of
God sinneth not; but the begetting
of
God keepeth him, and the
evil one toucheth him not. We know that we
are of
God, and the whole
world lieth in the
evil one?”
A. I will requite like with like, and will show that,
according to you, the little epistle of the Evangelist contradicts
itself. For, if whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not because His
seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God, how
is it that the writer says in the same place:5165
“If we say that we have no
sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us?” You cannot
explain. You hesitate and are confused. Listen to the same
Evangelist
telling us that
5166
“If we
confess our
sins, he is
faithful and just to
forgive us our
sins, and
to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.” We are then
righteous
when we confess that we are
sinners, and our
righteousness depends not
upon our own merits, but on the
mercy of
God, as the Holy Scripture
says,
5167
“The
righteous man
accuseth himself when he beginneth to speak,” and elsewhere,
5168
“Tell thy
sins that thou mayest
be justified.”
5169
“
God
hath shut up all under
sin, that He may have
mercy upon all.” And
the highest
righteousness of man is this—whatever
virtue he may
be able to acquire, not to think it his own, but the
gift of
God. He
then who is
born of
God does not
sin, so long as the
seed of
God
remains in him, and he cannot
sin, because he is
born of
God. But
seeing that, while the householder slept, an
enemy sowed tares, and
that when we know not, a sower by
night scatters in the
Lord’s
field darnel and
wild oats among the good corn, this
parable of the
householder in the
Gospel should excite our
fears. He cleanses his
floor, and gathers the
wheat into his
garner, but
leaves the
chaff to
be scattered by the
winds, or
burned by the
fire. And so we read in
Jeremiah,
5170
“What is the
chaff to the
wheat? saith the
Lord.” The
chaff, moreover, is separated from
the
wheat at the end of the
world, a
proof that, while we are in the
mortal body,
chaff is mixed with the
wheat. But if you object, and ask
why did the
Apostle say “and he cannot
sin, because he is
born of
God,” I reply by asking you what becomes of the
reward of his
choice? For if a man does not
sin because he cannot
sin, free will is
destroyed, and
goodness cannot possibly be due to his efforts, but must
be part of a
nature unreceptive of
evil.
14. C. The task I set you just now was an easy one by
way of practice for something more difficult. What have you to say to
my next argument? Clever as you are, all your skill will not avail to
overthrow it. I shall first quote from the Old Testament, then from the
New. Moses is the chief figure in the Old Testament, our Lord and
Saviour in the New. Moses says to the people,5171
“Be
perfect in the sight of the
Lord your
God.” And the Saviour bids the
Apostles5172
“Be
perfect as your heavenly
Father is
perfect.” Now it was either possible for the hearers to
do what
Moses and the
Lord commanded, or, if it be
impossible, the
fault does not
lie with them who cannot obey, but with Him who gave
impossible commands.
A. This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are
unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor
use it, does appear at first sight to favour your opinion. But when you
look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare
passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to
contradict Himself with changing place and time, according to what is
written,5173
“
Deep calleth unto
deep
at the
noise of thy
water spouts,” the
truth will show itself,
that is, that
Christ did give a possible command when He said:
“Be ye
perfect as your heavenly
Father is
perfect,” and yet
that the
Apostles were not
perfect.
C. I am not talking of what the Apostles did, but of
what Christ commanded. And the fault does not lie with the giver of the
command, but with the hearers of it, because we cannot admit the
justice of him who commands without conceding the possibility of doing
what is commanded.
A. Good! Don’t tell me then that a man can be without sin if he chooses, but
that a man can be what the Apostles were not.
C. Do you think me fool enough to dare say such a
thing?
A. Although you do not say it in so many words, however
reluctant you may be to admit the fact, it follows by natural sequence
from your proposition. For if a man can be without sin, and it is clear
the Apostles were not without sin, a man can be higher than the
Apostles: to say nothing of patriarchs and prophets whose righteousness
under the law was not perfect, as the Apostle says,5174
“For all have
sinned, and fall
short of the
glory of
God: being justified freely by His
grace through
the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus: whom
God set forth to be a
propitiator.”
14a. C. This way of arguing is intricate and brings the
simplicity which becomes the Church into the tangled thickets of
philosophy. What has Paul to do with Aristotle? or Peter with Plato?
For as the latter was the prince of philosophers, so was the former
chief of the Apostles: on him the Lord’s Church was firmly
founded, and neither rushing flood nor storm can shake it.
A. Now you are rhetorical, and while you taunt me with
philosophy, you yourself cross over to the camp of the orators. But
listen to what your same favourite orator says:5175
| 5175 Cic. Lib. iv.
Acad. Quæst. |
“Let us have no more
commonplaces: we get them at
home.”
C. There is no eloquence in this, no bombast like that
of the orators, who might be defined as persons whose object is to
persuade, and who frame their language accordingly. We are seeking
unadulterated truth, and use unsophisticated language. Either the Lord
did not give impossible commands, so that they are to blame who did not
do what was possible; or, if what is commanded cannot be done, then not
they who do not things impossible are convicted of unrighteousness, but
He Who commanded things impossible, and that is an impious
statement.
A. I see you are much more disturbed than is your wont;
so I will not ply you with arguments. But let me briefly ask what you
think of the well-known passage of the Apostle when he wrote to the
Philippians:5176
“Not that I have already
obtained, or am already made
perfect: but I press on, if so be that I
may
apprehend that for which also I was
apprehended by
Christ Jesus.
Brethren, I
count not myself to have yet
apprehended: but one thing I
do; forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to
the things which are before, I press on towards the
goal unto the
prize
of the high calling of
God in
Christ Jesus. Let us, therefore, as many
as be
perfect, be thus
minded: and if in anything ye are otherwise
minded, even this shall
God reveal unto you,” and so on; no doubt
you know the
rest, which, in my desire to be brief, I omit. He says
that he had not yet
apprehended, and was by no means
perfect; but, like
an archer, aimed his arrows at the mark set up (more expressively
called
5177
| 5177 From σχέπτομαι ,
to keep watch. |
σκοπός in
Greek), lest the
shaft, turning to one side or the other, might show the unskilfulness
of the archer. He further declares that he always
forgot the past, and
ever stretched forward to the things in front, thus teaching that no
heed should be paid to the past, but the future earnestly desired; so
that what to-day he thought
perfect, while he was stretching forward to
better things and things in front, to-morrow
proves to have been
imperfect. And thus at every step, never standing still, but always
running, he shows that to be imperfect which we men thought
perfect,
and
teaches that our only
perfection and true
righteousness is that
which is measured by the excellence of
God. “I press on towards
the
goal,” he says, “unto the
prize of the high calling of
God in
Christ Jesus.” Oh,
blessed Apostle Paul, pardon me, a
poor
creature who confess my faults, if I venture to ask a
question. You say
that you had not yet obtained, nor yet
apprehended, nor were yet
perfect, and that you always
forgot the things behind, and stretched
forward to the things in front, if by any means you might have part in
the resurrection of the dead, and win the
prize of your high calling.
