“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”

St. Augustine is often appealed to by many who either because they engage in a selective reading of his writings or just know a few bits of his teaching think that he supported their beliefs. The above, for example, is a quote of St. Augustine commonly used by theistic evolutionists to try and find support for their position in his writings. Yet, the Doctor never affirmed that, as is commonly said today, “the Bible is not a science book”, in that it is merely a religious book. Granted, the Scriptures do not give an exhaustive scientific explanation of every detail in creation, but what they affirm is clearly certain. Many often seek to allegorize the creation account in Genesis, in particular the creation of Adam and Eve, when they think that what the Scriptures say is contrary to science and they give a certain primacy to the conclusions of science over the Scriptures in that they make the Scriptures subservient to science. So, they think that since the Scriptures are not a science book, then we are to allegorize everything in them that does not conforms to the findings of science. Yet, something like the formation of man from the earth and the woman from his side by God, is not a statement about science but an explicit supernatural act from God along the same lines of the virgin birth, of which St. Augustine says On The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Book IX:16.30):

“Both things are incredible to unbelievers, but why should believers find what happened in the case of Christ {the virgin birth} quite credible when taken in the literal, historical sense, and what is written about Eve only acceptable in its figurative signification?”

Despite how much theistic evolutionists would like to appeal to St. Augustine in support of their position, the Doctor affirmed that God made Adam from the dust of the earth (and was not born of other parents) and Eve from a rib taken from his side. He did hold to a non-literal view of the days of creation but to him it was a single day, not a series of long ages represented by each day. And he held to a literal view of the works done on each day. He did not believe that the works done on each day were allegories. Nor did he admit, but in fact excluded, the ascendancy of species from one to another. He is quite clearly a creationist by today’s standards as is St. Thomas Aquinas, another saint that theistic evolutionists like to appeal to. St. Augustine did propose that what science proves cannot be at odds with the Scriptures but must be shown to be consistent with it. However, unlike the modern mindset of many theistic evolutionists, he did not think that the Scriptures were to be made subservient to science in the sense that we have to allegorize even it’s plainest declarations just because science “appears to say so”. The Scriptures to him hold a certain primacy and their inspiration and inerrancy cannot be limited to purely religious truths. As St. Augustine puts it in The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Book II:5.9) when talking about the waters above the heavens, after considering many scientific objections:

“In whatever form, however, waters may be there, and of whatever kind they are; the authority of this text of scripture, surely, overrides anything that human ingenuity is capable of thinking up.”

And in another place (Book V:9.24):

“If what we have already said about it {he is talking about the spring which watered the whole earth} should seem to people to be impossible, let them look for another explanation themselves, but still one which will demonstrate the truthfulness of this statement of Scripture -which certainly is truthful, beyond any shadow of doubt, even if it were not demonstrated.”

Here is also what he says of Adam in paradise in another place (Book VIII:1.1):

“Adam is to be taken as a human being set before us in his own proper nature, who lived a definite number of years and after producing numerous progeny died just as other human beings die, though he was not born of parents like others but was made from the earth, as was required at the beginning of the line.”

That Adam was not born of other parents but made from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side is something St. Augustine affirms several times in the Literal Meaning of Genesis. Of note is also this paragraph from the same work (Book I:21.41):

“I have learned that we should not hesitate to give the answers that have to be given, in line with the faith, to people who make every effort to discredit the books our salvation depends on. So we should show that whatever they have been able to demonstrate from reliable sources about the world of nature is not contrary to our literature, while whatever they may have produced from any of their volumes that is contrary to this literature of ours, that is, to the Catholic faith, we must either show with some ease, or else believe without any hesitation, to be entirely false. And we should so hold onto our mediator, that we are neither seduced by the chatter of false philosophy, nor frightened out of our wits by the superstitions of false religion.”

Keeping in mind the quotes above and his overall approach, for St. Augustine showing that scientific theories are not contrary to the Scriptures did not consist in allegorizing away their plain declarations but in expanding upon what the Scriptures actually affirmed. Note that despite the claim of the “scientists” of his day, he scoffed at their idea that the earth was millions of years old and appealing to the Scriptures upheld that it was no yet 6000 years old during his time (City of God XII:10). For St. Augustine the Scriptures hold a primacy and their affirmations are to be held as certain over and above scientific theories that contradict them even if what the Scriptures state cannot be definitely proved or the scientific theory that contradicts them cannot be shown to be false.

