書信與論戰集（CSEL） 第 42 章

The book which you sent, most dear sons Timasius and James, I read through — laying aside for a little while the things that were in hand — cursorily indeed, yet with no slight attention; and I saw a man kindled with the most ardent zeal against those who, when they ought to accuse the human will in their own sins, rather accuse the nature of men and attempt through it to excuse themselves. He blazed exceedingly against this pestilence, which even the authors of secular letters gravely reproved, exclaiming: 'The human race complains falsely of its own nature.' This very sentiment indeed he too pressed home with all the powers of talent he could. Yet nevertheless I fear that he may rather give support to those who have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge;

for being ignorant of God's righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. But what the righteousness of God is, of which he here speaks, he consequently discloses, adding: 'For the end of the law is Christ, unto righteousness to every one that believeth.' This righteousness of God, therefore — established not in the precept of the law, whereby fear is struck into us, but in the aid of the grace of Christ, to which alone the fear of the law, as of a schoolmaster, usefully leads — he who understands to be so established, himself understands why he is a Christian. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died in vain.

But if he did not die in vain, then in him alone is the ungodly justified — the ungodly for whom, believing in him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned unto righteousness. 'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely through his blood.' But whosoever are thought not to belong to these 'all who have sinned and come short of the glory of God,' assuredly have no need to become Christians, because they that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; whence he came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

And through this, the nature of the human race, procreated from the flesh of that one transgressor — if it can suffice for itself to fulfill the law and perfect righteousness — ought to be secure concerning its reward, that is, concerning eternal life, even if in some nation or in some earlier time the faith of Christ's blood was hidden from it. For God is not unjust, who would defraud the just of the reward of righteousness, if the sacrament of Christ's divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh, was not announced to them. For how shall they believe what they have not heard? or how shall they hear without a preacher? For faith comes by hearing, as it is written, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, he says: have they not heard?

'Their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.' But before this began to happen, before, in fine, that very preaching should reach unto the ends of the whole earth — since there are not yet lacking the remotest nations, though, as is reported, very few, to whom this has not yet been preached — what is human nature to do, or what has it done, which either did not hear beforehand that this was to come, or does not yet know that it has been done, except by believing in God, who made heaven and earth, by whom it perceives that it too was naturally made, and by living rightly to fulfill his will, though imbued with no faith in the passion and resurrection of Christ? But if this could be done, or can be done, this too I say, which the apostle said concerning the law:

'Then Christ died in vain.' For if he said this of the law which one nation, the Jews, received, how much more justly is it said of the law of nature, which the whole human race received: 'If righteousness is through nature, then Christ died in vain'! But if Christ did not die in vain, then the whole of human nature can in no way be justified and redeemed from the most just wrath of God — that is, from vengeance — except through faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ. For the nature of man was at first created blameless and without any fault; but this nature of man, in which each one is born of Adam, now needs a physician, because it is not sound. All the good things indeed which it has in its formation, its life,

its senses, its mind, it has from the most high God, its Creator and Maker. But the fault which darkens and weakens these natural goods, so that it has need of illumination and healing, was not contracted from the blameless Maker, but from original sin, which was committed by free will. And through this, the penal nature belongs to the most just vengeance. For if we are now in Christ a new creature, yet we were by nature children of wrath, even as others; but God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by whose grace we are saved.

This grace of Christ, therefore, without which neither infants nor those grown in age can be saved, is not rendered for merits, but is given freely — on account of which it is called grace. 'Being justified,' he says, 'freely through his blood.' Whence those who are not freed through it — as, because they could not yet hear, or because they would not obey; or even, when through their age they could not hear, they did not receive the laver of regeneration which they could have received, through which they might have been saved — are assuredly justly condemned, because they are not without sin, whether that which they drew originally, or that which they added by evil habits: for all have sinned — whether in Adam or in themselves — and come short of the glory of God.

The entire mass, therefore, owes penalties; and if the due punishment of damnation were rendered to all, it would without doubt be rendered not unjustly. Those, therefore, who are freed from it through grace, are called not vessels of their own merits, but vessels of mercy. But of whose mercy, save his who sent Christ Jesus into this world to save sinners, whom he foreknew and predestined and called and justified and glorified? Who then would be so utterly and madly insane as not to render unspeakable thanks to the mercy that frees whom it willed — the mercy which could in no way rightly be blamed for justly condemning absolutely all?

If we are wise in this according to the Scriptures, we are not compelled to argue against Christian grace and to say those things by which we might try to prove that human nature has no need of a physician in little children, because it is healthy, and that in grown persons it can, if it wills, suffice of itself for righteousness. For these things seem to be said acutely, yet they are said in the wisdom of speech by which the cross of Christ is made void; this is not that wisdom which comes down from above. I am unwilling to say what follows, lest we be thought to do an injury to our friends, whose most vigorous and swift talents we desire to run not into what is perverse but straight ahead.

With how great a zeal, then, was the author of this book, which you sent, kindled against those who seek a defence for their sins out of the weakness of human nature, so much and with far more ardent zeal ought we to be kindled, lest the cross of Christ be made void. But it is made void if it be said that anyone can, in any way apart from His sacrament, attain to righteousness and eternal life. This is what is being done in this book — done, I am unwilling to say, by one who knows, lest I should judge him who wrote it not even to be reckoned a Christian, but rather, as I more readily believe, by one who does not know, with great strength indeed; but I would have that strength be healthy, not such as the frenzied are wont to have.