How, then, is it that you immediately add, “As many therefore as
are
perfect are thus
minded”? (or, let us be thus
minded, for the
copies vary). And what
mind is it that we have, or are to have? that we
are
perfect? that we have
apprehended that which we have not
apprehended, received what we have not received, are
perfect who are
not yet
perfect? What
mind then have we, or rather what
mind ought we
to have who are not
perfect? To confess that we are imperfect, and have
not yet
apprehended, nor yet obtained, this is true
wisdom in man: know
thyself to be imperfect; and, if I may so speak, the
perfection of all
who are
righteous, so long as they are in the
flesh, is imperfect.
Hence we read in
Proverbs:
5178
“To
understand true
righteousness.” For if there were not also a
false
righteousness, the
righteousness of
God would never be called
true. The
Apostle continues: “and if ye are otherwise
minded,
God
will also
reveal that to you.” This sounds
strange to my
ears. He who but just now said,
“Not that I have already obtained, or am already
perfect”;
the chosen
vessel, who was so confident of
Christ’s dwelling in
him that he
dared to say “Do ye
seek a
proof of
Christ that
speaketh in me? ”and yet plainly confessed that he was not
perfect; he now gives to the multitude what he denied to himself in
particular, he unites himself with the
rest and says, “As many of
us as are
perfect, let us be thus
minded.” But why he said this,
he explains presently. Let us, he means, who wish to be
perfect
according to the
poor measure of human frailty, think this, that we
have not yet obtained, nor yet
apprehended, nor are yet
perfect, and
inasmuch as we are not yet
perfect, and, perhaps, think otherwise than
true and
perfect perfection requires, if we are
minded otherwise than
is dictated by the full
knowledge of
God,
God will also
reveal this to
us, so that we may
pray with
David and say,
5179
“Open Thou mine
eyes that I may
behold wondrous things out of Thy
law.”
15. All this makes it clear that in Holy Scripture there
are two sorts of perfection, two of righteousness, and two of fear. The
first is that perfection, and incomparable truth, and perfect
righteousness5180
| 5180 The reading is
much disputed. |
and
fear,
which is the beginning of
wisdom, and which we must measure by the
excellence of
God; the second, which is within the range not only of
men, but of every creature, and is not inconsistent with our frailty,
as we read in the Psalms:
5181
“In
Thy sight shall no man living be justified,” is that
righteousness which is said to be
perfect, not in comparison with
God,
but as recognized by
God. Job, and Zacharias, and Elizabeth, were
called
righteous, in respect of that
righteousness which might some day
turn to
unrighteousness, and not in respect of that which is incapable
of change, concerning which it is said,
5182
“I am
God, and change
not.” And this is that which the
Apostle elsewhere writes:
5183
“That which hath been made
glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the
glory that surpasseth”; because, that is, the
righteousness of
the
law, in comparison of the
grace of the
Gospel, does not seem to be
righteousness at all.
5184
“For
if,” he says, that which passeth away was with
glory, much more
that which remaineth is in
glory.
5185
And
again, “We know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that
which is
perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done
away.” And,
5186
“For
now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in
part; but then shall I know even as also I have been known.” And
in the Psalms,
5187
“Such
knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto
it.” And again,
5188
“When I thought how I might
know this, it was too
painful for me; until I went into the
sanctuary
of
God, and considered their latter end.” And in the same
place,
5189
“I was as a
beast before
thee: nevertheless I am continually with thee.” And Jeremiah
says,
5190
“Every man is become brutish and
without
knowledge.” And to return to the
Apostle Paul,
5191
“The foolishness of
God is wiser
than men.” And much besides, which I omit for brevity’s
sake.
16. C. My dear Atticus, your speech is really a clever
feat of memory. But the labour you have spent in mustering this host of
authorities is to my advantage. For I do not any more than you compare
man with God, but with other men, in comparison with whom he who takes
the trouble can be perfect. And so, when we say that man, if he
chooses, can be without sin, the standard is the measure of man, not
the majesty of God, in comparison with Whom no creature can be
perfect.
A. Critobulus, I am obliged to you for reminding me of
the fact. For it is just my own view that no creature can be perfect in
respect of true and finished righteousness. But that one differs from
another, and that one man’s righteousness is not the same as
another’s, no one doubts; nor again that one may be greater or
less than another, and yet that, relatively to their own status and
capacity, men may be called righteous who are not righteous when
compared with others. For instance, the Apostle Paul, the chosen vessel
who laboured more than all the Apostles, was, I suppose, righteous when
he wrote to Timothy,5192
“I have
fought the good
fight, I have
finished the course, I have kept the
faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the
crown of
righteousness,
which the
Lord, the
righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and
not only to me, but also to all them that
love His appearing.”
Timothy, his
disciple and imitator, whom he taught the rules of action
and the limits of
virtue, was also
righteous. Are we to think there was
one and the same
righteousness in them both, and that he had not more
merit who laboured more than all? “In my
Father’s
house are
many
mansions.” I suppose there are also different degrees of
merit. “One
star differeth from another
star in
glory,” and
in the one body of the
Church there are different members. The sun has
its own splendour, the
moon tempers
the
darkness of the
night; and the five heavenly bodies which are
called planets traverse the
sky in different tracks and with different
degrees of luminousness. There are countless other
stars whose
movements we trace in the firmament. Each has its own brightness, and
though each in respect of its own is
perfect, yet, in comparison with
one of greater magnitude, it lacks
perfection. In the body also with
its different members, the
eye has one function, the
hand another, the
foot another. Whence the
Apostle says,
5193
| 5193 1 Cor. xii. 21, 29, 11. |
“The
eye cannot say to the
hand, I have no need of thee: or again the head to the
feet, I have no
need of you. Are all
Apostles? are all
prophets? are all
teachers? are
all workers of
miracles? have all
gifts of healing? do all speak with
tongues? do all
interpret? But desire earnestly the greater
gifts. But
all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one
severally even as He will.” And here mark carefully that he does
not say, as each member desires, but as the Spirit Himself will. For
the
vessel cannot say to him that makes it,
5194
“Why dost thou make me thus or
thus? Hath not the
potter a right over the
clay, from the same lump to
make one part a
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
And so in close sequence he added, “Desire earnestly the greater
gifts,” so that, by the
exercise of
faith and
diligence, we may
win something in addition to other
gifts, and may be superior to those
who, compared with us, are in the second or third class. In a great
house there are different
vessels, some of
gold, some of
silver,
brass,
iron,
wood. And yet while in its
kind a
vessel of
brass is
perfect, in
comparison with one of
silver it is called imperfect, and again one of
silver, compared with one of
gold, is inferior. And thus, when compared
with one another, all things are imperfect and
perfect. In a
field of
good soil, and from one sowing, there springs a crop thirty-fold,
sixty-fold, or a
hundred-fold. The very numbers show that there is
disparity in the parts of the produce, and yet in its own
kind each is
perfect. Elizabeth and Zacharias, whom you adduce and with whom you
cover yourself as with an impenetrable
shield, may
teach us how
far
they are beneath the
holiness of
blessed Mary, the
Lord’s Mother,
who, conscious that
God was dwelling in her,
proclaims without
reserve,
5195
“Behold, from henceforth
all generations shall call me
blessed. For He that is mighty hath done
to me great things; and holy is His name. And His
mercy is unto
generations and generations of them that
fear Him: He hath showed
strength with His
arm.” Where, observe, she says she is
blessed
not by her own merit and
virtue, but by the
mercy of
God dwelling in
her. And John himself, a greater than whom has not arisen among the
sons of men, is better than his
parents. For not only does our
Lord
compare him with men, but with
angels also. And yet he, who was greater
on
earth than all other men, is said to be less than the least in the
kingdom of
heaven.
