Letters (CSEL) 1 part 78/85

This comparison, in which folly is set as it were as water and wisdom as air, so that the mind, as though emerging from the suffocation of folly, may suddenly breathe again into wisdom, does not seem to me sufficiently suited to the authority of our Scriptures; but rather that other, whereby vice or folly is likened to darkness, and virtue or wisdom to light — so far as these bodily similitudes can be applied to things intelligible. And so it is not as one rising from the waters into the air, who, when he has passed their surface, is suddenly and fully filled with breath; but as one proceeding from darkness into light, who by advancing little by little is illumined.

And until this is fully accomplished, we say of him nonetheless that, like one coming forth from the deepest cavern, he is breathed upon by the nearness of the light the more, the nearer he approaches to the exit; so that whatever shines in him is assuredly from the light toward which he advances, but whatever is still dark in him is from the darkness whence he comes forth. And so, 'In the sight of God shall no living man be justified,' and yet 'the just man lives by faith'; and the saints are clothed with righteousness, one more, another less; and no one here lives without sin, and this too one more, another less; but he is best who has the least. But what am I doing? As though forgetful to whom I speak, I have become like a teacher, when I had set out to say what I wish to learn from you.

But since the question fell, in the course of what I was treating, upon the equality of sins, and I had resolved to set forth to you my opinion for your examination, I will now at length conclude it thus: that even if it is true that he who has one virtue has all, and he who lacks one has none, not even so are sins equal; because, where there is no virtue, nothing indeed is right, and yet not on that account is not one thing more crooked than another, and one more distorted than another distorted.

But if — as I think is truer and more in harmony with the sacred writings — the intentions of the soul are like the members of the body, not in that they are seen by their places, but in that they are perceived by their affections, and one is more illumined, another less, another altogether lacks light and is overshadowed by a dark obstacle; then assuredly, just as each man is affected by the illumination of holy love more in one act, less in another, and in another not at all, so it can be said that he has one virtue and has not another, and has one more or less than another.

For we can rightly say both 'there is greater love in this man than in that,' and 'there is some in this man, none in that,' as far as pertains to love, which is piety; and even in one and the same man, that he has greater chastity than patience, and greater today than yesterday, if he is making progress, and that he does not yet have continence, and yet has no small mercy. And, to comprehend it generally and briefly, the notion which I have of virtue, so far as pertains to right living, is this: virtue is love, whereby that which ought to be loved is loved. This is in some greater, in some less, in some none; but fullest of all, so that it can no longer be increased, it is, so long as a man lives here, in no one;

but so long as it can be increased, that which is less than it ought to be is assuredly from vice. From which vice 'there is no just man on earth who will do good and not sin.' From which vice 'in the sight of God shall no living man be justified.' On account of which vice, 'if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' On account of which also, however much we may have advanced, it is necessary for us to say, 'Forgive us our debts,' even when all things said, done, and thought have been forgiven in baptism. And so he who sees rightly sees where and when and whence that perfection is to be hoped for, to which nothing can be added.

But if there were no precepts, there would surely be nowhere for a man to examine himself the more surely, and to see from what he should turn away, toward what he should strive, wherefore he should give thanks, what he should pray for. Great, therefore, is the usefulness of the precepts, if only so much be granted to free will that the grace of God may be the more honoured. And if these things are so, how does he become guilty of all who has kept the whole law, if he offend in one point? Or is it perhaps because the fullness of the law is love, by which God and one's neighbour are loved, on which precepts of love the whole law hangs and the prophets — is he rightly made guilty of all who acts against that on which all things hang?

But no one sins except by acting against that love; for 'you shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,' and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' Love of one's neighbour works no evil, and love is the fullness of the law. But no one loves his neighbour unless he loves God, so that, as far as he can, he may bestow upon his neighbour — whom he loves as himself — that this neighbour too may love God; and if a man does not himself love God, he loves neither himself nor his neighbour. And thus, he who has kept the whole law, if he offend in one point, becomes guilty of all, because he acts against love, on which the whole law hangs.