First he distinguishes that 'it is one thing to ask whether something can be, which concerns mere possibility, and another whether it actually is.' No one doubts that this distinction is true; for it follows that what actually is could have been, but it does not follow that what can be also is. For because the Lord raised up Lazarus, without doubt He could; but because He did not raise up Judas, must it be said, 'He could not'? He could, then, but He would not. For had He willed, He would by the same power have done this also, since the Son gives life to whom He wills. But mark whither this true and manifest distinction tends and what it attempts to effect. 'We,' he says, 'are treating of possibility alone;'

'concerning which, unless something certain be established, we hold it most grievous and out of order to pass on to another matter.' In this he turns about in many ways and with lengthy discourse, lest anyone should suppose him to be inquiring about anything other than the possibility of not sinning. Whence, among the many things by which he pursues this, he also says this: 'The same thing I say again: I say that a man can be without sin. What do you say? That a man cannot be without sin. Neither do I say,' he says, 'that a man is without sin, nor do you say that a man is not without sin; we contend about the possible and the not-possible, not about the being and the not-being.'

Then he thus mentions that certain of those testimonies which are wont to be brought forward from the Scriptures against them do not pertain to this question, in which it is asked whether or not a man can be without sin: 'For "there is none clean from filth," and "there is no man who does not sin," and "there is no righteous man on earth," and "there is none that does good,"' and other things like these, he says, 'avail to prove not-being, not not-being-able. For by examples of this kind it is shown what sort of men some persons have been at some time, not that they could not have been otherwise; whence they are also rightly found to be blameworthy. For if they were such because they could not have been otherwise, they are free from fault.' See what he has said.

But I say that a little child, born in a place where it could not be succoured through the baptism of Christ, and forestalled by death, was on that account such — that is, departed without the washing of regeneration — because it could not be otherwise. Let him therefore absolve it and open to it, against the sentence of the Lord, the kingdom of heaven; but the Apostle does not absolve it, who says: 'By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so it passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.' Rightly therefore, by that condemnation which runs through the whole mass, it is not admitted into the kingdom of heaven — although it was not only not a Christian, but could not even be one. But:

It is not condemned,' they say, 'because "in Adam all have sinned" was said not on account of sin contracted by the origin of birth, but on account of imitation.' If, then, Adam is on this ground called the author of all the sins that followed, because he was the first sinner among men, why is not Abel rather than Christ set as the head of all the righteous, because he was the first righteous man among men? But of the infant I do not speak: a young man or an old man has died in that region where he could not hear the name of Christ. Could he have become righteous through nature and free will, or could he not? If they say he could, behold — this is to make void the cross of Christ, to contend that anyone can be justified apart from it, by natural law and the choice of the will.

Let us here too say: therefore Christ died in vain; for all men could do this even if He had not died; and if they were unrighteous, they would be so because they willed, not because they could not be righteous. But if without the grace of Christ he could not be justified at all, then let him too — if he dares — absolve this man according to his own words, because 'if he was such because he could not be otherwise, he was without fault.' But he raised an objection against himself as though spoken by another, and says: 'It can indeed be, but through the grace of God, you will say.' Then, as if in answer, he adds: 'I give thanks to your humanity, that my assertion, which but now you were assailing, you are so far content not only not to assail or not merely to confess, but you do not even shrink from approving it. For to say:

It can indeed be, but through this or that, what else is it than not only to consent that it can be, but even to show how or in what manner it can be? And so no one better proves the possibility of some thing than he who confesses also its quality, since quality cannot exist apart from a thing.' Having said this, he again objects to himself: 'But you, you will say, in this place seem to refuse the grace of God, since indeed you do not mention it.' Then he replied: 'Do I refuse it — I, who in confessing the thing must of necessity confess also that through which the thing can be brought about? Or do you rather, who by denying the thing without doubt deny also whatever it is through which the thing is effected?'

He has now forgotten that he is answering one who does not deny the thing, whose objection he had a little before set forth, saying: 'It can indeed be, but through the grace of God.' How, then, does he deny that possibility for which he labours so much, when he now says to him: 'It can be, but through the grace of God'? Yet, nevertheless, since — that man being dismissed, who now confesses the thing — he still argues against those who deny that it is possible for a man to be without sin: what is that to us? Let him argue against whomever he will, provided only he confesses this, which is denied with a most wicked impiety, that without the grace of God a man cannot be without sin. He says therefore:

Whether through grace, or through help, or through mercy, and whatever it is through which a man can be without sin, whoever confesses the thing itself confesses it.' I confess to your love that, when I read these things, I was suddenly suffused with joy, because he did not deny the grace of God, through which alone a man can be justified; for this above all I detest and shudder at in the disputations of such men. But going on to read the rest, I began first to hold him suspect from the comparisons he had given. For he says: 'Now if I shall have said: a man can dispute, a bird fly, a hare run, and shall not also have mentioned the things through which these can be effected — that is, the tongue, the wings, the feet — surely I have not denied the qualities of these functions, I who have confessed the functions themselves?'

