For into whomsoever the Apostle may transfigure himself, even if he does not say these things of his own self, he certainly transfigures a man into himself. But by this man, human nature itself is defended as having an inseparable possibility of sinning in nothing. Yet by these words this is being wrought even by one who speaks unknowing—but not unknowing is he who suggests these things to be spoken to the incautious, even to those who fear God, that the grace of Christ may be made void, nature as it were sufficing of itself for a man's own righteousness. But that the odium may be turned aside, whereby Christians cry out for their own salvation and say, 'Why do you say that a man can not sin without the aid of the grace of God?'—'This very possibility of not sinning,' he says, 'lies not so much in the power of choice as in the necessity of nature.'
'Whatever is set in the necessity of nature is not doubted to pertain to the Author of nature, namely God. How then,' he says, 'is it thought to be said apart from the grace of God, which is shown to pertain properly to God?' The sentence that lay hidden is now expressed; there is no way in which it can be concealed. Therefore he attributes to the grace of God the possibility of not sinning, because God is the Author of that nature to which he says the possibility of not sinning is inseparably implanted. When therefore it wills, let it do it; because it does not will, it does not do it. For where there is an inseparable possibility, there cannot befall it any infirmity of the will, or rather that which is only the 'presence' of the will and the lack of perfection. If then it is so, whence comes that saying:
'to will is present, but to perform the good is not present'? For if this man who wrote this book were speaking of that nature of man which was first created blameless and sound, this saying might in some way be accepted; although that nature which could be corrupted, and could seek a physician to heal the eyes of the blind and restore the possibility of seeing that had been lost, ought not to be said to have an inseparable—that is, so to speak, an inamissible—possibility. For through this question, since the blind man, I think, would will to see, but cannot; but if he wills and cannot, the will is within, but the possibility is lost. Behold yet what masses he tries—by which he leads on his opinion—to break through, if he could.
For he sets before himself a question, saying: 'But the flesh, according to the Apostle, is contrary to us, you will say.' Then he answers: 'How can it be that the flesh should be contrary to one baptized, since, according to the same Apostle, he is understood not to be in the flesh? For thus he says: But ye are not in the flesh.' Well, that he says the flesh cannot be contrary to the baptized—whether that is true we shall see afterward. But now, because he could not utterly forget that he is a Christian, but remembered it, albeit slightly, he withdrew from the defence of nature. Where then is the inseparability of the possibility? Or are those not yet baptized perhaps not in the nature of men? Here indeed, here he could be watchful, and if he takes heed, he can.
'How can it be,' he says, 'that to anyone baptized the flesh should be contrary?' Therefore to the unbaptized the flesh can be contrary. Let him explain in what way, since even in them there is that nature so much defended by him. Certainly at least in them he concedes it to be corrupted. If already in the baptized that wounded man has come forth sound from the inn, or is sound in the inn, whither the merciful Samaritan conveyed him to be cared for. Furthermore, if he concedes that even to these the flesh is contrary, let him say what has befallen, since each is—that is, both flesh and spirit—a creature of one and the same Creator, without doubt good, because from Him who is good; unless because this is the fault which has been inflicted by one's own will;
and in order that this may be healed in nature, by that very fact there is need of a Saviour, by whom nature was established as Creator. If we should confess that there is need of this Saviour, and of that His medicine whereby 'the Word was made flesh, that He might dwell in us,' for small and great, that is, from the wailings of infants even to the grey hairs of old men, then the whole controversy of this question which lies between us is dissolved. Now then let us see whether the flesh is read to be contrary even to the baptized. Here I ask, to whom was the Apostle speaking: 'The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would'? To the Galatians, as I suppose, he wrote this, to whom he says:
'He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' Whence it appears that he was speaking to Christians, and to those to whom God had ministered the Spirit—therefore to the baptized also. Behold, even to the baptized the flesh is found to be contrary, and that possibility is not present which he says is inseparably implanted in nature. Where is that which he says: 'How can it be that to anyone baptized the flesh should be contrary?' In whatever way he understands the flesh—since in truth not its nature, which is good, but the carnal vices of the flesh are here designated by the name—yet even to the baptized the flesh is contrary. And how contrary? So that they do not do what they would. Behold, the will is present in the man; where is that possibility of nature?