His idea of the seminal reasons is certainly developmental but it is a form of spontaneous generation, the very opposite of evolution and it does not proposes an evolution of species from one into the other but their formation from the earth or the sea as is described in Genesis 1. To extrapolate from his idea to a modern theory of evolution is unwarranted and is clearly something St. Augustine never envisioned or even considered on his teaching on Genesis.

If someone is going to appeal to St. Augustine to support their position in any subject, as in the case of the creation/evolution debate, then it is only fair that such person adheres to what the Doctor in fact affirmed and believed and avoids quote mining him. It is clear from his own writings that St. Augustine did not even consider anything like the theory of evolution, much less that the body of the first man came from existing living matter. For him the account of the creation of man in Genesis was a truly literal and faithful historical account with a real tree of life and tree of knowledge and a real talking snake used by the devil to deceive the woman who was really taken and formed from the rib of the man who was formed from the dust of the earth. The theory of evolution, if it is to be reconciled with the Scriptures, entails the denial or allegorization of these clear affirmations of Scripture which St. Augustine, along with all the Fathers before him and theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, took and interpreted in a literal sense.

Reconsiderations of St. Augustine, Book II:64, On Faith and Works
From The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine – The Reconsiderations, pp. 198-199.

Meanwhile, certain brethren – laymen, in truth, but well versed in the Divine Scriptures – sent to me certain writings which separated Christian faith and good works so as to lead one to believe that it is impossible to attain eternal salvation without the former [faith], but that it is possible to do so without the latter. In response to them, I wrote a book whose title is On Faith and Works. In this book, I discussed not only how they who have been regenerated by the grace of Christ are to live, but also what kind of persons are to be admitted to “the bath of regeneration” (1 Titus 3:5).

This book begins as follows: “Certain persons are of the opinion…”.

On Faith and Works by St. Augustine
From On Christian Doctrine, The Works of St. Augustine – A Translation for the 21st Century, pp. 221-261.

From the introduction to the work by Ray Kearney

In Augustine’s view, the proponents of a justification by faith alone were mistaken in their interpretation of what the apostle said. When paul claimed that human beings were justified by faith and not by observance of the law, he was speaking of works that preceded justification, not of those that followed upon it. Therefore only those believers whose faith is alive in works of love can hope for eternal blessedness.

It is on the basis of this Pauline teaching that 1 Cor 3:11-15 is to be properly interpreted. When the apostle speaks of the various kinds of materials with which the faithful build on the foundation of Christ, his contrast between “wood” and “gold” does not refer to the alternative of “faith without works – faith with works.” He is speaking rather of the varying quality of the works themselves. “Wood” and “gold” symbolize the different kinds of intention – self-centered and pure – from which works flow.

Relevant chapters from the work itself

14,21. We must look now at what has to be expunged from the hearts of religious people, so that they will not forfeit salvation because of a false sense of security, thinking that all they need to do to obtain it is to have faith, while neglecting to live a good life and stay on God’s path by performing good works. Even in the time of the apostles there were some people who failed to understand certain rather obscure statements of the apostle Paul and thought that he said, Let us do evil, for good to come of it (Rom 3:8), because he had said, The law came into the world so that sin would be abundant, but where sin was abundant, grace was even more abundant (Rom 5:20). The explanation of this is that those who received the law and proudly relied on their own strength, and did not have the correct belief and did not pray for God’s help to conquer their evil inclinations, became burdened with additional and more serious sins in that they also violated the law. Driven by this great guilt they fled to faith, and with it they won merciful forgiveness and help from the Lord who made heaven and earth (Ps 120:2). Then, with love poured into their hearts through the Holy Spirit, they did with love the things that were commanded contrary to the desires of this world. This was in accordance with what was foretold in the Psalm: Their weaknesses increased, but afterwards they raced on (Ps 15:4). Therefore, when the apostle says that he considers we are made just through faith without the works of the law, he does not means that works of justice should be disdained once faith is accepted and professed but that everyone should know that he can be made just through faith even if he did not perform the works of the law before. They do not come beforehand, before the person is made just, but they follow afterwards, when the person has been made just.