17. Need we be surprised that, when saints are compared,
some are better, some worse, since the same holds good in the
comparison of sins? To Jerusalem, pierced and wounded with many sins,
it is said,5196
“
Sodom is justified by
thee.” It is not because
Sodom, which has sunk for ever into
ashes, is just in herself, that it is said by Ezekiel,
5197
“
Sodom shall be restored to her
former
estate”; but that, in comparison with the more accursed
Jerusalem, she appears just. For
Jerusalem killed the Son of
God;
Sodom
through fulness of
bread and excessive luxury carried her
lust beyond
all bounds. The
publican in the
Gospel who smote upon his
breast as
though it were a magazine of the worst thoughts, and, conscious of his
offences,
dared not lift up his
eyes, is justified rather than the
proud Pharisee. And Thamar in the guise of a
harlot deceived Judah, and
in the estimation of this man himself who was
deceived, was worthy of
the words,
5198
“Thamar is more
righteous than I.” All this goes to
prove that not only in
comparison with
Divine majesty are men
far from
perfection, but also
when compared with
angels, and other men who have
climbed the heights
of
virtue. You may be superior to some one whom you have shown to be
imperfect, and yet be outstripped by another; and consequently may not
have true
perfection, which, if it be
perfect, is absolute.
18. C. How is it then, Atticus, that the Divine Word
urges us to perfection?
A. I have already explained that in proportion to our
strength each one, with all his power, must stretch forward, if by any
means he may attain to, and apprehend the reward of his high calling.
In short Almighty God, to whom, as the Apostle teaches, the Son must in
accordance with the dispensation of the Incarnation be subjected, that5199
“
God may be all in all,”
clearly shows that all things are by no means subject to Himself. Hence
the
prophet anticipates his own final subjection, saying,
5200
“Shall not my
soul be subject to
God alone? for of Him cometh my
salvation.” And because in the
body of the
Church Christ is the head, and some of the members still
resist, the body does not appear to
be subject even to the head. For if one member
suffer, all the members
suffer with it, and the whole body is
tortured by the
pain in one
member. My meaning may be more clearly expressed thus. So long as we
have the
treasure in earthen
vessels, and are
clothed with frail
flesh,
or rather with
mortal and corruptible
flesh, we think ourselves
fortunate if, in single
virtues and separate portions of
virtue, we are
subject to
God. But when this
mortal shall have put on immortality, and
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and
death shall be
swallowed up in the
victory of
Christ, then will
God be all in all: and
so there will not be merely
wisdom in
Solomon, sweetness in
David,
zeal
in
Elias and Phinees,
faith in
Abraham,
perfect love in Peter, to whom
it was said,
5201
“
Simon, son of John, lovest
thou me?”
zeal for
preaching in the chosen
vessel, and two or
three
virtues each in others, but
God will be wholly in all, and the
company of the
saints will
rejoice in the whole
band of
virtues, and
God will be all in all.
19. C. Do I understand you to say that no saint, so long
as he is in this poor body, can have all virtues?
A. Just so, because now we prophesy in part, and know in
part. It is impossible for all things to be in all men, for no son of
man is immortal.
C. How is it, then, that we read that he who has one
virtue appears to have all?
A. By partaking of them, not possessing them, for
individuals must excel in particular virtues. But I confess I
don’t know where to find what you say you have read.
C. Are you not aware that the philosophers take that
view?
A. The philosophers may, but the Apostles do not. I heed
not what Aristotle, but what Paul, teaches.
C. Pray does not James the Apostle5202
write that he who
stumbles in one point
is
guilty of all?
A. The passage is its own interpreter. James did not
say, as a starting-point for the discussion, he who prefers a rich man
to a poor man in honour is guilty of adultery or murder. That is a
delusion of the Stoics who maintain the equality of sins. But he
proceeds thus: “He who said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said
also, Thou shalt not kill: but although thou dost not kill, yet, if
thou commit adultery, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”
Light offences are compared with light ones, and heavy offences with
heavy ones. A fault that deserves the rod must not be avenged with the
sword; nor must a crime worthy of the sword, be checked with the
rod.
C. Suppose it true that no saint has all the virtues:
you will surely grant that within the range of his ability, if a man do
what he can, he is perfect.
A. Do you not remember what I said before?
C. What was it?
A. That a man is perfect in respect of what he has done,
imperfect in respect of what he could not do.
C. But as he is perfect in respect of what he has done,
because he willed to do it, so in respect of that which constitutes him
imperfect, because he has not done it, he might have been perfect, had
he willed to do it.
A. Who does not wish to do what is perfect? Or who does
not long to grow vigorously in all virtue? If you look for all virtues
in each individual, you do away with the distinctions of things, and
the difference of graces, and the variety of the work of the Creator,
whose prophet cries aloud in the sacred song:5203
“In
wisdom hast thou made them
all.”
Lucifer may be indignant because he has not the brightness
of the
moon. The
moon may dispute over her eclipses and ceaseless toil,
and ask why she must traverse every month the yearly orbit of the sun.
