Retractations, Book I (part 2)

← Back to the beginning of Retractations, Book I

Chapter II. On the Happy Life, in One Book

It happened that I wrote a book concerning the happy life, not after the books on the Academicians, but between them, Now, it began on my birthday and it was completed in a discussion lasting three days, as the work itself sufficiently points out 4 In this book it was established, among those of us who made inquiry together, that there was no happy life except the complete knowledge of God;
I em not satisfied, however, with several things in that writing: because I attributed to theodore Manlius, to whom I dedicated the book itself, more than I should have, though he was a man of culture and a Christian}
And because I also used the word “fortune” often in it;
And because I said that the happy life abides only in the spirit of the wise man during his lifetime, regardless of the nature of his body, although the apostle looks for a complete knowledge of God in the future life, i.e., a knowledge that is greater than a human be ing can possess; this future life ought to be the only one spoken of as the happy life, where both the incorruptible and the immortal body is made subject to his spirit without any trouble or resistance. I discovered, however, that this book was broken off in our manuscript and that it was in no way complete, and in its incomplete condition it was copied off by some of the brethren; I had not as yet discovered an unmutilated copy in anyone’s possession which I might correct at the time when I reviewed this work,
This book legis with these words: “if, to the haven of philosophy.”

Chapter III. On Order, in Two Books

At the same time, in fact, in the midst of the task of composing the books concerning the Academicians, I also wrote two books on order; in these books, the important question of whether the order of divine providence includes everything good and everything evil is considered. However, when I saw that the subject, somewhat difficult to understand, could hardly by argumentation be brought to the comprehension of those with whom I was pleading, I chose rather to speak about an order of study, since progress can be made from the corporeal to the incorporeal.
But, in these books also, I am displeased that the word “fortune” was often inserted;
And because I did not add “of the body ” when I mentioned the bodily senses;;
And because I attributed a great deal to the liberal arts, of which many holy men are much in ignorance and of which many have knowledge who are not holy;
And because I made mention of the Muses as goddesses of a sort, although I was joking;
And because I called wonder a defect;
And because I said that philosophers who did not possess true piety were shining in the light of virtue;
And because I propounded the view that there were two worlds, one sensible, the other intelligible; this idea did not come from Plato, nor from individual followers I of Plato, but from myself; it seems that the Lord himself wanted to indicate this, because he does not say: “ly kingdom is not of the world,” but “My kingdom is not of this world, ” although the former nay also be discovered spoken in some other discourse; if another world was intimated by the Lord Christ, it could better be understood as the one in which there will be a new heaven and a new earth, ” who that is accomplished for which we pray when we say: “Thy kingdom come. Plato was not really in error in this mat -ter because he said there was an intelligible world, if we give heed to his real meaning rather than the word itself, which is very rare in that connection in ecclesiastical usage. Of course he called the intelligible world that same eternal and unchangeable reason by which God made the world. Whoever denies that this reason exists naturally affirms that God made what he made without any reason, or, that when he made it or before he made it he did not know what he was doing, if there was no plan of creation in his mind. However, if there was a plan, as there certainly was, Plato seems to have called that the intelligible world. Nevertheless, we would not have used that phrase if we had been at that time sufficiently instructed in ecclesiastical writings.
I am not pleased by the fact that, when I had said: “Our greatest achievements should be directed to the most perfect merits,” I added soon afterwards: “For otherwise our God would not be able to hear us clearly; but he will hear most willingly those who live uprightly.” For this was said in such a manner as to imply that “God does not hear sinners; ” in fact, someone did say that in the gospel, but he had not yet become acquainted with Christ by whom he had just been restored to bodily sight.
I am not pleased by the fact that I conferred on the philosopher Pythagoras so much praise that whoever hears or reads might believe that I was of the opinion that there were no errors in the Pythagorean teachings, be -: cause they are many and they are pernicious.
This work begins with these words: “Concerning the order of things, Zenobius. “

Chapter IV. The Soliloquies, in Two Books

Among these works I likewise wrote two volumes, following my own devotion and desire, for the purpose of investigating the truth concerning those things which I was especially anxious to know; I question myself and then I answer, just as if there were two people, reason and myself, although I was alone, Thus I named this work The Soliloquies; but it remained incomplete, In the first book questions are raised whenever someone appears—and this is just as it ought to be—who wishes to obtain wisdom, which is never at all ob-; tained through the bodily senses, but through the mind; and at the end of the book, as a sort of rational conclusion, it is considered that those things which really exist are immortal; now in the second book the matter of the immortality of the soul was discussed at length, but not concluded.
I certainly do not approve of what I said in these books, such as this, in a prayer: “God, you who have been unwilling that any save the pure should know the true. ” For one can reply that many, indeed, who are not pure know much that is true; for I did not here define what the true may be which only the pure know, and what I mean by knowing.
In that work I put down the following: “God, whose kingdom is that entire world which is unknown to the senses; ” if God is to be comprehended, words should have been added to make it reed: “which is unknown to the senses of the mortal body. However, if it is declared to be the “world which is AT $0 the senses,” it is correctly understood to be that world which will be in the “new heaven and the new earth; but those words should have been added by all means, so that it would read: “the senses of the mortal body. Put I was then speaking in the same way in which the senses were correctly spoken of as bodily, and what I have ever since said was superior need not be constantly repeated, but this correction must be remembered whenever this manner of speaking is discovered in my writings. )
And in one passage I said this concerning the father and the son: “The one who begets and the one who is begotten is one; it should have been said: are one,” just as the same truth is plainly spoken in the saying: “I and the father are one,:
And that statement does not please me in which I said that the soul, after God has been comprehended, is now blessed in this life, unless perhaps, by hope,
Also, I said this: “Intimacy with wisdom is not attained in any one way; that does not sound well, as if there is any other way apart from Christ, who said: “I am the way.” 1 Therefore, this dislike of religious tastes is to be avoided, although there is that other universal way, or other ways, concerning which we sing in the Psalm: “Make known your ways to me, Lord, and teach me your paths, ”
In that place where this was said: “The things of i ii sense must be utterly abandoned, ” caution must be taken lest we are suspected of believing that notion of the false philosopher Porphyry, in which he said that every body is to be: i abandoned, Now I did not say “all sensible things,” but “those sensible things,” i.e., the corruptible ones. But, this should rather have been said, for such-sensible things will not be sensible in the future age, in the new heaven and the new earth,
I also said in a certain place, that “those learned in the liberal arts have, without doubt, dug up things which I have been buried in forgetfulness within themselves and have, in a certain way, recovered them by learning, ” But I reject it this also. For it is more credible that even the ignorant an- I! swer correctly concerning the liberal arts when they are thoroughly questioned, because there is present in them, when they If can grasp it, the light of eternal reason, where they perceive I these unchangeable truths. This is not because they have known It them et some time or other and have forgotten them, which seemed right to Plato and such like, I have argued against their belief, as much as occasion offered for taking up the matter, in the twelfth book of the treatise on the Trinity.Z 8. ’ This work begins in this way: “Being concerned about myself, (I had been debating) many and diverse things.” i

Chapter V. On the Immortality of the Soul, in One Book

After I had written the books of The Soliloquies, having now returned from the estate to milan, I wrote one book concerning the immortality of the soul. I intended this book to serve as a reminder of the need of bringing The Soliloquies to a conclusion, for they still remained incomplete, but I do not know how it got into the hands of men against my will and was named among my writings. To begin with, in the intricacy and brevity of its argument, it is so unintelligible that it wears out the person who reads it, and even wears out my powers of application,:
I certainly had in mind nothing except the souls of men when I said, in a certain argument in that book: “Learning cannot exist in that which does not learn anything, ” And I also said in another place: “Knowledge does not comprehend anything unless it concerns some form of learning; it aid not occur to me that God does not acquire learning and that he possesses a knowledge of all things. And, furthermore, there is in his knowledge a fore-knowledge of future events. And of a similar nature is the following statement, which I made in that same work: “There is no life according to any principles except in the soul; for there is no life in God without principle, since both the highest life and the highest principle are with him, And I said this earlier: “That which as comprehended (by the mind) is always comprehended in a way of its own, although the soul is not always comprehended in a way of its own. I even said this: “The soul” can “not be separated from the eternal reason; it is not connected with it locally;” I would not have actually said this if I had then been instructed in the Holy Scriptures so that I could have recollected what was written: “Your sins separate between you and God. Whence it may be also gathered that a separation of those things which were not united in position, but those united incorporeally can be affirmed,
Ihave not been able to remember why I also said this: “If the mind lacks a body, it is not in this world.” For are not the souls of.the dead without a body and are they not in this world: But because it is possible to be in a good existence without a body, I probably meant physical death by the word “corporeal, If this is correct, I have used a word very much contrary to custom,
By chance this was also said: “From the supreme essence I have bestowed the form of the body upon the soul, by which it exists so Tar as it ever does exist. Therefore, the body stands firm because of the soul and it exists in the same way in which it is inspired, whether universally, as the world, or particularly, as a living being within the world; this whole passage was said absolutely inconsiderately.
This book begins in this way: “If knowledge exists anywhere,”
At the same time, when I was at Milan to obtain baptism, I also undertook to write books on the liberal arts, questioning those who were with me and who had no aversion to studies of this kind; we desired both to reach the incorporeal by means of the corporeal and to guide others. But only one of them, the book on grammar, was I able to bring to completion; this I afterward lost from our closet, And I wrote six volumes on music, including a section on rhythm, I wrote those six books after I was baptized and after I returned from Italy to Africa; I had just begun the work on this one on the liberal arts at Milan. But of the works on the other five liberal arts, begun there in the same way, those on dialectics, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, and philosophy, only the beginnings have remained; we lost these also; but I think that some people possess t hem,

Chapter VI. On the Morals of the Catholic Church and On the Morals of the Manichaeans, in Two Books

Now, having just been baptized, when I was at Rome, I could not silently bear the ostentation of the Manichaeans concerning their mistaken and hypocritical continence or abstinence, by which, in order to deceive the inexperienced, they place themselves above true Christians. They are not to be compared with true Christians, I wrote two books, one on the morals of the Catholic Church and the other on the morals of the Manichaeans.
Accordingly, in the book which has to do with the morals of the Catholic Church, where I put down as pr of that passage which contains these words: “Since we are suffering the whole day for your sake, we are rated as sheep, ” the inaccuracy of our manuscript led me into error as dd my recollection of the scriptures, with which I was not yet familiar. For the other manuscripts do not have the same meaning: instead of “we are suffering for your sake” they have “we are suffering death for your sake, ” which others state in a single word: “we are killed.” The Greek books, from which language a translation of the Old Testament was made into Latin following the Septuagint translators, show that this is more correct. For all that, I have also said many things in arguments in accordance with these words, i.e., “we are suffering for your sake,” which I do not condemn as if they were wrong in themselves, but I did not, at least strictly speaking, prove the harmony of the Old and New Testaments by means of these words, @ harmony which I wanted to establish. But the error crept up upon me in the way which I have mentioned; I have made this harmony known adequately, in face, by means of other proofs.
And a little bit later I took evidence from the Book of Wisdom, in which was written, according to our manuscript: “For wisdom teaches sobriety, justice, and virtue, and following these words I have argued some things which certainly were true but were discovered to be the result of a defect. For it is quite true that wisdom teaches the reality of contemplation, which I thought was meant by the designation of sobriety; and uprightness of action, which is the meaning I wanted to give to the other two concepts, does teach justice and virtue. Do not the better manuscripts have a reading with the same meaning: “It teaches sobriety and wisdom and justice and virtue”? For by all of these terms the Latin translator designates the four virtues which are certainly usually mentioned by the philosophers, sobriety standing for temperance, the word “wisdom” constituting prudence, courage certainly standing for virtue; justice alone was explained by its own name, However, it was a long time afterward that we discovered in the Greek manuscripts that these four virtues were called by their right names in the same Book of Wisdom, Just as they were designated by the Greeks themselves,
Likewise I quoted this out of the Book of Solomon: “Vanity of the vain, said the preacher; ” I certainly read that in many manuscripts, but the Greek does not have it; it has “vanity of vanities, ” which I discovered afterwards, and I also discovered that the best Latin manuscripts had “uanitatum,” not “uanitantium.” Nevertheless, in whatever I said, using this error as a basis, what was true is evident in the words themselves.
Now I said this: “Let us first love with full affection him whom we wish to Know, i.e., God; “sincere” should have been said rather than “full,” unless it perhaps might be considered that the love of God will be no greater when we see him face to face. Accordingly, this is to be understood as if the word “full” was retained; there is nothing greater than that as long as we walk by faith: for there will be a greater fullness,yes, the greatest fullness, but by sight.
Again, I said the following concerning those who relieve the needy, because “they are called compassionate, even should they be so wise that they are never disturbed by any feeling of pain; this must not be taken to mean that I declared that there were such wise men in this life; for I did not say “when they may be,” but I said “even should they be,
In another place I said: “low, when this human love, which has been clinging to your breasts, has nourished and invigorated the mind, and the mind has been made fit for following God; when his majesty has begun to reveal itself to as large an extent as is sufficient for the human soul, while it is a dweller on the earth; such eagerness of love is originated and such a flame of divine love arises that, by the consuming of all vices in the sanctified and purified man it is sufficiently evident how divine these words are: ‘I am a consuming fire, The Pelagians may think that I have said that this perfection can be attained in this human life. But they should not think
For the zeal of love which has been made fit for following God and which is so large that it destroys all the vices can be produced and grow in this life; however, it cannot bring to completion fittingly what has been started, so that no vice is in the man; although so much of this condition is completed by the same eagerness of love, where and when it can be completed, that, just as the “laver of regeneration purifies from the guilt of all the sins which human sires. created and evil accomplished, that perfection may purify him from all the stain E: of the vices, apart from which human weakness is not able, in this life, to exist. And so must be understood what the apostle says: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it, having cleansed it by the laver of water with the word, in order that he might deliver to himself a glorious church not having stain or wrinkle or anything of that kind, ” For there is “the laver of water with the word,” by which the church is cleansed. But as the whole church, as long as it is here says: “Forgive us our debts,” it certainly is not without “stain or wrinkle or anything of that kind;” nevertheless, from that which it receives here it is brought to that glory which is not here and to perfection,
In the other book, the title of which is On the Morals of the Manichaeans, I said this: “The goodness of God regulates all things which fall away in such a way that they may exist where they can exist most suitably, until, in the regulation of their motions, they return to that whence they have fallen away;” this should not be understood as if all things “return to that from which they have fallen away,” as Origen thought, but all things which actually do return. For they who will be punished in everlasting fire will not return to God from whom they have fallen away,. although “all the failures” are regulated so “that they may exist where they can exist most suitably,” because those who do not return exist most suitably in punishment,
In another place I said: “In general, there is no doubt that beetles are really produced from the mud which they have rounded into a ball and buried; while many people doubt whether this example is true, many have never even heard of it.
This work begins in this way: “I am of the opinion that in order books enough has been done, “