There is no need to go into further explanation of this in the present work, especially as I have published a lengthy book on the subject entitled The Letter and the Spirit. Since this opinion had already sprung up at the time, other letters of the apostles – those of Peter, John, James and Jude – oppose it directly, strongly insisting that faith without works brings no benefit. Paul himself also stipulated that it had to be not just any faith whereby one beliefs in God but that full faith of the gospel that brings salvation, the one whose works com from love. And the faith that works through love (Gal 5:6), he said. Hence he asserts that that faith which some think is sufficient for salvation is entirely worthless, saying this: If I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Cor 13:2). When, however, believing love is at work, without doubt there is then a good life, for love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:10).

22. Clearly this is why in his second letter Peter remarked that there were some passages in the letters of the apostle Paul that were difficult to understand, and people misinterpreted them, and others scriptures too, for their own destruction, although that apostle held the same views as the other apostles concerning eternal salvation, which is granted only to those who lead good lives. He was commending holiness of life and conduct and proclaiming that this world will pass away, but we look forward to new heavens and a new earth, which will be given to the good to inhabit. He wanted them to see from this how they ought to live in order to become worthy of that dwelling place, as he knew that some wicked persons had taken advantage of certain less clear passages of the apostle Paul in order to have no concern for living a good life, being assured from salvation because that comes from faith. So Peter says this: As all these things will pass away…. (passage from 2 Pt 3:11-18 follows).

23. James is so strongly opposed to those who hold that faith without works has any value for salvation that he even compares them to devils, saying, You believe there is one God? You do well. The devils believes this too, and are terrified (Jas 2:19). Could he have said anything more succinctly, with greater truth or more emphatically, since we read in the gospel that the devils said this when they acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God, and they were rebuked for the same thing as was praised in the case of Peter’s declaration of faith? What does anyone gain, my brothers, says James, if he says he has faith, but does not have works? Is it possible for faith to save him? (Jas 2:14) He also says, Faith without works is dead (Jas 2:20). So great, therefore, is the mistake of those who promise themselves everlasting life from a faith that is dead!.

15, 24. We should pay careful attention to the way that statement of the apostle Paul, certainly difficult to understand, should be interpreted. His words are: No one can lay… (passage from 1 Cor 3:11-15 follows). They take the interpretation of this to be that those who add good works to faith, which is faith in Christ, are seen as building on this foundation with gold, silver and precious stones; but those who perform evil works, even though they have the same faith, are seen as building with wood, grass and straw. As a consequence they think that through certain punishments with fire, they can be purified in order to receive salvation because of the merits of the foundation.

25. If this is so, we have to admit that they are acting with commendable charity in trying to have everyone admitted to baptism indiscriminately, not only adulterers and adulteresses who cling to their false marriages in defiance of the Lord but also public prostitutes who continue in their corrupt profession. In no church, not even the more lax, has it been the practice to admit these unless they are first freed from that past prostitution. By that reasoning, however, I cannot see at all why they are not accepted regardless. Who would not prefer that they be purified by fire, certainly one of some longer duration, because they laid the foundation even though they piled wood and grass and straw on it, rather than that they perish eternally?

In that case, however, those other texts, which are not obscure or ambiguous, will not be true, namely, If I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Cor 13:2), and, What does anyone gain, my brothers, if he says he has faith, but does not have works? Is it possible for faith to save him? (Jas 2:14). Also untrue will be that text: (1 Cor 6:9-11) and also that other (Gal 5:19-21). These texts would not be true, for, if they only believe and are baptized, even though they continue with those sins, they will be saved through fire, and so those who have been baptized in Christ, even those who do those things, will possess the kingdom of God.