Let us confess grace to be necessary; let us cry out: 'Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' And let it be answered to us: 'The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' For when it is most rightly said to these men, 'Why do you say that a man can be without sin without the aid of the grace of God?'—the question then is not about that grace whereby man was created, but about this whereby he is made whole through Jesus Christ our Lord. For the faithful, praying, say: 'Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.' If the possibility is present, to what end do they pray? Or from what evil do they pray to be delivered, except chiefly from the body of this death, whence none delivers save the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord?
not indeed from the substance of the body, which is good, but from the carnal vices, from which man is not delivered without the grace of the Saviour, not even when through the death of the body he departs from the body. And that the Apostle might say this, what had he said above? 'I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.' Behold what fault the disobedience of the will has inflicted upon human nature. Let it be permitted to pray, that it may be healed. Why is so much presumed of the possibility of nature? It is wounded, injured, harassed, ruined. It has need of true confession, not of false defence.
Let the grace of God therefore be sought—not that by which nature is established, but that by which it is restored; which grace alone is cried out by this man not to be necessary, while it is passed over in silence. For if he had said nothing at all about the grace of God, nor proposed to himself that question to be solved, in order to remove from himself the odium concerning this matter, he might have been thought indeed to hold what the truth holds, but not to have said it—because not everything is to be said everywhere. But he proposed the question about grace, and answered what he had in his heart; the question is settled—not the one we did not wish, but the one where we were in doubt what he thought. Then with many words of the Apostle he tries to show—wherein there is no controversy—'that the flesh is by him so often named that he wishes to be understood not the substance, but the works of the flesh.' What is that to the matter?
The vices of the flesh are contrary to the will of man; nature is not accused, but for the vices a physician is sought. What is it that he asks: 'Who made the spirit for man?' And he answers himself: 'Without doubt, God.' And again he asks: 'Who created the flesh?' And again he answers: 'The same, I believe, God.' He asks a third time: 'Is the God who created both good?' He answers: 'To none is it doubtful.' Still he asks: 'And is each thing which the good Author created good?' And to this he answers: 'It must be confessed.' Then he concludes: 'If therefore both the spirit is good and the flesh good, as founded by a good Author, how can it be that two goods should be able to be contrary to each other?' I forbear to say that this whole reasoning of his would be thrown into confusion, if someone should ask of him:
'Who made heat and cold?' For he would without doubt answer: 'God.' I do not ask many things; let him himself conclude whether either these can be said not good, or whether they do not appear to be contrary to each other. Here perhaps he says: 'These are qualities of substances, not substances.' So it is, it is true; but they are natural qualities, and without doubt pertaining to God's creation; for substances are said to be contrary to each other not through themselves, but through their qualities, as water and fire. What if the flesh and the spirit are so? Which indeed we do not affirm; but we have said this in order to show that his reasoning was concluded by a non-necessary inference.
For contraries can also not be adverse to one another, but be tempered from either side and yield good health, as in the body dryness and moisture, cold, heat—by the tempering of all which good bodily health consists. But that the flesh is contrary to the spirit, so that we do not the things that we would, is a fault, not nature. Let a healing grace be sought, and let the controversy be ended. For how can these two goods, founded by the good God, be contrary to each other—against his reasoning—in unbaptized men? Or will he repent of having said this too, which he spoke by some feeling of the Christian faith? For when he said:
'How can it be that to anyone already baptized the flesh should be contrary?'—he signified that to the unbaptized the flesh could be contrary. For why did he add 'already baptized,' when he could say even without this addition: 'How can it be that to anyone the flesh should be contrary?' and, to prove this, subjoin that reasoning of his, that both are good, founded by a good Author, and therefore cannot be contrary to each other? If therefore the unbaptized, to whom he certainly confesses the flesh to be contrary, should press him with his own interrogations and say: 'Who made the spirit for man?' this man will answer: 'God.' And again they: 'Who created the flesh?' This man answers: 'The same, I believe, God.' They a third time: 'Is the God who created both good?'
