S. AURELII AUGUSTINI HIPPONENSIS EPISCOPI DE NATURA ET GRATIA AD TIMASIUM ET JACOBUM CONTRA PELAGIUM LIBER UNUS .

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 8. Nam prius distinguit, aliud esse quaerere, an possit aliquid esse, quod ad solam possibilitatem pertinet: aliud, utrumne sit. Hanc distinctionem ve

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 CAPUT XVI.

 CAPUT XVII.

 19. Tractat etiam iste de peccatis ignorantiae, et dicit, «hominem praevigilare debere ne ignoret ideoque esse culpandam ignorantiam, quia id homo ne

 CAPUT XVIII.

 CAPUT XIX.

 CAPUT XX.

 CAPUT XXI.

 CAPUT XXII.

 CAPUT XXIII.

 CAPUT XXIV.

 27. Dicit nullum malum boni alicujus esse causam. Avertisti faciem tuam a me, et factus sum conturbatus? Non movebor in aeternum: Domine, in voluntate

 CAPUT XXV.

 CAPUT XXVI.

 CAPUT XXVII.

 31. Sed Deus, inquiunt, potest omnia sanare. Virtus in infirmitate perficitur: Cum timore et tremore vestram ipsorum salutem operamini: Deus enim est

 CAPUT XXVIII.

 CAPUT XXIX.

 CAPUT XXX.

 CAPUT XXXI.

 CAPUT XXXII.

 CAPUT XXXIII .

 CAPUT XXXIV.

 39. Porro autem quod Dei causam sibi agere videtur, defendendo naturam non attendit quod eamdem naturam sanam esse dicendo, medici repellit misericor

 CAPUT XXXV.

 41. Sed acute videtur interrogare, «quomodo istos sanctos de hac vita abiisse credendum sit, cum peccato, an sine peccato.» Ut si responsum fuerit, Cu

 CAPUT XXXVI.

 CAPUT XXXVII.

 44. Sed hoc etiam forsitan ipse vidit, et ideo subjecit atque ait: «Sed esto, aliis temporibus turbae numerositate omnium dissimulaverit peccata conte

 CAPUT XXXVIII.

 CAPUT XXXIX.

 CAPUT XL.

 CAPUT XLI.

 CAPUT XLII.

 CAPUT XLIII.

 CAPUT XLIV.

 52. Iste vero objecta sibi quaestione, in qua revera intolerabilis videtur cordibus christianis, quid respondeat attendamus. Ait enim: «Sed hoc est qu

 CAPUT XLV.

 CAPUT XLVI.

 CAPUT XLVII.

 CAPUT XLVIII.

 CAPUT XLIX.

 CAPUT L.

 CAPUT LI.

 CAPUT LII.

 CAPUT LIII.

 62. Quando enim istis rectissime dicitur, Quare sine adjutorio gratiae Dei dicitis hominem posse esse sine peccato? non tunc de illa gratia quaestio e

 CAPUT LIV.

 CAPUT LV.

 66. Porro si ab istis vel hoc impetramus, ut nondum baptizati implorent auxilium gratiae Salvatoris, non est hoc quidem parum adversus illam falsam de

 CAPUT LVI.

 CAPUT LVII.

 CAPUT LVIII.

 CAPUT LIX.

 CAPUT LX.

 CAPUT LXI.

 CAPUT LXII.

 73. Nam et ipse Job de peccatis suis non tacet, et utique huic amico vestro merito placet, humilitatem nullo modo in falsitatis parte ponendam: unde i

 CAPUT LXIII.

 75. Commemorabo et ego de hoc ipso opere sancti Ambrosii aliquid, ex quo iste commemoravit quod commemorandum putavit. « Visum est, » inquit, « mihi.

 CAPUT LXIV.

 77. Quis item christianus ignorat, quod beatissimum Xystum Romanae Ecclesiae episcopum et Domini martyrem dixisse commemorat , Quia libertatem arbitri

 CAPUT LXV.

 CAPUT LXVI.

 CAPUT LXVII.

 81. Sed ut non tantum illi, verum etiam iis qui eosdem libros meos, quos iste legit, de Libero Arbitrio non legerunt, atque illis non lectis, hunc for

 CAPUT LXVIII.