But it is meaningless to say, Some of you were like this, but you have been washed clean (1 Cor 6:11), when they are still the same even after they have been washed. Peter’s words will also seem pointless: You too, in a similar state, are now saved by baptism, which is not the removal of physical dirt, but the questioning of a good conscience (1 Pt 3:21). There is no point to it, if in fact baptism also saves those who have evil consciences, filled with every crime and atrocity and not changing at all by repenting of those evils, if they too will be saved, even thought by passing through fire, because of the foundation that was set in place in that baptism. I do not see either why the Lord said, If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments (Mt 19:17), and listed those that related to good conduct, if even without keeping them one can enter into life merely through that faith that without works is dead (Jas 2:17). How then will those words be true that he will say to those he is going to put to his left: Go into eternal fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25:41)? He does not condemns them because they did not believe in him but because they did not perform good works. Without doubt the reason why he said he was going to separate out all the nations that mingles under the care of the same shepherds was to prevent anyone from promising himself eternal life from the faith that without works is dead. In this way it would be clear that those who would say to him, Lord, when did we see you suffering these things and fail to assist you? (Mt 25:44) were those who believed in him but were not concerned about performing good works, thinking that eternal life would be attained through a faith that was itself dead. On the other hand, might it be perhaps that those who will go into eternal fire are those who did not perform works of mercy, while those who robbed others or who were merciless towards themselves by desecrating the temple of God within themselves will not go there? As if works of compassion could be worth anything without love, when the apostle says, If I distribute everything I have to the poor, but do not have love, it does me no good (1 Cor 13:3), or anyone could love his neighbor as himself, if he did not love himself! He who loves sin, it says, hates his own soul (Ps 10:6).

One cannot say here, as some have deceived themselves by saying, that it is the fire that is said to be eternal, not the actual punishment. They think that those to whom they promise salvation through fire because of a faith that is dead will pass through a fire that last forever. In other words, the actual fire lasts forever, but the burning, that is, the action of the fire, does not lasts forever for them. The Lord, being Lord, foresaw this, and he concluded by saying: So they will go into everlasting burning, but the just will go into everlasting life (Mt 25:46). Therefore the burning will be everlasting, like the fire. The Truth has said that those who go there will be those he pronounces to have been lacking not in faith but in good works.

…

There is more that is relevant and I encourage people to read the whole work itself. But I think this is sufficient to show that St. Augustine is explicit in denying the notion of faith alone and that Protestants who claim him as if he supported their view should pay closer attention to the writtings of the saint. I shall post additional quotes from his other works where he is explicit in denying faith alone.

“You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in You.”

…
Today Augustine, the greatest and the humblest of the Doctors, is hailed by Heaven, where his conversion caused greater joy than that of any other sinner; and celebrated by the Church, who is enlightened by his writings as to the power, the value, and the gratuitousness of Divine grace.

Since that wonderful, heavenly conversation at Ostia, God had completed His triumph in the son of Monica’s tears and of Ambrose’s holiness. Far away from the great cities where pleasure had seduced him, the former rhetorician now cared only to nourish his soul with the simplicity of the Scriptures, in silence and solitude. But grace, after breaking the double chain that bound his mind and his heart, was to have a still greater dominion over him; the pontifical consecration was to consummate Augustine’s union with that Divine Wisdom, whom alone he declared he loved’ for her own sole sake, caring neither for rest nor life save on her account.’ [Soliloq. i. 22]…To the end of his life Augustine never ceased to fight for the truth against all the heresies then invented by the father of lies…” (source)

…
The praise of Augustine has never ceased to be proclaimed in the Church of God, even by the Roman Pontiffs. While the holy Bishop was yet alive, Innocent I greeted him as a beloved friend and extolled the letter which he had received from the Saint and from four Bishops, his friends: “A letter instinct with faith and staunch with all the vigor of the Catholic religion.” Shortly after the death of Augustine, Celestine I defends him against his opponents in the following noble words: “We have ever deemed Augustine a man to be remembered for his sanctity, because of his life and services in our communion, nor has rumor at any time darkened his name with the suspicion of evil. So great was his knowledge, as we recall, that he was always reckoned by my predecessors also among our foremost teachers. All alike, therefore, thought highly of him as a man held in affection and honor by all.