He certainly seems to have mentioned things that avail by nature; for these members were created with natures of this kind — the tongue, the wings, the feet. He did not adduce any such thing as we wish to be understood concerning grace, without which a man is not justified, where the question is of natures to be healed, not of natures to be established. Hence, then, made anxious, I began to read the rest, and found that I had not suspected falsely. But before I come to that, see what he has said. When he was treating the question of the difference of sins, and objected to himself that some say that certain light sins cannot all be avoided by their very multitude, because they so often rush upon us, he denied 'that even light sins ought to be censured with correction, if they cannot at all be avoided' — not, indeed, heeding the Scriptures of both Testaments,

where we have learned that this is the intent of the law which convicts: that on account of those things which are done amiss, refuge may be taken in the grace of the pitying Lord, the law as it were shutting us up, like a schoolmaster, unto the same faith which was afterward revealed — where both the things done ill are forgiven, and, that same grace helping, they are not done. For it is the way of those who make progress; although the good who make progress are called perfect travellers. But that is the summit of the perfect, to which nothing is added, when that to which one strives shall have begun to be possessed. And indeed that which is said to them, 'Are you yourself without sin?' truly does not pertain to that matter about which the question turns.

But when he says that 'it is rather to be imputed to one's negligence that one is not without sin,' he says it well indeed; but let him also deign thereupon to pray the Lord, lest this wicked negligence should have dominion over him — the Lord whom a certain man was entreating when he said: 'Order my steps according to Thy word, and let not any iniquity have dominion over me' — lest, while he trusts to his own diligence as to his own powers, he arrive neither here at true righteousness, nor there where without doubt perfect righteousness is to be desired and hoped for. And that which is said to them by certain persons, that 'it is nowhere written in these exact words that a man can be without sin,' he easily refutes, since the question there is not by what words any given sentence is expressed.

Yet perhaps not without cause, since it is sometimes found in the Scriptures that men were said to be without blame. But no one is found who was said to be without sin, except one only, of whom it is openly said: 'Him who knew no sin'; and in that place where it was treating of holy priests: 'For He was tempted in all things after the likeness, without sin' — namely in that flesh which had the likeness of the flesh of sin, although it was not the flesh of sin; which likeness, however, He would not have, unless the rest of every man's flesh were the flesh of sin. Now how that is to be received:

'Everyone who is born of God does not sin and cannot sin, because His seed remains in him' — whereas the Apostle John himself, as though he were not born of God, or were speaking to those who were not yet born of God, has openly set down: 'If we shall have said that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us' — this I have taken care to explain, as I was able, in the books which I wrote on this matter to Marcellinus. And that which is said, 'cannot sin,' to have been said as if it were said 'ought not to sin' — this man's assertion does not seem to me to be disapproved. For what madman would say that one ought to sin, since it is for this reason sin, because it ought not to be done? Truly, as for what the Apostle James says:

'But the tongue no man can tame' — it does not seem to me to be understood as he wished to expound it, as though it were said by way of reproach, as if it were said: 'Can then no man tame the tongue?' — as one chiding and saying: 'You can tame wild beasts, and the tongue you cannot?' — as though it were easier to tame the tongue than beasts. I do not think this is the sense in this place. For if he wished it to be understood of the ease of taming the tongue, the rest would follow in the comparison with beasts. But now there follows: 'a restless evil, full of deadly poison' — assuredly more harmful than that of beasts and serpents; for the one kills the flesh, but this the soul; for 'the mouth that lies slays the soul.'

Not, therefore, as though it were easier than the taming of beasts did holy James pronounce that sentence, or wish it to be pronounced beforehand, but rather showing how great is the evil of the tongue in man, that it can be tamed by no man, whereas even beasts are tamed by men. Nor did he say this in order that we should suffer the dominion of this evil to remain over us through negligence, but that for the taming of the tongue we should beg the aid of divine grace. For he did not say: 'the tongue no one can tame,' but 'no man'; so that, when it is tamed, we may confess it to be done by the mercy of God, by the help of God, by the grace of God. Let the soul, then, strive to tame the tongue, and, while it strives, let it beg for aid; and let the tongue pray,

so that the tongue may be tamed by the gift of Him who said to His own: 'For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.' And so by the precept we are admonished to do that which, striving and not prevailing by our own powers, we should implore the divine aid to accomplish. Accordingly, he too, when he had magnified the evil of the tongue, saying among these things: 'These things, my brethren, ought not so to be done,' immediately, when he had finished what he was saying on this point, admonished by what help these things should not be done which he said ought not to be done: 'For who is wise and instructed among us? Let him show his work by good conversation, in the meekness of wisdom.

But if you have bitter zeal and contentions in your hearts, do not glory and be liars against the truth. This is not that wisdom which comes down from above, but earthly, sensual, devilish. For where zeal and contention is, there is inconstancy and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first indeed chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, full of mercy and good fruits, unappraisable, without dissimulation.' This is the wisdom which tames the tongue, coming down from above, not leaping forth from the human heart. Or does anyone dare to take away even this from the grace of God, and with most proud vanity place it in the power of man?

Why, then, is it prayed for that it may be received, if it is from man that it may be possessed? Or is even this prayer gainsaid, lest an injury be done to free will, which suffices for itself by the possibility of nature for fulfilling all the precepts of righteousness? Let then that same Apostle James himself be gainsaid, who admonishes and says: 'But if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and upbraids not, and it shall be given him; but let him ask in faith, nothing doubting.' This is the faith unto which the precepts compel, so that the law may command, faith may obtain. For by the tongue, which no man can tame — but the wisdom that comes down from above tames it — 'in many things we all offend.'

For this too that Apostle pronounced in no other manner than that which he said: 'the tongue no man can tame.' Nor let anyone likewise object against these men, in favour of the impossibility of not sinning, that which is said: 'The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. But they who are in the flesh cannot please God.' For he spoke of the wisdom of the flesh, not of the wisdom that comes down from above; and it is manifest that by 'those who are in the flesh' were signified not those who have not yet departed from the body, but those who live according to the flesh. Nor is the question that is discussed to be found there. This is what I look to hear from this man, if I can.