and this man: 'To none is it doubtful.' And they inquire the one thing that remains: 'And is each thing which the good Author created good?' This man will confess it. Then they with his own sword will cut his throat, bringing in his conclusion and saying: 'If therefore the spirit is good and the flesh good, as founded by a good Author, how can it be that two goods should be able to be contrary to each other?' Here perhaps he will answer: 'Grant pardon, because I ought not to have said that to anyone baptized the flesh cannot be contrary—so as in this way to confess it contrary to you the unbaptized—but I ought to have said without any exception that the flesh is contrary to no one.' Behold into what he drives himself, so that the things which he speaks are such, since he is unwilling to cry out with the Apostle:
'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' 'But why,' he says, 'should I cry out, being already baptized in Christ? Let those cry it out who have not yet received such a benefit, whose voices in himself the Apostle was figuring—if indeed they even say this.' But this defence of nature does not permit even those to cry out with this voice. For neither is there nature in the baptized and no nature in the unbaptized. Or if even in them it is conceded to be corrupted, so that not without cause they cry out: 'Unhappy man! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?'—and let succour be given them in that which follows: 'The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord'—let it be conceded at last, at some time, that human nature has need of the Physician Christ.
But I ask: where did our nature lose that liberty which it longs to have granted to it, when it says, 'Who shall deliver me?' For in that passage it does not accuse the substance of the flesh, when it says that it desires to be delivered from the body of this death; since the nature of the body, like that of the soul, must be ascribed to God, the good Author. Rather, it is speaking of the vices of the body. For death separates the body's death from the body; but the vices contracted from it cling fast, and to these a just penalty is owed, such as that rich man found even in hell. From this the one who said, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' could by no means deliver himself.
But wherever it may have lost this liberty, surely that native capacity is inseparable: it has the power through natural resources, it has the will through free choice; why then does it seek the sacrament of baptism? Is it perhaps on account of past deeds committed, so that only those things may be pardoned which cannot be made as though they never happened? Let the man be free to cry out what he was crying out. For he does not only desire that through indulgence he be left unpunished for the past, but also that henceforth he be strong and mighty unto not sinning. For he delights in the law of God according to the inward man, but he sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind; he sees it as present, he does not merely recall it as past; he is pressed by present things, he does not merely remember past ones.
Nor does he see it merely warring, but even taking him captive to the law of sin which is in his members—the law that is, not that was. Hence it is that he cries out: 'Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Let him be allowed to pray, let him be allowed to beg the help of the most powerful Physician. Why is he contradicted? Why is he shouted down? Why is the wretched man forbidden to seek the mercy of Christ—and that by Christians? For they too were walking with Christ who, by shouting, forbade the blind man to seek his sight; yet even amid the tumult of those who contradicted, He heard the man crying out. Whence to this man the answer was given: 'The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.'
Further, if from these people we obtain even this, that the not-yet-baptized should implore the aid of the Saviour's grace, this is indeed no small thing against that false defence of a nature and a power of free choice supposedly self-sufficient; for he is by no means self-sufficient who says, 'Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me?' Nor is he to be said to have full liberty who still asks to be set free. Yet let us also consider this: whether those who have been baptized do the good things they will with no lust of the flesh resisting. But what shall we say on this point? He himself brings it to mind where, concluding this passage, he says: as we have said, this by which it is held together—
'The flesh lusts against the spirit'—this must be understood not of the substance of the flesh, but of its works. This we too say: that it was spoken not of the substance of the flesh, but of the works which come from carnal lust, that is, from sin, of which He commands that it should not reign in our mortal body to obey its desires. But let him too take note that it was said to those already baptized: 'The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that you do not the things that you would.' And lest he make them sluggish in the very struggle, and by this saying seem to have granted licence for sinning, he adds: 'But if you are led by the Spirit, you are no longer under the law.'
For a man is under the law who abstains from the work of sin through fear of the punishment which the law threatens, not through love of righteousness—not yet free, nor a stranger to the will of sinning. For in the very will he is guilty, in that he would prefer, if it could be so, that there were nothing to fear, so that he might do freely what he secretly desires. Therefore, 'if you are led by the Spirit,' he says, 'you are no longer under the law'—under the law, namely, which instils fear and does not bestow charity; which charity of God is poured out in our hearts not through the letter of the law, but through the Holy Spirit who is given to us. This is the law of liberty, not of servitude, because it is the law of charity, surely, and not of fear; concerning which the apostle James also says: 'But he who has looked into the perfect law of liberty.'