He therefore becomes guilty of all by acting against that on which all things hang. Why, then, are sins not said to be equal? Or is it perhaps because he who sins more grievously acts more against love, and he who sins more lightly acts less; and by this very fact he admits of more and less — whereby indeed he becomes guilty of all, yet the one sinning more grievously, or in more points, is more guilty, while the one sinning more lightly, or in fewer points, is less guilty; with so much greater guilt, that is, as he has sinned more, and with so much less as he has sinned less — yet, even if he offend in one point, he is guilty of all, because he acts against that on which all things hang? And if these things are true, in the same way that saying too is resolved which even a man of apostolic grace utters: 'For in many things we all offend.'

For we do offend, but one more grievously, another more lightly. By as much as each has sinned more or less, by so much is he greater in the committing of sin, the less he is in loving God and neighbour; and again by so much less in the perpetration of sin, the greater he is in the love of God and neighbour; and so he is by so much fuller of iniquity, by as much as he is emptier of love, and yours is most perfect in love when nothing remains of weakness. Nor indeed, as I judge, is it to be thought a light sin to hold the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons, if we refer that distinction of sitting and standing to ecclesiastical honours. For who would endure that a rich man be chosen to a seat of honour in the Church, while a poorer man, better instructed and holier, is despised?

But if he is speaking of everyday sittings-together, who does not sin here — if indeed he sins — except when within his own self he so judges that the richer man seems to him the better in proportion as he is the wealthier? For this seems to be what he signified by saying, 'Have you not judged within yourselves, and become judges of evil thoughts?' The law of liberty, therefore, is the law of love, of which he says, 'If indeed you fulfil the royal law according to the Scriptures, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself,' you do well; but if you have respect of persons, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.' And after that most difficult sentence to understand, concerning which I have said enough of what I thought should be said, recalling the same law of liberty:

'So speak,' he says, 'and so do, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.' And since he knows what he had said a little before — namely, that 'in many things we all offend' — he suggests the Lord's remedy, as it were a daily medicine for daily, though lighter, wounds: 'For judgment,' he says, 'is without mercy to him who has not done mercy.' Hence also the Lord says, 'Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you; give, and it shall be given you.' 'But mercy exults over judgment.' It is not said, 'mercy conquers judgment' — for it is not opposed to judgment — but 'exults over it,' because more are gathered in through mercy, yet those who have shown mercy.

For 'blessed are the merciful, for God shall have mercy upon them.' And this is surely just, that it be forgiven them because they have forgiven, and given to them because they have given. For there is in God both mercy in judging and judgment in showing mercy, on account of which it is said to Him, 'Mercy and judgment will I sing to You, O Lord.' For whoever, as though too righteous, awaits judgment without mercy as if secure, provokes that most just wrath, which, fearing it, that man says, 'Enter not into judgment with Your servant.' Whence it is said to a stubborn people, 'Why do you wish to contend with Me in judgment?' For when the righteous King shall sit upon His throne, who shall glory that he has a pure heart? Or who shall glory that he is clean from sin?

What hope, then, is there, unless mercy exult over judgment — but toward those who have shown mercy by truly saying, 'Forgive us, as we also forgive,' and by giving without murmuring? For God loves a cheerful giver.

Finally, holy James from this very place speaks of the works of mercy, so that he may console those whom that saying had vehemently terrified, when he admonishes how even daily sins — without which one does not live here — may be expiated by daily remedies; lest a man who, when he offends in one point, becomes guilty of all, by offending in many — since 'in many things we all offend' — should convey to the tribunal of so great a Judge a great heap of his guilt, gathered together little by little, and should not find that mercy which he did not show, but rather, by forgiving and giving, might deserve that his debts be forgiven him and the things promised rendered to him. I have said much, by which perhaps I might bring weariness upon you, who do not await to learn these things — which nevertheless you approve — because you have been accustomed to teach them.

But if there is anything in them — so far as pertains to the matters themselves, for with what kind of eloquence they are set forth I do not much care — if, then, there is anything in them that offends your erudition, I beg you to admonish me by writing back, and not think it a burden to correct me. For unhappy is he who does not both worthily honour such great and holy labours of your studies, and give thanks for them to the Lord our God, by whose gift you are such. Wherefore, since I ought the more willingly to learn from anyone what I unprofitably do not know, than the more readily to teach anyone what I do know, how much more justly do I demand of you this debt of love, by whose teaching, in the name and with the help of the Lord, the ecclesiastical writings in the Latin tongue have been so greatly aided as they never before could be!