The sun may complain and want to know what he has done that he
travels
more slowly than the
moon. And we
poor creatures may demand to know why
it is that we were made men and not
angels; although your
teacher,
5204
| 5204 According to
some, Plato: more probably, Origen, the word ἀρχαῖος being an allusion to
the title of his chief work, Περὶ
᾽Αρχῶν. |
the Ancient, the
fountain from
which these
streams flow, asserts that all rational creatures were
created equal and started fairly, like charioteers, either to succumb
halfway, or to pass on rapidly and reach the wished-for
goal.
Elephants, with their huge bulk, and griffins, might discuss their
ponderous frames and ask why they must go on four
feet, while
flies,
midges, and other creatures like them have six
feet under their tiny
wings, and there are some creeping things which have such an
abundance
of
feet that the keenest vision cannot follow their countless and
simultaneous movements. Marcion and all the
heretics who denied the
Creator’s works might speak thus. Your principle goes so
far that
while its adherents attack particular points, they are laying
hands on
God; they are asking why He only is
God, why He envies the creatures,
and why they are not all endowed with the same
power and importance. You would not say so much (for you
are not
mad enough to openly
fight against
God), yet this is your
meaning in other words, when you give man an attribute of
God, and make
him to be without
sin like
God Himself. Hence the
Apostle, with his
voice of
thunder, says, concerning different graces:
5205
“There are diversities of
gifts,
but the same spirit; and differences of ministrations, but the same
Lord; and there are diversities of workings, but the same
God, Who
worketh all things in all.”
20. C. You push this one particular point too far in
seeking to convince me that a man cannot have all excellences at the
same time. As though God were guilty of envy, or unable to bestow upon
His image and likeness a correspondence in all things to his
Creator.
A. Is it I or you who go too far? You revive questions
already settled, and do not understand that likeness is one thing,
equality another; that the former is a painting, the latter, reality. A
real horse courses over the plains; the painted one with his chariot
does not leave the wall. The Arians do not allow to the Son of God what
you give to every man. Some do not dare to confess the perfect humanity
of Christ, lest they should be compelled to accept the belief that He
had the sins of a man as though the Creator were unequal to the act of
creating, and the title Son of Man were co-extensive with the title Son
of God. So either set me something else to answer, or lay aside pride
and give glory to God.
C. You forget a former answer of yours, and have been so
busy forging your chain of argument, and careering through the wide
fields of Scripture, like a horse that has slipped its bridle, that you
have not said a single word about the main point. Your forgetfulness is
a pretext for escaping the necessity of a reply. It was foolish in me
to concede to you for the nonce what you asked, and to suppose that you
would voluntarily give up what you had received, and would not need a
reminder to make you pay what you owed.
A. If I mistake not, it was the question of possible
commands of which I deferred the answer. Pray proceed as you think
best.
21. C. The commands which God has given are either
possible or impossible. If possible, it is in our power to do them, if
we choose. If impossible, we cannot be held guilty for omitting duties
which it is not given us to fulfill. Hence it results that, whether God
has given possible or impossible commands, a man can be without sin if
he chooses.
A. I beg your patient attention, for what we seek is not
victory over an opponent, but the triumph of truth over falsehood. God
has put within the power of mankind all arts, for we see that a vast
number of men have mastered them. To pass over those which the Greeks
call5206
βάναυσοι, as we
may say, the manual arts, I will instance grammar, rhetoric, the three
sorts of philosophy—physics, ethics, logic—geometry also,
and astronomy, astrology, arithmetic,
music, which are also parts of
philosophy; medicine, too, in its threefold
division—theory,
investigation,
practice; a
knowledge of
law in general and of
particular enactments. Which of us, however clever he may be, will be
able to understand them all, when the most eloquent of
orators,
discussing rhetoric and jurisprudence, said: “A few may
excel in
one, in both no one can.” You see, then, that
God has commanded
what is possible, and yet, that no one can by
nature attain to what is
possible. Similarly he has given different rules and various
virtues,
all of which we cannot possess at the same time. Hence it happens that
a
virtue which in one person takes the
chief place, or is found in
perfection, in another is but partial; and yet, he is not to
blame who
has not all excellence, nor is he
condemned for lacking that which he
has not; but he is justified through what he does possess. The
Apostle
described the character of a
bishop when he wrote to Timothy,
5207
“The
bishop, therefore, must be
without
reproach, the
husband of one
wife, temperate,
modest, orderly,
given to
hospitality, apt to
teach; no
brawler, no
striker; but
gentle,
not contentious, no
lover of
money; one that ruleth well his own
house,
having his
children in subjection with all modesty.” And again,
“Not a
novice, lest, being puffed up, he fall into the
condemnation of the
devil. Moreover, he must have good
testimony from
them that are without, lest he fall into
reproach and the
snare of the
devil.” Writing also to his
disciple Titus, he briefly points out
what sort of
bishops he ought to
ordain:
5208
“For this cause left I thee in
Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting,
and
appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge; if any man is
blameless, the
husband of one
wife, having
children that believe, who
are not
accused of
riot or
unruly. For the
bishop must be blameless (or
free from
accusation, for so much is conveyed by the original) as
God’s
steward; not self-willed, not soon
angry, no
brawler, no
striker, not
greedy of
filthy lucre; but given to
hospitality,
kind,
modest, just, holy, temperate;
holding to the
faithful word which is according to the teaching, that
he may be able both to
exhort in the sound
doctrine, and to
convict the
gainsayers.” I will not now say anything of the various rules
relating to different persons, but will confine myself to the commands
connected with the
bishop.
22. God certainly wishes bishops or priests to be such
as the chosen vessel teaches they should be. As to the first
qualification it is seldom or never that one is found without
reproach; for who is it that has not some fault, like a mole or a
wart on a lovely body? If the Apostle himself says of Peter that he did
not tread a straight path in the truth of the Gospel, and was so far to
blame that even Barnabas was led away into the same dissimulation, who
will be indignant if that is denied to him which the chief of the
Apostles had not? Then, supposing you find one, “the husband of
one wife, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality,” the next
attribute—διδακτικόν
, apt to teach, not merely as the Latin renders the word, apt
to be taught—you will hardly find in company with the other
virtues. A bishop or priest that is a brawler, or a striker, or a lover
of money, the Apostle rejects, and in his stead would have one gentle,
not contentious, free from avarice, one that rules well his own house,
and what is very hard, one who has his children in subjection with all
modesty, whether they be children of the flesh or children of the
faith. “With all modesty,” he says. It is not enough for
him to have his own modesty unless it be enhanced by the modesty of his
children, companions, and servants, as David says,5209
“He that walketh in a
perfect
way, he shall
minister unto me.” Let us consider, also, the
emphasis laid on modesty by the addition of the words “having his
children in subjection with all modesty.” Not only in
deed but in
word and gesture must he hold aloof from immodesty, lest perchance the
experience of
Eli be his.