Chapter VII. On the Measure of the Soul, in One Book

In that same city I wrote a dialogue, in which anna many questions were asked and there was much discussion concerning the soul; i.e., whence it comes, of what nature it is, how great it is, why it was given to the body, of what nature it was formed when it came to the body, of what nature when it departed. But since the question of how great it is was investigated most industriously and accurately, when we pointed out, as much as possible, that the soul is not of any bodily quantity, but is, nevertheless, great to some extent, the entire book got its name from this one investigation; so it was called On the Measure of the Soul.
In that book I said this: all the arts the soul brings along with it, it seems to me, and what is said to be learning is no other thing than remembering or recalling. I do not accept that statement so as to agree with what results from it—that the soul has lived either in another body or at another place or that it has lived in the body or outside of the body at some time or other; and that those replies which, being asked, it makes, since it has not learned them here, it learned in another life. For, as we have already said earlier in this work, this may be possible—, since there is an intelligible nature—because it is connected not only with intelligible things but also with unchangeable things, and the soul is created in such a way that when it influences circumstances it is connected with them, or it changes itself as many times as it sees the circumstances and in so far as it answers true things concerning them, Not all learning, certainly, has elevated the soul with itself in that way nor is it possible for it to do so; for, concerning the skills which belong to the bodily senses, such as many types of medicine and all kinds of astrology, one cannot say anything except what is given here. For this reason I have cited, the intelligence makes reply, in those matters which it alone comprehends, when it has been well prompted by its own questions or some one else’s, and has well pondered the matter.
In another place, I said: “I would say many things more on this point and bind myself, after a manner, while I lay down the laws to you, so that I could account for myself to myself, to whom I ought, before all else to render account, “8 In that place it seems that I ought rather to have said: Render account to God, to whom I ought to render account before all else,” But since a man must first be restored to himself, in order that he might arise from that place yonder as if by a complete step and be lifted up to God, just as ths younger son first returned to himself and then said these words: “I will arise and go to my father, I spoke in that way. Finally, I added, shortly afterwards: “ind thus be conformed unto the Lord as a bondservant is made a friend, ” Therefore, when I said: “To whom I ought to render account before all else, I referred to men; for I owe more to myself than to other men, although I owe more to God than I do to myself.
The book begins with these words: “Whereas I see that you have a large measure of leisure,“

Chapter VIII. On Free Will, in Three Books

While we were still detained at Rome, we sought to learn by debate the origin of evil, and we conducted our debate so that, if possible, long-considered reason might render what, on the strength of divine authority, we believed on this matter, acceptable to our understanding also, so far as we were able, with God’s help, to do so by discussion. And since it was established among us, by sensible and diligent discussion, that evil arises only out of one’s own free will, the three books which came out of that discussion were entitled On Free Will. The second and third books of this treatise I brought to an end in Africa after I had been ordained a presbyter at Hippo Regius, just as I was then able to do it.
In these books so many things were discussed that several questions intervened which I could not elucidate and which required long conversation in person; there was so much disagreement that, whether from one side or from all slides of those questions whence it was not evident what coincided with the truth, nevertheless, our rational conclusion was confined to this, that, whatever their truth was, God would be trusted or even shown to be worthy of praise. Naturally, the discussion was undertaken because of those who deny that the origin of sin is derived from the freedom of the will and who contend that, if it is so, God is to blame as the creator of all nature, if he is God, in that way intending, according to the error of their impiety—for they are Manichaeans—10 represent the nature of evil as saue thing unchangeable and coeternal with God. Because of this question which was proposed, there is no treatment, in these books, however, of the grace of God, by which he has predestinated those who are elected in such a way that he prepares the wills of those who already make use of their free will in their own own lives. Now when a passage is presented in order that a commemoration of his grace might be made, it was cursorily done, not, as later, a careful reasoned defense. For it is one thing to inquire whence evil exists and another to inquire how one is brought back to a former, or attains a greater, good.
Therefore, the new heretics, the Pelagians, who so bring forward the freedom of the will as to leave no place for the grace of God, because they maintain that it is given according to our merits, let them not exalt themselves as though I had advanced their cause; because I said many things in these books in favor of free will, which the purpose of that discussion required. I did indeed say in the first book: “The righteousness of God punishes evil works” and I added: for they are not punished justly if they did not do them voluntarily. Likewise, when I pointed out that good will is PE self a great good, sO great that it is rightly valued above all physical and extraneous goods, I said: “Therefore, you see now, I suppose, that it is established in our will that we either enjoy or we do without a goodness so great and: such real worth; for what is so much in the will as will itself?” And in another place: “Therefore,” I said, “why do we think it uncertain, even if we never before were men of wisdom, that we, bh by reason of the will yet merit and live a commendable and a happy life, or an unhappy and a miserable life? And also in another place: “From this it is established,” I said, “that whoever wants to live rightly end virtuously, if he wants it in preference to his desire for transitory things, attains so great 8 truth with so great an ease that nothing more is needful for him to have what he wants than that will itself, ” And, likewise, I said, in another place: “For this eternal law, to the consideration of which it is time now to return, has unalterably established the truth that it is in the will that merit lies and that there is reward and punishment in blessedness and unhappiness, ” And in another place I said: “What any one decides is to be followed out and acquired, is placed in the will. And in the second book I said: “For a man himself to the extent that he is a man, is something good, because he can live rightly when he wants to, ” And in another place I said: “One cannot act rightly except by the freedom of the will itself. And in the third book I said: “What need is there to sarah out whence this movement is, by which the will is turned from unchangeable good to good that is subject to change, since we confess that the latter does not exist except of the mind and will and is therefore blameworthy; and all practical teaching on this matter has its value in this, that, disapproving and controlling this lower impulse, we turn our pleasure from the inclination to temporal things to the enjoyment of eternal goodness? ind in another place I said: “The truth cries out confusedly about you. For you are unable to feel that anything is in your power except what, when we will, we do. Wherefore there is nothing within our power so completely as the will itself. For it forthwith, when we will, is immediately at hand.” Likewise, in another place I said: “For if you are praised in seeing what you ought to do, since you do not see it except in unchangeable truth, how much more is he to be praised who both commands the will and gives the power to choose and does not permit resistance to go unpunished, Then I added these words: “For if every one owes what he has received and a man is created so that he sins inevitably, the fact that he sins is part of his debt. In fact, when he sins he does what he ought to do—but if this is a shameful thing to say, no one is compelled by his own nature to sin. And again: “What is the cause of the act of the will,” I asked, “before the act of the will? For either the will itself is the cause, then we do not get away from this root of the will, or it is not the will; then if there is no will there is no sin, Therefore, either the will itself is the first cause or sinning or no sin is the first cause of sinning, and there is no one to whom sin is attributed except the sinning person. Therefore, there is nothing to which sin is correctly attributed except to the will, And, a little bit later I say: “Does anyone sin in that which he can in no way avoid? But a sin is being committed: therefore, it can be avoided, ” Pelagius made use of this testimony of mine in a certain book of his. hen I replied to his book, I wanted the title of my book to be On Nature and Grace.
From these and similar words of mine the Pelagians suppose or are able to suppose that we held their position, because the grace of God was not mentioned, though at that time it was not being discussed, But it is to no purpose that they believe this. Obviously, that is by the will we sin and live uprightly is what I was treating of in these words. The will is freed from that servitude, by which it was made the “servant of sin, ” and it is aided to rise above vice only by the grace of God; only so can mortals live uprightly and religiously. and if this divine benefit, by which the will is freed, were not antecedent to the act of the will, it would be given to merit, and would not be grace, which is given together freely. We discussed this adequately in some other works of ours, in which we refuted these enemies of grace, these new heretics, although in these books on free will, which were not written at all against them—indeed, they did not yet exist—but against the Manichaeans, we in no way kept silence concerning this grace of God, which they tried to destroy with en abominable impiety. Indeed, we said, in the second book, that “not only the great but also the least of goods cannot be but from him from whom are all good things, i.e., from God. ” And a little bit later I said: “The virtues by which life is lived rightly are the important goods; mt the forms of all physical existence, without which life can be rightly lived, are the lowest goods; in fact, the powers of the soul, without which life cannot be correctly lived, are the intermediate goods, No. one makes use of virtues maliciously, but anyone can make use of the other good things, i.e., the lowest and the intermediate, not only in a right way, but also in a wrong way. and, for this reason, no one makes use of a virtue maliciously, because the work of virtue is the good use of those things i which we are also able to use in a wrong way; for no one uses anything ill by using it well, Wherefore, the abundance and the vastness of the goodness of God was responsible for the existence of not only the great but also the intermediate and the lowest goods. His goodness is to be praised more in the great than in the intermediate and more in the intermediate than in the lowest among these good things, but it is to be praised more in all things than if he had not given to all the qualities of their proper natures, ” And in another place I say: “Maintain an unshaken piety in such measure that no good thing suggests itself to you, either from perception or from understanding or from meditation in any way whatsoever, which is not from God, ” And in another place I said also: “Inasmuch as man is not able to rise, as he fell, by his own free will, let us cling by firm faith to the right hand of God stretched out to us from above, i.e., and our Lord Jesus Christ.
And in the third book, I said what I remembered that Pelagius also had made use of from my works against me: For does any one sin in that which he can in no way av old? Rut sin is committed; therefore, it can be avoided,” immediately after I had said this, I added the following: “And, nevertheless, some deeds, done through ignorance, are condemned and are judged worthy of correction, just as we read in divine authorities. For the apostle says: ‘I besought mercy, because I did it ignorantly;’ and the prophet says: “Do not remember the sins of youth and of my ignorance, Deeds done from necessity are also to be condemned, when a man wants to do right and cannot. For whence are those cries: ‘The good which I want I do not do, but the bad which I hate I do; and this: ‘To will is present with me, but to perform the good is not; and this: ‘The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit lusts against the flesh. For they oppose one another, so that you may not do the things which you would’? But these are all about men who have come out of the condemnation of death. For, if this is not the punishment of men but his natural inclination, then these things are not sins, for if he does not depart from the way of nature, in which he is made, unable to be better, he does what he ought to do when he does these things. If, however, he were a good man he would be such in another way; but because he is as he is, he is not good and he is not master of the power to be good, either in nos seeing of what sort he ought to be, or in seeing and not being able to be that sort he sees he ought to be, Who doubts that this is punishment? Now all punishment, if it is just, is a punishment for sin and is called a penalty. But, if a punishment is unjust—since no one doubts that is is punishment—it is inflicted on some man by some unjust power. Moreover, because it is foolish to be in doubt about the omnipotence and judgment of God, this punishment is just and is the penalty for some sin. For no unjust master could be able either to snatch man away from God, as it were, without his knowing it, or to take him by fa ce despite God’s will, he being too weak to withstand force; or again by threat or open conflict, so as to torment man by an unjust penalty. The only thing left then is to believe. that this just punishment comes from the damnation of man. ” And in another place I said: “To approve the false instead of the true so that he errs unwillingly, and, because of the hindrance and tormenting anguish of the fleshly fetters, not $60 be able to rise above licentious acts is not in the nature of created man, but a punishment of man condemned. But when we are speaking of the will to do right, we are speaking of that will in which man was made.”
See how long before the Pelagian heresy appeared we argued in this manner, as though we were already disputing against them. For while all good things were said to be from God., i.e., the great, the intermediate, and the lowest, the freedom of the will is found to be in the intermediate goods, because we can also use it badly but, nevertheless, it is of such a nature that we cannot live properly without using it. Now, the good use of free will is already a virtue which is discovered in the great goods, which no one can use wrongly. And because all good things, just as we said, the great, the intermediate, and the lowest, are from God, it follows that a good use of free will is also from God; this free will is a virtue and is reckoned among the great goods. Next, it was said that, just because a man can fall down of his own accord, i.e., through free will, he cannot also rise; the grace of God frees a man from the suffer ing most justly inflicted on sinners. Ignorance and want belong to this suffering of a just damnation, which every man endures from birth; and no one is freed from evil but by the grace of God. The Pelagians do not believe that this suffering comes down from a just condemnation, for “they deny original sin, although, even if ignorance and hardship existed in the natural beginning of man, God is not to be reproached, but praised, just as we argued in the third book. This argument is to be pronounced against the Manichaeans, who do not accept the sacred scriptures of the old Testa-1& nt, in which original sin is set forth; and whatever is read on this matter in the apostolic writings they contend, with an abominable shamelessness, was introduced by those who corrupted the Scriptures, just as if it was not written by the apostles. Now that must be maintained against the Pelagians which both Scriptures which they profess to accept commend.
This work begins in this way: “Tell me, I ask, is God the author of evil?”