But most of all, if your beloved self knows how this saying — 'Whoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, is become guilty of all' — can be better expounded in any other way, I beseech you through the Lord to deign to share it with us. CXXXIII. TO CTESIPHON. Not boldly, as you falsely suppose, but lovingly and zealously have you acted in sending me a new question out of an old one, which before your letter had deceived very many in the East, so that through a feigned humility they might learn pride and say with the devil, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven, I will be like the Most High.'

For what greater rashness can there be than to claim for oneself — I will not say the likeness — but the equality of God, and in a brief sentence to embrace the poisons of all the heretics, which have flowed from the fountain of the philosophers, and chiefly of Pythagoras and of Zeno, the founder of the Stoics? For those affections which the Greeks call pathe, we may call perturbations — namely, sorrow and joy, hope and fear, of which two are present and two are future — these they assert can be uprooted from men's minds, and that no fibre or root of the vices at all remains in a man, by meditation and constant exercise of the virtues.

Against these both the Peripatetics, who descend from the fountain of Aristotle, most vigorously dispute, and the New Academics, whom Tullius follows, and they overthrow not, I say, their realities — for these are none — but the shadows and wishes of them. For this is to take man out of man, and to be established in a body without a body, and rather to wish than to teach — since the apostle says, 'Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' And because the brevity of a letter cannot comprehend all things, I will briefly describe to you what is to be avoided. Whence also is that Virgilian saying: 'Hence they fear and desire, grieve and rejoice, nor do they discern the airs, shut in by darkness and a blind prison.'

For who can help either exulting with joy, or being wrung with grief, or being lifted up by hope, or being terrified by fear? Wherefore the most weighty poet Flaccus also writes in a satire: 'No one is born without faults; the best is he who is beset by the fewest.' Beautifully does one of our own writers say: The philosophers, the patriarchs of the heretics, have stained the purity of the Church with perverse teaching, so that they know nothing of that saying about human frailty, 'Why is earth and ashes proud?' — especially since the same Apostle says: 'I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and leading me into captivity'; and again: 'For not what I will, this I do, but what I will not, that I work.'

If a man works what he does not will, how can this stand which is being asserted, that a man can be without sin if he wishes? By what reasoning can there be what he wishes, when the Apostle affirms that he cannot fulfil what he desires? And when we ask of them who those are whom they suppose to be without sin, they wish by a novel twist to elude the truth, saying that they do not speak of any who are or have been such, but of those who could be such. These excellent teachers say that there can be what they show never to have been, since Scripture says: 'Everything that is to be, has already been done in a former time.'

Nor is it now necessary for me to go through the saints one by one and, as it were upon a most beautiful body, to point out certain blemishes and spots — a thing which most of our own writers do quite simply, when by a few little sentences of the Scriptures they can refute the arguments of the heretics and, through them, of the philosophers. For what does the vessel of election say? 'God hath concluded all things under sin, that he might have mercy upon all.' And in another place: 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.' Ecclesiastes too, through whom Wisdom herself sang, freely testifies and says: 'There is no just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not'; and again: 'If the people shall sin — for there is no man that sinneth not'; and: 'Who shall boast that he hath a clean heart?' and:

'None is clean from filth, not even if his life be of one day.' Whence David also says: 'Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me'; and in another psalm: 'In thy sight shall no living man be justified.' This testimony they mock away by a novel argument under the guise of piety. For they say that in comparison with God none is perfect — as though Scripture had said this; for it does not say, 'No living man shall be justified in comparison with thee,' but: 'In thy sight shall no living man be justified.' For when it says 'in thy sight,' it means this to be understood, that even those who seem holy to men are by no means holy to the knowledge and cognizance of God. For man looketh upon the face, God upon the heart.

But if, when God looks on and contemplates all things — from whom the secrets of the heart are not hidden — no one is just, then it is plainly shown that the heretics are not exalting man on high, but detracting from the power of God. And many other things, which, if I chose to gather from the holy Scriptures, I should exceed the measure not of a letter only, but even of a volume. They assert nothing new who, applauding themselves in perfidy of this kind, deceive indeed the simple and unlearned, but are unable to deceive churchmen who meditate day and night in the law of God.

