Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 60 part 5/9

In it I said in a certain place concerning the Apostle Peter, that the Church was founded upon him as upon a rock. This meaning is also sung by the mouths of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the cock, he says: 'This same one, the rock of the Church, by his crowing washed away the fault.' But I know that afterwards I very often expounded what was said by the Lord, 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' so that it should be understood of him whom Peter confessed when he said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and that thus Peter, named from this rock, might figure the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him, 'You are the rock,' but, 'You are Peter.'

Now the rock was Christ, whom Simon confessed—just as the whole Church confesses him—and was therefore called Peter. But which of these two interpretations is the more probable, let the reader choose. In another place I said: 'God seeks the death of no one.' This is to be understood in the sense that man has acquired death for himself by forsaking God; and whoever does not return to God acquires it, according to what is written: 'God did not make death.' But this too is no less true: 'Life and death are from the Lord God'—life indeed from him who gives, death from him who avenges.

Likewise, as to what I said—that Donatus, whose letter I was refuting, had asked that the emperor should appoint bishops from across the sea as judges between himself and Caecilian—it is found more probable that it was not this Donatus but another Donatus, of the same schism however, who did this. Now that man was not the Donatist bishop of Carthage, but was from Casae Nigrae; yet he was the first to commit at Carthage that wicked schism itself. Nor indeed did Donatus of Carthage establish that Christians should be rebaptized—which I had believed he established when I was answering his letter—nor did he himself remove from the middle of a sentence in the Book of Wisdom the words necessary to the matter, where, though it is written:

'He who is baptized by a dead man and touches him again, what does his washing profit?' This man put it as though it were written: 'He who is baptized by a dead man, what does his washing profit?' But we too, even before there existed the party of Donatus, had found that very many manuscripts—African ones, to be sure—had it thus, so that there was not in the middle the phrase 'and touches him again,' which we learned of afterwards. If I had already known this, I would not have said so much against that man as against a thief of the divine word or a violator of it. This book begins thus: 'From you yourself, when present, I had heard.' CHAPTER 21. AGAINST ADIMANTUS, A DISCIPLE OF MANICHAEUS, ONE BOOK.

At the same time there came into my hands certain disputations of Adimantus, who was a disciple of Manichaeus, which he had written against the Law and the Prophets, attempting to show, as it were, that the writings of the Gospel and the Apostles were contrary to them. To this I replied, setting down his words and rendering my response to them. This I enclosed here in a single volume, and in it I answered certain questions not once but again, since what I had answered on my own behalf had been lost, and was then found when I had already answered a second time. Some indeed of these same questions I resolved in popular ecclesiastical sermons; some I have not yet answered;

some were left over, which, being set aside for other more pressing matters, had the added burden of forgetfulness. In this work I said: 'For that people which received the Old Testament was held, before the Lord's coming, by certain shadows and figures of things, according to a wonderful and most orderly arrangement of the times; yet in it there is so great a preaching and foretelling of the New Testament, that there are found in the Gospel and in the apostolic teaching no precepts and promises, however lofty and divine, which are lacking also in those old books.' But I ought to have added 'almost,' and said:

'so that there are found in the Gospel and in the apostolic teaching almost no precepts and promises, however lofty and divine, which are lacking also in those old books.' For what is it, that in the Gospel sermon on the mount the Lord says: 'You have heard that it was said to the ancients this; but I say to you this,' if he himself commanded nothing more than what was commanded in those old books? Furthermore, we do not read that the kingdom of heaven was promised to that people in those things which were promised through the Law given by Moses on Mount Sinai, which is properly called the Old Testament—which the Apostle says was prefigured through the handmaid of Sarah and her son; but there too the New was figured, through Sarah herself and her son.

Accordingly, if the figures are examined, all things are there found prophesied which are presented or expected to be presented through Christ. Yet on account of certain precepts which are not figurative but proper, which are found not in the Old but in the New, it would be said more cautiously and more modestly that there are almost none, rather than none, here that are not also there—even though there are there those two precepts concerning the love of God and of neighbour, to which most rightly all things both legal and prophetic and evangelical and apostolic are referred. Likewise, what I said—that in the Scriptures the name of 'sons' is understood in three ways—was said with too little consideration.