 CAPUT LXIX.

 CAPUT LXX.

Chapter 60 [LII.]—Pelagius Admits “Contrary Flesh” In the Unbaptized.

See what obstacles he still attempts to break through, if possible, in order to introduce his own opinion. He raises a question for himself in these terms: “But you will tell me that, according to the apostle, the flesh is contrary147    Gal. v. 17. to us;” and then answers it in this wise: “How can it be that in the case of any baptized person the flesh is contrary to him, when according to the same apostle he is understood not to be in the flesh? For he says, ‘But ye are not in the flesh.’”148    Rom. viii. 9. Very well; we shall soon see149    In the next chapter. whether it be really true that this says that in the baptized the flesh cannot be contrary to them; at present, however, as it was impossible for him quite to forget that he was a Christian (although his reminiscence on the point is but slight), he has quitted his defence of nature. Where then is that inseparable capacity of his? Are those who are not yet baptized not a part of human nature? Well, now, here by all means, here at this point, he might find his opportunity of awaking out of his sleep; and he still has it if he is careful. “How can it be,” he asks, “that in the case of a baptized person the flesh is contrary to him?” Therefore to the unbaptized the flesh can be contrary! Let him tell us how; for even in these there is that nature which has been so stoutly defended by him. However, in these he does certainly allow that nature is corrupted, inasmuch as it was only among the baptized that the wounded traveller left his inn sound and well, or rather remains sound in the inn whither the compassionate Samaritan carried him that he might become cured.150    Luke x. 34. Well, now, if he allows that the flesh is contrary even in these, let him tell us what has happened to occasion this, since the flesh and the spirit alike are the work of one and the same Creator, and are therefore undoubtedly both of them good, because He is good,—unless indeed it be that damage which has been inflicted by man’s own will. And that this may be repaired in our nature, there is need of that very Saviour from whose creative hand nature itself proceeded. Now, if we acknowledge that this Saviour, and that healing remedy of His by which the Word was made flesh in order to dwell among us, are required by small and great,—by the crying infant and the hoary-headed man alike,—then, in fact, the whole controversy of the point between us is settled.

CAPUT LII.

60. Idem tractatur argumentum. Adhuc videte quas moles conetur, qua suam sententiam ducat, irrumpere, si valeret. Objicit enim sibi quaestionem, dicens: «Sed caro nobis secundum Apostolum contraria est (Galat. V, 17), inquies». Deinde respondet: «Qui fieri potest, ut cuicumque baptizato sit caro contraria, cum secundum eumdem Apostolum in carne non esse intelligatur? Ita enim ait: Vos autem in carne non estis» (Rom. VIII, 9). Bene, quod baptizatis dicit carnem contrariam esse non posse; quod utrum verum sit, post videbimus (Capite proximo): nunc vero quia non potuit penitus se oblivisci esse christianum, sed id licet tenuiter recordatus est, recessit a defensione naturae. Ubi est ergo inseparabilitas possibilitatis? An forte nondum baptizati in natura hominum non sunt? Hic prorsus, hic posset evigilare , et si advertat potest. Qui fieri potest, inquit, ut cuicumque baptizato sit caro contraria? Ergo non baptizatis potest caro esse contraria. Exponat quemadmodum; cum sit etiam in ipsis illa ab eo multum defensa natura: certe vel in eis concedit esse vitiatam, si jam in baptizatis ille saucius sanus de stabulo egressus est, aut sanus in stabulo est, quo eum curandum misericors Samaritanus advexit (Luc. X, 30-35). Porro si vel istis concedit carnem esse contrariam, dicat quid contigerit, cum sit utrumque, hoc est, et caro et spiritus creatura unius ejusdemque creatoris, procul dubio bona, quia boni: nisi quia hoc est vitium, quod propria inflictum est voluntate; et hoc ut in natura sanetur, eo ipso opus est salvatore, quo instituta est natura creatore. Hoc salvatore, eaque illius medicina, qua Verbum caro factum est, ut habitaret in nobis (Joan. I, 14), si opus esse fateamur parvis et magnis, id est, a vagitibus infantum usque ad canos senum; tota quae inter nos est, hujus quaestionis controversia dissoluta est.