Hormisdas wrote in answer to Bishop Possessor’s request for direction these weighty words: “What the Roman, that is, the Catholic Church follows and maintains touching free will and the grace of God, can be learned from the different works of blessed Augustine, those especially which he addressed to Hilary and Prosper, though the formal chapters are contained in the ecclesiastical records.” A like testimony was uttered by John II, when in refutation of heretics he appealed to the works of Augustine: “Whose teaching,” he said, “according to the enactments of my predecessors, the Roman Church follows and maintains…Saint Gregory, thinking as highly of Augustine as he thought humbly of himself, wrote to Innocentius, prefect of Africa: “If you wish to feast on choice food, read the works of blessed Augustine, your fellowcountryman. His writings are as fine wheat. Seek not for our bran.” – Ad Salutem, Encyclical by Pope Pius XI

…
In August 430, Augustine fell ill with a fever. He knew he would die…Augustine wanted to die alone.

“Indeed, this holy man…was always was always in the habit of telling us, when we talked as intimates, that even praise worthy Christians and bishops, though baptized, should still not leave this life without having performed due and exacting penance. This is what he did in his own last illness: for he had ordered the four psalms of David that deal with penance to be copied out. From his sick-bed he could see these sheets of paper everyday, hanging on his walls, and would read them, crying constantly and deeply. And, lest his attention be distracted from this in any way, almost ten days before his death, he asked us that none should come in to see him, except at those hours when the doctors would come to examine him or his meals were brought. This was duly observed: and so he had all that stretch of time to pray…” (Possidus’ Vita XXXI:1-3)

Augustine died, and was buried, on August 28th, 430. – From Augustine Of Hippo A Biography by Peter Brown p. 436

…
A few weeks after Augustine’s death, an envoy of the Emperor Valentinian III arrived at Carthage with an invitation to him to take his seat at the Ecumenical Council which was to be held at Ephesius at Whitsuntide 431 to deal with the dispute between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Patriarch Nestorious of Constantinople regarding the union of the two Natures in the incarnate Christ. It was a last, and fitting, tribute to the great Doctor of the Latin Church. – St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies by Gerald Bonner p. 156

St. Augustinus, ora pro nobis!

– On Nature and Grace, 20

https://twitter.com/staugustinus

Feel free to follow to receive sayings from the saint each day.

Free Image Hosting by ImageBam.com

There were three controversies during St. Augustine’s time over the resolution of which the saint came to have a decisive influence and was of an invaluable service to The Church. The first is concerned with the Manichean religion, the second with the Donatist sect and the third, which was to keep him occupied till the end of his life, is concerned with Pelagianism. This article will give an overview of this third controversy, touching on the relevant points of the debate and what the teaching of the saint is (which even during his lifetime was sanctioned by The Church) concerning the relevant issues. I will touch on the subject purely from a theological perspective, engaging on historical issues only when it is necessary to clarify or expand upon some aspect of the debate. So, any background information such as the social conditions and lives of the people involved in the debate such as St. Augustine, Pelagius and Julian as well as other such factors will be omitted or mentioned only where I think they may prove helpful.

Both the teaching of Pelagius and the teaching of St. Augustine and the position that each sought to defend came to reflect in a way the real world experiences of each and also their own personal lives. The saint who realizing his inability to do anything without Christ exclaimed in his Confessions “Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt!” (Confessions Book X, 29) is opposed by the layman and would be monk who cannot bear such a thought but who instead lays a strong burden on human free will and mankind’s natural ability to do good without the need of God’s supernatural aid.

Pelagius held a rather optimistic view of the human capacity to do good on their own effort but St. Augustine, knowing both from his personal experience and the day to day encounter with the sinfulness of his subjects came to realize that humans stand in need of the help of God if their are to will or do any good. This view of the saint, as we shall see, is rooted in the Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of The Church.

This article will be made in four entries. Part one will give an explanation of the tenets held by the Pelagians and will explore the doctrine of Original Sin and it’s support in Scripture and Tradition.

Part two will proceed from the teaching on Original SIn into St. Augustine’s teaching on nature, the law, grace and free will and will be based on three of his writings against the Pelagians.