Let them be ashamed of their founder and of his associates, who say that a man can be without sin if he wishes — which in Greek they call anamartēton — and, because the ears of the churches throughout the East cannot bear this, they pretend indeed to say 'without sin,' but not to dare to say anamartēton, as though 'free from sin' were one thing and anamartēton another, and as though the Latin tongue had not expressed in two words that Greek term which was coined among them. If you say 'without sin' and deny that you say anamartēton, then condemn those who preach anamartēton. But you do not do so.

For you know what you teach your disciples inwardly, mentioning one thing with your mouth and concealing another in your conscience; and to us, as to strangers and unlearned, you speak in parables, but to your own you confess mysteries — and you boast that you do this according to Scripture, because it is written: 'Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables,' and to the disciples in the house he says: 'To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.' But, as I had begun to say, I will briefly set forth the names of your founders and associates, that you may take note in what sort of fellowship you glory. Manichaeus says that his elect, whom he places among the pupils of Plato in the heavens, are free from all sin and cannot sin even if they wish;

for they have ascended, he says, to such heights of virtue that they make sport of the deeds of the flesh. Priscillian in Spain, a part of Manichaeus, for whose foulness your disciples greatly love you, rashly claiming for themselves the word of perfection and knowledge: alone with women alone they are shut up, and during intercourse and embraces they chant to them that verse: 'Then the almighty Father Aether descends in fruitful showers into the lap of his glad spouse, and, great, mingled with her great body, nourishes all offspring.' These indeed share also in the Gnostic heresy that comes from the impiety of Basilides. Whence you too assert that those who are without the knowledge of the law cannot avoid sins.

Why should I speak of Priscillian, who was condemned both by the sword of the age and by the authority of the whole world? Evagrius of Pontus, an Iberite, who writes to virgins, writes to monks, writes to her whose name — 'blackness' — attests the darkness of her perfidy, published a book and sentences 'On Impassibility' (peri apatheias), which we can call 'impassibility' or 'imperturbability,' when the mind is never moved by any thought or vice and — to put it plainly — is either a stone or a god. Very many in the West read his books, Greek throughout the East, and Latin through the translation of his disciple Rufinus.

He also wrote a book as it were concerning monks, and in it enumerates many who never existed and whom he describes as having been Origenists, and who were beyond doubt condemned by the bishops — namely Ammonius and Eusebius and Euthymius and Evagrius himself, Or too and Isidore and many others whom it is wearisome to enumerate. And according to that saying of Lucretius: 'And as, when we give foul wormwood to children as healers, we first smear the rim of the cup round about with the sweet golden liquid of honey' — so he placed one John at the very beginning of his book, who was beyond doubt both catholic and holy, that through the occasion of him he might introduce into the Church the rest, whom he had set down as heretics.

But that rashness of his — nay rather his insanity — who could unfold in worthy speech? namely, that he entitled the book of Sextus the Pythagorean, a man without Christ and a heathen, with the name changed to that of Xystus, a martyr and bishop of the Roman church? In which, according to the Pythagorean dogma of those who equate man with God and say that he is of God's substance, many things are said about perfection, so that those who do not know the volume of the philosopher may, under a martyr's name, drink from the golden cup of Babylon. Indeed, in that very volume there is made no mention of the prophets, none of the patriarchs, none of the apostles, none of Christ, so that he contends that a bishop and martyr existed without faith in Christ. Whence you too usurp very many testimonies against the Church.

He had done this also under the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, so as to entitle 'Pamphilus's' the first of the six books of the Defence of Origen by Eusebius of Caesarea — whom no one could fail to know was an Arian — with the intent of pouring into Latin ears those four notorious volumes of Origen 'On First Principles' (peri archōn). Do you wish to know yet another leader of your error? Your teaching is a little branch of Origen. For in that psalm where it is written — to say nothing of the rest — 'Moreover even until night my reins have instructed me,' he asserts that a holy man (of whose number you too are, forsooth), when he has come to the summit of the virtues, does not even in the night suffer those things that belong to men, nor is titillated by any thought of vices.