For without doubt we passed over certain other ways as well, as when one is called 'a son of Gehenna' or 'an adoptive son,' which surely are said neither according to nature nor according to teaching nor according to imitation. Of these three ways, as though they were the only ones, we gave examples: according to nature, as the Jews are sons of Abraham; according to teaching, as the Apostle calls those his sons whom the Gospel has taught; according to imitation, as we are sons of Abraham, whose faith we imitate. But as for what I said:

'when it shall have put on incorruption and immortality, it will no longer be flesh and blood'—this was said of the flesh not being in the future according to carnal corruption, not according to substance, according to which the Lord's body too was called flesh after the resurrection. In another place I said: 'Unless each one, I said, shall have changed his will, he cannot work good.' That this lies within our power he teaches in another place, where he says: 'Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad.' This is not against the grace of God which we preach. For it is within man's power to change his will for the better; but that power is nothing unless it be given by God, of whom it is said: 'He gave them power to become sons of God.'

For since this is in our power, which we do when we will, nothing is so much in our power as the will itself. But the will is prepared by the Lord. In this way, then, he gives the power. So too is to be understood what I said afterwards: that it is in our power that we should deserve either to be grafted in by the goodness of God or to be cut off by his severity—since nothing is in our power except what we attain by our own will, which, when it is prepared strong and powerful by the Lord, the work of piety is easily accomplished, even that which was difficult and impossible. This book begins thus: 'Concerning that which is written: In the beginning God made heaven and earth.' CHAPTER 22. AN EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN PROPOSITIONS FROM THE APOSTLE'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

While I was still a priest, it happened that at Carthage, among us who were together, the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans was read, and when, being questioned about certain matters by some of the brethren, I answered as best I could, they wished that what I said should rather be written down than poured forth without letters. And when I complied with them, one book was added to my earlier works. In which book I said: 'But when he says, 'We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal,' he shows sufficiently that the Law cannot be fulfilled except by spiritual persons, such as the grace of God makes.' This indeed I did not wish to be understood of the person of the Apostle, who was already spiritual, but of a man placed under the Law, not yet under grace.

For thus I first understood these words, which afterwards, having read certain expositors of the divine words whose authority moved me, I considered more diligently and saw that what he says, 'We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal,' can be understood even of the Apostle himself—which in those books that I recently wrote against the Pelagians I have shown as diligently as I could. Therefore in that book both this, which was said, 'But I am carnal,' and then the rest as far as that place where he said, 'Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?'

'the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord'—I said that a man is being described who is still under the Law, not yet established under grace, wishing to do well, but, overcome by the concupiscence of the flesh, doing evil. From the dominion of this concupiscence none is freed except by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, through whom love poured out in our hearts overcomes the concupiscences of the flesh, so that we may not consent to them for doing evil, but rather may do good. Whence indeed the Pelagian heresy is now overthrown, which would have it that love, by which we live well and piously, is not from God but from ourselves.

But in those books which we published against them, we showed that these words can better be understood even of a spiritual man now established under grace, on account of the body of flesh, which is not yet spiritual but will be so in the resurrection of the dead, and on account of the very concupiscence of the flesh, with which the saints thus struggle, not consenting to it for evil, yet in this life not being free from those motions against which they resist in their resistance. But they will not have them in that life where death shall be swallowed up in victory.

Therefore, on account of this concupiscence and its motions, which are so resisted that they nonetheless are in us, any saint now placed under grace can say all those things which I said were the words of a man not yet placed under grace, but under the Law. To show this here would be lengthy, and where I have shown it has been stated. Likewise, in disputing what God chose in the not-yet-born, to whom he said that the elder should serve, and what he similarly reprobated in the same elder likewise not yet born—concerning whom on this account is cited the prophetic testimony, though produced long afterwards: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'—I brought my reasoning to the point of saying:

'God therefore did not choose anyone's works in his foreknowledge, works which he himself was going to give, but he chose faith in his foreknowledge, so that whom he foreknew would believe in him, him he chose, to whom he would give the Holy Spirit, so that by working good he might also attain eternal life.' I had not yet inquired more diligently, nor had I yet found, what the election of grace is, of which the same Apostle says: 'A remnant has been made according to the election of grace'—which surely is not grace if any merits precede it, lest what is given be rendered not according to grace but according to debt, repaid to merits rather than bestowed. Accordingly, as to what I said immediately after: 'For the same Apostle says: The same God who works all things in all'; but nowhere is it said:

'God believes all things in all,' and then I added: 'What we believe, therefore, is ours; but that we work well is his, who gives the Spirit to those who believe'—I certainly ought not to say this, if I had already known that faith itself too is found among the gifts of God which are given in that same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given on account of the Spirit of faith and love. For it is not love alone, but, as it is written, 'love with faith from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.' And what I said a little later:

'For to believe and to will is ours, but to give to those who believe and will the capacity to work well through the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured out in our hearts, is his'—this is indeed true, but by that same rule both are his, because he himself prepares the will, and both are ours, because it is not brought about except by us willing. And accordingly, what I also said afterwards: 'that we can neither will unless we are called, and when after the calling we have willed, our will and our running is not sufficient, unless God both supplies strength to those who run and leads them where he calls'; and then I added: 'It is manifest, therefore, that it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy, that we work well'—this is altogether most true.

But I discoursed too little about the calling itself, which is made according to the purpose of God; for it is not such for all who are called, but only for the elect. And so, what I said a little later: 'For just as in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith that begins the merit, so that through the gift of God they may work well, so in those whom he condemns, unfaithfulness and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that through the punishment itself they may even work evil'—this I said most truly; but that the merit of faith is itself also a gift of God, I neither thought needed to be inquired into nor said. And in another place: 'For on whom he has mercy, I said, he makes him work well, and whom he hardens, he leaves, that he may work evil.'

'But that mercy also is granted to a preceding merit of faith, and that hardening to a preceding impiety.' This indeed is true, but it still remained to be inquired whether even the merit of faith comes from the mercy of God—that is, whether that mercy is shown to a man only because he is faithful, or was rather shown so that he might be faithful. For we read the Apostle saying: 'having obtained mercy, that I might be faithful,' not: 'because I was faithful.' To the faithful, then, it is indeed given, but it was also given that he might be faithful. And so most rightly in another place in the same book I said:

'Since, if we are both called that we may believe not from works but by the mercy of God, and it is granted to those who believe that they may work well, this mercy is not to be begrudged to the Gentiles'—although there I treated too little diligently of that calling which is made through God's purpose. This book begins thus: 'These are the meanings in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.' CHAPTER 23. AN EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, ONE BOOK. After this book I expounded the same Apostle's Epistle to the Galatians, not piecemeal—that is, passing over some parts—but continuously and in its entirety; and this exposition I comprised in one volume. In which what was said:

'The former apostles, therefore, were truthful, who were sent not from men but from God through a man—namely, through Jesus Christ still mortal; truthful also is the latest apostle, who was sent through Jesus Christ now wholly God after his resurrection'—this was said on account of immortality: 'now wholly God,' which he began to possess after the resurrection, not on account of the divinity ever immortal, from which he never withdrew, in which he was wholly God even when he was still about to die. This meaning the following words make plain. For I added, saying: 'The former are the other apostles, through Christ still in part man, that is, mortal; the latest is the apostle Paul, through Jesus Christ now wholly God, that is, in every part immortal.'

For I said this because of what the Apostle says: 'not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,' as though Jesus Christ were now no longer a man. For there follows: 'who raised him from the dead,' so that from this it might appear why he said 'nor through a man.' Accordingly, on account of immortality Christ is now no longer man but God; but on account of the substance of human nature, in which he ascended into heaven, even now the man Christ Jesus is mediator of God and men, since he shall so come as they saw him who saw him going into heaven. Likewise, what I said: 'It is the grace of God by which sins are forgiven us, that we may be reconciled to God;

but peace is that by which we are reconciled to God'—this is to be understood in such a way that we nonetheless know that both pertain to the general grace of God, just as among the people of God one part is specially Israel, another Judah, and yet both are generally Israel. Likewise, when I was expounding: 'What then? The Law was set forth as the grace of transgression,' I thought it should be so distinguished that the question was, 'What then?' and then the answer: 'The Law was set forth as the grace of transgression.' This indeed does not depart from the truth; but this distinction seems better to me: that the question be, 'What then is the Law?' and the answer be added: 'It was set forth as the grace of transgression.' And as to what I said: 'Most orderly, then, he adds:

'But if you are led by the Spirit, you are no longer under the Law,' so that we understand those to be under the Law whose spirit so lusts against the flesh that they do not do the things they will—that is, they do not hold themselves unconquered in the love of justice, but are conquered by the flesh lusting against them'—this is from that understanding by which I understood what was said, 'The flesh lusts against the spirit, the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, so that you do not do the things you will,' to pertain to those who are under the Law, not yet under grace.

For as yet I had not understood that these words are also fitting to those who are under grace, not under the Law, for this reason: because they too, though they do not consent to the concupiscences of the flesh against which they lust by the spirit, would nonetheless not wish to have those concupiscences, if they could. It is not that they do not do whatever things they will, because they will to be rid of them and cannot. For then they will not have them, when they will not have corruptible flesh either. This book begins thus: 'The reason why the Apostle writes to the Galatians is this.' CHAPTER 24. AN UNFINISHED EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, ONE BOOK. I had also undertaken an exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, just as of the one to the Galatians.

But of this work, if it were completed, there would have been several books, of which I finished one on the disputation of the salutation alone—from the beginning, that is, up to that place where he says: 'Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' It came about, indeed, that we lingered, when we wished to resolve a most difficult question that fell across our discourse concerning the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is not forgiven either in this age or in that to come. But afterwards I ceased to add other volumes expounding the whole epistle, and, deterred by the very magnitude and labour of the work, I slipped away into other, easier matters. So it came about that I left alone the book which I had made first, whose title I wished to be:

'An unfinished exposition of the Epistle to the Romans.' Where, as to what I said—that grace consists in the remission of sins, but peace in reconciliation with God—wherever I said this, it is not to be understood as if peace itself and reconciliation do not pertain to general grace, but that specially, by the name of grace, I signified the remission of sins, just as we speak of 'the Law' both specially, according to what was said, 'the Law and the Prophets,' and generally, so that in it the Prophets too are included. This book begins thus: 'In the epistle which the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans.' CHAPTER 25. ON EIGHTY-THREE DIVERSE QUESTIONS, ONE BOOK. There is also among those things which we have written a certain lengthy work, which nonetheless is reckoned as one book, whose title is:

'On eighty-three diverse questions.' Since, however, they had been scattered through many little papers—because from the very first time of my conversion, after we came into Africa, they were dictated as I was questioned by the brethren, whenever they saw me at leisure, with no order being kept—I, now a bishop, ordered them to be gathered and one book to be made from them, with numbers added, so that whatever anyone wishes to read he may easily find. The first of these questions is: whether the soul is from itself; the second, on free will; the third, whether man is made worse with God as author; the fourth, what is the cause that man is made worse; the fifth, whether an irrational animal can be happy; the sixth, on evil; the seventh, what in a living being is properly called soul;

the eighth, whether it is moved by itself; the ninth, whether truth can be perceived by the senses of the body. In which, that which I said—'everything which the bodily sense touches, which is also called sensible, is changed without any interval of time'—is without doubt indeed not true in the incorruptible bodies of the resurrection; but now no sense of our body touches those bodies, unless perchance some such thing be divinely revealed. The tenth is: whether the body is from God; the eleventh, why Christ was born of a woman; in the twelfth place, where the title is:

'The opinion of a certain wise man,' it is not mine, but because through me it became known to certain brethren, who at that time happened to be consulting these matters most diligently, and it pleased them, they wished it to be written among our things. It is, however, of a certain Fonteius of Carthage: 'On cleansing the mind for seeing God,' which a pagan indeed wrote, but he died a baptized Christian. The thirteenth is: by what proof it may be established that men excel the beasts; the fourteenth, that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not a phantasm; the fifteenth, on the intellect; the sixteenth, on the Son; the seventeenth, on the knowledge of God; the eighteenth, on the Trinity; the nineteenth, on God and the creature; the twentieth, on the place of God; the twenty-first, whether God is not the author of evil.