Part three will focus on what are seen as the most controversial aspects of the saint’s teaching and will touch on the subjects of Predestination and Perseverance, the universal salvific will of God and the fate of unbaptized infants and the invincibly ignorant.

Part four will conclude the article with the question of wether the saint’s teaching on Predestination was a novelty or a legitimate development of already existing doctrine, a brief defense of the saint against the charge of Manichaeism, a view of the what the saint said about his Anti-Pelagian works in the Retractations and lastly what were the decisions of The Church over this controversy.

Any comments, corrections or suggestions on any point of the four entries are welcome.

…

What is Pelagianism?

In one of his Anti-Pelagian works, St. Augustine gives a brief overview of Pelagianism, stating that:

“…after the older heresies, there has been just now introduced, not by bishops or presbyters or any rank of the clergy, but by certain would-be monks, a heresy which disputes, under colour of defending free will, against the grace of God which we have through our Lord Jesus Christ; and endeavours to overthrow the foundation of the Christian faith of which it is written, “By one man, death, and by one man the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;” 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and denies God’s help in our actions, by affirming that, “in order to avoid sin and to fulfil righteousness, human nature can be sufficient, seeing that it has been created with free will; and that God’s grace lies in the fact that we have been so created as to be able to do this by the will, and in the further fact that God has given to us the assistance of His law and commandments, and also in that He forgives their past sins when men turn to Him;” that “in these things alone is God’s grace to be regarded as consisting, not in the help He gives to us for each of our actions,”— “seeing that a man can be without sin, and keep God’s commandments easily if he wishes.” (On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 61)

The man behind the name of this system was a layman and would be monk named Pelagius, born in the British Isles between the years 350 and 380 a.d. We have very little on Pelagianism that comes straight from the Pelagians themselves. We do have plenty of information about what they believed thanks to St. Augustine’s habit of quoting their own words within many of his treatises. Of note is his unfinished work against Julian of Eclanum, which may be the largest compilation of information about Pelagianism coming straight from the pen of whom is perhaps the strongest advocate of the system during the time of the saint.

Among the main characteristics of Pelagianism was it’s view of Grace as a mere natural faculty, instead of, as St. Augustine held, a supernatural help given by God by which we are made able both to love and serve him. For the Pelagian, our whole nature, since it was made by God and thus given by him, could be said to be Grace. When Pelagius spoke of Grace, he did not have in mind a supernatural quality but rather our natural faculties. On the other hand according to St. Augustine, and as the Catholic faith teaches, Grace is a a supernatural aid given by God which heals and restores our fallen nature and will. For the Pelagians the giving of the commandments and the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles were also called Grace as they allowed humans, not by an interior supernatural help, but by exterior example to live a good life. This in turn lead them to make the affirmation that the Mosaic Law was as good a guide to Heaven as the Gospel.

Another of the main features of Pelagianism was it’s view of The Fall. In their affirmation that Adam’s sin injured himself alone and not his descendants, the Pelagians denied the doctrine of Original SIn, by which the guilt and consequences of the transgression of Adam is passed to posterity. Instead, they held that the innocence of our first parents is one with which we are all born. They also denied that physical death was a penalty for the Original Sin of our first parents but held that had Adam and Eve not transgressed God’s commandment, they would still have died as a natural consequence of human nature.

Given it’s view of The Fall, which held that all mankind did not die through Adam, Pelagianism held that man was able by it’s own natural power and without the supernatural grace of God, to fulfill the divine commandments and lead a good and even sinless life. A man could, following the divine precepts, lead a sinless life without the need of an interior supernatural aid from God, but by the use of their natural faculties alone.

As a consequence of their views, when infants received Baptism, since they were innocent and born without Original Sin they did not receive forgiveness of sins but simply sanctification. From this followed like the night follows the day the notion that unbaptized infants that died before reaching the age of reason went straight to Heaven. For there was nothing, so the Pelagians held, of which they needed deliverance or forgiveness.

Lastly, given their belief that mankind did not fall through Adam, they held that likewise mankind would not rise again through the resurrection of Christ. To them human nature had not been corrupted by the Fall and so stood in no need to be risen to incorruption.