Eli certainly
rebuked his sons, saying,
5210
“Nay, my sons, nay; it is not a
good
report which I hear of you.” He chided them, and yet was
punished, because he should not have chided, but cast them off. What
will he do who
rejoices at vice or lacks the
courage to correct it? Who
fears his own conscience, and therefore pretends to be ignorant of what
is in everybody’s mouth? The next point is that the
bishop must
be free from
accusation, that he have a good
report from them who are
without, that no reproaches of opponents be levelled at him, and that
they who dislike his
doctrine may be pleased with his
life. I suppose
it would not be easy to find all this, and particularly one “able
to
resist the
gain-sayers,” to check and overcome erroneous
opinions. He wishes no
novice to be
ordained bishop, and yet in our
time we see the youthful
novice sought after as though he represented
the highest
righteousness. If
baptism immediately made a man
righteous,
and full of all
righteousness, it was of course idle for the
Apostle to
repel a
novice; but
baptism annuls old
sins, does not bestow new
virtues; it looses from
prison, and
promises rewards to the
released if
he will
work. Seldom or never, I say, is there a man who has all the
virtues which a
bishop should have. And yet if a
bishop lacked one or
two of the
virtues in the list, it does not follow that he can no
longer be called
righteous, nor will he be
condemned for his
deficiencies, but will be
crowned for what he has. For to have all and
lack nothing is the
virtue of Him
5211
“Who did no
sin; neither was
guile found in His mouth; Who, when
He was
reviled,
reviled not again;” Who, confident in the
consciousness of
virtue, said,
5212
“Behold
the
prince of this
world cometh, and findeth nothing in me;”
5213
“Who, being in the form of
God,
thought it not robbery to be on an equality with
God, but emptied
Himself, taking the form of a
servant, and became
obedient unto
death,
even the
death of the
cross. Wherefore
God gave Him the name which is
above every name, that at the name of
Jesus every
knee should bow, of
things in
heaven, and things on
earth, and things under the
earth.” If, then, in the person of a single
bishop you will
either not find at all, or with difficulty, even a few of the things
commanded, how will you deal with the mass of men in general who are
bound to fulfil all the
commandments?
23. Let us reason from things bodily to things
spiritual. One man is swift-footed, but not strong-handed. That
man’s movements are slow, but he stands firm in battle. This man
has a fine face, but a harsh voice: another is repulsive to look at,
but sings sweetly and melodiously. There we see a man of great ability,
but equally poor memory; here is another whose memory serves him, but
whose wits are slow. In the very discussions with which when we were
boys we amused ourselves, all the disputants are not on a level, either
in introducing a subject, or in narrative, or in digressions, or wealth
of illustration, and charm of peroration, but their various oratorical
efforts exhibit different degrees of merit. Of churchmen I will say
more. Many discourse well upon the
Gospels, but in explaining an Apostle’s meaning are unequal to
themselves. Others, although most acute in the New Testament are dumb
in the Psalms and the Old Testament. I quite agree with
Virgil—Non omnia possumus omnes; and seldom or never is
the rich man found who in the abundance of his wealth has everything in
equal proportions. That God has given possible commands, I admit no
less than you. But it is not for each one of us to make all these
possible virtues our own, not because our nature is weak, for that is a
slander upon God, but because our hearts and minds grow weary and
cannot keep all virtues simultaneously and perpetually. And if you
blame the Creator for having made you subject to weariness and failure,
I shall reply, your censure would be still more severe if you thought
proper to accuse Him of not having made you God. But you will say, if I
have not the power, no sin attaches to me. You have sinned because you
have not done what another could do. And again, he in comparison with
whom you are inferior will be a sinner in respect of some other virtue,
relatively to you or to another person; and thus it happens that
whoever is thought to be first, is inferior to him who is his superior
in some other particular.
24. C. If it is impossible for man to be without sin,
what does the Apostle Jude mean by writing,5214
“Now unto Him that is able to
keep you without
sin, and to set you before the presence of His
glory
without
blemish”? This is clear
proof that it is possible to keep
a man without
sin and without
blemish.
A. You do not understand the passage. We are not told
that a man can be without sin, which is your view, but that God, if He
chooses, can keep a man free from sin, and of His mercy guard him so
that he may be without blemish. And I say that all things are possible
with God; but that everything which a man desires is not possible to
him, and especially, an attribute which belongs to no created thing you
ever read of.
C. I do not say that a man is without sin, which,
perhaps, appears to you to be possible; but that he may be, if he
chooses. For actuality is one thing, possibility another. In the actual
we look for an instance; possibility implies that our power to act is
real.
A. You are trifling, and forget the proverb,
“Don’t do what is done.” You keep turning in the same
mire,5215
| 5215 Literally, wash a
brick (that has not been burnt). Hence (1) labour in vain, or (2) make
bad worse. The latter appears to be the meaning here. |
and only make more dirt. I shall,
therefore, tell you, what is clear to all, that you are trying to
establish a thing that is not, never was, and, perhaps, never will be.
To employ your own words, and show the
folly and inconsistency of your
argument, I say that you are maintaining an
impossible possibility. For
your proposition, that a man can be without
sin if he chooses, is
either true or false. If it be true, show me who the man is; if it be
false, whatever is false can never happen. But let us have no more of
these notions. Hissed off the stage, and no longer
daring to appear in
public, they should stay on the book shelves, and not let themselves be
heard.
25. Let us proceed to other matters. And here I must
speak uninterruptedly, so far, at least, as is consistent with giving
you an opportunity of refuting me, or asking any question you think
fit.
C. I will listen patiently, though I cannot say gladly.
The ability of your reasoning will strike me all the more, while I am
amazed at its falsity.
A. Whether what I am going to say is true or false, you
will be able to judge when you have heard it.
C. Follow your own method. I am resolved, if I am unable
to answer, to hold my tongue rather than assent to a lie.
A. What difference does it make whether I defeat you
speaking or silent, and, as it is in the5216
story of Proteus, catch you
asleep or
awake?
C. When you have said what you like, you shall hear what
you will certainly not like. For though truth may be put to hard shifts
it cannot be subdued.
A. I want to sift your opinions a little, that your
followers may know what an inspired genius you are. You say, “It
is impossible for any but those who have the knowledge of the law to be
without sin”; and you, consequently, shut out from righteousness
a large number of Christians, and, preacher of sinlessness though you
are, declare nearly all to be sinners. For how many Christians have
that knowledge of the law which you can find but seldom, or hardly at
all, in many doctors of the Church? But your liberality is so great
that, in order to stand well with your Amazons, you have elsewhere
written, “Even women ought to have a knowledge of the law,”
although the Apostle preaches that women ought to keep silence in the
churches, and if they want to know anything consult their husbands at
home. And you are not content with having given your cohort a knowledge
of Scripture, but you must delight yourself with their songs and
canticles, for you have a heading
to the effect that “Women also should sing unto God.” Who
does not know that women should sing in the privacy of their own rooms,
away from the company of men and the crowded congregation? But you
allow what is not lawful, and the consequence is, that, with the
support of their master, they make an open show of that which should be
done with modesty, and with no eye to witness.