Where it must be seen that what I said—'he is not the author of evil'—is not badly understood, because he is the author of all things which exist, since insofar as they exist, they are good to that extent; and lest from this it be thought that the punishment of the evil is not from him, which surely is an evil to those who are punished. But I said this in the same way as it was said, 'God did not make death,' whereas elsewhere it is written, 'Death and life are from the Lord God.' Therefore the punishment of the evil, which is from God, is indeed an evil to the evil, but it is among the good works of God, since it is just that the evil be punished, and surely everything is good that is just. The twenty-second is: that God does not suffer necessity. The twenty-third is: on the Father and the Son.

Where I said that, since he himself begot her of whom he is called wise, namely wisdom; but I treated this question better afterwards in the book on the Trinity. The twenty-fourth is: whether both sin and a rightly done deed are within the free choice of the will. That this is so is altogether most true; but that there may be freedom for doing right, it is freed by the grace of God. The twenty-fifth, on the cross of Christ; the twenty-sixth, on the difference of sins; the twenty-seventh, on providence; the twenty-eighth, why God willed to make the world; the twenty-ninth, whether there is anything above or below in the universe; the thirtieth, whether all things were created for the use of man.

The thirty-first is not itself mine either, but Cicero's; yet because this too became known through me to the brethren, they wrote it among those things which they were collecting, wishing to know how the virtues of the soul were divided and defined by him. The thirty-second is: whether one person understands a given thing more than another, and thus whether the understanding of the same thing goes on to infinity. The thirty-third is on fear; the thirty-fourth, whether nothing else is to be loved than to be free from fear; the thirty-fifth, what is to be loved. In which that which I said—'that that is to be loved which is nothing else than to have is to know'—I do not sufficiently approve. For they did not lack God, of whom it was said: 'Do you not know that you are the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you?'

Nor yet did they know him, or did not know him as he is to be known. Likewise, what I said: 'No one, therefore, knows the blessed life and is wretched'—I said 'knows' in the sense in which it is to be known. For who indeed is utterly ignorant of it—at least among those who now use reason—since they know that they wish to be blessed? The thirty-sixth is on nourishing love. Where I said: 'God, therefore, and the soul, when they are loved, are so loved properly, most purely and consummately, if nothing else is loved.' But if this is true, how does the Apostle say, 'No one ever hated his own flesh,' and from this admonishes that wives be loved? But it was said, 'is properly loved,' for this reason: because the flesh is indeed loved, yet not properly, but on account of the soul, for whose use it suffices.

For even if it seems to be loved for its own sake, when we do not wish it to be deformed, its comeliness must be referred to something else—namely, to that from which all things are comely. The thirty-seventh, on the ever-born; the thirty-eighth, on the conformation of the soul; the thirty-ninth, on nourishments; the fortieth: since the nature of souls is one, whence come the diverse wills of men; the forty-first: since God made all things, why did he not make them equally; the forty-second: how the wisdom of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, was both in the mother's womb and in the heavens; the forty-third: why the Son of God appeared in a man and the Holy Spirit in a dove; the forty-fourth: why the Lord Jesus Christ came so long afterwards.

There, when I was recounting the ages of the human race as though of a single man, I said: 'Nor was it fitting that a teacher should come from God, by imitation of whom one might be shaped in the best morals, save in the time of youth'; and I added that what the Apostle says supports this: 'keeping the little ones under the law as under a schoolmaster.' But it may disturb someone why elsewhere I said that Christ came in the sixth age of the human race, as it were in its old age. This, then, which was said about youth, refers to the vigour and fervour of faith, which works through love; but that concerning old age refers to the numbering of the ages.

For both may be understood of the whole body of humanity, just as they may be in the ages of individuals; for as in the body it is not possible to have youth and old age at the same time, yet in the soul it is possible—the one on account of its eagerness, the other on account of its gravity. The forty-fifth is Against the Mathematicians. The forty-sixth is On Ideas. The forty-seventh: Whether at any time we can see our own thoughts. There, where I said 'Angelic bodies, such as we hope to have, must be believed to be most luminous and ethereal,' if this be taken to mean without the members which we now have, and without the substance—albeit incorruptible—of flesh, it is an error.