Chapter 40 [XXXV.]—Refutation of the Pelagians by the Authority of St. Ambrose, Whom They Quote to Show that the Desire of the Flesh is a Natural Good.

In respect, however, to this concupiscence of the flesh, we have striven in this lengthy discussion to distinguish it accurately from the goods of marriage. This we have done on account of our modern heretics, who cavil whenever concupiscence is censured, as if it involved a censure of marriage. Their object is to praise concupiscence as a natural good, that so they may defend their own baneful dogma, which asserts that those who are born by its means do not contract original sin. Now the blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan, by whose priestly office I received the washing of regeneration, briefly spoke on this matter, when, expounding the prophet Isaiah, he gathered from him the nativity of Christ in the flesh: “Thus,” says the bishop, “He was both tempted in all points as a man,135    Heb. iv. 15. and in the likeness of man He bare all things; but inasmuch as He was born of the Spirit, He kept Himself from sin. For every man is a liar; and there is none without sin but God alone. It has, therefore, been ever firmly maintained, that it is clear that no man from husband and wife, that is to say, by means of that conjunction of their persons, is free from sin. He who is free from sin is also free from conception of this kind.” Well now, what is it which St. Ambrose has here condemned in the true doctrine of this deliverance?—is it the goodness of marriage, or not rather the worthless opinion of these heretics, although they had not then come upon the stage? I have thought it worth while to adduce this testimony, because Pelagius mentions Ambrose with such commendation as to say: “The blessed Bishop Ambrose, in whose writings more than anywhere else the Roman faith is clearly stated, has flourished like a beautiful flower among the Latin writers. His fidelity and extremely pure perception of the sense of Scripture no opponent even has ever ventured to impugn.”136    Pro libero arbitrio, lib. 3. I hope he may regret having entertained opinions opposed to Ambrose, but not that he has bestowed this praise on that holy man.

Here, then, you have my book, which, owing to its tedious length and difficult subject, it has been as troublesome for me to compose as for you to read, in those little snatches of time in which you have been able (or at least, as I suppose, have been able) to find yourself at leisure. Although it has been indeed drawn up with considerable labour amidst my ecclesiastical duties, as God has vouchsafed to give me His help, I should hardly have intruded it on your notice, with all your public cares, if I had not been informed by a godly man, who has an intimate knowledge of you, that you take such pleasure in reading as to lie awake by the hour, night after night, spending the precious time in your favourite pursuit.

CAPUT XXXV.

40. Carnis concupiscentiam, velut 0436 naturale bonum laudantes Pelagiani, refelluntur auctoritate B. Ambrosii. De hac autem concupiscentia carnis, quam curavimus a nuptialibus bonis tam prolixa disputatione distinguere, propter novos haereticos, qui cum haec reprehenditur calumniantur, quasi nuptiae reprehendantur; ut scilicet eam tanquam bonum naturale laudando, suum pestiferum dogma confirment, quo asserunt prolem quae per illam nascitur, nullum trahere originale peccatum: de hac ergo carnis concupiscentia, beatus Ambrosius Mediolanensis episcopus, cujus sacerdotali ministerio lavacrum regenerationis accepi, sic breviter est locutus, cum exponens Isaiam prophetam, carnalem Christi nativitatem insinuaret. «Ideo,» inquit, «et quasi homo per universa tentatus est, et in similitudine hominum cuncta sustinuit: sed quasi de Spiritu natus, abstinuit a peccato (Hebr. IV, 15). Omnis enim homo mendax (Psal. CXV, 2), et nemo sine peccato nisi unus Deus. Servatum est igitur ut ex viro et muliere, id est, per illam corporum commixtionem nemo videatur expers esse delicti. Qui autem expers est delicti, expers est etiam hujusmodi conceptionis.» Numquidnam et sanctus Ambrosius nuptiarum bonitatem, ac non potius istorum haereticorum, quamvis tunc nondum apparentium vanitatem, hujus suae sententiae veritate damnavit? Quod ideo commemorandum putavi, quia Pelagius sic laudat Ambrosium, ut dicat: «Beatus Ambrosius episcopus, in cujus praecipue libris Romana elucet fides; qui scriptorum inter Latinos flos quidam speciosus enituit, cujus fidem et purissimum in Scripturis sensum ne inimicus quidem ausus est reprehendere» (Lib. 3 pro Libero Arbitrio). Poeniteat ergo eum, quod sensit adversus Ambrosium, ne poeniteat eum, quod sic laudavit Ambrosium. Habes librum et molestia longitudinis, et difficultate quaestionis, quam mihi fuit ad dictandum, tam tibi ad legendum negotiosum, quibus particulis temporum te invenire potuit aut potuerit otiosum. Quem profecto, quantum me Dominus adjuvare dignatus est, elaboratum inter ecclesiasticas curas meas, non tibi ingererem inter publicas tuas, nisi ab homine Dei qui te familiarius novit, audissem quod tam libenter legas, ut etiam nocturnas aliquas horas lectioni vigilanter impendas.

In subsequentem librum

0435

Augustinus in praefatione Operis Imperfecti contra Julianum.

Scripsi librum ad comitem Valerium, cujus libri titulus est, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia: eo quod ad illum pervenisse cognoveram, dicere Pelagianos, damnatores nos esse nuptiarum. Denique in illo opere, nuptiarum bonum a concupiscentiae carnalis malo, quo bene utitur pudicitia conjugalis, quali potui disputatione discrevi. Quo libro accepto, memoratus vir illustris misit mihi in chartula nonnullas sententias decerptas ex opere Juliani haeretici Pelagiani (in quo opere libris quatuor respondisse sibi visus est illi uni meo, quem de Nuptiis et Concupiscentia me scripsisse memoravi), missas sibi a nescio quo, qui eas, ut voluit, ex primo Juliani libro decerpendas curavit: quibus ut quantocius responderem, idem Valerius poposcit. Et factum est ut sub eodem titulo etiam secundum librum scriberem, contra quem Julianus alios octo nimia loquacitate conscripsit.

Idem in epistola CCVII, ad Claudium.

Quisquis ergo et illum secundum librum meum ad comitem identidem Valerium, sicut primum, conscriptum 0437 legit, noverit me in quibusdam non respondisse Juliano; sed ei potius, qui de libris ejus illa selegit, et non ita posuit ut invenit, sed aliquantum putavit esse mutanda, fortasse ut eo modo quasi sua faceret, quae aliena esse constaret.