26. You go on to say, “The servant of God should
utter from his lips no bitterness, but ever that which is sweet and
pleasant”; and as though a servant of God were one thing, a
doctor and priest of the Church another, forgetting what was previously
laid down, you say in another heading, “A priest or doctor ought
to watch the actions of all, and confidently rebuke sinners, lest he be
responsible for them and their blood be required at his hands.”
And, not satisfied with saying it once, you repeat it, and inculcate
that, “A priest or doctor should flatter no one, but boldly
rebuke all, lest he destroy both himself and those who hear him.”
Is there so little harmony in one and the same work that you do not
know what you have previously said? For if the servant of God ought to
utter no bitterness from his mouth, but always that which is sweet and
pleasant, it follows either that a priest and doctor will not be
servants of God who ought to confidently rebuke sinners, and flatter no
one, but boldly reprove all: or, if a priest and a doctor are not only
servants of God, but have the chief place among His servants, it is
idle to reserve smooth and pleasant speeches for the servants of God,
for these are characteristic of heretics and of them who wish to
deceive; as the Apostle says,5217
“They
that are such serve not our
Lord Christ but their own
belly, and by
their smooth and fair
speech they
beguile the
hearts of the
innocent.”
Flattery is always insidious,
crafty, and smooth. And
the flatterer is well described by the
philosophers as “
a
pleasant enemy.”
Truth is
bitter, of gloomy visage and
wrinkled brow, and distasteful to those who are
rebuked. Hence the
Apostle says,
5218
“Am I
become your
enemy, because I tell you the
truth?” And the comic
poet tells us that “Obsequiousness is the mother of
friendship,
truth of enmity.” Wherefore we also eat the
Passover with
bitter
herbs, and the chosen
vessel teaches that the
Passover should be kept
with
truth and
sincerity. Let
truth in our case be plain speaking, and
bitterness will instantly follow.
27. In another place you maintain that “All are
governed by their own free choice.” What Christian can bear to
hear this? For if not one, nor a few, nor many, but all of us are
governed by our own free choice, what becomes of the help of God? And
how do you explain the text,5219
“A
man’s goings are ordered by the
Lord”? And
5220
“A man’s way is not in
himself”; and
5221
“No one
can receive anything, unless it be given him from above”; and
elsewhere,
5222
“What hast thou which
thou didst not receive? But if thou didst receive it, why dost thou
glory as if thou hadst not received it?” Our
Lord and Saviour
says:
5223
“I am come down from
heaven not to do Mine own will, but the will of the
Father who sent
Me.” And in another place,
5224
“
Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Thine be done.” And in the
Lord’s prayer,
5225
“Thy
will be done as in
heaven, so on
earth.” How is it that you are
so rash as to do away with all
God’s help? Elsewhere, you make a
vain attempt to append the words “not without the
grace of
God”; but in what sense you would have them understood is clear
from this passage, for you do not admit His
grace in separate actions,
but connect it with our
creation, the
gift of the
law, and the
power of
free will.
28. The argument of the next section is, “In the
day of judgment, no mercy will be shown to the unjust and to sinners,
but they must be consumed in eternal fire.” Who can bear this,
and suffer you to prohibit the mercy of God, and to sit in judgment on
the sentence of the Judge before the day of judgment, so that, if He
wished to show mercy to the unjust and the sinners, He must not,
because you have given your veto? For you say it is written in the one
hundred and fourth Psalm,5226
“Let
sinners cease to be in the
earth, and the
wicked be no more.” And
in Isaiah,
5227
“The
wicked and
sinners
shall be
burned up together, and they who
forsake God shall be
consumed.” Do you not know that
mercy is sometimes blended with
the threatenings of
God? He does not say that they must be
burnt with
eternal fires, but let them cease to be in the
earth, and the
wicked be
no more. For it is one thing for them to desist from
sin and
wickedness, another for them to
perish for ever and be
burnt in
eternal
fire. And as for the passage which you quote from Isaiah,
“
Sinners and the
wicked shall be
burned up together,” he
does not add for ever. “And they who
forsake God shall be
consumed.” This properly refers to
heretics, who leave the
straight path of the
faith, and shall be consumed if they will not
return to the
Lord whom they have
forsaken. And the same sentence is ready for you if you neglect to turn
to better things. Again, is it not marvellous temerity to couple the
wicked and
sinners with the impious, for the distinction between them
is great? Every impious person is
wicked and a
sinner; but we cannot
conversely say every
sinner and
wicked person is also impious, for
impiety properly
belongs to those who have not the
knowledge of
God,
or, if they have once had it, lose it by
transgression. But the
wounds
of
sin and
wickedness, like faults in general, admit of healing. Hence,
it is written,
5228
“Many are the
scourges of the
sinner”; it is not said that
he is eternally
destroyed. And through all the scourging and
torture
the faults of
Israel are corrected,
5229
“For whom the
Lord loveth He
chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” It is one
thing to
smite with the affection of a
teacher and a
parent; another to
be madly cruel towards
adversaries. Wherefore, we
sing in the first
Psalm,
5230
“The impious do not rise
in the
judgment,” for they are already sentenced to
destruction;
“nor
sinners in the
counsel of the just.” To lose the
glory
of the resurrection is a different thing from perishing for ever.
“The hour cometh,” he says,
5231
“In which all that are in the
tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth: they that have done
good unto the resurrection of
life, and they that have done
ill unto
the resurrection of
judgment.” And so the
Apostle, in the same
sense, because in the same Spirit, says to the
Romans,
5232
“As many as have
sinned without
law shall also
perish without
law; and as many as have
sinned under
law, shall be judged by
law.” The man without
law is the
unbeliever who will
perish for ever. Under the
law is the
sinner who
believes in
God, and who will be judged by the
law, and will not
perish. If the
wicked and
sinners are to be
burned with
everlasting
fire, are you not afraid of the sentence you pass on yourself, seeing
that you admit you are
wicked and a
sinner, while still you argue that
a man is not without
sin, but that he may be. It follows that the only
person who can be
saved is an individual who never existed, does not
exist, and perhaps never will, and that all our predecessors of whom we
read must
perish. Take your own case. You are puffed up with all the
pride of Cato, and have
5233
| 5233 The reference
is to the stature of Pelagius. |
Milo’s
giant shoulders; but is
it not
amazing temerity for you, who are a
sinner, to take the name of
a
teacher? If you are
righteous, and, with a false
humility, say you
are a
sinner, we may be surprised, but we shall
rejoice at having so
unique a
treasure, and at reckoning amongst our
friends a personage
unknown to
patriarch,
prophet, and
Apostle. And if Origen does maintain
that no rational creatures ought to be lost, and allows repentance to
the
devil, what is that to us, who say that the
devil and his
attendants, and all impious persons and
transgressors,
perish
eternally, and that
5234
| 5234 The sense of
this passage is much disputed. St. Jerome was, possibly, speaking of
persons who upon the whole are sincere and not merely covenanted
Christians. |
Christians,
if they be
overtaken by
sin, must be
saved after they have been
punished?