Whether those who live according to the Spirit, and on this account, even while still living here, are already in a certain manner not in the flesh, live according to the Spirit by the grace of God, or whether they suffice for themselves by the possibility of nature already given when they are created, and by their own proper will — seeing that the fullness of the law is nothing but love, and the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, not by ourselves, but by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. This man treats also of the sins of ignorance, and says that 'a man ought to keep watch beforehand, lest he be ignorant, and therefore ignorance is to be blamed, because a man is ignorant of that through his own negligence which, diligence being applied, he ought to have known' — while yet he disputes everything rather than pray and say: 'Give me understanding, and I will learn Thy commandments.'

For it is one thing not to have cared to know — which sins of negligence seemed even to be expiated by certain sacrifices of the law — and another to wish to understand and not be able, and to act against the law by not understanding what it wills to be done. Whence we are admonished to ask of God wisdom, who gives to all liberally — that is, to all those who so ask, and only ask, in the manner and measure in which so great a thing is to be asked. Yet he confesses that 'sins committed are to be expiated by God, and the Lord is to be entreated for them,' namely for the sake of obtaining pardon, because that which has been done cannot be made undone — even, he himself confessing it, by that power of nature and will of man which he has so much praised. Wherefore by this necessity it remains that he pray to be forgiven.

But that he may be helped, lest he sin — this he has nowhere said; I have not read it here; strange is his utter silence on this matter, when the Lord's Prayer admonishes that both are to be asked — both that our debts may be forgiven us, and that we may not be led into temptation: the one, that things past may be expiated; the other, that things future may be avoided. And although this is not done unless the will be present, yet, that it may be done, the will alone does not suffice; therefore concerning this matter a prayer neither superfluous nor shameless is offered to the Lord. For what is more foolish than to pray that you may do what you have in your own power? Now then see what most of all pertains to the matter: how he tries to show that human nature is, as it were, altogether without any fault whatever, and, against the most manifest Scriptures of God, delights in the wisdom of the word,

by which the cross of Christ is made void. But plainly that will not be made void; rather this wisdom of his will be overthrown. For when we shall have shown this, perhaps the mercy of God will be present, so that he too may repent of having said these things. 'First,' he says, 'we must dispute concerning that which is said, that nature has been weakened and changed through sin. Whence before all things I think it must be asked,' he says, 'what sin is: some substance, or a name altogether lacking substance, by which is expressed not a thing, not an existence, not any body, but the act of a deed wrongly done.' Then he adds: 'I believe it is so. And if it is so,' he says, 'how could that weaken or change human nature which lacks substance?'

See, I pray you, how in his ignorance he strives to overthrow the most healthful words of medicinal utterances: 'I said: Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.' What is healed, if nothing is wounded, nothing hurt, nothing weakened and vitiated? Moreover, if there is that which is to be healed, whence has it been vitiated? You hear one confessing; why do you desire one disputing? 'Heal,' he says, 'my soul.' Ask of Him whence it has been vitiated, that which he begs to be healed, and hear what follows: 'for I have sinned against Thee.' Let this man interrogate him, let him ask of him what he thinks must be asked, and say: 'O you who cry, Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee, what is sin?

Some substance, or a name lacking all substance, by which is expressed not a thing, not an existence, not any body, but only the act of a deed wrongly done?' That man answers: 'It is as you say; sin is not any substance, but only by this name is expressed the act of a deed wrongly done.' And against him this one says: 'Why then do you cry, Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee? How could that vitiate your soul which lacks substance?' Would not the other, worn out with the grief of his wound, lest by disputation he be turned away from prayer, briefly answer and say: 'Depart from me, I beseech you; dispute rather, if you can, with Him who said: They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners' — where by the righteous He meant the whole, but the sinners He called the sick. Do you not perceive whither this disputation tends, and whither it stretches out its hand? So that it may be thought said altogether in vain: 'You shall call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.' For how shall He save, where there is no sickness? For sins, from which the Gospel says the people of Christ are to be saved, are not substances, and cannot save that man. O brother, it is good that you remember you are a Christian. To believe these things will perhaps have sufficed;

but nevertheless, since you wish to dispute — and it does no harm, nay rather it profits, if a most firm faith go before, so that we do not suppose that human nature cannot be vitiated by sin, but, believing the divine Scriptures, that it has been vitiated by sin, let us inquire how that could have come to pass. Since we have already learned that sin is not a substance, is it not observed — to omit other things — that even not-eating is not a substance? For it withdraws from substance, since food is a substance.

But to abstain from food is not a substance; and yet the substance of the body, if food be abstained from altogether, so languishes, so is corrupted by the inequality of its health, so is drained of its strength, so is weakened and broken by weariness, that, if in any way life should endure, it can scarcely be recalled to that very food, from which by abstaining it was vitiated. Thus sin is not a substance; but God is a substance — the supreme substance and the only true food of the rational creature. From whom by disobedience withdrawing, and through infirmity not being able to receive that in which it ought to rejoice, you hear how one says: 'My heart is smitten as grass and is withered, for I have forgotten to eat my bread.'