Hence that man too was indeed no longer terrified by the law of God as a slave, but delighted in it according to the inward man; yet he still sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind. So here too: 'If you are led by the Spirit,' he says, 'you are no longer under the law.' In so far as anyone is led by the Spirit, he is not under the law—because in so far as he delighted in the law of God, he is not under the fear of the law, for fear has torment, not delight. Accordingly, if we judge rightly, just as we ought to give thanks for members that have been healed, so ought we to pray for those still to be healed, that we may enjoy a most absolute soundness of health to which nothing can be added, the perfect sweetness of God, and full liberty.
For we do not deny that human nature can be without sin, nor ought we in any way to deny that it can be perfected—the nature which we do not deny can make progress; but by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. By His help, we say, it comes about that it is righteous and blessed—the God by whom it was created that it might exist. So then it is easily refuted, what he says is objected against him by certain persons: 'The devil is our adversary.' To this objection we answer precisely the same words that he himself answered: 'Let us resist him, and he will flee.' 'Resist,' says the blessed apostle, 'the devil, and he will flee from you.' Hence we should note what harm he can do to those from whom he flees, or of what strength he must be understood to be, who can prevail only against those who do not resist. These too are my words;
for nothing truer can be said. But this is the difference between us and these people: that we, even when the devil is being resisted, not only do not deny but even proclaim that God's help is to be sought; whereas they ascribe such power to the will that they take prayer away from piety. For surely, in order that we may resist the devil and he may flee from us, we say in our prayers, 'Lead us not into temptation'; for this reason too we have been admonished, as it were by a commander exhorting his soldiers and saying, 'Watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation.' But as to his disputing against those who say, 'And who would not wish to be without sin, if this were placed within man's power?'—he indeed argues rightly, 'that by this very fact it is not impossible for them,'
'since many or even all wish this'; but let him confess whence this is possible, and there is peace. For it is the very grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by which these people are altogether unwilling ever to say that we who pray are helped so as not to sin. But if perchance he secretly holds this, let him pardon those who suspect otherwise. For he himself brings this about, who, though he suffers such great odium in this matter, wishes to hold it but is unwilling to confess or profess it. What great thing would it have been for him to say this, especially since he undertook to treat and lay open this very objection put to him as if from the persons of his adversaries? Why did he there wish to defend nature alone, and that man was so created that he could not sin, if he should be unwilling to sin?
he asserted, and thereby defined that this capacity—by which man was so created that, if he should be unwilling to sin, he does not sin—pertains to the grace of God; and he was unwilling to say anything about that whereby nature itself is either healed by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, because it is corrupted, or is helped because it is not sufficient for itself. For whether in this present age there has been, or is, or can be anyone living so righteously as to have no sin at all, there may be some question among true and devout Christians; but that there can be such after this life, whoever doubts, is a fool. Yet I do not even wish to contend about this present life. For although it does not seem to me that what is written should be understood otherwise:
'In your sight shall no living man be justified,' and any similar passages—yet would that it could be shown either that these testimonies can better be understood otherwise, or that a perfect and full righteousness, to which absolutely nothing need be added, both existed yesterday in someone while he lived in this body, and exists today, and will exist tomorrow; provided, however, that there are far more who—though they do not doubt that it is necessary for them, right up to the last day of this life, to say truthfully, 'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors'—nevertheless trust that their hope in Christ and in His promises is true, certain, and firm!
But whoever should deny that no one, by any means except by the assisting grace of the crucified Saviour Christ and the gift of His Spirit, can attain either to the fullest perfection or to any degree of advance whatever in true and devout righteousness—I do not know whether he can rightly be reckoned in the number of Christians of any sort. And on this account, those testimonies too which he cited not indeed from the canonical Scriptures, but from certain little works of Catholic writers, wishing to counter those who said that he alone was defending these things, are so middling that they are neither against our view nor against his own. Among these he wished also to insert something from my books, reckoning even me as someone who might seem worthy to be mentioned along with them.
Hence I ought not to be ungrateful, and out of a more friendly affection I do not wish him to err, who has paid me this honour. For the first passages which he set down—since I did not there read the name of the one who said them, whether because that author did not write them, or because the manuscript which you sent, perhaps through some scribal error, did not contain it—what need is there to discuss them? Especially since, being free with regard to the writings of any men of this sort—for I owe assent without any refusal to the canonical Scriptures alone—something does move me somewhat which he set down from the writings of that author whose name I did not find there: 'It was fitting that the master and teacher of virtue should become most like to man, so that by conquering sin he might teach man that he can conquer sin.'