29.5235
| 5235 Jerome seems
here to speak in his own person and to address Pelagius directly. |
Besides all
this you add two chapters which
contradict one another, and which, if
true, would effectually close your mouth. “Except a man have
learned, he cannot be acquainted with
wisdom and understand the
Scriptures.” And again, “He that has not been taught, ought
not to assume that he knows the
law.” You must, then, either
produce the master from whom you
learned, if you are lawfully to claim
the
knowledge of the
law; or, if your master is a person who never
learned from any one else, and taught you what he did nor know himself,
it follows that you are not acting rightly in claiming a
knowledge of
Scripture, when you have not been taught, and in starting as a master
before you have been a
disciple. And yet, perhaps, with your customary
humility, you make your
boast that the
Lord Himself, Who
teaches all
knowledge, was your master, and that, like
Moses in the
cloud and
darkness, face to face, you hear the words of
God, and so, with the
5236
| 5236 Cornuta
fronte. Literally, “with horned brow.” The allusion is
to the rays of light which beamed from the face of Moses, the Hebrew
word bearing both meanings, ray and horn. Hence the
portraiture of him with horns. |
halo round your head, take the lead
of us. And even this is not enough, but all at once you turn Stoic, and
thunder in our
ears Zeno’s
proud maxims. “A
Christian ought
to be so
patient that if any one wished to take his property he would
let it go with
joy.” Is it not enough for us patiently to lose
what we have, without returning thanks to him who
ill-treats and
plunders us, and sending after him all blessings? The
Gospel teaches
that to him who would go to
law with us, and by
strife and litigation
take away our coat, we must give our cloak also. It does not enjoin the
giving of thanks and
joy at the loss of our property. What I say is
this, not that there is any enormity in your view, but that everywhere
you are prone to exaggeration, and indulge in ambitious flights. This
is why you add that “The bravery of
dress and ornament is an
enemy of
God.” What enmity, I should like to know, is there
towards
God if my tunic is cleaner
than usual, or if the
bishop,
priest, or
deacon, or any other
ecclesiastics, at the offering of the sacrifices
walk in white?
Beware,
ye clergy;
beware, ye monks;
widows and
virgins, you are in
peril
unless the people see you begrimed with dirt, and clad in
rags. I say
nothing of lay-men, who
proclaim open
war and enmity against
God if
they wear costly and elegant
apparel.
30. Let us hear the rest. “We must love our
enemies as we do our neighbours”; and immediately, falling into a
deep slumber, you lay down this proposition: “We must never
believe an enemy.” Not a word is needed from me to show the
contradiction here. You will say that both propositions are found in
Scripture, but you do not observe the particular connection in which
the passages occur. I am told to love my enemies and pray for my
persecutors. Am I bidden to love them as though they were my
neighbours, kindred, and friends, and to make no difference between a
rival and a relative? If I love my enemies as my neighbours, what more
affection can I show to my friends? If you had maintained this
position, you ought to have taken care not to contradict yourself by
saying that we must never believe an enemy. But even the law teaches us
how an enemy should be loved.5237
If an
enemy’s
beast be fallen, we must raise it up. And the
Apostle
tells us,
5238
“If thine
enemy hunger,
feed him; if he
thirst, give him drink. For by so doing thou shalt heap
coals of
fire upon his head,” not by way of
curse and
condemnation, as most people think, but to chasten and bring him to
repentance, so that, overcome by
kindness, and melted by the warmth of
love, he may no longer be an
enemy.
31. Your next point is that “the kingdom of heaven
is promised even in the Old Testament,” and you adduce evidence
from the Apocrypha, although it is clear that the kingdom of heaven was
first preached under the Gospel by John the Baptist, and our Lord and
Saviour, and the Apostles. Read the Gospels. John the Baptist cries in
the desert,5239
“
Repent, for the
kingdom
of
heaven is at
hand”; and concerning the Saviour it is
written,
5240
“From that time He began to
preach and to say,
Repent, for the
kingdom of
heaven is at
hand.”
And again,
5241
“
Jesus went round about the
towns and
villages, teaching in their synagogues, and
preaching the
kingdom of
God.” And He commanded His
Apostles to
5242
“go and
preach, saying, the
kingdom of
heaven is at
hand.” But you call us Manichæans
because we prefer the
Gospel to the
law, and say that in the latter we
have the
shadow, in the former, the substance, and you do not see that
your foolishness goes
hand in
hand with impudence. It is one thing to
condemn the
law, as Manichæus did; it is another to prefer the
Gospel to the
law, for this is in accordance with apostolic teaching.
In the
law the
servants of the
Lord speak, in the
Gospel the
Lord
Himself; in the former are the
promises, in the latter their
fulfilment; there are the beginnings, here is
perfection; in the
law
the
foundations of works are laid; in the
Gospel the edifice is
crowned
with the top-
stone of
faith and
grace. I have mentioned this to show
the character of the teaching given by our distinguished professor.
32. The hundredth heading runs thus: “A man can be
without sin, and easily keep the commandments of God if he
chooses,” as to which enough has already been said. And although
he professes to imitate, or rather complete the work of the blessed
martyr Cyprian in the treatise which the latter wrote to5243
| 5243 A Christian of
Carthage who, together with Cyprian, sent relief to the bishops and
martyrs in the Mines of Sigus, in Numidia, and elsewhere (a.d. 257). |
Quirinus, he does not perceive that
he has said just the opposite in the
work under discussion. Cyprian, in
the fifty-fourth heading of the third book, lays it down that no one is
free from stain and without
sin, and he immediately gives
proofs, among
them the passage in Job,
5244
“Who
is cleansed from uncleanness? Not he who has lived but one day upon the
earth.”