Chapter IX. On Genesis, Against the Manichaeans, in Two Books

But now, established in Africa, I wrote two books on Genesis against the Manichaeans, For, although I discussed this topic in earlier books, in which I showed that God is good in the highest degree and unchangeable creator of all changeable natures, and that evil is no nature or substance, in so far as there is nature and substance—our attention was vigilant against the manichaeans—these two books were most plainly produced against them in defense of the old law which they attacked with the ardent eagerness of their insane error. This is apparent in the first book from the passage: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth, up to where one reads: that seven days were accomplished and that God rested on the: seventh day; and in the second from the passage: “This book of the creation of heaven and earth, ” up to “Adam and his wife were sent out of paradise and a guard placed by the tree of life.” Than at the end of the book I placed the error of the Manichaeans over against the faith of the Catholic truth, briefly end clearly explaining what they say and what we say. El
Now I said this: “However, that light delights not the eyes of the birds, who are without reason, but the pure hearts of those who believe God turn from the love of visible and temporal things to the fulfilling of his commands; every man can do that, if he me to, Let not the new heretics, the Pelagians, think that this was said to their advantage. For it is true that all men generally can do it if they want to. But “the will is prepared by the Lord and it is increased as much as possible by the gift of love. This was not said here, since it was not related to the matter in question,
Now, it was read there that the benediction of the Lord, concerning which it was written: “Be fruitful and multiply, ” is to be considered as changed into carnal fruitfulness after sin; if this cannot be understood in any other way than as meaning that the first creatures cannot have had children unless they had sinned, I absolutely repudiate Xi
The idea that green herbs and trees that bear fruit are given for food to every Kind of beast and all birds and serpents, in the Book of Genesis, should not be understood allegorically just because the four-rooted and winged ones seem to live on flesh alone. For it can be interpreted as meaning that they were nourished also by men from the fruits of the earth, if, because of the obedience by which the men themselves to have all beasts and birds as servants in every way.
One can also be disturbed by the way I wrote concerning the people of Israel: “Until now these people observed the law in the matter of physical circumcision and sacrifice, just as if they were of a superior race, since they cannot perform sacrifices in the midst of the nations, as we see that they have continued without sacrifices, unless, perchance, what they offer through the paschal lamb is considered a sacrifice,
And in the second book also, I asserted that life could be designated by the word “pabulum”—manuscripts with a better explanation did not have “pabulum,” but “faenum”— and this seems to have been said in a wholly unsuitable manner. For the word “faenum” does not coincide with the expression of life in the manner that “pabulum” does.
Likewise, I do not seem to have called the words correctly prophetic, where it was written: “Why does he boast in dust end ashes? Because it does not say in that book precisely whom we are pronouncing to be a prophet t.
I did not understand just what the apostle wanted this passage to mean, where he uses the witness from Genesis, saying: “The first man Adam was made into a living soul, ” when I explained what was written: “God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man was made into a live soul” of “a living soul.” pug I thought he was trying to show from this that not only the body of man, but the animate element, was made before him,
Now I said this; “Transgressions do no harm to any nature except one’s own; ” I said that because whoever harms a just man does not really harm him, since his “reward” enlarges “in heaven; ” but by sinning he really harms himself, because by reason of the very will to harm, he received the harm he would inflict. The Pelagians can doubtless appropriate this thought to their dogma and may say that the sins of another have not harmed little children, because I said: “Transgressions do no harm to any nature except one’s own,” But I do not consider that small children, who are certainly a part of human nature, acquire original sin, because human nature sinned in the first men, and by means of this no sins of human nature inflict herm “except ‘one’s om.” Obviously, “through one man,” in whom all have sinned, “sin entered into;” ror I did not say “to any man,” but “to any nature other than one’s own transgressions do no harm, ”
Likewise, in what I said a little bit later, “There is no natural evil, they can seek a similar hid ing-place, unless what was said is attributed to sinless nature like the one established originally. For this is truly and properly called the nature of man, but we make use of the word figuratively, so that we still call nature that something with which a man is born; in accordance with this way of speaking, the apostle said: “For we also once were, by nature, children of wrath, just as the others, ”
This work begins in this manner: “If the manicheans select the ones whom they deceive.”

Chapter X. On Music, in Six Books

Afterwards, as I have recounted above, 2 I wrote six books on music. The sixth book became very well known, since the material in it is handled with a knowledge which is suitable for discovering how, from corporeal and spiritual but changeable harmonies, one attains changeless ones which are already in unchangeable truth; and thus “the invisible things of God are seen by perception through the things that are made;” those who cannot see, nevertheless do live “by at in Christ;” they come to that perception more certainly and more fortunately after this life. But those who can See, if they lose their faith in Christ, “who is one mediator also between God and men, ” are destroyed along with all their wisdom,
In this book, one passage contains these words: “For physical bodies are better off in proportion as such harmonies are numerous; but the soul is improved by the lack of those things which come to it through the body, when it turns away from the carnal senses and is transformed by the; divine harmonies of wisdom;” this is not to be understood in the sense that there shall be no corporeal harmonies in incorruptible and spiritual bodie, though they will be lovelier and more seemly (otherwise the soul would on perceive them when it is best) just as here it is made better by doing with-hi out then. For here it needs to turn them away from carnal senses to an intelligible experience, because it is weak and less capable of applying its purpose to both at the same time; and in these physical things one must guard against ent clement, as long as the soul can be attracted to disgraceful pleasure, Then, because it will be so strong and perfect, it will not be turned aside by corporeal harmonies from the contemplation of wisdom; it will so perceive them as not to be enticed by them nor made better by doing without them, but will be so good and upright that they shall be able to take ‘it neither by strategy nor by assault.
I also said this: “But this health will then be the Host strong and certain, when this body will have been restored to its original stability in its own definite time and order;” this passage should not be considered as though there shell not be, after the resurrection, better bodies: then those of the first human beings in paradise, since the former are not to be nourished with the bodily food with which the latter were nourished; but original stability is to be understood to the point that those post-resurrection bodies endure no affliction, just as the latter could not suffer before sin,
In another place, I said: “The love of this world is very troublesome. For what the soul seeks in it, doubtless steadfastness and eternity, it does not discover, since the most humble beauty is perfected in the passage of events; and that part of the love of this world which resembles stead-fastus ss is suffused by the supreme God through the soul, since the kind which is changeable only in time is superior to a that which is changeable in both time and place, ” If these words can be understood in such a way that the most humble beauty refers only to what is in the bodies of men and all animals, with which we live by bodily sense, a clear reason defends them. To be sure, that (element) in this beauty simulates permanence which remains unchanged in bodily structure, to the extent that it does remain, but is is transferred into those bodies by the supreme God through the soul, Of course, the soul keeps that structure from dissolving and dispersing, as we see happen after the life has departed fran the bodies of living things. But if this same beauty is discerned in all bodies, that opinion compels us to believe that the very universe is instinct with life; that also what in it seeks to a resemble permanence is transferred into it by the supreme God through the soul. But that the world is a living thing, as Plato and many other philosophers have perceived, I could not explore with a trustworthy reason, nor did I learn I could be persuaded by the authority of the Holy Scriptures. Hence, I have singled out this saying by chance—something of a similar nature was said by me and this can be read also in the book, On the Immortality of the Soul—not because I assert that this is false, but because I do not perceive that it is true, what the animate world may be, I am certainly not in doubt that this much is to be firmly held, that God is not for us the same as the universe, whether it has any soul or not, because if there is a soul in the universe he who created it is our God; but if there is none, it can be no one’s God, much less our own, Nevertheless, it is very properly believed that there is a spiritual and vital strength, even if there is no soul in the world, a strength which serves God in the holy angels for the adornment and management of the world, and it is not comprehended by them. However, by the name of “holy angels” I have called every holy spiritual creature now appointed for the secret and hidden service of God. But it is not the custom to indicate angelic spirits in the Holy Scriptures by the word “souls.” In like manner, what I said near the end of this book: “The reasoning and understanding ranks of blessed and holy souls re-receiving without any intermediary that law of God, Without which a leaf does not fall from a tree ang by whom the hairs of our head are numbered carry it over to governing principles for the earthly and infernal regions, ” I do not see, just as the designation of spirits can perhaps be shown to be in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, seeing that I wished to include in this book only the angels; I never remember reading in the div ine canonical utterances that angels have souls.
This book begins in this manner: Almost long enough,“

Chapter XI. On the Teacher, in One Book

At the same time, I wrote a book, the title of which is On the Teacher, In this book there is investigation and search and discovery of the fact that a teacher is not one who gives a man knowledge unless it be in accordance with the will of God; this was written in the gospel: “One is your teacher, Christ.”
This book begins in this way: “What does it seem to you that we wish to accomplish when we speak?” A s yf.

Chapter XII. On True Religion, in One Book

At this time I also wrote a book concerning true religion; in this work I argue many times and very fully that the one true God, i.e., the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy spirit, is honored in true religion, and how great his mercy was by which the Christian religion, which is the true religion, was granted to men through a temporal dispensation, and how man is, with a certain agreeableness, framed together for this worship of God as if he were a man, Nevertheless, this book is especially published against the doctrine of the two natures held by the manichaeans,
In a certain place in this book I said: “It may be apparent and understandable to you that there could have been no error in religion, if the soul, instead of its god, did not worship the soul nor the body its own fantasies, ” Here I was not speaking in the style of the Scriptures when I mentioned the soul in place of the created incorporeal univer se. I do not know what they want the soul {0 mean, when trey do not ase the translated word, unless that by which mortal animals live, among which are men, so long as they are mortal. A little bit later, however, I explained that thought better and more concisely when I said: “Therefore let us not serve the creature Pathe than the creator! nor get lost in our own ’ imaginings, ’ and the religion is perfect. “P naturally, I meant by the one word each creature, i.e., spiritual and corporal. There remains what I said in that passage: “Or its’own fantasies;” because of that I said this: “let us not get lost in our own imaginings.’”
Further, I said this: “This is the Christian religion in our time; the safest and surest salvation is to know it and follow it; this was said in accordance with the name, not in accordance with the truth of which this is the name. For the truth itself, which is now named the Christian religion existed and was not missing among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came “in the flesh,” A from whom the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christian. For since the apostles had begun to preach him, after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, and many believed, the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch, just as it is written. On that account I said: “This is the Christian religion in our time,” but because it did not exist in former times, but because it got this name in later times.
In another place, I said: “Give diligent and conscientious attention, therefore, to these things which follow, as pick 28 you can; for God helps such. This is not to be understood as if he helps only such, since he helps those who are not that way, so that they may be of such a nature, i.e., so that they may make diligent and conscientious inquiry; however, he does help those who do give attention, so that they may learn.
I also said elsewhere: “Then, at last, it will be fitting that, after physical death, which we owe to original sin, this body will be restored to its pristine stability in its own time and in its own rank.? This is to be understood in such a way that the pristine stability of the body, which we have lost by sinning, also has so much happiness that it does not decline into the weakness of old age. The body is restored to its pristine stability in the resurrection of the dead, but it will have this further advantage: it will not be sustained by temporal nutriment, but sustained as if it is “made alive in the spirit alone ” for a sufficient existence, after it has risen again, being “in the life-giving spirit,” because it will to this extent be spirit also. gl But what existed first, al though it need not have died unless a men sinned, was, nevertheless, created a living being, i.e., was made into “a living soul,:
And in another place I say: “To this extent, voluntary sin is perpetually evil, for it is in no way sin if it is not voluntary. This definition can be regarded as false, but, if it is broken up it is discovered to be very truthful, As one might expect, sin is to be considered es that which is merely sin, not that which is also the punishment for sin; this is similar to what I pointed out above, when I made mention of a certain passage from the third book of the treatise on Free ill, although those which are unjustly considered voluntary sins, because they are committed either through ignorance or through compulsion, cannot be perpetrated in every respect without the will, since he who sins ignorantly certainly sins with his will, because, though it should not be done, he thinks it ‘should be done; and he who does not do what he wants, “his flesh lusting against the spirit, certainly does lust, though he is unwilling, and, therefore, he does not do what he wills; but, if ye is overcome, he is the willing servant of concupiscence, and therefore he does not do what he wills either; he is then plainly “free from righteousness and the servant of sin, and that which is called original sin in reference to children is not absurdly called voluntary as well, though as yet they have not exercised choice of will, because, incurred from the first evil will of man, it was somehow made hereditary. And so what I said is not false: “To this extent, voluntary sin is perpetually evil, as it is in no way sin if it is not voluntary.” Therefore, by the grace of God, not only is the guilt of things done in the past cleansed away in all who “are baptized into Christ, “! something which ie accomplished by the spirit of regeneration, but also in adults the will is restored and “equipped by the Lord, ” some thing which is accomplished by the “spirit of faith” ang charity.
In another place, I said this concerning our Lord Jesus Christ: “He did nothing by force, but everything by persuasion and admonit ion; ” it had not occurred to me that he cast out of the temple with a whip “them that were selling and them that were buying. ” But what does that amount to, seeing that he also cast out the unwilling demons from the men, not by a message of persuasion, but by the force of authority?
Likewise, in another place I said: “Those are to be followed first who say one single supreme thing is to be reverenced; if the truth will not have appeared among them, then they must be abandoned, ” This appears to have been said as though I had questioned the truth of this religion, But I said this to be agreeable to the man to whom I was writing. For I said this: “If the truth will not have appeared among them,” not doubting that the truth would be manifest among them, just as the apostle said: “If Christ has not been raised, ” not counting at all that he has been raised,
Likewise, I said this:. “And those miracles have not been permitted to continue into our times, lest the soul should continually seek after the visible and lest humankind should grow cold through becoming familiar with those things the novelty of which inflamed them; ” this is certainly true; for not even at the present time, when a hand is placed on these who are baptized, do they receive the holy spirit in such a way that they speak in the languages of all Cp races, nor even now are the sick restored to health by the shadow of those who are proclaiming Christ passing over them; and yet those things were done then by such people and it is evident that they have ceased afterwards. But what I said must not be understood as if no miracles may be believed accomplished in the name of Christ. For I myself, when I wrote this very BOOK, had already learned that bodies of martyrs in milan had restored the sight of a blind man in the same city and some others occurred in these times of the same kind also, so many that we cannot know them all nor reckon up those we do know.
And in another place I said this: “Just as the apostle says: ‘all order is from God 3 the apostle did not say it in those same words, although that seemed to be the thought. In fact, he says: “But those that do exist are ordained of God.
And at another place I said: “Absolutely no one deceives us: whatever is properly reproached is rejected in comparison with what is bet tera ” This was said concerning substances and natures; for then they, not good actions and sins, were being examined,
And I also say, in another place: “But, in fact, one man is not to be loved by another in the same way as brothers according to the flesh are loved, or sons, or spouses, or all those who are kinsmen, either by marriage or as citizens; for that love is temporal. For we would not have any such relationships, which are connected with birth and death, if our nature, abiding in the precepts and the image of God, had not been banished into this corruption, ” I reject this observation absolutely, which I had already rejected above in the first book of On Genesis, against the manichaeans. For it leads to this, that those first husbands and wives are considered not to have given birth to their descendants unless they had sinned, as if it would have been necessary for them to be begotten in death if they were begotten from the union of man and woman, For I had not yet seen that it might happen that men who were not subject to death would be born from men not subject to death, if human nature had not been changed for the worse by that great sin; if blessedness and fruitfulness had remained in both the parents and the children, even to the definite number of saints whom “God has foreordained, ”: men would not be born from dying parents, but would prevail With the living. Therefore, these kindred and relationships by marriage would exist if no one did wrong and no one died,
Further, in another place I said: “Inclined to one God and bind ing fast our spirits to that one God, whence the word religion is believed to come, all of us are free from superstition, ” In these words of mine, the reason which #25 given by which religion may be mentioned does not escape me. For it does not make me uncomfortable that the authors of the Latin tongue have set forth another source for this name, that what is bound back is hence called “religion;” that the word is made up from reading, i.e., choosing so that, in Latin,

“I bind back” seems like “I choose.”

This book begins in this manner: “Since the way of every good and happy life.”

Chapter XIII. On the Value of Faith, in One Book

Now, while I was a presbyter, at this time, at. Hippo Regius, I wrote a book on the value of faith to a friend of mine who had been deceived by the Manichaeans and whom I knew to be kept still in that error; he laughed at the teaching of the Catholic faith because men are bidden to believe, but they are not taught what is true in a very specific way.
In this book I said: “Nevertheless, in these precepts and commandments of the law, which Christians are not now permitted to practice, such as either the Sabbath, or circumcision, or sacrifices, or anything else of this kind, mysteries of so great a nature are included that every pious person may understand that there is nothing more destructive than to understand everything therein literally, i.e., verbally, nothing, however, more wholesome than that it be ‘revealed by the spirit.’ Wherefore, it is written: ‘‘The let ter kills, but the spirit gives life.” But I explained those i words of the apostle differently and, as it seems to me, or, rather, as it appears in the circumstances themselves, much more suitably in that book which is written on the spirit and the letter, although this meaning is not to be rejected.
I also said: “For there are two (kinds of) persons commendable in religion: one (made up) of those who; have already discovered, who must be also considered most blessed; the other, of those who are making inquiry very zealously and very excellently. Therefore, the first are already in very possession, the others on the way, by which nevertheless, they will most certainly arrive.” In these words of mine, if those who have already discovered, whom we have said to be already in very possession, are understood to be most blessed in such a way that they are not in this life, but in that life for which we hope and toward which we strive by the reach of faith, there is no error in this thought, for they are to be judged as having found that wa ich is to be sought; they are already there, where we are desirous of coming by seeking and believing, i.e., by keeping the path of faith. But if they are thought to be, or to have been, of such a kind in this life, that does not seem to me to be true, not because nothing true at all in this life can be discovered which is comprehended by the mind and not believed on faith, but because whatever there is is so little that it does not make men most blessed. For that which the apostle says: “Now we see through a glass darkly and: “now I know in part, ” is perceived by the pind not imperfectly; it is distinctly perceived, but it does not yet make men most blessed. For that which makes men most blessed is this which he says: “But then fact to face” and: “Then I shall know, just as I was also known, ” Those who have discovered this are said to be in possession of of bliss, to which that path of faith leads which we keep, where we are desirous of coming by believing. But who the most blessed are, who are already in that possession whither this way leads, is a great question. And there is certainly no question but that the holy angels are there. But of the holy men already dead, whether they may be said to be in that posses— sion is justly questioned. For they are certainly already freed from the corruptible body by which the soul is oppressed, but they also still “wait for the redemption of their body,” and their “flesh rests in hope; ” it is not yet becoming glorious in the incorruption which is in the future. But whether “for the contemplation” of the truth with the eyes of the heart, as was said, “face to face,” they possess nothing at all of this, there is no need for a discussion here, 20
Also what I said: “For to know great and fine ‘things or even divine things is most blessed, ” we ought to refer to the same blessedness. For in this life, as much of it as is known is not yet most blessed, because what is not known after that is incomparably more,
And what I said: “There is a great difference whether anything is grasped by a sure reasoning of the mind, which we call knowing, or whether it be entrusted profitably to fame or literary writings for it to be believed in by posterity,” and a little bit later: “Therefore, what we know we owe to reason; what we believe to authority, is not to be understood in such a way that in familiar conversation we should be afraid to say that we know what we believe from capable witnesses. For, when we speak accurately, we say we know only that which we comprehend by the trustworthy reasoning of the mind, However, when we speak in words more suitable to usage, just as the Holy Scriptures also speak, we should not hesitate to say that we know both what we have learned with the senses of our body and what we believe, on faith, from worthy witnesses, while, nevertheless, we know that there is a difference between the one and the other 4
Also what I said: “No one doubts that all men are either wise or foolish, can be seen to be contrary to what is read in the third book (of the treatise) On Free Will: “In fact, as though human nature admits no middle state between the foolish end the wise,” But that was said there when it was a question of the first men, whether he was made wise or foolish or neither, since we could in no way say that he was foolish, he who was created without any defect, since folly is a great defect; and how we could say that he was wise, who could be led astray, was not clear, And, therefore, as a short cut, I wanted to say: “In Tact, as though human nature admits no-middle state between the foolish and the wise.” For I also considered infants; we must acknowledge that they bear original sin; nevertheless, we cannot correctly say that they are either wise or foolish, for they do’not yet use free will either well or ill. But, now, I said all men were either wise or foolish, desiring that it be understood that they were already using reason, by which: they are separated from cattle, in order that they might be ‘men, just as we say that all men want to be happy. For in this thought, so true and evident, have we been afraid lest _ infants ere meant, who do not yet have the power of wishing this?
In another place, when I had made mention of the miracles which our Lord Jesus did when he was here in the flesh, I added this, saying: “Why, you will say, do not these things happen just now?” and I replied: “Because they would not begin unless they were extraordinary; but if they were ordinary, they would not be extraordinary. ” Now I said this, because miracles of such an importance do not now take place, nor do all take place (that once did), not because none at all take place just acu S
But at the end of the book I say: “But since this discussion of ours has continued a great deal longer than I. thought, let us make an end to this book, I want you to remember that in this treatise I had not yet begun to show the Manichaeans to be false and that I had not yet attacked their idle speeches, and that I had not yet revealed anything great about the Catholic Church itself, but that I had merely wan- Xs; ted to root out of you, if I could, at once the estimate of true Christians which was wickedly or ignorantly suggested to 38, aad to arouse You 40 certain great and divine things which ought to be learned. Therefore, let this volume be as it is. But, after your soul has become more calm, I will perhaps be more prepared in others, ” I did not say this as though I had not as yet written anything against the leni-achaeans, not committed to writ ing anything on Catholic doctrine, when so many of the volumes which were published earlier demonstrate that I had not been silent on either subject; but in this book, written to nim, I had: “not yet” begun “to show the manicheans to be false and” I had “not yet” attacked “their idle speeches and” I had. “mot yet” revealed “anything great about the catholic Church itself,” because I hoped that, I after this beginning was made, I would write to him those things which I had not written here..
This book begins in this ways’ if, Honoratus, (a heretic and a man trusting heretics) seemed to me to be one and the seme,“

Chapter XIV. On Two Souls, in One Book

After this book, 2 I wrote, while still a presbyter, against the Manichaeans On Two Souls, one part of which, they say,. is of God, the other from the race of darkness which. God did not establish end which is coeternal with God; they rave about these souls, the one good, the other bad, that they both exist in one men, saying, of course, that the bad one is of the flesh, which flesh they say also is of the race of darkness, but that the good one comes from the part of God which reached out, came into collision with the race of darkness, and mingled with it; and, certainly, they ascribe all good things in men to that good soul, but all bad things to ‘that evil soul,. fro
In this book, I made this statement: “There is no life whatsoever, which, in that respect in which there is life, and in so far as it is life at all, does not pertain to the supreme source and beginning of life.” I said this in the sense that the creature is understood to pertain to the creator, but not as if the creature were a part of the creator,
I also said this: “It is certain that there is no 3 sin anywhere except in the will,” The Pelagians can con- 1 sider that this was said for their benefit, because of young children; they deny that these children possess original sin, which is remitted to them by baptism, because they do not yet make use of the power of free will. For that reason, the sin Which we say they derived originally from Adam, i.e., that they are implicated in his guilt, and, in consequence of this, are kept liable to punishment, could never exist except in the will, by which it was committed, when the transgression of the divine precept was committed. This statement which we made: There is no sin anywhere except in the will,” can also be considered false because the apostle said: “But if what I do not wish, this I do, it is no longer I who perform it, but the sin which dwells within me. For this sin is not in the will to such an extent that he says: “What I do not wish, this I do.” Therefore, how is there never sin except in the will? But this sin, concerning which the apostle has thus spoken, is called sin, therefore, because it was done by sin and it is the penalty of sin, since this is ‘said concerning the concupiscence of the flesh, which he makes known in the following words, saying: “I know, because a good thing does not dwell within me, i.e., in my flesh; for to will is present with me, but not to perform the good, ” Naturally, the perfection of the good is that the concupiscence of sin itself should not exist in man, with which, indeed, when life is well lived, the will does not agree, Nevertheless, he does not accomplish the good, because he still belongs to concupiscence, to which the will makes resistance; the guilt of this concupiscence is released in baptism, but the weakness remains, against which, until it is healed, every believer who performs well struggles most assiduously. But the sin, which is “nowhere except in the will,” must be understood especially as that which is followed by a just condemnation—for this “through one man entered into the world “—al though i this sin also, by which consent is yielded to concupiscence, is not commited except in the will, On account of this I have also said in another place: “Therefore there is no sinning except in the will,
And, also, in another place, I defined that same will, saying: “The will is a movement of the soul, no one else forcing it to lose or to obtain anything.” Therefore, this was said so that by this definition a willing person might be distinguished from an unwilling one and thus the intention might be referred to those who were the source of the evil in the human race first, in paradise, since no one else forced the will to sin, that is they sinned of their own free will, because they also acted against the precept knowingly, and the tempter persuaded, did not compel, this to be done. For, also, he who has sinned unknowingly can not unsuitably be said to have sinned unwillingly; although he also did it unknowingly, still he did it willingly; thus the sin of such a person could not exist apart from the will. Certainly this same will, just as it was defined, “was a movement of the soul, no one else forcing it to lose or to obtain anything.” For he was not forced to do what he would not have done if he had not been willing. Because he was willing, therefore he did it, although he did not sin because he was willing, not knowing that what he did was sin. So such a sin could not exist apart from the will, but by the will of the act, not the will of the sin; however, this act was sin; for what was done ought not to have been done. But the one who sins knowingly, if he can resist, without sin, the one who forces him to sin and yet does not resist, certainly is sinning willingly, since he who can resist is not forced to give up. However, the one who cannot with his will resist being forced into covetousness, and therefore acts against the precepts of righteousness, has already sinned in such a way that it is also the penalty of sinning. Wherefore, it is very true that sin cannot exist apart from the will HS
And, likewise, a definition of sin, in which we said; “Sin is the will to maintain and follow after what justice forbids and from which it is free to abstain, ” is, true, because what is defined is merely sin, not what is also the penalty of sin. For when it is of such a nature that it is also the penalty of sin, how much can the will do under a ruling covetousness, unless, by chance, if it is devout, it prays for help? For it is free in as great a measure as ii has been freed, and in so far it is called will. Otherwise, all covetousness is to be properly called will, which is not, as the Manichaeans say in their ranting, an accession of another nature, but is a defect in us, from which one is not cured except “by the grace of the Saviour,” If anyone says that covetousness itself is also nothing except the will, but is wicked and a servant of sin, he is not to be opposed, and there is to be no controversy concerning the words, since the matter is unchanged. For, this is to indicate that there is no sin apart from the will either in effect or in origin,
Again, in a certain passage I said this: “1 had Just begun to inquire whether that evil kind of souls, before it was intermingled with the good, had any will. For if it did not have any will, it will be without sin and innocent and, therefore, in no way evil, ” “therefore, why,” they say, “do you say that there is sin among children whose will you do not hold responsible?” It is replied that they are not held to be responsible in the quality of their will, but in its origin. For what is every earthly man in origin but Adam? However, adam certainly possessed a will in his former state, by means of which, when he had sinned, sin through him “entered into the world.
And, likewise, in a certain passage I said this: “By nature souls can in no way be evil, If it is asked in what way we understand what the apostle says: “And we were by nature children of wrath even as the others, ” we reply that in these words of mine I had wanted nature to be understood as that which is appropriately called nature, in which we are created without vice, for this is called nature on account of its origin; this origin certainly possesses vice, because it is against nature, 44
And, once more, this was said: “To hold that any one is guilty of sin because he does not do what he could do, is of the highest iniquity and madness, ” “Therefore, why,” they say, “are the children held responsible?” The answer is, because they are held responsible, obviously, from the origin of the one who did not do what he could, that is, keep the divine commandment.
However, I said this: “Whatever those souls do, if they do it by nature, not by will, i.e., if they are destitute of a movement of spirit free both for doing and not doing, if, finally, nc power is granted them of abstaining from their deed, we cannot hold. that sim is theirs.” The question concerning the children is not disturbing, because they are held responsible out of the origin of him who has: willingly sinned, when he was not destitute “of a movement of spirit free both for doing and not doing,” and in him there was the highest power of abstaining from evil performance. The manichaeans do not say this concerning the race of darkness, which they introduce with a wealth of myths, and they contend that nature has always been bad, never good,
But the way in which I said the following can be questioned: “Even if there are souls, which, in the meantime, is an uncertainty, dedicated to bodily offices not by sin, -but by nature, and are connected to us, however inferior they may be, yet by some inner nearness: on that account they ought not to be regarded as evil because we are evil when we follow them and when we love physical things,” Moreover I said the following concerning those about whom I had begun $0 speak openly: “although even if it is conceded to them that we are attracted to infamous things by another inferior kind of souls, they do not thence bring it about that they are evil natures or that those enticed possess the highest good. Concerning them, too, I went so far as 10 say in debate: “Even if there are souls, which, in the meantime, is an uncertainty, dedicated to bodily offices not by sia, but by nature,” etc, therefore, for these reasons one may well ask why I said: “Which, in the meantime, is an uncertainty,” since I absolutely should not have doubted there were no such souls, But, I said this, because I have had experience with those who say that the devil and his angels are good in their origin and in their nature, in which order God created them as they really are; it is bad for us, if we are enticed and led astray by them, but proper and honorable if we are wary and overcome them. And those who say this think to adduce testimony from Scripture adequate to prove it: either that Scripture in Job, when the devil wes depicted: “This is the beginning of something the Lord made up for mocking by his angels, ” or that one in the one hundred and third psalm: “Here is the serpent, whom you have formed for making sport of him.” This question, which should be taken up and solved, not against the Manichaeans, who do not perceive this, but against others who do perceive it,

(as it should be taken up and disposed of), I was unwilling, then, to handle and elucidate, Test I make this book much: longer then I wanted it to be, since I saw that, even if this were granted, the Manichaeans yet ought and now can be refuted, they who represent in a most absurd error the nature of evil to be coeternal with tle eternal good. Therefore, for that reason, I said: “which, in the meantime, is an uncertainty,” not because I was uncertain then, but because between me and them whom I had found to understand the matter 80 this question had not yet been settled. However, I answered this as cogently as I was able in other books of mine, written a long time later, On Genesis, According to ithe Letter, according to the Holy scriptures,

In another place, I say: “Therefore, we sin by loving physical things, because we are ordered by justice and can by nature love spiritual things, and then we are, in our kind, the best and the blessed. In this it can be questioned why I said we can “by nature” and not by grace. But against the Manichaeans the question of nature was being discussed, and certainly it has to do with grace that that nature can do through him who “came to seek and to save that which was lost,” what, vitiated, it is not able to do, Hou-ever, reflecting upon this grace even then, I prayed for my companions, who were being kept yet in that destructive error, and I said: “Great Cod, God omnipotent, God of supreme goodness, whose right it is to be believed and discerned as inviolable and incorruptible, triune unity, whom the Catholic Church worships, I humbly pray as ous who has known thy mercy by experience, that thou wilt not permit the men with whom there has been the highest unanimity with me from childhood in that which sustains men’s lives to disagree with me in thy adoration. Certainly, praying in this way, I was now by faith keeping possession not only of those who are directed to Gog to be helped by his grace, that they might advance end be perfected—as heretofore, it can be said that this grace is given for the merit of their conversion—but also that they might be converted to God, to reach out for that same grace of God for which I prayed in their behalf; they ‘had been alienated from him beyond measure, and I prayed that they might be converted to him,
This book begins with these words: “Through the relieving mercy of God.”

Chapter XV. Proceedings Against Fortunatus, the Manichaean, in One Book

At the same time, while I was a presbyter, I argued against a certain Fortunatus, a presbyter of the Manichaeans, who had lived for a long time at Hippo and had led SO many astray that it pleased him to dwell there on account of them. This debate, after we had disputed, was taken down by the notaries, while the proceedings were written up in the form of minutes; for, they contain both the day and the consul. I tried hard to bring this together so that it might be committed from memory in the book, Here the question is handled as to the origin of evil; I maintained that the evil in man sprang from the freedom of his will, but he attempted to advocate that the nature of evil was coeternal with God. It was acknowledged, however, on the following day, that he had found nothing against us which he might say, to be sure he did not become a Catholic, nevertheless, he departed from Hippo.
In this book, I said this: “I say that the soul was made by God, just as all other things which were made by God, and that among the things that almighty God made, the principal place was given to the soul, ” I said this intending it to apply to all rational creatures, although it is difficult or impossible to find it said in the Holy Scriptures that angels have souls. I said what was necessary elsewhere,
Likewise, in another place, I say: “I say that it is not sin if the fault is not committed by one’s own will.” In that statement I did not want sin to be understood to include also the penalty for sin; for, concerning such a penalty I have said what was necessary elsewhere in this debate,
And I said this also: “As afterwards this same flesh tortures us with punishment while we remain in sin, it is made subject to us in the resurrection and it shakes us with no adversity from being subject to the law and the divine precepts,” This is not to be understood in the sense that the law and the precepts out of divine scriptures were to be taken up in that kingdom of God where we will have a body incorruptible and immortal, but because there the divine law will be kept most excellently and we will keep those: two precepts about loving God and our neighbor, not in words, but in that same perfect and everlasting love,
This work begins in this manner: “On the twenty-seventh of August, the most renowned men Arcadius Augustus (the second time) and Rufinus being consuls.”

Chapter XVI. On Faith and the Creed, in One Book

About the same time, I delivered a discussion, in the presence of the bishops,? who were holding a plenary Council of all of Africa at Hippo Regius, and who gave me orders to do it, concerning faith and the creed. I turned this disputation into a book, when some of those who regarded us in a quite friendly manner eagerly urged me to do it, In this book the themes themselves are treated in such a way, however, that the connection of the words is not represented-~-that connection which is delivered to the fit ones to be committed to memory.
In this book, when there is a discussion concerning the resurrection of the flesh, I say: “The body will rise again, according to the Christian faith, which cannot deceive, Should this appear incredible to anyone, it means that he considers how the flesh is now constituted, but he does not consider of what nature it will be, because in that time of angelic change it will no longer be flesh and blood but merely body” and other things which I discussed there concerning the change of terrestrial bodies into heavenly bodies, as the apostle said, when he spoke about it: “Flesh and blood will not take possession of the kingdom of God.m” But whoever understands these statements in such a way that he supposes that the earthly body, of the same kind as the one we now have, is changed at the resurrection into a heavenly body, in such a way that neither these members nor the substance of the flesh will exist, must doubtless be reproved and reminded of the body of the Lord, who, after his resurrection, appeared in the same members, not only as a being to be perceived with the eyes, but also touched by the hands; and he also affirmed his possession of the flesh by his discourse, saying: “Handle me, and see, because a spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you see me have.” Hence it is certain that the apostle did not deny that the substance of the flesh will exist in the kingdom of God, but he designated under the phrase “flesh and blood” either those who live according to the flesh ocr that same corruption of the flesh which will have no existence at all at that time. For when he had said: “Flesh and blood will not take possession of the kingdom of God” he immediately added: “Nor will corruption take possession of incorruption”—g statement which is understood best as an explane tion of the previous one. Concerning this subject, one which is impracticable for the exhortation of infidels, anyone who will read the last book of the treatise, On the City of God, will discover that I have discoursed it with all the diligence of which I have been capable.
This book begins in this manner: “Whereas it was written,“

Chapter XVII. On Genesis, According to the Letter, Incomplete, in One Book

Since I had produced the two books On Genesis, Against the Manichaeans, and since I had dealt with the words of Scripture in accordance with the allegorical meaning, not daring to expound such secrets of natural things in a literal sense, i.e., in the historical sense in which the words were written, I wanted to find out what I could do in this task also, a work that is very troublesome and, also, very difficult. But my inexperience in expound ing the Scriptures fell under the weight of such a load, and, before I had finished one book, I stopped the task I was not able to keep up. But, when I was reviewing my works, this same one came into my hands just as it was, incomplete, one which I had not published and which I had decided to destroy, because I wrote later twelve books, the title of which is On Genesis, According to the Letter. Although, in these later books, more questions seem to be raised than settled, yet this present work is in no way to be compared to them, But, after having reviewed it, I wanted this work to remain that it might be an indication, in my opinion not a useless one, of my first attempts to explain in detail and examine thoroughly the divine utterances; I want the title of this work to be: On Genesis, According to the Letter, Incomplete, Now, I discovered that it had been dictated up to these words: “Nevertheless, the father is the father, and the son is nothing other than the son, because, when the resemblance to the father is also mentioned, although it shows that no difference comes between them, yet, the father is not alone, if he has someone who resembles him,” After this, I repeated the words of Scripture which are to be examined and discussed again: “and God said: let us make man in our image and in our resemblance.” I had abandoned this incomplete book, which had been dictated up to this point. But, when I wes reviewing it, I thought that what follows ought to be added; I did not finish it in this way, but, after adding this also, I left it incomplete. For if I had brought it to an end, I should have at least treated of all the works and the words of God which belong to the sixth day. It seemed to me unnecessary that I should indicate those things in this book which were unsatisfactory to me, or defend those things not well discerned which can be unsatisfactory to others,. For I briefly suggest rather that: those twelve books might be read which I wrote a long time afterwards, From those, judgment may be given concerning this one.
Therefore, this begins in this manner: “This is to be an investigation into the unknown facts of the realm of nature, which we understand were made by the omnipotent God, our maker, not for the purpose of stating them, but of making inquiry.”

Chapter XVIII. On Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, in Two Books

At the same time, 2 I wrote two volumes concerning our Lord’s sermon on the mount according to Matthew,
In the first of these books, I say, in view of what was written: “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they shall be called sons of God:” wisdom coincides with the peacemakers, in whom all things are now set in order and no passion is rebellious against reason, but all things obey the spirit of men, while he himself also obeys God.” That is deservedly disturbing, as I said it. For it cannot come to pass in any one in this life, that the law which opposes the “law of the mind” does not exist at all in his members, seeing that, although the spirit of man resists it only in such a way that it does not on that account cease its struggle, nevertheless, so it does fight back, Therefore, what I said: “No passion is rebellious age inst reason,” can be correctly understood now in the sense that the active peacemakers master the concupiscences of the flesh so that one may sometimes reach that very abundant peace.
In like manner, in another place, when I had repeated that same gospel statement: “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they shall be called sons of God,” I added this, saying: “And those promises can be fulfilled in this life, as we believe them to be fulfilled in the apostles.” This must be understood, not as though we believed that no passion of the flesh had struggled against the spirit in the apostles while they were alive here, but as though these promises can be fulfilled in this life to the extent that we believe they were fulfilled in the apostles, naturally to the extent of human perfection, as much perfection as there can be in this life. For this was not said: “Those promises can be fulfilled in this life: for we believe they were fulfilled in the apostles,” but this: “As we believe they were fulfilled in the apostles;” so that they are fulfilled as they were fulfilled in the apostles, i.e., by a kind of fulfillment of which this life is capable, not as if they were fulfilled in the manner we hope for, in very abundant peace, when it was said; “0 death, where is your struggle?
In another place, I inserted this statement: “For God does not give the spirit by measure, ” I had not yet come to know that this is accurately and more fittingly understood concerning Christ, For, if the spirit is given to other men only by measure, Elisha would not have sought twice as much as Elijah had,
Likewise, what was written: “One jot and one tittle shall not pass away from the law, until all things are brought to pass, ” when I explained it, I said that this could be understood as nothing except a strong expression of perfection, In this place, it is justifiably asked whether this perfection can be understood as meaning that no one now enjoying free will lives here without sin. For, by whom can the law be fulfilled as far as one tittle, unless by him who performs the whole body of divine commandments? But among these commandments there is also one in which we are bid to say: “Forgive our debts, as we also forgive our debtors, ” a prayer the whole church says until the end of time. Therefore, all commandments are considered fulfilled when what is not fulfilled is forgiven.
I certainly did explain what the Lord says: “For whosoever shall have broken one of these least commandments and shall have taught men so,” etc., as far as that place where he says: “Unless your righteousness shall have exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, in a much better manner and more suitably in other later sermons of mine 3 this explanation is too long to repeat here. But, to this the following meaning is applied there, that the righteousness of those who both say and do is greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees, For, the Lord himself says concerning the scribes and; Pharisees, in another place: “For they say and do not do. ”
We also understood better later what was written: “Whoever is angry with his brother, ” for the Greek manuscripts do not have “without cause,” as it was cited in the passage under consideration, although it has the same meaning. For we said, observing what it is to be angry with one’s brother, that one who is angry with the sin of one’s brother is not angry with the brother. Consequently, one who is angry with his brother and not angry with the sin is angry without cause,:
Likewise, I said this; “This is to be understood of the father and the mother and the other ties of blood, that we hate in them what happened to the human race in being born and dying;” this sounds as if these relationships would not await us if no one had died from a sin which preceded any human nature; this interpretation I have already repudiated earlier, For, truly, there would be blood-relationships and relationships by marriage, even if, in the absence of original sin, humankind had increased and multiplied without death. And consequently the question why the Lord commanded us to love our enemies is to be solved another way than is proposed here, since he commands us in another place to hate both our parents and our children, as I often explained later, i.e., that we love our enemies in order to gain the kingdom of God and that we hate our kindred if they keep us out of the kingdom of God,
Also, the injunction by which a wife is prevented from being divorced except on account of adultery, I have certainly discussed here most scrupulously; but there is a question to be considered and asked again and again as to what the Lord means by the fornication on account of which it is permissible to divorce a wife, whether it is that which: is condemned in lusts, or that concerning which it was said: You have destroyed every one who commits fornication from you, in which there is also this—for anyone admits a fornication from the Lord who, “taking away the members of Christ, makes those members a prostitute;“—for I do not wish the reader to consider that our explanation, in a mat-; ter so great and so hard to set in order, must be sufficient, but let him read this and also our words which have been written later, or words that were reflected upon and discussed better by others; or let the reader himself examine those things which can justly disturb him with a more anxious and intelligent mind, not because every sin is fornication—fa God does not destroy all who are sinning; he hears their prayers when they say: “Forgive us our debts, ” while he does destroy “everyone who commits fornication” away from him—but how far this fornication is to be taken and limited and whether it is also on account of this that it is permissible to divorce a wife, is a very broad question. However, there is no doubt that it is permissible on account of that fornication which is committed in lusts. and when I said that this was permissible, that it was not a commend, I did not consider that other scripture which says: “He who keeps an adulterous woman is foolish and ungodly. Nor did I say, that woman was to be considered an adulteress after she heard the Lord say: “Neither will I condemn you; go; hereafter, do not sin,” if she heard it submissively.
In another place, I had defined the sin of a brother unto death, about which the apostle John says: “I do not say that he should ask on behalf of this, ” by saying: “I believe that the sin of a brother is unto death when, after a knowledge of God through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, anyone assails the brotherhood and is aroused by the flames of jealousy against that very grace by which he is reconciled to God.” Of curse, I did not assert it outright, seeing that this was my opinion, but, nevertheless, this should have been added: if he comes to the end of this life in such a wicked perversity of the mind, since there is no need whatever to despair in this life of the most ill-disposed of men; and we should not wax impatient in prayer for him of whom we do not despair.
In the second book also I say: “No one will be allowed to be ignorant of the kingdom of God, when his onlybegotten shall have come from heaven, not only intelligibly, but also visibly, as a dominical man to ‘judge tle living and the dead, ’ ” But I do not see whether the phrase “dominical man” was used correctly, he who is the “mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus “7 since he is certainly the Lord: out who in his holy family cannot be called a dominical person? But I said this in the same way as it was read in the writings of certain Catholic exegetical writers of divine utterances. But wherever I said this I am sorry that I said it. For, in fact, afterwards I sew that it should not have been said, though it is not altogether without some reason in its favor.:
Also, I said this: “For the conscience of almost no one can hate God; I do not think that it should have been said. For they are many, concerning whom it was written: “The pride of them who hated you. ”
In another place in this work, I said this: “On this account the Lord said: ‘‘Enough for the day is its own ill-will, that necessity itself urged the taking of nutriment, which necessity, therefore, I consider to be designated ill-will, because it is for us penal; for it belongs to this frailty which we have deserved through sinning.” I had not yet considered that bodily nutriment had been given to the first human beings in paradise, before they had earned this punishment of death for sinning. For they were immortal in bodies physically alive but not yet spiritual, so that, nevertheless, they took advantage of bodily nutriment in an immortality of this sar 44
I also said this: “That God has selected for himself, a glorious church without spot or wrinkle ” I did not say this because it is now of this kind throughout, although it is not to be doubted that it has been elected that its life may be of this kind, when “Christ shall have appeared, for then it will itself appear with him in glory; because of this glory, it was called a “glorious church,
Likewise, what the Lord says: “Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened for you, ” I thought one had carefully, to explain in truth, how these three differ among themselves; but it is much better to regard all three alike as referring to the most importunate petition. For, this he shows where he has concluded in that word, saying: “How much more shall your father, who is in heaven, give good things to those who ask him; for he did not say: “those who ask, seek, and knock.”
This work begins in this way: “The sermon which the Lord spoke.”

Chapter XIX. A Psalm Against the Sect of Donatus, Book I

Desiring, by all means, that the sect of the Donatists might come to the attention of the humblest people and of the altogether ignorant and uneducated, and to fix it in their minds as strongly as we could, I made a psalm, which was to be sung by them, through the Latin alphabet as far as the letter “u;” such works are called “alphabetical s.” However, I omitted the last three letters, but in their place I added the last as an epilogue, as I the mother church is greeting them. Furthermore, the refrain, which is given as a reply, and the preface to the matter, which we wanted to be sung, are not in the succession of letters; for their order begins after the preface. On the other hand, therefore, I did not want this to be done in a kind or incantation, lest the necessity of the meter force me to some words which the crowd does not use very much,:
This psalm begins with these words: “All those who rejoice in peace, only pass judgment properly, ” which is its refrain.

Chapter XX. Against the Letter of Donatus the Heretic, in One Book

I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus, who was the bishop of the Donatist sect at Carthage, the next one after Majorinus; I was at that time a presbyter. In this letter Donatus advances the idea that he believes there is no baptism of Christ except in his communion. We speak against this idea in our book.
In this book I spoke, in a certain passage, of the apostle Peter, that “on him, just as on a rock, was the church established.” The sentiment of this statement is also sung in the mouths of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, in which he says, concerning the crowing cock: “When the cock crowed, the rock of the church washes away his guilt;” but I know that afterwards I very frequently explained as follows what the Lord said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will construct my church;” as follows: “Upon this” means on him whom Peter confessed saying: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.” And thus Peter, designated by this rock, plays the role of the church which is built on this rock and which had received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said was not “Thou art a rock,” but “Thou art Peter.” Now the rock was Christ, and Simon acknowledged it, just as the whole church also acknowledges it, and was called Peter. However, the reader may choose which of these two notions is the more plausible.
In another place I said: “God demands the death of no one.” This is to be taken as meaning that a man has obtained death for himself when he deserts God and whoever has not returned to God gains death, according to which it is written: “God did not make death.” But this also is no less true: “Life and death are from the Lord God, ” life as a gift, to be sure, and death as a punishment.
Also I said this: “Donatus,” whose letter I was refuting, “asked that the emperor appoint bishops from beyond the sea as judges between him and Caecilian; it was discovered that it was more probably not this Donatus but another one, who also belonged to the schism, who had done this, However, he was not the bishop of the Donatists at Carthage, but at Casae Nigrae; nevertheless, he was the first who accomplished at Carthage that abominable schism.
Nor was it “Donatus of Carthage” who “ordained that Christians should be rebaptized,“—which I believed he did ordain when I replied to his letter—“nor was it he who deleted words necessary to the matter from the middle of the sentence in the Book of Wisdom” where though it is written: ""‘Whoever is cleansed from a dead person and then touches it again, of what use has the bathing been? ” He quoted it as though it had run: “Whoever is cleansed from a dead person, of what use has the bathing been?” However, we afterwards learned in addition that many manuscripts, especially the african ones, before there was a Donatist sect, had it thus as if there were not in the middle: “And then touches it again, ” If I had known that then I would not have said so much in that treatise about the thief or the violator of the divine utterance.Z
This book begins with these words: “I had heard from you yourself immediately.”

Chapter XXI. Against Adimantus, a Disciple of Manichaeus, in One Book

At the same time, there came into my hands certain arguments of Adimantus, who had been a disciple of Manichaeus; he wrote them against the law and the prophets, as he sought to show that the gospels and the apostolic writings were contrary to them. I replied to him by referring to his words and reciting my refutation of them. I confined this to one volume and in it I replied to same questions not once, but a second time; since I had given this as an answer in uy own behalf, it had disappeared, and then was discovered, after I had replied already a second time 4 Of course, I have overthrown same of the questions in ecclesiastical sermons delivered before the people; thus far, I have not yet answered some of them; others have remained which have been passed over because of the greater pressure of other things, adding them also to the accumulation of forgotten things.
In this book I said: “For that nation that received the old Testament was being kept in some established shadows and figures of things before the coming of the Lord in accordance with the amazing and strictly regulated disposition of the times; nevertheless, on the Old Testament there is such a proclamation and foretelling of the New Testament that none are to be found in the gospel and apostolic teaching, although they are lofty and divine precepts and promises, which are not in those old books also.” But “almost” should have been added, and then it would heave read: “That almost none are to be found in the gospel and apostolic teaching, although they are lofty and divine precepts and promises, which are not in those old books also.” For why does our Lord say this in the gospel in the Sermon on the Mount: “You have heard that it was said by men of old; but this is what I tell you, ” if he enjoined nothing more “than what was ‘taught Tm books? Then, we do fio read that the “Kingdom of heaven” was held out to that people in those things which were promised by the law given by means of loses on mount Sinai, which is properly spoken of as the old covenant, which the apostle says was prefigured by the handmaid of Sarah and her son; but the new covenant was also formed there by Sarah herself and her.son,.Therefore, if the figures are removed, all things prophesied there are discovered which were given, or expected to be given by Christ, Nevertheless, because of certain precepts, not figurative, but characteristic, which are not discovered in the Old Testament, but in the New, “almost none” should have been said, in a more careful and discreet manner PE than “none,” to exist in the New Testament, which are not also in the old, although there are in the old those two precepts concerning the Love’ of God and one’s neighbor, to which all the law-makers, the prophets, the gospel writers, and the apostolic writers return..:
I also said this: “The word ‘sons’ is understood in three ways in the scriptures;” this was said with too little consideration.* For we without doubt overlooked the fect that the word could be understood in certain other ways also, as it is said: “a son of Gehenna, ” or “a son by adoption, ” which are not at all stated in accordance with nature, doctrine, or imitation. Of these three ways we gave examples, as if they were the only ways: in accordance with nature as the Jews were “sons of Abraham; ” in accordance with doctrine, as the apostle calls those his sons whom he caused to know the go spel; in accordance with imitation, as “we are sons Of Abraham, ” whose faith we imitate.
Where I said: “When it shall have put on ‘incorruption and immortality,’ it will no longer be flesh and blood; ” I meant that it will not be flesh with respect to fleshly corruption, not that it would not bs flesh with respect to the substance which in the body of the Lord after the resurrection is called flesh.
In another place, I say: “Unless anyone has transformed his will, a good thing cannot be performed. What is put within our power he teaches in another place, where he says: ‘Either make the tree good and its fruit good or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, *“0 This is not contrary to the grace of God, which we are commending. For it is within the power of a man to change to a better will; but that power is nothing unless it is given by God, concerning which it was said: “To them he gave the power to become the sons of God. ” For though what ‘we do when we Ses will is within our power, nothing is within our power so much as the will itself. But “the will is prepared by the Lord. In that way, therefore, does he give the power.
To be understood in the same way is also what I said later: “It is true that in our power we deserve 10 be implanted by means of the goodness of God, or to be cut down by his sever ity; that only is in our power which we attain by our will; when this is made strong and powerful by the Lord, a work of piety, even a difficult or an impossible one, is done easily.
This book begins with these words: “On what was written: ‘In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. “

Chapter XXII. An Exposition of Certain Themes from the Epistle of the Apostle to the Romans

While I was still a presbyter, it happened that at carthage, among those of us who were together, the epistle of the apostle to the Romans was read, and, after questions were asked and I had answered them as well as I could, certain of the brethren wanted what I was saying to be written down, rather than for it to be diffused without being written down. When I complied with their request, one book was added to my preceding works.:
In this book, I say: “But he says this; ‘We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal;’ this shows satisfactorily that the law cannot be fulfilled except by spiritual men of such kind as the grace of God creates I do not by any means want this to be understood as arising from the person of the apostle, who was already spiritual, but of a man put “under the law, not yet under grace. For so I understood these words formerly, which words later, after having read some of the tractates of e€eloquent divines, whose author ity moved me, I considered more carefully; I saw that it could even be understood concerning the apostle himself, where he says: “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal,” which I showed as carefully as I could in those books which I have recently written against the Pelagians. Therefore, in this book this was said also: “But I am carnal” and then other things right up to that place where he said: “I am a wretched man, who will set me free from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. I said that the man that was described as still under the law, not yet under grace, was one established as willing to do well, but doing evil, a victim of the concupiscence of the flesh. Only “the grace of god, through Jesus Christ our Lord, ” “the gift of the Holy Spirit, ” frees us from the mastery of this concupiscence; by means of the Holy Spirit, “the love poured forth in our hearts, conquers the concupiscences of the flesh, sO that we may reject them in doing evil; we should rather do the good. Whence the Pelagian heresy is certainly now overthrown; this heresy intends to say that love does not exist from God to us, but from us to God, and in this love we live well and conscientiously. But in those books which we published in opposition to them, we showed those words are better understood: of a spiritual man already established under grace, by reason of the body of Lh flesh, which is not yet spiritual, bu? will be in the resurrection of the dead, and by reason of the very lust of the flesh, with which the holy are in conflict, not consenting with it unto evil, in such a way that they, nevertheless, are not free in this life from those impulses which they resist by struggling. Now they will not possess those impulses in that life where “death will be swallowed up in victory. And thus, because of this concupiscence and its passion, which are withstood in such a way that they still exist in us, any holy person now set “under grace” Can say that all the things I said were the words of a man not yet set “under grace, but under the law. ” This is a lengthy demonstration here and also in that place where it was said it would be. 20
Moreover, in discussing the one whom God had chosen before he was born, what he said about his eldest son being a servant, and what he had likewise reproved in that same elder before birth, about which matters and on which account the prophetic witness is set down, although brought out a long time afterwards: “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau, ” I applied my powers of reasoning to the matter, when I said: “Therefore, God did not choose his works because of foreknowledge of what he would give, but he chose his trustworthiness in the foreknowledge that the one about whom he had foreknowledge would believe on him; he chose him to whom he gave the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good he would also reach eternal life. I had not yet sought very assiduously, nor had I as yet discovered of what kind the election of grace is, about which the apostle says:

“A remnant is created on account of the election of grace; ” this is not grace at all, if any benefits go before it, lest now what is given be not rendered of grace but as same thing due, rather earned than bestowed. <4

Then, I immediately said this; “For the apostle says the same thing: ‘God works the seme, who works all things in all;? nowhere was this said: God believes all things in all;” and then I added: “Therefore, what we believe is ours, but what we work faithfully belongs to him who gives the spirit to them that believe.” I really should not have said that if I had already known that that same faith also is found among the gifts of God, which are given “in the same spirit.” Therefore, everything is ours on account of free will and, nevertheless, everything is given because of “the spirit of faith” ang love. For not love alone is given, but, as it was written, “love with faith from God the father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
And, 2 little bit later, I said this: “Por it is ours to believe and to will, but his to give to those who believe and will the power to work faithfully ‘through the Holy Spirit,’ through which *love is poured forth in our hearts; * ” this is certainly true, but by that principle each is his, because he equips the wily, and ours, because it is not done unless we will it,
And on this account, I afterwards also said this: “Be cause we cannot will unless we are called, and since we have willed after the calling, our will and our way are not adequate unless God both gives strength to those who run the race and conducts them whither he summons them,” and then I added: “Therefore, it is evident that what we work faithfully is ‘not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has compassion; ” this is doubtless very true. But I did not sufficiently discuss that calling, which is made according to the purpose of God; for this is not true of all who are called, but only of those who are chosen,
Accordingly, I said this a little later: “For just as among those “whom God chose” not works but faith begins merit, that they may work well by the gift of God, SO among those whom he condemns the merit of retribution begins faithlessness and ungodliness, that by the same punishment they may work ill; I said this very properly, but I did not consider that the merit of faith itself is also the gift of God nor did I think or say that it should be sought.:
And in another place I say: “For ‘on whom he has compassion’ he makes him work faithfully, and ‘whom he hardens’ he abandons, so that he works wrongly. But both that compassion is bestowed on the one who possesses an antecedent merit of faith, and that hardness on the one who possesses an antecedent ungodliness.” That certainly is true, but it should have been asked further whether the merit of faith also comes from the compassion of God, i.e., whether that compassion, therefore, merely serves men because he is faithful, or whether that compassion is also created that he might be faithful. Yor we read, in the words of the apostle: “I have followed after compassion in order that I may be faithful;n he does not say: “because I was faithful.” Therefore, it is indeed given to him who is faithful, but it was also given in order that he might be faithful. ¥?
“dn ano ther place in that same book, accordingly, I wrote most appropriately: “Whereas, if we are called not on account of works but of the compassion of God so that we should believe, and it is furnished in those who believe that we work faithfully, that compassion which is to be envied is not for the Gentiles, ” although in the same passage there was a less careful discussion of that calling. which is made by the purpose of God.
This book begins with these words: “These thoughts are located in the epistle of Paul to the romans.”

Chapter XXIII. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, in One Book

After this book, I expounded that same apostle’s epistle to the Galatians, not by detached parts, i.e., by omitting some sections, but by connecting the different parts and dealing with the book as a whole; but, I bound -this exposition in one volume.
In this book, I said this: “Therefore, the earlier apostles, who were sent not from man but from God by a man, i.e., by Jesus Christ before he died, spoke the truth; So did that least among the apostles who was sent by Jesus Christ, already wholly God after his resurrection.” The ‘phrase “already wholly God” was said because of the immortality which he began to possess after his resurrection, not because of the divinity which was always immortal, from which he never withdrew, and which, when he was about to die, he still was, Now, this meaning is evident in the subsequent section, for I added these words: “Other apostles are earlier through Christ, who was then a man to a large extent, i.ec., he was mortal; the apostle Paul is the most recent, through Jesus Christ, now wholly God, i.e., immortal in every way.” For I said this, because the apostle says: “Not ion men, nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, just as if Jesus Christ were not still a man. For this follows: “Who has raised him from the dead; ” SO that it is evident here why he said: “Nor through a man. Accordingly, the man Christ is not now God just because of immortality, but because of the substance of human nature, in which “he ascended into heaven, even now “a mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” seeing that he will come in such a way as they saw him, who saw him “going into heaven.”
I also said this: “Grace belongs to God, by which sins are given us, in order that we might be reconciled to God; but peace, by which we are reconciled to God;” this is to be understood in this way, so that we may yet know, each one of us, that both belong to the general grace of God, just as singly both Israel and Judah are in the people of God, yet both are, speaking generally, Israel.
Likewise, when I expounded this: “‘What then? The law was put forth for the sake of transgression, I thought it ought to be separated, so that the question would be: “What then?” and then the answer: “The law was put fa th for the sake or transgression.” This certainly is not remote from the truth; but this punctuation seems better to me, so that the question is: “What then is the law?” and the answer is offered: “It was put forth for the sake of transgression. ”
Moreover I said this: “Therefore, he most properly adds: ‘But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law,’ so that we may know that those are under the law whose spirit lusts against the flesh in such a way that they do not those things which they would, i.e., they do not keep themselves unconquerable in the love of justice, but they are conquered by their flesh lusting against themselves. 4 This arose from that sense in which I understood what was said: “The flesh lusts against the spirit, the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do the things which you desire.” I understood it as referring to those who “are under the law,” not yet “under grace. ” For I had not as yet perceived that those words were applied, also to those who are under grace, not under the law, because they also have the lusts of the flesh, against which they lust with the spirit although they do not consent to them, indeed would willingly be without them if possible. It is not because they wish to abstain from them without being able that they do not what they would. They be free from them only when they are free also from corruptible flesh.
This book begins with these words: “This is the motive which prompts the apostle to-write to the galatians.”

Chapter XXIV. An Unfinished Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, in One Book

I had also begun an exposition of the epistle to the Romans just like the one on Galatians. There would have been many books to this work, had it been completed, one of which I did complete in a single discussion of his salutation, from the beginning, up to that passage where he says: “Grace to you and peace from God our father and ow Lord Jesus Christ.” For it was done so that we might not delay when we want to explain the difficult question concerning sin against the Holy Spirit, which occurred in our sermon, that sin which “is not pardoned, neither in this age nor in the future.” But then I delayed to add other volumes setting forth the entire epistle, now prevented by the size and the hardship of the work and sunk in other easier tasks. This was done in such a way that the book which I had made first I allowed to remain alone; the title of this I wanted to be: An Unfinished Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans.
In this book I made this statement: “There is grace in the remission of sins, but peace in reconciliation with God 3 wherever I said this, it is not to be understood as iI peace itself and reconciliation do not pertain to grace in general but specifically the name grace means the remission of sins, just as we mention both specifically in the saying: “The law and the prophets,” but also in general, consider that the prophets too are in the law.
This book begins with these words: “In the letter which the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans.”