But observe how he further presses himself with plausible reasonings against the truth of Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus, who is for this reason called Jesus, because He Himself saves His people from their sins, says therefore — the Lord Jesus says: 'They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.' Whence the Apostle also says: 'A faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.' And this man, against the faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, says 'that this sickness ought not to have been contracted by sins, lest this be the penalty of sin, that more sins should be committed.' So great a physician and helper is sought even for little children, and this man says:

'Why do you seek? Those for whom you seek a physician are whole.' Nor was the first man himself condemned to death on that account; for afterwards he did not sin — as if he had heard something afterwards of the perfection of his righteousness, save that the Church commends him too as freed by the very mercy of the Lord Christ. This man says also of his posterity 'that they are not only not weaker than he, but have even fulfilled more precepts, whereas he neglected to fulfil one.' Which posterity he sees to be born in such a way that certainly he himself was not made, not only incapable of the precept, which they in no way perceive, but scarcely capable of the breast when they hunger. Yet is it in the bosom of mother Church, since He wishes to save them by His grace,

who saves His people from their sins. Men contradict Him, and, as though they knew how to inspect the creature which was created through Him better than He, with unhealthy voice they pronounce the sick to be whole. He says that 'the material of sin is a vengeance, if the sinner has been weakened to this end, that he should sin more'; nor does he consider how worthily the light of truth deserts the transgressor of the law — deserted by which, being blind, he must both offend the more and, by falling, be harassed, and, being harassed, not rise again, so that he may only hear the voice of the law, whereby he is admonished to implore the grace of the Saviour. Or is there no penalty of those of whom the Apostle says:

'Because, when they had known God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened'? Assuredly this darkening was already a vengeance and a penalty; and yet through this penalty — that is, through the blindness of heart, which comes about when the light of wisdom deserts — they collapsed into more and graver sins; for 'professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.' Grievous is this penalty, if one understand it; and from this penalty see whither they went: 'And they changed,' he says, 'the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things.' These things they did out of the penalty of sin, whereby their senseless heart was darkened.

And yet on account of these things — because, although penal, these too are sins — he adds and says: 'Therefore God gave them up to the lusts of their heart, unto uncleanness.' Behold how God the more grievously condemned them, giving them up to the lusts of their heart, unto uncleanness. See too from this penalty what things they do: 'that they should,' he says, 'dishonour their own bodies among themselves.' And because this is a penalty of iniquity, since it is also iniquity, he commends it more evidently, saying: 'who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. For this cause,' he says, 'God gave them up to passions of ignominy.'

Behold how often God takes vengeance, and out of that same vengeance more and graver sins arise: 'for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness.' And to show that these are sins in such a way that they are also penalties of sins, he added even this: 'and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fitting.' See how often He takes vengeance, and how the very vengeance both bears and breeds sins. Attend yet further:

'And even as they did not like to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting: being filled with all iniquity, with circumvention, malice, avarice, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, proud, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, disorderly, without natural affection, without mercy.' Here now let this man say: 'Sin ought not to have been so avenged, that the sinner through the vengeance should commit more.' Perhaps he may answer that God does not force men to these things, but only deserts those worthy to be deserted. If he says this, he says most truly;

for, being deserted, as I said, by the light of righteousness, and thereby involved in darkness, what else do they bring forth than all these works of darkness which I have recounted, until it be said to them, if they hearken to the word: 'Awake, you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten you'? The Truth calls them dead — whence too is that saying: 'Let the dead bury their dead' — the Truth, then, calls them dead, whom this man says could not have been hurt and vitiated by sin, because, forsooth, he has learned that sin is not a substance. No one says that man was so made that from righteousness indeed he could go into sin, but from sin he could not return to righteousness; but that, to go into sin, free will suffices, whereby he vitiated himself;

but that he may return to righteousness, he has need of a physician, since he is not whole; he has need of one to give life, because he is dead. Concerning which grace this man says nothing at all, as though by his own will alone he could heal himself, because by it alone he could vitiate himself. We do not say to him that the death of the body avails toward sin, where there is vengeance only — for no one sins by dying in the body — but toward sin avails the death of the soul, which its own life, that is its God, has deserted; which soul must needs do dead works, until by the grace of Christ it lives again.

Far be it from us to say that hunger and thirst and the other bodily hardships carry with them a necessity of sinning — hardships by which the life of the righteous, when exercised in them, has shone all the more brightly, and by overcoming them through patience has won for itself the greater glory, yet aided by the grace of God, aided by the Spirit of God, aided by the mercy of God, not exalting itself by a proud will, but earning its strength by a humble confession. For such a life had learned to say to God, 'For thou art my patience.' Of this grace and help and mercy, without which we cannot live well, I do not know why this man says absolutely nothing; nay rather, as though a man's own will, if it be present alone, were enough for him unto righteousness, he most openly contradicts the nature of the grace of Christ, by which we are justified, while he sets himself to defend nature.

But why, when the guilt of sin has been loosed by grace, the death of the body should still remain for the exercise of faith — though it came from sin — this too I have already discussed, as best I could, in the books addressed to Marcellinus of holy memory. As for his saying that 'the Lord could have died without sin,' for Him even to be born was a matter of the power of His mercy, not a condition of nature; so too He died by power, and this is our ransom, by which He might redeem us from death. And the disputation of these men strives to make this void, since by them human nature is so defended that free will could have no need of this ransom, whereby men are transferred from the power of darkness and of the ruler of death into the kingdom of Christ the Lord. And yet when the Lord went forth to His passion:

'Behold,' He says, 'the prince of this world will come, and in me he will find nothing' — nothing of sin, that is, whereby the ruler of death might act by his own right to destroy Him — 'but that all may know,' He says, 'that I do the will of my Father, arise, let us go hence'; that is, because I do not die by the necessity of sin, but by the will of obedience. He says that 'no evil is the cause of any good,' as though a punishment were not a good, by which nevertheless many have been amended; there are therefore evils which profit us by the wondrous mercy of God. Did that man suffer any good, who said, 'Thou hast turned away thy face from me, and I was troubled'? Surely not; and yet this trouble was for him in some way medicinal against pride. For he had said in his abundance:

'I shall never be moved,' and he attributed to himself what he had from the Lord. For what did he have that he had not received? Therefore it had to be shown him whence he had it, so that being humbled he might recover what, being proud, he had lost. Therefore, 'O Lord,' he says, 'in thy will thou didst furnish strength to my beauty. In this my abundance I was saying, I shall not be moved, when this was mine only through thee, not of myself. At last thou didst turn away thy face, and I was troubled.' This the proud friend does not at all understand; but great is the Lord, who may persuade him of it in the way He Himself knows. For we are more inclined to seek what we may answer against those things that are objected to our error, than to attend to how salutary they are, that we might be rid of the error.

Hence with such men we must deal not so much by disputations as by prayers on their behalf, even as on our own. For we do not say to them what he set up against himself, namely 'that sin was necessary, so that there might be a cause for the mercy of God' — would that there had been no misery, that this mercy might not have been necessary! — but rather that the iniquity of sin was so much the graver, the more easily the man might have not sinned, whom as yet no infirmity held bound. A most just punishment followed, that in himself he might receive the reciprocal wages of his own sin, losing the obedience, as it were, of his own body which had been set beneath him — that chief obedience which he himself had scorned to render beneath his own Lord.

And as to the fact that now we are born with that same law of sin which in our members wars against the law of the mind, we ought neither to murmur against God nor to dispute against a thing most manifest, but for our punishment to seek and pray for His mercy. Give heed indeed, and watchfully, to how he has spoken: 'God indeed applies His mercy even to this part, whenever it is necessary, because after sin it is necessary to succour man in this way — not because God willed the cause of this necessity.' Do you see how he does not say that the mercy of God is necessary that we may not sin, but because we have sinned? Then he adds: 'But also the physician ought to be ready to heal one already wounded; he ought not, however, to wish that a healthy man be wounded.'

If this comparison fits the matters we are treating, then surely human nature cannot be wounded by sin, since sin is no substance. As therefore one limping, say from a wound, is healed for this end, that with the past evil cured his future gait may be set straight, so the heavenly Physician heals our evils not only that they may now be no more, but that henceforth we may be able to walk aright; which indeed, even when healed, we shall not be able to do save by His aid. For a human physician, when he has healed a man, thereafter leaves him to God, to be sustained by bodily nourishments and remedies, so that the same health, by fitting support, may grow strong and endure — God who supplies these things to those living in the flesh. His also were even those things which the physician applied while he was curing.

For no physician heals anyone from those things which he himself has created, but from the resources of Him who creates all things needful both for the healthy and for the ailing. But God Himself, when through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, He spiritually heals the sick or gives life to the dead — that is, justifies the ungodly — and when He has led him on to perfect health, that is, to perfect life and righteousness, does not forsake him, if He be not forsaken, that he may ever live piously and justly. For as the eye of the body, even when most fully sound, cannot see unless aided by the brightness of light, so a man, even when most perfectly justified, cannot live aright unless he be divinely aided by the eternal light of righteousness.

God therefore heals, not only to blot out what we have sinned, but also to grant that we sin not. Acutely indeed he treats and turns over the matter, and, as far as seems to himself, refutes and convicts what is said to them, namely 'that it was even necessary for man, in order to take away the occasion of pride or vainglory, that he should not be able to be without sin. For it is most absurd and most foolish,' he thinks, 'that sin should have been, lest there be sin, since pride itself is assuredly sin' — as though an ulcer too were not in the pain, and the cutting works pain, that pain by pain may be removed. If we had not experienced this, and heard of it in some lands where such things had never happened, without doubt, deriding it, we should perhaps even use this man's words and say:

'It is most absurd that pain should have been necessary, lest there be the pain of an ulcer.' But God, they say, can heal all things; this indeed He does, that He may heal all things, but He does it by His own judgment, nor does He receive the order of healing from the sick man. Without doubt indeed He was unwilling to make the most steadfast apostle whole, to whom nevertheless He says, 'Strength is made perfect in weakness,' and does not, though he prayed so often, take from him that thorn of the flesh, whatever it was, which he says was given him, lest he be exalted by the greatness of the revelations. For the other vices have their force only in evil deeds, but pride alone must be guarded against even in right deeds. Whence those men are admonished, lest by attributing the gifts of God to their own power and by exalting themselves they perish more grievously than if they had wrought no good — those to whom it is said:

'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to work, according to His good will.' Why then with fear and trembling, and not rather with security, if God works — unless because of our will, without which we cannot work well? It can quickly steal upon the human mind, so that what it works well it should reckon to be its own alone, and say in its abundance, 'I shall not be moved for ever.' Therefore He who by His own will had furnished strength to its beauty turned away His face a little, so that he who had said this might be troubled, since that very swelling is what must be healed by pains. And so it is not said to a man, 'It is necessary to sin, that thou sin not,' but it is said to a man:

'God forsakes thee somewhat, wherein thou art proud, that thou mayest know it is not thine but His, and mayest learn not to be proud.' For what too is that word of the Apostle! Is it not so marvellous that, unless because he himself says it, whom, when he speaks the truth, it is impious to contradict, it would be scarcely credible? For who among the faithful does not know that the first persuasion to sin came from Satan, and that he is the first author of all sins? And yet certain men 'are delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.' How then is the work of Satan shut out by the work of Satan? Let him consider these things and the like, lest those things seem to him too keen which sound sharpish and, when sifted, are found blunt. What too of the fact that he even brings forward comparisons, by which he may the more remind us what ought to be answered him?