Nor should you blush at the fellowship of such men, refusing their names, with whose blasphemies you are joined. The second point of Jovinian is a lesson of your own genius. Whatever was answered to those men, believe it to be answered to you. Nor can it be that the outcome of those should differ whose opinion is one and the same.

Since these things are so, what do those wretched little women want, laden with sins, who are carried about with every wind of doctrine, ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth; and the rest, companions of these little women, with itching ears and not knowing what they hear or what they say — who take up the most ancient mire as though it were some new preparation, who, according to Ezekiel, daub the wall without tempering, and it is scattered when the rain of truth comes upon it? Simon Magus founded a heresy, aided by the help of Helena the harlot. Nicolaus of Antioch, the inventor of all uncleanness, led female choirs. Marcion sent ahead to Rome a woman to prepare for himself the minds of those to be deceived.

Apelles had Philumene as the companion of his doctrines. Montanus, the preacher of an unclean spirit, through Prisca and Maximilla, noble and wealthy women, first corrupted many churches with gold, then polluted them with heresy. I will pass over old matters; I will move on to those nearer. Arius, in order to take the world captive, first deceived the emperor's sister. Donatus, in order to pollute all the unfortunate throughout Africa with his stinking waters, was aided by the wealth of Lucilla. In Spain Agape led Elpidius — a woman leading a man, the blind leading the blind into the pit — and had as her successor Priscillian, a most zealous student of Zoroaster the magician, and from a magician made a bishop; joined to him was Galla, German by name and not by race, who, running hither and thither, left behind another sister as heir of a neighbouring heresy.

Now too the mystery of iniquity is at work; the twofold sex supplants both, so that we are compelled to take up that prophetic saying: 'The partridge hath cried out, she hath gathered what she did not bring forth, making her riches, but not with judgment; in the half of her days they shall forsake her, and in her latter end she shall be foolish.' But that clause which they afterwards fitted to this opinion for the deceiving of all men — 'not without the grace of God' — though at first reading of the surface it deceives, yet when looked into and most diligently sifted it cannot deceive. For they so posit the grace of God that we do not lean upon and are not governed by his help through individual works, but they refer it to free will and to the precepts of the law, applying that word of Isaiah:

For God gave the law as a help, they say, so that thanks are to be rendered to God in this, that he created us such beings as can by our own free choice both choose the good and avoid the evil. And in saying these things they do not understand that through their mouth the devil hisses out an intolerable blasphemy. For if the grace of God consists in this alone, that he created us of our own will and we are content with free choice, and need no further his help — lest, if we should need it, free will be broken — then we ought by no means to pray any longer, nor to bend his clemency by our prayers, so as to receive daily what, once received, is in our own power.

Men of this sort do away with prayer, and through free will boast that they have been made not men of their own will, but of God's power, which needs no one's aid. Let fastings and all continence be done away with too. For what need is there for me to labour, so as to obtain by my own effort what has once become my own power? This which I say is not my own argument; one of his disciples — nay rather now a master and the leader of the whole army, and against the Apostle a vessel of perdition — running through the thorn-thickets of solecisms and not (as his followers boast) of syllogisms, thus philosophizes and disputes:

'If I do nothing without the help of God, and through his help is every single thing that I shall have done, then it is not I who labour, but the help of God in me, that will be crowned; and in vain he gave the power of choice, which I cannot fulfil unless he himself always aids me. For the will is destroyed which needs another's aid. But God gave free choice, which will not otherwise be free unless I do what I have willed. And thus either I use once the power that has been given me, so that free choice may be preserved, or, if I need another's aid, the freedom of choice in me is destroyed.' He who says this — what blasphemy does he not exceed? what poisons of the heretics does he not surpass?

They assert that through the freedom of choice they by no means have any further need of God, and are ignorant of what is written: 'What hast thou that thou didst not receive? But if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as though thou hadst not received it?' Great thanks does he render to God, who through the freedom of choice is a rebel against God! This freedom we gladly embrace, only in such a way that we always render thanks to the Giver and know that we are nothing unless he himself preserve in us what he has bestowed, as the Apostle says: 'It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.' To will and to run is mine, but that very 'mine' will not be mine without the help of God. For the same Apostle says: 'It is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish'; and the Saviour in the Gospel: