教牧守則·對話錄與書信 第 737 章

Gregory to Brunhild, queen of the Franks. We render thanks to almighty God who, among the other gifts of His mercy which He has bestowed upon your Excellency, has so filled you with love of the Christian religion, that whatever you recognize as pertaining to the gain of souls, whatever to the propagation of the faith, you cease not to work with devout mind and pious zeal. But with how great favour and how great help your Excellency aided our most reverend brother and fellow-bishop Augustine as he set out to the nation of the Angles, both report did not before keep silent, and afterward certain monks returning from him to us have subtly recounted.

And indeed let others marvel at these things concerning your Christianity, to whom your benefits are as yet less known; for to us, to whom they are already known by experience, it is not a thing to be marvelled at, but to be rejoiced over, because through that which you bestow on others, you help yourselves. Of what and how great miracles, therefore, our Redeemer wrought in the conversion of the above-written nation, it is already known to your Excellency. For which reason you ought to have great gladness, because the greater part of this matter is claimed by the comforts of your bestowals, by whose aids, after God, the word of preaching became known there. For he who aids another's good makes it his own.

But that the fruit of your reward may be more and more abundant, we ask that you more kindly administer the supports of your patronage to the monks who bear this present letter, whom we have sent, together with our most beloved sons the presbyter Laurentius and the abbot Mellitus, to the aforesaid most reverend brother and fellow-bishop of ours — because he says that those who are with him cannot suffice for him — and that you thus deign to be present to them in all things; so that, when better things succeed the good beginnings of your Excellency, and they find there no delays or difficulties, you may so much the more provoke the mercy of our God toward you and your grandchildren most sweet to us, as you show yourselves mercifully in causes of this kind for love of Him.

Gregory to Brunhild, queen of the Franks. How great good things have been conferred upon you by the divine gift, and how great a piety of supernal grace has filled you, this too — among the other testimonies of your merits — plainly makes known to all, in that you both govern by the provident art of counsel even the fierce hearts of the heathen, and — what is of yet greater praise — adorn royal power with wisdom. And since, just as you excel many nations in both respects, so too you surpass them in sincerity of faith, we take great confidence in you for the amending of unlawful things. For how your Excellency embraced our exhortation, and with how great devotion you long to fulfil the same, the page of your writings sent forth some time ago is witness.

But because He is wont to be the helper of good minds who is also the bestower of them, we trust that He will so much the more graciously dispose your affairs by His piety, the more He Himself sees you to be solicitous for the cause of His own. It is easy for what is God's, and God will do what is yours. Therefore command a synod to be gathered, and studiously forbid the sin of the simoniac heresy from your kingdom, among other things, as we wrote before, by the definition of a council. Offer sacrifice to God, the inner enemy being vanquished, that you may, with Him helping, conquer your external adversaries; and such zeal as you shall have shown against His enemies, such may you feel Him to be in your aid.

But believe me, that — as we have already learned by the experience of many — whatever is gathered together with sin is spent to loss. If therefore you wish to lose nothing unjustly, take the utmost care to have nothing from injustice. For in earthly matters the cause of loss is ever the origin of sin. You therefore, if you wish to be pre-eminent over the adverse nations, if you hasten, God being the author, to exist as victors over them, receive with trembling the precepts of the same almighty God, that He Himself may deign to fight for you against your adversaries, who through the sacred utterance has promised, saying: The Lord shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace (Exod. XIV, 14).

The beginning of the letter on the exposition of divers matters by blessed Gregory, pope of the city of Rome, which he sent across the sea into Saxony to Augustine, whom he himself sent in his stead to preach. I ask, most blessed father, concerning bishops, how they are to conduct themselves with their clergy. Or concerning those things which by the faithful come as offerings to the altars, and how many portions ought to be made, and how the bishop ought to act in the Church. — Holy Scripture bears witness, which I do not doubt you know well, and especially the epistles of blessed Paul to Timothy, in which he strove to instruct him how he ought to conduct himself in the house of God. But it is the custom of the apostolic see

to hand down a precept to bishops when they are ordained, that of all the stipend which comes in, four portions ought to be made: namely one for the bishop and his household on account of hospitality and reception, another for the clergy, the third for the poor, and the fourth for the repairing of churches. But because your fraternity, instructed in the rules of the monastery, ought not to live apart from your clergy in the Church of the Angles, which by God's authorship has lately been brought to the faith, you ought to establish that manner of life which in the beginning of the nascent Church was among our Fathers, among whom none of them said that anything of what they possessed was his own, but all things were common to them (Acts IV).

For I desire to be taught whether the clergy, being unable to contain themselves, may marry; and if they have married, whether they ought to return to the world. If, however, there are any clergy constituted outside sacred orders who cannot contain themselves, they ought to take wives, and to receive their stipends externally, because we know it is written also of those same Fathers of whom we have spoken before, that it was distributed to each according as each had need. Thought and provision must therefore be made concerning their stipend, and they are to be held under ecclesiastical rule, that they may live by good morals, and be vigilant in singing psalms, and, God being the author, keep heart and tongue and body from all unlawful things.

But for those living the common life, what shall we have to say concerning the making of portions, or the showing of hospitality, and the fulfilling of mercy? Since all that is over and above the necessities must be laid out for pious and religious causes, the Lord and master saying to all: What remains, give as alms, and behold, all things are clean to you (Luke XI, 41). — Since the faith is one, why are the customs of the Churches so diverse; and one custom of Masses is held in the Roman Church, and another in the Churches of the Gauls? — Your fraternity knows the custom of the Roman Church, in which it remembers that it was reared. But it pleases me that whether in the Roman or in that of the Gauls,

or if in any Church you have found something that may please the almighty God more, choose it carefully, and instil into the Church of the English, which is still new in the faith, the outstanding practice which you have been able to gather from many Churches. For things are not to be loved by us on account of places, but places on account of things. From each and every Church, therefore, choose out those things that are devout, that are religious, that are right, and bind these, as it were, into a little bundle and lay them up as a custom in the minds of the English. I beseech you, expound to me what one ought to suffer if anyone has stolen something from a church. This your fraternity can weigh from the character of the thief, as to how he may be corrected.

For there are some who, though they have means of support, nevertheless commit theft, and there are others who transgress in this matter through want and poverty. Hence it is necessary that some be corrected by fines, others indeed by stripes, and some more severely, others more lightly. And when one proceeds a little more severely, it must be done out of charity and not out of rage, since this very thing is bestowed upon him who is corrected, lest he be handed over to the fires of Gehenna. For we ought to maintain discipline over the faithful just as good fathers are wont to do toward their carnal sons, whom they both strike with blows for their faults, and yet seek to have as heirs those very ones whom they afflict with pains, and preserve for them the very things they possess, those very ones whom they seem in anger to pursue. This charity, therefore, is to be held in the mind;

and it dictates the measure of correction, so that the mind may do nothing at all outside the rule of reason. You add also: how ought those who have taken things from churches by theft to make restitution? But far be it that the Church should receive with increase what it seems to have lost in earthly goods, and should seek profits from its losses. You ask whether two brothers by blood ought to take two sisters who are descended from them by a long line of generations. This is by all means permitted. For nothing is found in the sacred oracles that would seem to contradict this article. To what degree of generation ought the faithful to be joined in marriage with their kindred, and whether it be lawful to be joined in marriage with stepmothers and kinswomen? A certain earthly law

in the Roman commonwealth permits that the son and daughter of a brother, or of a sister, or of two brothers by blood, or of two sisters, may be joined together. But we have learned by experience that offspring cannot spring up and thrive from such a union. And the sacred law forbids to uncover the shame of one's kindred. Hence it is necessary that only in the third or fourth generation may the faithful lawfully be joined to one another. For the second, as we have said, they ought by all means to abstain from among themselves. To be joined with a stepmother is a grave crime, since it is written also in the Law: You shall not uncover the shame of your father (Lev. 18:7). For a son cannot uncover the shame of his father; but since it is written in the Law: They shall be two in one flesh (Gen.

2:24), he who presumes to uncover the shame of a stepmother, who was one flesh with the father, has assuredly uncovered the shame of the father. It is likewise forbidden to be joined with a kinswoman, who through a former union has become the flesh of a brother. For this very reason also John the Baptist was beheaded and crowned with holy martyrdom. He was not told to deny Christ, and yet he was slain for the confession of Christ; but because our same Lord Jesus Christ had said: I am the truth (John 14:6), since John was slain for the truth, he shed his blood for Christ. I ask to be told whether separation is to be enjoined upon those thus basely joined, and the offering of holy communion denied them.

But because there are many among the English nation who, while they were still in unbelief, are said to have been mingled in this abominable union, when they come to the faith they are to be admonished to abstain from it and to recognise that this is a grave sin. Let them fear the tremendous judgement of God, lest for carnal pleasure they incur the torments of eternal punishment. Yet they are not for this reason to be deprived of the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, lest we should seem to avenge upon them those things in which they bound themselves through ignorance before the washing of baptism.

For in this present time holy Church corrects some things through zeal, tolerates some through gentleness, and connives at and bears with some through consideration, so that often, by bearing and conniving, she may check the evil that opposes her. But all who come to the faith are to be admonished not to dare to perpetrate any such thing. If, however, any do perpetrate it, they are to be deprived of the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord; for just as in those who acted through ignorance the fault is to some extent to be tolerated, so in those who do not fear knowingly to sin, it is to be strongly pursued. I ask, if a great distance of journey lies between, so that bishops cannot easily come together, whether a bishop ought to be ordained without the presence of other bishops.

And indeed in the Church of the English, in which you as yet are found to be the only bishop, you cannot ordain a bishop otherwise than without bishops. For when bishops come from Gaul, they will stand by as witnesses to you in the ordination of a bishop. But we wish your fraternity so to ordain bishops in England that the bishops themselves be by no means separated from one another by a long interval, so that there may be no necessity that, in the ordination of any bishop, they be unable to come together. The presence also of certain pastors is very useful, so that they may most easily come together. When, therefore, by God's authorship, bishops shall have been thus ordained even in places near to one another,

in all things the ordination of bishops ought not to take place without the assembling of three or four bishops. For we can draw an example, even from carnal matters, for those very spiritual matters, so that they may be wisely and maturely arranged. For certainly, while marriages are being celebrated in the world, those who are married are summoned together, so that those who have already gone before in the way of wedlock may also share in the joy that follows. Why then, in this spiritual ordination also, whereby through a sacred mystery man is joined to God, should not such men come together as may either rejoice in the advancement of the ordained bishop, or pour forth prayers together to the almighty Lord for his keeping? I ask also how we ought to deal with the bishops of Gaul and of Britain.

Over the bishops of Gaul we grant you no authority, since from the times of my ancient predecessors the bishop of Arles received the pallium, and we ought by no means to deprive him of the authority he has received. If, therefore, it should happen that your fraternity crosses over to the provinces of Gaul, you ought to deal with the same bishop of Arles as to how, if there be any faults in the bishops, they may be corrected. And if perchance he be lukewarm in the rigour of discipline, he is to be kindled by the zeal of your fraternity. To him also we have written letters (indiction 4, letter

68), that when your holiness's presence shall be in Gaul, he himself may with his whole mind assist you, so that you may together check whatever things in the manners of the bishops are contrary to the commandment of our Creator. But you yourself shall not be able by your own authority to judge the bishops of Gaul; but rather by persuading, by coaxing, and also by showing your good works for their imitation, by reforming the minds of the wicked toward the pursuits of holiness, since it is written in the Law: He who passes through another's harvest ought not to put in the sickle; but he may rub the ears with his hand and eat (Deut. 23:25). You cannot, therefore, put the sickle of judgement into that crop which seems to have been entrusted to another;

but by the affection of good work strip the Lord's grain from the chaff of their vices, and convert it into the body of the Church by admonishing and persuading, as it were by chewing. But whatever is to be done by authority, let it be done with the aforesaid bishop of Arles, lest that which the ancient institution of the Fathers has established be able to be passed over. But the care of all the bishops of Britain we commit to your fraternity, so that the untaught may be taught, the weak strengthened by persuasion, the perverse corrected by authority. I beseech that the relics of the holy martyr Sixtus be transmitted to us.

We have done what you asked, in order that the people who in a certain place said they venerated the body of the holy martyr Sixtus — which to your fraternity seems neither true nor truly holy — may, receiving the benefits of a most holy and most approved martyr, not cling to venerating uncertain things.

Yet it seems to me that if a body which is believed by the people to be that of some martyr shines with no miracles there, and if there are none of the older folk who declare that they heard from their parents the order of his passion, then the relics which you asked for are to be laid up apart, so that the place in which the aforesaid body lies may be by all means blocked off, and the people not be permitted to forsake the certain and venerate the uncertain. Whether a pregnant woman ought to be baptised, or after she has given birth, after how long a time she may enter the church. Or again, lest what she has borne be forestalled by death, after how many days it may be lawful for it to receive the sacraments of holy baptism. Or after how long a time her husband may be joined to her in carnal union.

Or if she is held by the monthly custom, whether it is lawful for her to enter the church or to receive the sacrament of holy communion. Or a man, having lain with his wife, before he is washed with water, whether he may enter the church, or even approach the ministry of holy communion. All these things it behoves the rude nation of the English to have made known to them. I do not doubt that your fraternity has been asked this, to which I think I have also added my reply. But this which you yourself were able to say and feel, I believe you wished to be confirmed by my response to you.

As for why a pregnant woman ought not to be baptised — since the fruitfulness of the flesh is no fault before the eyes of almighty God? For when our first parents in paradise had sinned, they lost, by the just judgement of God, the immortality they had received. Since, therefore, almighty God did not wish utterly to blot out the human race for its fault, both took away immortality from man for his sin, and yet, out of the loving-kindness of His mercy, reserved to him the fruitfulness of offspring. What, therefore, has been preserved to human nature by the gift of almighty God — by what reasoning can it be forbidden the grace of holy baptism? For in that mystery in which every fault is utterly extinguished, it is exceedingly foolish if it should seem that the gift of grace can be gainsaid.

But when a woman has given birth, after how many days she ought to enter the church, you have learned from the precept of the Old Testament: that for a male she ought to abstain thirty-three days, but for a female sixty-six (Lev. 12). Yet it must be known that this is understood in a mystery. For if in the very hour in which she has given birth she enters the church to give thanks, she is weighed down by no burden of sin. For the pleasure of the flesh, not the pain, is in fault. But in the joining of flesh there is pleasure, whereas in the bringing forth of offspring there is pain and groaning. Hence it is said even to the first mother of all: In pains shall you bring forth (Gen. 3:16). If, therefore, we forbid a woman who has given birth to enter the church, we reckon her very penalty to her as a fault.

But to be baptised, whether a woman who has given birth, or that which she has borne, without delay, if the peril of death presses — either in the very hour in which she brings forth, or the newborn in the very hour in which it is born — is by no means forbidden; because, just as the grace of the holy mystery is to be provided with great discretion for the living and those who have discernment, so to those to whom death is imminent it is to be offered without any delay, lest, while a little time is still sought for administering the mystery of redemption, with death intervening a little, there be none found who may be redeemed. But her husband ought not to approach her bed until that which is born is weaned. But a depraved custom has arisen in the manners of married people, that women disdain to nurse the sons whom they bear,

and hand them over to other women to be nursed. This clearly seems to have been devised from the single cause of incontinence, since, because they do not wish to contain themselves, they scorn to suckle those whom they bear. These women, therefore, who from a depraved custom hand over their sons to others to be nursed, ought not to be mingled with their husbands unless the time of purification has passed; seeing that, even apart from the cause of childbirth, when they are detained by the accustomed monthly courses, they are forbidden to be joined with their husbands — so much so that the sacred Law strikes with death if any man approach a menstruating woman (Lev.

20). Yet the woman who suffers her monthly courses by custom ought not to be forbidden to enter the church, since a superfluity of nature cannot be imputed to her as a fault; and because she suffers this against her will, it is not just that she should be deprived of entrance into the church. For we know that the woman who suffered an issue of blood, humbly coming behind the Lord's back, touched the fringe of His garment, and at once her infirmity departed from her (Luke 8). If, therefore, one placed in an issue of blood could laudably touch the Lord's garment, why should not she who suffers the monthly issue of blood be permitted to enter the Lord's church? But you will say: her infirmity compelled that woman, whereas these of whom we speak custom constrains.

But weigh this, dearest brother, that all that we suffer in this mortal flesh is from the infirmity of nature, ordained by the just judgement of God after the fault. For to hunger and thirst, to be hot, to be cold, to grow weary, is from the infirmity of nature. And what else is it to seek food against hunger, drink against thirst, cool air against heat, clothing against cold, rest against weariness, than to look for certain remedies against sicknesses? For to women the monthly issue of their blood is a sickness. If, therefore, she who, placed in her languor, touched the Lord's garment presumed rightly, why should not that which is granted to one infirm person be granted to all women who suffer infirmity by the defect of their nature?

But she ought not to be forbidden to receive the mystery of holy communion in those same days. If, however, out of great reverence she does not presume to receive it, she is to be praised; but if she does receive it, she is not to be judged. For it belongs to good minds to acknowledge their faults in some way even there where there is no fault, since often that which comes from fault is done without fault. Hence also, when we are hungry, we eat without fault, though it came about from the fault of the first man that we should be hungry. For the monthly custom is no fault in women, seeing that it happens naturally;

but yet, because nature itself has been so vitiated that it seems to be polluted even without the effort of the will, the defect comes from fault, so that human nature may recognise in it what it has become through judgement — that man, who willingly committed the fault, may unwillingly bear the guilt of the fault. And therefore women, when they consider themselves in the monthly custom, if they do not presume to approach the sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood, are to be praised for their right consideration. But when, out of the custom of a religious life, they are carried away by love of that same mystery to receive it, they are not, as we have said, to be restrained.

For just as in the Old Testament outward works were observed, so in the New Testament attention is directed not so much to what is done outwardly as to what is thought inwardly, so that it is punished by a subtle sentence. For whereas the Law commands that many things be eaten as if unclean, yet in the Gospel the Lord says: Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man, but the things which come out of the heart, these are what defile a man (Matt. 15:11). And a little after He added, expounding: Out of the heart come evil thoughts (ibid. 19). Hence it has been abundantly shown that that is declared by almighty God to be polluted in deed which is generated from the root of a polluted thought. Whence also Paul the apostle says:

To the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure (Titus 1:15). And soon after, declaring the cause of that same defilement, he adds: For their mind and conscience are defiled. If, therefore, food is not unclean to him whose mind is not unclean, why should that which a woman of pure mind suffers from nature be reckoned to her for uncleanness? But a man, sleeping with his own wife, ought not to enter the church unless he is washed with water, and even when washed he ought not to enter at once. For the Law commanded the people of old that a man mingled with a woman should both be washed with water, and not enter the church before the setting of the sun.

This can be understood spiritually: that a man is mingled with a woman when the mind is joined in thought to unlawful concupiscence through delight. Unless the fire of concupiscence first cools from the mind, he ought not to esteem himself worthy of the congregation of the brethren, who sees himself burdened by the wickedness of a depraved will. For although different nations of men feel differently about this matter, and some seem to observe one thing, others another, yet it was ever the usage of the Romans, from the men of old, after intercourse with one's own wife, to seek both the purification of washing, and reverently to abstain a little from entering the church. Nor in saying these things do we reckon marriage to be a fault.

But because the lawful union itself of spouses cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, one ought to abstain from entering the sacred place, since the pleasure itself can in no way be without fault. For it was not of adultery or fornication, but of lawful wedlock, that he was born who said: Behold, in iniquities was I conceived, and in sins did my mother bear me (Ps. 51:5). For he who knew that he had been conceived in iniquities, groaned that he had been born in sin, because the tree bears in its branch the sap of the vice which it drew from the root. In which words, however, he does not name as iniquity the very union of spouses, but rather the very pleasure of the union.

For there are many things lawful and legitimate, and yet in the doing of them we are to some extent defiled, just as often, by being angry, we pursue faults, and disturb the tranquillity of mind within us. And though what is done be right, yet it is not then praiseworthy that in it the mind is disturbed. For it was against the vices of transgressors that he had been angered who said: My eye is troubled because of anger (Ps. 6:8). For because the mind cannot, unless it be tranquil, raise itself up into the light of contemplation, he grieved that in anger his eye was troubled, because while he pursued evil deeds below, he was nonetheless compelled to be confounded and troubled away from the contemplation of things above.

And so anger against vice is laudable, and yet troublesome, since he reckoned that, being troubled, he had incurred some guilt. It behoves, therefore, that the lawful union of the flesh be for the cause of offspring, not of pleasure; and that the joining of flesh be for the sake of begetting children, not for the satisfaction of vices. If, then, anyone uses his own wife, not caught by the desire of pleasure but only for the sake of begetting children, he assuredly is to be left to his own judgement concerning entrance into the church, or concerning receiving the mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood; for he ought not to be forbidden by us to receive, who, placed in the fire, knows not how to burn.

But when not the love of procreating offspring, but pleasure dominates in the work of union, the spouses have, even from their own union, something to bewail. For this holy preaching concedes to them, and yet from that very concession it shakes the mind with fear. For when the apostle Paul said: He who cannot contain himself, let him have his own wife, at once he took care to add: But this I say by way of indulgence, not by way of command (1 Cor. 7:6-9). For that is not indulged which is lawful and just. And what he said is indulged, he showed to be a fault. But it must be weighed with a vigilant mind, that on Mount Sinai the Lord, about to speak to the people, first commanded that same people to abstain from women.

And if there, where the Lord spoke to men through a creature subject to them, such great provision of bodily purity was required that those who received the words of God should not be mingled with women, how much more ought those who receive the Body of the almighty Lord to keep in themselves purity of flesh, lest they be over-burdened by the greatness of the inestimable mystery? Hence also it is said to David through the priest concerning his young men, that if they were clean from women, they should receive the shewbread; which they would by no means receive, unless David first declared them clean from women.

But then a man who, after intercourse with his wife, has been washed with water, is able also to receive the mystery of holy communion, since, according to the aforesaid sentence, it has been lawful for him even to enter the church. I ask also whether, after the illusion which is wont to happen through a dream, anyone may receive the Body of the Lord; or, if he be a priest, may celebrate the sacred mysteries. Him indeed the Testament of the old Law, as we have already said in the preceding chapter, calls polluted, and does not allow him to enter the church, unless washed with water, even until evening.

Yet this then applied specially to that people, but understanding it spiritually, one will take it under the same sense of which we spoke before: because he is, as it were, deluded through a dream who, tempted by uncleanness, is defiled in his thought by true images. But he is to be washed with water, so that he may wash away the faults of thought with tears. And unless the fire of temptation first departs, let him know himself to be guilty, as it were, until evening. But in the same illusion a discretion is very necessary, since it must be very subtly weighed from what cause it happens to the mind of the sleeper. For sometimes it comes from gluttony, sometimes from a superfluity or infirmity of nature, sometimes from thought.

And indeed when it has come about from a superfluity or infirmity of nature, this illusion is by no means to be feared, since the mind is rather to be pitied for having suffered it unknowingly than blamed for having done it. But when the appetite of the gullet is snatched beyond measure in taking food, and thereby the receptacles of the humours are burdened, the mind has thence some guilt — yet not so far as to prohibit the receiving of the sacred mystery, or the celebrating of the solemnities of the Mass, when perhaps either a feast day requires it, or, because another priest is lacking in the place to administer the mystery, necessity itself compels it. For if there are present others who are able to fulfil the mystery, an illusion brought about through gluttony ought not to prohibit from the reception of the sacred mystery;

but from the offering of the sacred mystery he ought, as I think, humbly to abstain; provided, however, that a foul imagining has not shaken the mind of the sleeper. For there are some to whom the illusion generally arises in such a way that their mind, even placed in the sleep of the body, is not defiled by foul imaginings. In which matter one thing is there shown: that the mind is guilty, though not then free in its own judgement, since it remembers nothing seen while the body slept, and yet in the wakefulness of the body it remembers having fallen into gluttony. But if from a foul thought of the waking man the illusion arises in the mind of the sleeper, his guilt is plain to the soul. For it sees from what root that defilement proceeded, since what he thought knowingly, that he suffered unknowingly.

But it must be weighed whether that thought came about through suggestion, or through delight, or, what is greater, through consent to the sin. For in three ways is every sin accomplished, namely by suggestion, by delight, by consent. Suggestion indeed is made through the devil, delight through the flesh, consent through the spirit; because the serpent suggested the first fault, Eve as it were the flesh was delighted, but Adam as it were the spirit consented. And great discretion is necessary, so that the mind may preside as judge over itself, between suggestion and delight, between delight and consent. For when the malignant spirit suggests a sin in the mind, if no delight in the sin follows, the sin is by no means perpetrated.

But when the flesh begins to be delighted, then the sin begins to be born. If, however, it descends by deliberation even to consent, then the sin is known to be complete. In the suggestion, therefore, is the seed of sin; in the delight is its nourishment; in the consent is its perfection. And often it happens that what the malignant spirit sows in thought, the flesh draws into delight, and yet the mind does not consent to that same delight. And since the flesh cannot be delighted without the soul, the mind itself, nevertheless struggling against the pleasures of the flesh, is in some way bound unwillingly in carnal delight, so that by reason it gainsays it and does not consent, and yet is bound by the delight, but bitterly groans that it is bound.

Whence also that pre-eminent soldier of the heavenly host groaned, saying: I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and leading me captive under the law of sin, which is in my members (Rom. 7:23). But if he was a captive, he was in no way fighting. Yet he did fight, wherefore he was not a captive. He fought therefore by the law of the mind, against which the law that is in the members warred. If he fought thus, he was not a captive. Behold, therefore, man is, so that I may speak thus, both captive and free: free by the justice which he loves, captive by the delight which he bears unwillingly.