'What more shall I say,' he says, 'except that it may be believed that fires are extinguished by fires, if it can be believed that sins are cured by sins?' What if someone cannot extinguish fires by fires, yet nevertheless, as I have shown, pains can be cured by pains? They can also, if one should seek and learn, poisons be driven out by poisons. For if one has ever observed that the heats of fevers are broken by certain medicinal heats, he will perhaps grant that even fires are extinguished by fires. 'In what way,' he says, 'shall we separate pride itself from sin? For what forces this, since it is manifest that it too is sin? To sin,' he says, 'is as much to be proud as to be proud is to sin.'

For, he says, seek what any sin whatsoever may be, and see whether you will find any sin without the name of pride. And this opinion he thus pursues and thus endeavours to prove: 'Every sin,' he says, 'unless I am mistaken, is a contempt of God, and every contempt of God is pride. For what is so proud as to despise God? Sin therefore is altogether also pride, since Scripture too says, The beginning of all sin is pride.' Let him seek diligently, and he will find that in the Law the sin of pride is much distinguished from other sins. For many sins are committed through pride, yet not all are done proudly. Things that are done amiss — surely by the ignorant, surely by the weak —

surely for the most part by those who weep and are ignorant; and pride is a certain thing which, though it be itself a great sin, is so by itself apart from others, that even for the most part, as I have said, it steals upon and creeps in not among sins but among the very right deeds, with a swifter foot. But therefore it was most truly said — which this man understood otherwise — 'The beginning of all sin is pride,' because it is pride that cast down the devil, from whom the origin of sin arose, and by ensuing envy it overthrew man standing, casting him down from thence whence itself had fallen. For it was assuredly the door of boasting, by which he might enter, that the serpent sought, when he said, 'Ye shall be as gods.' Therefore it was said, 'The beginning of all sin is pride,' and, 'The beginning of man's pride is to apostatize from God.'

But what does he mean by what he says: 'Then how will a man be able to be subject to God on account of the guilt of that sin which he has known not to be his own? For it is not his own,' he says, 'if it is necessary; or if it is his own, it is voluntary; and if it is voluntary, it can be avoided.' We answer: 'It is altogether his own, but the vice by which it is committed is not yet in every part healed; and this vice, in order that it might grow ingrained, descended from health not rightly used; from which vice a man now ailing, whether by infirmity or by blindness, commits many things for which supplication must be made, that he may be healed and thereafter live in perpetual health — not that he should be proud, as though a man were healed by the same power by which he was made vicious.'

And these things I would so say as to confess that I am ignorant of the deeper judgment of God, why He does not quickly heal even that very pride which lies in wait for the human soul even in right deeds; for the healing of which pious souls supplicate Him with tears and great groanings, that to those striving to overcome and, as it were, to tread down and crush it, He may stretch out His right hand. For where a man has rejoiced in some good work that he has even overcome pride, from that very joy he lifts up his head and says, 'Behold, I live; why dost thou triumph? and therefore I live, because thou triumphest.' For perhaps before the time it delights him to triumph over pride as though vanquished, when its last shadow shall be absorbed at that noonday which, as far as I judge, Scripture promises, saying:

'And He will bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday,' if that be done which is written above: 'Reveal thy way unto the Lord, and hope in Him, and He will do it' — not, as some suppose, that they themselves may do it. For he seems to have had regard to none, when he said 'and He will do it,' except to those who say 'We do it,' that is, 'We ourselves justify ourselves.' Wherein indeed we too work, but working with Him as He works, since His mercy goes before us. And it goes before, that we may be healed, because it will also follow after, that even when healed we may be quickened; it goes before, that we may be called, it will follow after, that we may be glorified; it goes before, that we may live piously, it will follow after, that we may ever live with Him, since without Him we can do nothing.

For both are written: 'My God, His mercy shall go before me,' and, 'Thy mercy shall follow me all the days of my life.' Let us therefore reveal our way to Him by confession, not commend it by defence. For if it be not His way but ours, without doubt it is not straight. Let us reveal it by confessing, since it is not hidden from Him, even though we try to cover it. But it is good to confess unto the Lord. For thus He will give us what pleases Him. If what displeases Him is in us, let it displease us also. He will turn aside, as it is written, our paths from His way, and will make that to be ours which is His, since it is furnished by Him to those who believe in Him and hope in Him, that He Himself may do it. For that is the just way,

which, being ignorant of it, they who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge, and wishing to establish their own, are not subject to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Law unto righteousness to everyone that believes — He who said, 'I am the way.' Yet those already walking in it the divine voice terrified, lest they should exalt themselves as though by their own strength therein. And to those to whom the Apostle says for this reason, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to work, according to His good will,' to those for this very reason the Psalm also says, 'Serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice with trembling. Lay hold of discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye perish from the just way, when His wrath shall be kindled in a short time upon you.'