Chapter XXV. On Eighty-three Different Questions, in One Book

There is also, among those books which we have written, a certain lengthy work,“ which, however, is considered one book, the title of which is: On Eighty-three Different Questions. Now, these had been scattered through many sheets, seeing that they were dictated without keeping to any order from the time of my first conversion after we came to Africa, just as I wes questioned by brethren when they saw me at leisure. Alter I had become bishop, I ordered them to be collected and one book made of them, with numbers added so that anyone could easily find what he wanted to read.
The first of these questions is; “Whether the soul exists of itself.
The second: “On free will,
The third: “Whether men is lower than God the creator.”
The fourth: “hat the reason is, why men is lower.”::
The fifth: “Whether an irrational animal can be blessed.”
The sixth: “On evil.”
The seventh: “What is properly meant by the phrase ‘a living soul.’”
The eighth: “Whether it is actuated by means of itself alone.”:
The ninth: “Whether truth can be perceived by the bodily senses” In connection with that question, I said this: “Everything which affects the bodily sense, which: is also described as sensible, is entirely changed without any interruption of time 3 of course, this is doubtless not true in the case of the incorruptible bodies of the resurrection, but none of our bodily senses approaches it now, unless something like it is accidentally revealed by divine influence.
The tenth is: “Whether the body comes from God.”
The eleventh: “Why Christ was born of woman,”
In the twelfth place, the title is: “Ideas of a Wise Man;” the material is not mine, but, because it became known through me to some of the brethren, who were then most diligently deliberating on this matter, and it pleased them, they wished to write it among my own. However, it is the work of a certain Fontejus of Carthage: On the Mind, Which Should Be Cleansed In Order to See God, which he wrote when he was yet a pagan; but he was baptized and died Christian.
The thirteenth:is: “By what evidence it is determined that men excel the beasts.”
The fourteenth: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not a phantom,”
The fifteenth: “On the intellect.”
The sixteenth: “On the son.”
The seventeenth: “On the knowledge of God.”
The eighteenth: “On the trinity.
The nineteenth: “On God and the creature.”
The twentieth: “On the location of God.”
The twenty-first: “Whether God is not the author of evil.” In this section, what I said is to be considered, lest it be understood wrongly: “He is not the author of evil because he is the author of all things that exist, because they are good insofar as they exist; and, hence, lest it be considered that the penalty for evil deeds does not come from him; a just penalty is certainly evil for those who are punished. But I said this, just as it was said: “God did not make death, though it was said elsewhere: “Life and death are from the Lord God.” Therefore, the punishment of evil deeds, which is from God, is evil, certainly, for evil people, but it is in the god works of God, seeing that he is just, that the evil ones are punished, and, assuredly, everything that is just is good,
The twenty-second is: “God does not suffer need.”
The twenty-third is: “On the father and the son,” On this one I said: “Because he himself (God) has borne him, wisdom, with which he is called wise. But I handled that question later in a better manner in the book on the trinity.
The twenty-fourth is: “Whether both sin and righteous action exist in the freedom of the will.” That this is so is wholly true; but for it to be free to do right, it must be freed by the grace of God.
The twenty-fifth: “On the cross of Christ.”
The twenty-sixth: “On the diversity of sins.”
The twenty-seventh: “On Providence.”
The twenty-eighth: “Why God wanted to make a world.”
The twenty-ninth: “Whether there is something above or below the universe,”
The thirtieth: “Whether everything is created for the welfare of man.”
The thirty-first is not my own, but Cicero’s, but because this also became known through me to the brethren, among those which they were collecting, (they wrote it down) wishing to get knowledge of the manner in which the values of the soul are distinguished from it and defined.
The thirty-second is: “Whether one person understands a matter more than another and thus the knowledge of this matter goes through infinity.”
The thirty-third is: “On fear.”
The thirty-fourth: “Whether there is anything to be loved other than to abstain from fear.n
The thirty-fifth: “What is to be loved.” In this section I said this: “To possess what is to be loved is nothing other than to come to know it.” I do not fully approve that. For do not those possess God concerning whom: it was said: “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and the spirit of God dwells in you?” However, they had not known him, nor had they known him as he is to be known. Also this that I said: “Therefore, no one has known the happy life and is melancholy; ” “has known,” I said, in the way it is to be known. For who, among all reasoning beings, is completely ignorant of it, seeing that they have learned to wish they were happy?
The thirty-sixth: “On maintaining charity.” In that I said: “Therefore, it is said that when God and the soul are loved specifically they are most purified and perfected if nothing else is loved.” If this is true, how does the apostle say: “No one ever holds his own flesh in enmity, ” and from this he admonishes that wives are to be loved? But it was said: “It is properly described as esteem, ” since the flesh is assuredly valued, not, however, for itself, but because of the soul, for the use of which it is available. For, although it seems to be esteemed because of itself, since we do not wish it to be unsightly, its grace is to be referred to something else, that is to say, to that from which all graces come o
The thir ty-seventh: “On eternal generation.”
The thirty-eighth: “On the from of the soul.”
The thirty-ninth: “On food.” The fortieth: “Since there is one nature of souls, whence the different desires of men?”
The forty-first: “Since God had made all things, why did -he not m—ke them equitably?
The for ty-second: “How our Lord Jesus Christ was the wisdom of God, both in his mother’s womb and in heaven.”
The forty-third: “Why the son of God was visible as a man and the Holy Spirit as a dove.
The forty-fourth: “Why did our Lord Jesus Christ came so late?” In this section, when I had made mention of the ages or the human race as if it was one man, I said: “Nor ought the master, by whose imitation we are trained in the best manner of life, 10 have come save in the youth of our race,” and I added as proof what the Apostle says: “Under the law as if under a tutor, defending the little children.” But one may be moved to ask why we had said elsewhere that Christ had come in the sixth age of the human race, as if in its old age. Therefore, what was said concerning youth refers to the liveliness and ardor of the faith, which “works through love, ” put that concerning old age measured by the passage of time. One can likewise understand of the whole of mankind what can be understood of the age of individuals: in the soul both youth and age can exist at the same time, as they cannot in the body—youth by reason or ardor and age by reason of seriousness.
The forty-fifth is: “Against the astrologers.
The forty-sixth is: “On ideas.”
The forty-seventh: “Whether we can see our thoughts at any time.” In that section I said this: “It is to be supposed that angelic bodies, the kind that we hope that we shall have, are very. clear and ethereal; this is wrong if it is understood to be without the parts of the body we now have and without substance, although incorruptible, yet of the flesh. Now this question of the vision of our thoughts is handled much better in the work On the City of God. 96
The forty-eighth: “On the things worthy of belief.
The forty-ninth: “Why the sons of Israel were sacrificing in public the victims from among the cattle.”
The fiftieth: “On the equality of sons.”
The fifty-first: “On man made in the image and likeness of God.” In this section what is this statement that I made: “A man may not be correctly called a living being, ” since a man’s dead body is also called a man? Therefore, I should have said at least: may not be properly called, when I said: “lay not be correctly called. ” Again, I said: “There is a subtle distinction between be ing the image and likeness of God and being in the image and likeness of God, as we believe one may be made in his image. ” This is not to be understood as if a man is not considered the image of God, since the apostle says: “A man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” But he is also considered in the image of God, because he is not considered the only begotten, who is only the image of God, not in the image.
The fifty-second is: “On what was said: ‘I am sorry that I made man.’”
The fifty-third: “On gold and silver, which the israelites took from Egypt. ”
The fifty-fourth: “On what was written: ‘It is good for me to cleave to God.’” In that section, I said this: “Now, that which is better than every soul we call God; ” this should have been said, with better reason: “better than every” created spirit.
The fifty-fifth: “On what is written: There are sixty queens and eighty concubines and young maidens without number. ’”
The fifty-sixth: “On the forty-six years of the construction of the temple. ”
The fifty-seventh: “On the one hundred and fifty-three fishes. no
The fifty-eighth: “On John the Baptist.”
The fifty-ninth: “On the ten virgins.
The sixtieth: “Of ‘But of the day and the hour: no one knows, not the angels of heaven nor the son of man, but the father only.’”
The sixty-first: “Or what was written in the gospel, that the Lord fed the multitudes on the mountain with five loaves.” In that section I said this: “The two fishes mean those two persons, namely, the king and the priest, to whom also that most holy anointing belongs ” this should have been said in preference: most particularly “belongs”, because we read that the prophets were also anointed some times. I also said: “Luke, who introduces Christ with an ancestry like a priest’s after the abolition of sins, traces it back through Nathan to David, because the prophet Nathan had been sent, by whose rebuke David obtained abolition of his sin by repentance. ” This is not to be understood as if it was Nathan the prophet who was the son of David; this was not said: “because that prophet had been sent;” but “because the prophet Nathan had been sent,” as the mystery is understood not in the identity of the man, but in the identity of the name.
The sixty-second has to do with “what was written in the gospel, that ‘Jesus baptized more than John, although he himself did not baptize, but his disciples. In this section, I said this: “That thief, to whom it was said: ‘Verily I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise, who had not even received baptism; ” in fact, we discovered that other leaders of the church before our time had put this in their writings, but by what documents it can be shown that the thief was not baptized, I do not know. There is a much more assiduous treatment of this subject in some of our later writings, especially in the one which we wrote to Vincentius Victor on whe origin of the soul,
The sixty-third is: “on the word,”
The sixty-fourth: “On the Samaritan woman. ”
The sixty-fifth: “On the resurrection of the Lazarus. ”
The sixty-sixth: “On what was written: ‘‘Are you ignorant, brethren—for I am speaking to those who are skilled in the law~~that the law has dominion over a man for as long a time as he lives? right on to that place where it was written: “‘He will give life also to your mor tal bodies through his spirit that lives in you. In that section, wishing to explain what the apostle says: “*Now we know, because the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, ‘7 1 said: “I assert that he is not freed by spiritual grace from consenting to the flesh,” This must not be understood as if the spiritual man, already established “under grace,” cannot even say this and other things of himself right on to that place where it was said: “I am a miserable man; who will free me from the body of this death? 9 I learned this later, just as I acknowledged before. Once more explaining what the apostle says: “The body is certainly dead because or sin, I say: “He says the body is dead, as long as it is of such a nature that the need for temporal things annoys the soul. But afterwards, there seemed to me to be a better explanation than that, for the reason that the body was said to be dead because it was not inevitable for it to aie, a condition which did not exist before gin,
The sixty-seventh is: “On what was written: For I reckon that the suffer ings of this present time are not worthy of the future glory which shall be revealed in us, ” right on to what was said: “‘For in hope are we saved.’” In that, when I explained that was written: “The creature itself also will be freed from the bondage of destruction, ” I said: “‘The creature itself also,’ i.e., man, when, once the impression of the image was lost, remained merely a creature. This is not to be considered as if man had lost everything of the image of God which he possessed, for if he had not lost it altogether that had not existed, on account of which it was said: “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind, ” and: “we are transformed into the seme image; ” but again, if he had lost everything, nothing would remain, hence it was said: “il-though a man walks in an image, nevertheless, he is disturbed in vain.” Again, what I said, that “the highest angels live spiritually, but the lowest on an animate level, was said more presumptuously of the lowest than can be shown either in the holy scriptures or from the circumstances themselves, because, although it may be that it is possible, it is hardly so.
The sixty-eighth is: “On what was written: 1’0 ‘man, who are you that you reply to God? In that section I said: “Because even if, for sins trifling or no matter how grave and numerous, one might notwithstanding, by lamentations and remorse, be worthy of the mercy of God, it is not of himself~-if he is forsaken he is los t—but of God,who has mercy, who aids his entreaties and his anguish. For it is not enough to Will, unless God has compassion; but God does not have compassion, who calls to peace, unless the will to peace had preceded, ” This was said after repentance. For there is a mercy of God which precedes even the will, which, if it does not exist, the will is not prepared by the Lord.” The calling itself also pertains to that compassion, which also precedes faith, Concerning this, when I thought about it a little later, I said: “Now this calling, which labors either in individual men or in people and in the human race itself through the opportunities of the times, will be of an ancient and deep decree. To which this also pertains: ‘In the womb I have sanctified you; and: ‘When you were in the reins of your father, I saw you;’ and: ‘I loved Jacob, but Esau I hold in hatred,’ ete.,” although as for that proof: “When you were in the reins of your father, I saw you,” I do not know I whence it occurred to me just as it was written. >
The sixty-ninth: “On what was written: ‘Then i the son himself will also be subjected to him who has subjected all things unto him,
The seventieth: “On what the apostle says: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory. Death, where is your fight? Death, where is your sting? Now, the sting of death is sin, but the strength of sin is the law.” The seventy-first: “On what was written: *Bear one another’s burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ.’ The seventy-second: “On eternal times.” The ~~event-third:.”On what was written: He was discovered in appearance as a man. The seventy~~fourth: “On what was written in the epistle of Paul to the Colossians: ‘Tn whom we have redemption unto the remission of sins, who is the image of the invisible God.’” The seventy-fifth: “On the inheritance of God.” The seventy-sixth: “On what the apostle James says: ‘But will you know, O vain men, that faith without works is useless?” The seventy-seventh: “Oh fear, whether it is a sin.” The seventy-eighth: “On the beauty of images.” The seventy-ninth: “Why the magicians of Pharaoh did miracles in the same way as moses, the servant of God,“100 The eightieth: “Against the Apollinarians.”
The eighty-first: “On Lent and Quinquagesima.” The eighty-second: “On that which was written: ‘For the one whom the Lord loves he reproves, and he scourges every son whom he receives. ” The eighty-third; “On marriage.” This work begins in this manner: “Whether the soul exists of itself.,

Chapter XXVI. On Lying, in One Book

I also wrote a book on lying, which, although it is understood with some difficulty, has, nevertheless, something useful for the direction of character and mind, and which is more useful in the realm of morals for cultivating the speaking of the truth. I decided that I would remove this also from my works, because it seemed to me unintelligible, tortuous, and altogether troublesome; because of this I had not given it out. Then, afterwards, when I had written another book, the title of which is Against Lying? much more had I resolved and commanded that the former was not to exist, but it was not done. Consequently, when in this review of my works, I met with it unharmed, I even instructed that it should remain to be reviewed, especially because there are some things in it that are necessary, that de not in that other work. Now, the reason the title of the later look is: Against Lying, but the title of the earlier is: On Lying, is because throughout the whole of the later book there is an open assault on lying, but the greater part of the earlier book is concerned with a discussion of the que st ion; however, both are directed to the same end.
This book begins in this manner: “There is a great question concerning lying.”

← Back to the beginning of Retractations, Book I