In what sense this was said, let the author of this statement see how he can expound it; provided only that we in no way doubt that Christ had no sin in Himself that He should conquer—He who was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh. Another statement of the same author he set down thus: 'And again: that, with the desires of the flesh subdued, He might teach that sinning is not a matter of necessity, but of purpose and of will.' As for me, the desires of the flesh—if unlawful lusts are not here meant—I understand to be such as hunger, thirst, the refreshing of weariness, and anything of this kind. For through these certain persons, although these things are blameless in themselves, fall into faults;
which was far from that Saviour, even though we see, on the testimony of the Gospel, that these things were in Him on account of the likeness of sinful flesh. But as for the blessed Hilary, whose words he set down: 'For only when perfected in spirit and changed by immortality—which is appointed to the pure in heart alone—shall we behold that which in God is immortal'; in what respect this was said against what we say, or how it helps him, I do not know—except that he testified that a man can be pure in heart. Who denies this? But it is by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, not by liberty of choice alone. Likewise, in that he records him to have said: 'What letters had Job read, that he might abstain from every evil thing?'—
'because he worships God with a mind alone unmixed with vices, and to worship God is the proper office of righteousness'—he says what Job did, not what he perfected in this age, or would have done or perfected without the grace of the Saviour, whom Job also prophesied. For even he abstains from every evil thing who has a sin which he does not allow to reign in himself, upon whom a reprehensible thought creeps, which he does not permit to reach the completion of the deed. But it is one thing not to have sin, another not to obey its desires; it is one thing to fulfil what is commanded, 'You shall not covet,' and another, by a certain effort of abstinence, at least to do what is likewise written:
'Go not after your lusts'—yet knowing that none of these things can he rightly do without the grace of the Saviour. To do righteousness, therefore, in the true worship of God, is to fight by an inner conflict against the inward evil of concupiscence; but to perfect it is to have no adversary at all. For he who fights and is still in peril is also sometimes struck down, even if he is not laid low; but he who has no adversary rejoices in full peace. And that man is most truly said to be without sin in whom no sin dwells—not he who through abstinence from the evil deed says, 'It is no longer I who work it, but the sin that dwells in me.'
For Job himself too does not keep silent about his own sins; and surely to this friend of ours it rightly pleases that humility should in no way be placed on the side of falsehood. Hence what Job confesses—because he is a truthful worshipper of God—without doubt he confesses truthfully. And Hilary himself, when he was expounding the passage of the psalm where it is written, 'You have despised all who depart from your justifications,' says: 'For if God despised sinners, He would surely despise all, since no one is without sin; but He despises those who depart from Him, whom He calls apostates.' You see how he did not say that no one has been without sin, as though speaking of past things, but that no one is without sin. On which point, indeed, as I said, I do not contend;
for whoever does not yield to the apostle John—who not even himself says, 'If we should say that we have not had sin,' but 'we have not sin'—how will he yield to bishop Hilary? For the grace of Christ I cry out, without which no one is justified—as though free choice were sufficient for nature. Nay rather, he himself cries out for it; let him yield to the One who says, 'Without me you can do nothing.' But holy Ambrose, in truth, in that very passage which this man records, resists those who say that a man cannot be without sin in this life. For in order to say this, he took occasion from Zechariah and Elizabeth, who in the Gospel are recorded to have walked in all the justifications of the law without blame.
Yet does he deny that it comes to pass by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord? For that even before His passion the righteous lived by this faith there is no doubt—He who bestows the Holy Spirit, through whom charity is poured out in our hearts, by which alone all who are righteous are righteous. Which Spirit the aforesaid bishop admonishes is to be obtained even by prayers—so truly the will, unaided by God, is not sufficient—where in his hymn he says: 'And to earnest prayers He grants to merit the Holy Spirit.' I too will record something from this very work of holy Ambrose, from which this man recorded what he thought worth recording: 'It seemed good,' he says, 'to me.' It can seem good not to him alone, which he declares seemed good to himself.