He does not say 'lest at any time the Lord be angry' and 'not show you the just way,' or 'not bring you into the just way,' but He could so terrify those already walking there, as to say, 'lest ye perish from the just way.' Whence, save because pride — which I have so often said, and must often say, must be guarded against even in the very right deeds, that is, in the very just way — lest a man, while he reckons what is God's to be his own, lose what is God's and return to his own? Therefore let us do that with which the Psalm itself concludes: 'Blessed are all they that trust in Him' — assuredly that He Himself may do it, He Himself may show His way, to whom it is said, 'Show us, O Lord, thy mercy'; that He Himself may give salvation, that we may be able to walk, to whom it is said, 'And grant us thy salvation, O Lord';

that He Himself may lead us in the same way, to whom it is said, 'Lead me, O Lord, in thy way, and I will walk in thy truth'; that He Himself may bring us through to those promised things whither the way leads, to whom it is said, 'For thither thy hand shall lead me, and thy right hand shall bring me through'; that He Himself may there feed us as we recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of whom it is said, 'He will make them recline, and will pass by and minister unto them.' For when we call these things to mind, we do not take away the choice of the will, but we proclaim the grace of God. For to whom do these things profit save to one who is willing, but humbly willing, not exalting himself over the strength of his will as though it alone sufficed for the perfection of righteousness?

But far be it from us to say to him what he says is objected against him by certain persons, that 'a man is compared to God, if he be asserted to be without sin'; as though indeed an angel, who is without sin, were compared to God. For my part I hold this: that even when there shall be in us such great righteousness that nothing at all could be added to it, still the creature will not be made equal to the Creator. But if some suppose that our advancement shall be so great that we are converted into the substance of God and become altogether what He is, let them see how they may build up their opinion; to me I confess this is not persuaded. Now indeed I greatly favour the author of this book in this, that against those who say:

'What you assert seems indeed reasonable, but it is proud to say that a man can be without sin' — he so answers that altogether, if it be true, it must in no way be called proud. For he says most acutely and most truly: 'In which part rather is humility to be placed? Without doubt of falsehood, if in that which is proved to be of truth there is pride.' And by this it pleases him, and rightly pleases him, that humility should rather be placed in the part of truth, not in the part of falsehood. From which it follows that he who said, 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,' should least of all be doubted to have spoken truly, lest for the cause of humility he should seem to have spoken this falsely. For therefore he added:

'and the truth is not in us,' when perhaps it might have sufficed to say 'we deceive ourselves,' had he not been mindful that some might suppose it was said 'we deceive ourselves' for this reason, that whoever praises himself even for a true good is puffed up. And so by adding 'and the truth is not in us' he manifestly shows — as most rightly pleases even this man — that this is altogether not true, namely, 'If we say that we have no sin,' lest humility, being placed in the part of falsehood, should lose the reward of truth. Moreover, as to the fact that he seems to plead God's cause for himself by defending nature, he does not attend to this, that by saying that this same nature is sound he repels the mercy of the Physician. But He is the Creator of it who is its Saviour.

We ought not therefore so to praise the Creator that we are compelled — nay rather truly convicted — to call the Saviour superfluous. Let us therefore honour the nature of man with worthy praises, and let us refer those praises to the glory of the Creator; but as He created us, so let us be grateful, that we be not, because He heals us, ungrateful. Our vices indeed, which He heals, let us attribute not to the divine work, but to the human will and to His just vengeance; yet as we confess that it was in our power that they should not have befallen, so let us acknowledge that for them to be healed lies rather in His mercy than in our power. This man places this mercy and the medicinal aid of the Saviour only in this, 'that He may forgive past deeds, not that He may help toward avoiding future ones.'

Here he is most perniciously deceived; here, even though unwitting, he forbids us to watch and pray that we enter not into temptation, since he contends that for this not to befall us lies only in our own power. 'The examples of certain persons whom we read to have sinned,' he indeed rightly says — whoever is soundly wise — 'were not written so that they might avail toward despair of not sinning, and might in some way seem to offer us security in sinning, but that we might learn either the humility of repentance, or that even in such falls salvation is not to be despaired of.' For certain men, fallen into sins, perish the more by despair, and not only neglect the medicine of repentance, but become slaves of lusts and of wicked cravings to fulfil their dishonourable and nefarious desires;

as though they lose something, if they do not do what lust urges, whereas a certain damnation already awaits them. Against this most dangerous and deadly disease the calling to mind of the sins into which even the just and holy have fallen has great force. But he seems to ask acutely, 'in what way we are to believe that those holy ones departed from this life, whether with sin or without sin'; so that, if it be answered 'with sin,' damnation may be supposed to have followed them, which it is impious to believe; but if it be said that they went out of this life without sin, he may prove that a man, at least when death drew near, was without sin in this life. Wherein he attends too little, though he is most acute. For not in vain do even the just say in prayer:

'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors,' and the Lord Christ, when in teaching He had unfolded that same prayer, most truthfully subjoined, 'For if ye forgive men their sins, your Father will also forgive you your sins.' For by this daily spiritual incense, as it were, which is offered before God upon the altar of the heart, which we are admonished to have on high, even if here one does not live without sin, yet it is possible to die without sin, while by turns the pardon blots out what by turns is committed through ignorance or infirmity. Then he calls to mind those 'who are recorded not only not to have sinned, but even to have lived justly: Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan,'

'Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Ezekiel, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed, John.' He adds also women: 'Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna the daughter of Phanuel, Elizabeth.' Even the very mother of our Lord and Saviour, 'whom,' he says, 'piety requires to be confessed without sin.' Excepting therefore the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the honour of the Lord, I wish no question at all to be raised when sins are treated — for whence do we know what greater measure of grace was conferred upon her for overcoming sin in every part, who deserved to conceive and bear Him who is manifest to have had no sin? —