Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Prologue. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Against the
Pelagians:
Dialogue Between Atticus, a Catholic,
and Critobulus, a Heretic.
————————————
The anti-Pelagian Dialogue is the last of Jerome’s
controversial works, having been written in the year 417, within three
years of his death. It shows no lack of his old vigour, though perhaps
something of the prolixity induced by old age. He looks at the subject
more calmly than those of the previous treatises, mainly because it lay
somewhat outside the track of his own thoughts. He was induced to
interest himself in it by his increasing regard for Augustin, and by
the coming of the young Spaniard, Orosius, in 414, from Augustin to sit
at his feet. Pelagius also had come to Palestine, and, after an
investigation of his tenets, at a small council at Jerusalem, in 415, presided over by Bishop John, and a
second, at Diospolis in 416, had been admitted to communion. Jerome
appears to have taken no part in these proceedings, and having been at
peace with Bishop John for nearly twenty years, was no doubt unwilling
to act against him. But he had come to look upon Pelagius as infected
with the heretical “impiety,” which he looked upon (i. 28)
as far worse than moral evil; and connected him, as we see from his
letter to Ctesiphon (CXXXIII.), with Origenism and Rufinus; and he
brings his great knowledge of Scripture to bear upon the controversy.
He quotes a work of Pelagius, though giving only the headings, and the
numbers of the chapters, up to 100 (i. 26–32); and, though at
times his conviction appears weak, and there are passages (i. 5, ii.
6–30, iii. 1) which give occasion to the observation that he
really, if unconsciously, inclined to the views of Pelagius, and that
he is a “Synergist,” not, like Augustin, a thorough
predestinarian, the Dialogue, as a whole, is clear and forms a
substantial contribution to our knowledge. Although its tone is less
violent than that of his ascetic treatises, it appears to have stirred
up the strongest animosity against him. The adherents of Pelagius
attacked and burned the monasteries of Bethlehem, and Jerome himself
only escaped by taking refuge in a tower. His sufferings, and the
interference of Pope Innocentius in his behalf, may be seen by
referring to Letters CXXXV.–CXXXVII., with the introductory notes
prefixed to them.
The following is a summary of the argument: Atticus, the
Augustinian, at once (c. 1) introduces the question: Do you affirm
that, as Pelagius affirms, men can live without sin? Yes, says the
Pelagian Critobulus, but I do not add, as is imputed to us,
“without the grace of God.” Indeed, the fact that we have a
free will is from grace. Yes, replies Atticus, but what is this grace?
Is it only our original nature, or is it needed in every act. In every
act, is the reply (2); yet one would hardly say that we cannot mend a
pen without grace (3), for, if so, where is our free will? But, says
Atticus (5), the Scriptures speak of our need of God’s aid in
everything. In that case, says Critobulus, the promised reward must be
given not to us but to God, Who works in us. Reverting then to the
first point stated, Atticus asks, does the possibility of sinlessness
extend to single acts, or to the whole life? Certainly to the whole as
well as the part, is the answer. But we wish, or will to be sinless;
why then are we not actually sinless? Because (8) we do not exert our
will to the full. But (9) no one has ever lived without sin. Still,
says the Pelagian, God commands us to be perfect, and he does not
command impossibilities. Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth are represented
as perfectly righteous. No, it is answered (12), faults are attributed
to each of them. John says, “He that is born of God sinneth
not” (13); yet, “If we say we have no sin we deceive
ourselves.” The Apostles, though told to be perfect (14) were not
perfect: and St. Paul says (14a), “I count not myself to have
apprehended.” Men are called just and perfect only in comparison
of others (16), or because of general subjection to the will of God
(18), or according to their special characteristics (19), as we may
speak of a bishop as excellent in his office, though he may not fulfil
the ideal of the pastoral epistles (22).
The discussion now turns to the words of Pelagius’
book. “All are ruled by their own will” (27). No; for
Christ says, “I came not to do My own will.” “The
wicked shall not be spared in the judgment.” But we must
distinguish between the impious or heretics who will be destroyed (28)
and Christian sinners who will be forgiven. Some of his sayings
contradict each other or are trifling (29, 30). “The kingdom of
heaven is promised in the Old Testament.” Yes, but more fully in
the New. Returning to the first thesis, “That a man can be
without sin if he wills it,” the Pelagian says, If things, like
desires which arise spontaneously and have no issue, are reckoned
blamable, we charge the sin on our Maker; to which it is only answered
that, though we cannot understand God’s ways, we must not arraign
His justice. In the rest of the book, Atticus alone speaks, going
through the Old Testament, and showing that each of the saints falls
into some sin, which, though done in ignorance or half-consciousness,
yet brings condemnation with it.
Prologue.
————————————
1. After writing the5128 letter
to Ctesiphon, in which I replied to the questions propounded, I
received frequent expostulations from the brethren, who wanted to know
why I any longer delayed the promised work in which I undertook to
answer all the subtleties of the preachers of Impassibility.5129 For every one knows what was the
contention of the Stoics and Peripatetics, that is, the old Academy,
some of them asserted that the πάθη, which we may call
emotions, such as sorrow, joy, hope, fear, can be thoroughly
eradicated from the minds of men; others that their power can be
broken, that they can be governed and restrained, as unmanageable
horses are held in check by peculiar kinds of bits. Their views have
been explained by Tully in the “Tusculan Disputations,” and
Origen in his “Stromata” endeavours to blend them with
ecclesiastical truth. I pass over Manichæus,5130
5130 Priscillian was a
Spaniard, who began to propagate his views, which were a mixture of
various heresies, about the year 370. See Robertson, p. 295 sq., and
Note on Jerome, Letter CXXXIII. | Priscillianus,5131
5131 Evagrius
Iberita. The name is taken either from a town named Ibera or Ibora in
Pontus, or from the province of Iberia. Jerome, in the letter to which
he refers, styles Evagrius Hyperborita, but this is thought to
be an error for Hyborita. It has been suggested that Jerome was
playing on the word Iberita. He was born in 345. He wrote,
amongst many other works, a treatise Περὶ
ἀπαθείας (On
Impassibility), and no doubt Jerome refers to this a few lines above.
He was a zealous champion of Origen. See also Jerome, Letter CXXXIII.
and note. | Evagrius of Ibora, Jovinianus, and the
heretics found throughout almost the whole of Syria, who, by a
perversion of the import of their name, are commonly called5132
5132 The Massalians
or Euchites derived their name from their habit of continual
prayer. The words are etymological equivalents (Massalians, from
אלּצ to pray).
The perversity lay in the misinterpretation of such texts as Luke xviii. 1; and 1 Thess. v. 17. | Massalians, in Greek,
Euchites, all of whom hold that it is possible for human virtue
and human knowledge to attain perfection, and arrive, I will not say
merely at a likeness to, but an equality with God; and who go the length of asserting
that, when once they have reached the height of perfection, even sins
of thought and ignorance are impossible for them. And although in my
former letter addressed to Ctesiphon and aimed at their errors, so far
as time permitted, I touched upon a few points in the book which I am
now endeavouring to hammer out, I shall adhere to the method of
Socrates. What can be said on both sides shall be stated; and the truth
will thus be clear when both sides express their opinions. Origen is
peculiar in maintaining on the one hand that it is impossible for human
nature to pass through life without sin, and on the other, that it is
possible for a man, when he turns to better things, to become so strong
that he sins no more.
2. I shall add a few words in answer to those who say
that I am writing this work because I am inflamed with envy. I have
never spared heretics, and I have done my best to make the enemies of
the Church my own.5133 Helvidius
wrote against the perpetual virginity of Saint Mary. Was it envy that
led me to answer him, whom I had never seen in the flesh?5134
5134 See
introduction to Jerome’s treatise against Jovinianus in this
volume. | Jovinianus, whose heresy is now being
fanned into flame, and who disturbed the faith of Rome in my absence,
was so devoid of gifts of utterance, and had such a pestilent style
that he was a fitter object for pity than for envy. So far as I could,
I answered him also.5135
5135 See
Rufinus’ works, especially the Prolegomena, and Jerome’s
controversy with him in vol. iii. of this series. | Rufinus did
all in his power to circulate the blasphemies of Origen and the
treatise “On First Principles” (Περὶ
᾽Αρχῶν), not in one city, but
throughout the whole world. He even published the first book of5136
5136 That is,
Eusebius of Cæsarea (a.d. 267–338),
who was called Pamphilus from his friendship with Pamphilus the
martyr. | Eusebius’ “Apology for
Origen” under the name of5137
5137 Suffered
martyrdom a.d. 309. He erected a library at
Cæsarea of 30,000 volumes. See Rufinus’ Preface to his
Apology in this series, vol. iii., with introductory note. | Pamphilus the martyr, and, as though
Origen had not said enough,5138
5138 See Rufinus
on the adulteration of the works of Origen, in this series, vol. iii.
p. 421. | vomited
forth a fresh volume on his behalf. Am I to be accused of envy because
I answered him? and was his eloquence such a rushing torrent as to
deter me through fear from writing or dictating anything in reply?5139
5139 Palladius,
bishop of Hellenopolis, the biographer and trusted friend of
Chrysostom, was born about 367. He visited Bethlehem about 387 and
formed a very unfavourable opinion of Jerome. He highly commended
Rufinus. According to Epiphanius, as well as Jerome, he was tainted
with Origenism. Tillemont, however, thinks that another Palladius may
be referred to in these passages. His accounts of Jerome and Rufinus
are given in his “Historia Lausiaca,” c. 78 and 118. | Palladius, no better than a villainous
slave, tried to impart energy to the same heresy, and to excite against
me fresh prejudice on account of my translation of the Hebrew. Was I5140
5140 Jerome was accused
of envy or ill-will by Palladius. “Tanta fuit ejus invidia ut ab
ea obrueretur virtus doctrinæ. Cum ergo multis diebus cum eo
versatus esset sanctus Posidonius, dicit mihi in aurem, “Ingenua
quidem Paula, quæ ejus curam gerit, præmorietur, liberata ab
ejus invidia. Ut autem arbitror, propter hunc virum non habitabit vir
sanctus in his locis, sed ejus pervadet invidia usque ad proprium
fratrem.”—Pallad. Hist. Laus., § 78, cf. §
82. | envious of such distinguished ability and
nobility? Even now the5141 mystery of
iniquity worketh, and every one chatters about his views: yet I, it
seems, am the only one who is filled with envy at the glory of all the
rest; I am so poor a creature that I envy even those who do not deserve
envy. And so, to prove to all that I do not hate the men but their
errors, and that I do not wish to vilify any one, but rather lament the
misfortune of men who are deceived by knowledge falsely so-called, I
have made use of the names of Atticus and Critobulus in order to
express our own views and those of our opponents. The truth is that all
we who hold the Catholic faith, wish and long that, while the heresy is
condemned, the men may be reformed. At all events, if they will
continue in error, the blame does not attach to us who have written,
but to them, since they have preferred a lie to the truth. And one
short answer to our calumniators, whose curses fall upon their own
heads, is this, that the Manichæan doctrine condemns the nature of
man, destroys free will, and does away with the help of God. And again,
that it is manifest madness for man to speak of himself as being what
God alone is. Let us so walk along the royal road that we turn neither
to the right hand nor to the left; and let us always believe that the
eagerness of our wills is governed by the help of God. Should any one
cry out that he is slandered and boast that he thinks with us; he will
then show that he assents to the true faith, when he openly and
sincerely condemns the opposite views. Otherwise his case will be that
described by the prophet:5142 “And
yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not returned unto me
with her whole heart, but feignedly.” It is a smaller sin to
follow evil which you think is good, than not to venture to defend what
you know for certain is good. If we cannot endure threats, injustice,
poverty, how shall we overcome the flames of Babylon? Let us not lose
by hollow peace what we have preserved by war. I should be sorry to
allow my fears to teach me faithlessness, when Christ has put the true
faith in the power of my choice.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|