Despite the name of the heresy, Pelagianism became prevalent first due to the efforts of Caelestius, a convert to Pelagius’ opinions and a disciple of his who was devoted to propagate the doctrines of his master and second to Julian of Eclanum, who took center stage in the later part of the debate. Indeed, it is to be doubted wether everything that is associated with Pelagianism can actually be traced back to Pelagius and is not instead a later development of his ideas by those who set out to propagate them.

It is often imagined that the two parties involved in the debate (Pelagius and St. Augustine) hated each other. But in reality St. Augustine and Pelagius treated each other respectfully and with affection. In many of his works, the saint refrains from calling Pelagius by name, hoping perhaps to avoid drawing attention to him amidst the controversy, and addresses him in a very respectful manner. In one of his letters (Letter 146), St. Augustine even calls Pelagius “my lord greatly beloved and brother greatly longed for”. Sadly, this gentleness of the saint was to be ill repaid by Pelagius when later on the debate he tried to use the saint’s letter as evidence that St. Augustine was sympathetic to his views (On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 51-53).

St. Augustine was not involved in the Pelagian controversy right form the start. The synod held at Carthage in 411 a.d. presided over by Bishop Aurelius was one at which he was not present but right after it’s conclusion he became aquatinted with it’s proceedings and the nature of Pelagianism and began from that point on to denounce the heresy both in his sermons and the series of treatises that are collectively known and his Anti-Pelagian works.

While Pelagius came to enjoy some temporal support for his views, later on this was to change as he began to be condemned by synods and to be abandoned even by the people who lent some sort of credibility to his views such as his patron Praylius and Pope Zosimus. He was eventually expelled from Jerusalem and it is believed that he departed to Egypt, never to be heard of again.

His supporter, Caelestius, shared a similar fate as he went to Rome after the death of Pope Zosimus to try and win the support of the newly elected Pope Boniface. But his plan failed and in 423 a.d. was expelled from Italy and eventually joined with other deposed Pelagian bishops such as Julian of Eclanum, with whom St. Augustine came to have a rather heated and in part unedifying debate due to Julian’s arrogance and attitude.

Pelagianism met it’s fitting end in 431 a.d. when it was finally condemned by the Council of Ephesius where the names of Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian were among those condemned. Having died the year before, sadly St. Augustine did not live to see his victory. But undoubtedly he was at the Council in spirit, for his labour during the Pelagian controversy made a decisive impact in the course of history and the sanctioning of his teachings on the subject by The Church, which were not an innovation but a legitimate development of already existing doctrine, earned him the title of “The Doctor of Grace” and a normative authority in the Catholic Church paralleled only by that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the “Angelic Doctor”.

…

The Doctrine of Original Sin and it’s support in Scripture and Tradition

The doctrine of Original Sin is foundational to the theological framework of the Catholic faith and that of St. Augustine in the Pelagian debate. Briefly put, the doctrine refers to both the sin committed by Adam in paradise, which as St. Augustine states is it’s cause, and the hereditary stain that has been transmitted to all humanity due to the transgression of our first parents. The hereditary stain consist, according to Catholic teaching, on the lack of sanctifying grace in the soul. Corporeal death, disease and ignorance of divine matters are not part of the essence of Original Sin but among it’s consequences. When man fell, he was affected entirely for the worse, both body and soul. He did not just incur physical death but also spiritual death, not just for Adam, but for all his descendants as well.

While people are born with Original Sin, they are not born with actual sin. This distinction between Original and actual sin was one which St. Augustine emphasized (On Merits and the Forgiveness of Sins, Book I:11). This distinction is also why St. Paul can say that the children had done no good or evil before their birth (Romans 9:11) while at the same time affirming that all without exception had sinned in Adam (Romans 5:12). Yet, even if men had no actual sin, all still stand under a just condemnation due to Original Sin only (Romans 5:18) and so, as the Council of Basel states “the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”. Therefore, those who die even with Original Sin only, be them infants or adults, go to everlasting fire to suffer diverse punishments. The subject of the fate of unbaptized infants as well as that of the invincibly ignorant will be discussed more fully on the third part of this article.