5245
And in the
fifty-first Psalm, “Behold I was shapen in
iniquity, and in
sin
did my mother conceive me.” And in the
Epistle of John,
5246
“If we say that we have no
sin,
we
deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us.” You, on the
other
hand, maintain that “A man can be without
sin,” and
that you may give your words the semblance of
truth, you immediately
add, “And easily keep the
commandments of
God, if he
chooses,” and yet they have been seldom or never kept by any one.
Now, if they were easy, they ought to have been kept by all. But if, to
concede you a point, at rare intervals some one may be found able to
keep them, it is clear that what is rare is difficult. And by way of
supplementing this and displaying the greatness of your own
virtues (we
are to believe, forsooth, that you bring forth the sentiment out of the
treasure of a good conscience), you have a heading to the effect that:
“We ought not to
commit even
light offences.” And for
fear
some one might think you had not explained in the
work the meaning of
light, you add that, “We must not even think an
evil
thought,” forgetting the words,
5247
“Who understands his offences? Clear thou me from
hidden faults, and keep back thy
servant from presumptuous
sins, O
Lord.” You should have known that the
Church admits even failures
through ignorance and
sins of mere thought to be offences; so much so
that she bids sacrifices be offered for errors, and the high
priest who
makes
intercession for the whole people previously offers victims for
himself. Now, if he were not himself
righteous, he would never be
commanded to offer for others. Nor, again, would he offer for himself
if he were free from
sins of ignorance. If I were to attempt to show
that error and ignorance is
sin, I must roam at large over the wide
fields of Scripture.
33. C. Pray have you not read that5248
“He who looks upon a
woman to
lust after her hath
committed adultery with her already in his
heart?” It seems that not only are the look and the allurements
to vice reckoned as
sin, but whatever it be to which we give assent.
For either we can
avoid an
evil thought, and consequently may be free
from
sin; or, if we cannot
avoid it, that is not reckoned as
sin which
cannot be
avoided.
A. Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see that
it goes against Holy Scripture, which declares that even ignorance is
not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons,
lest, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when
one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a
man, the owner is5249
commanded to
go to one of the cities of
refuge and stay there until the high
priest
dies; that is to say, until he is
redeemed by the Saviour’s
blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the
grace of
baptism, through the ineffable
mercy of the Saviour, who
5250
would not have any one
perish, nor
delights in the
death of
sinners, but would rather that they should be
converted and
live.
C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a
sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not
aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of
which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?
A. Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of
God? The Book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish question:5251
“Look not into things above thee,
and search not things too mighty for thee.” And elsewhere,
5252
“Make not thyself overwise, and
argue not more than is fitting.” And in the same place, “In
wisdom and simplicity of
heart seek God.” You will perhaps deny
the
authority of this book; listen then to the
Apostle blowing the
Gospel trumpet:
5253
“O the
depth of the
riches both of the
wisdom and
knowledge of
God! how
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past tracing out! For who
hath known the
mind of the
Lord? or who hath been His
counsellor?” Your
questions are such as he elsewhere describes:
5254
“But foolish and ignorant
questioning
avoid, knowing that they
gender strifes.” And in
Ecclesiastes (a book concerning which there can be no doubt) we read,
5255
“I said, I will be
wise, but it
was
far from me. That which is exceeding
deep, who can find it
out?” You ask me to tell you why the
potter makes one
vessel to
honour, another to dishonour, and will not be satisfied with
Paul, who
replies on behalf of his
Lord,
5256
“O
man, who art thou that repliest against
God?”
The remainder of this book is occupied by a series of
quotations from the Old Testament, designed to show that it is not only
the outer and conscious act which is reckoned sinful, but the
opposition to the Divine will, which is often implicit and
half-conscious. Occasionally, also, the speaker shows how the texts
quoted enforce the argument which he has before used, that men may be
spoken of as righteous in a general sense, yet by no means free from
sins of thought or desire, if not of act.
The passages quoted are:
Gen. viii.
21. I will not curse the
ground….for the mind of man is set on evil from his youth.
xvii. 17; xviii. 12. Abraham and Sarah laughing at the
promise.
xxxvii. 35. Jacob’s excessive grief.
Exod. xxi. 12,
13. The guilt of one who
slays another unawares.
Lev. iv. 2;
27. Offerings for sins of
ignorance.
v. 3.
Offerings for ceremonial uncleanness.
ix. 1.
Offerings for Aaron at his consecration.
xii. 6.
Offerings for women after childbirth.
xiv. 1, 6, xvi. 6, xii. 7. Offerings for the leper.
xv. 31, xvi. 2, 5. Offerings for the people on the day of
atonement.
xxii. 14. Eating the hallowed things ignorantly;
compared with 1 Cor. xi. 27,
28, of careless participation
in Sacrament.
Numbers vi.
1. Offerings for the
Nazarite.
xiv. 7, vii. 28; 29. Offerings for imploring God’s
Mercy.
Bible:Num.5.17">xxviii. 15, 22, xxix. 5, v.
11, 17. Offerings at the
feast.
Numbers xxxv. 13. The cities of refuge provided for
manslayers.
Deut. ix. 6;
xviii. 13. Israel warned not
to boast of righteousness.
xviii. 9–; 12, v. 14, 15. Perfection used only of avoiding
idolatry.
xxii. 8. The housetop without a parapet makes a
man guilty.
xxiii. 2. Defilement from unconscious personal
acts.
Josh. vii.
12. The people made guilty by
the sin of Achan.
xi. 19, 20. The racial guilt of the Canaanites.
1 Sam. xiv.
27. Jonathan made guilty by
tasting the honey.
xvi. 6.
The Lord sees the heart, not the outward appearance.
2 Sam. iv.
11. Ishbosheth spoken of as
righteous.
vi. 7, 8. Uzzah smitten for carelessness.
2 Sam. xxiv.
10. David’s numbering
the people.
1 Kings viii.
46. Solomon’s
Prayer—There is none that sinneth not.
xiv. 5.
The prophet detecting the motive of Jeroboam’s wife.
2 Kings iv.
27. Elijah seeing the
Shunamite’s heart.
1 Chron. ii.
32. Sept. Half-prophets.
Habakkuk iii.
1. Vulgate. A prayer
“for sins of ignorance” (“upon Shigionoth”),
supposed to be in recognition of over-boldness in i.
2–4.
Ezek. xlvi.
20. The sacrifice of
Ezekiel’s restored temple.
Jer. x. 23. The way of man not in
himself.
xvii. 9. The heart deceitful.
Prov. xiv.
12. A way that seemeth right
to a man.
xix. 21. Many devices in a man’s
heart.
xx. 9.
Who can say, I have a clean heart?
17.
Who will boast that he is clean?
Eccl. vii.
16. The heart of a man is
full of wickedness.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