The Pelagians held that Original Sin was one we became guilty of by way of imitation, We were not born with it but committed it like Adam did when we by some actual sin transgressed the divine commandment. St. Augustine on the other hand following the Catholic faith, holds that Original Sin is passed to all men by natural generation, that is, that we are all born with it and that we do not contract it by committing actual sins. Rather, those who have not been Baptized and cleansed from Original Sin add to this sin by committing actual sins and thus increase the degree of the punishment they will receive if they die without being regenerated in Baptism. St. Augustine states the matter thus: “original sin was the more heavy and deadly in proportion to the number and magnitude of the actual sins which were added to it” (Enchiridion, 33).

During the debate St. Augustine was accused by the Pelagians of his time and is accused today by many non-Catholics of having invented the doctrine of Original Sin. The claim goes that before his time no one believed in Original Sin and that he devised it due to an undue influence of his prior Manichean beliefs. In his defense, St. Augustine proclaims that:

“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil’s power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25)

In another of his works he supports his claim that Original Sin is a doctrine that has been held by The Church from ancient times. In his work Against Julian (Book II, X:33) he cites a great number of the early Church Fathers who expressed their belief in Original Sin. Among these there are citations from St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, St. Innocent, St. Basil and others. The entire second book of this work is dedicated to the testimony of these Church Fathers who spoke in support of the doctrine of Original Sin.

In support of his claim that the doctrine of Original Sin had been held by The Church long before his time, St. Augustine also drew attention to the ancient practice of infant baptism for the remission of sins, which has always been done by The Church. The Church wasted no time to baptize infants because she believes that it is by Baptism that infants as well as adults are made alive in Christ. If they are made alive by Baptism, then it follows that they were not before they received the Sacrament, if they are baptized for the forgiveness of sins (per Acts 2:38, this is the reason people are baptized), they have in them a sin that must be removed by baptism. Since they have yet to commit any actual sin, then that from which they must be cleansed is Original Sin.

But it was on the Scriptures on which St. Augustine would rely most strongly to defend and support the doctrine of Original Sin (and very much everything else he taught and defended). He always argues his position from the Scriptures and it is only on the rare occasion, when necessity demands it or when he thinks it will add something to his arguments that he cites as an authority a Church Father or even pagan philosophers and poets, as he does in his magnum opus, the City of God. There are several passages in Scripture that express the doctrine of Original Sin but the chief one for St. Augustine, the one to which he would refer constantly during the Pelagian debate was Romans 5:12-19, more specifically verse 12, which states:

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”

This verse by itself was to St. Augustine an explicit refutation of the Pelagian doctrine and so the saint said referring to this passage that “if these persons would only receive this statement with catholic hearts and ears, they would not have rebellious feelings against the grace and faith of Christ, nor would they vainly endeavour to convert to their own particular and heretical sense these very clear and manifest words of the apostle” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, II:45).

But the Pelagians in opposition to St. Augustine gave the passage a different meaning. To them the passage did not speak of an Original Sin that was transmitted by generation but of one that we became guilty of by way of imitation. However, the very passage itself and it’s surrounding context as well as additional passages from the rest of Scripture cited by the saint that support the doctrine of Original Sin preclude the Pelagian interpretation. St. Augustine, responding to the Pelagian claim that this particular verse spoke only about our sin being simply an imitation of that of Adam gave an exegesis of the passage which is worth quoting in full:

“No doubt all they imitate Adam who by disobedience transgress the commandment of God; but he is one thing as an example to those who sin because they choose; and another thing as the progenitor of all who are born with sin. All His saints, also, imitate Christ in the pursuit of righteousness; whence the same apostle, whom we have already quoted, says: “Be imitators of me, as I am also of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1 But besides this imitation, His grace works within us our illumination and justification, by that operation concerning which the same preacher of His [name] says: “Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase.” 1 Corinthians 3:7 For by this grace He engrafts into His body even baptized infants, who certainly have not yet become able to imitate any one. As therefore He, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness to those who imitate Him, gives also to those who believe in Him the hidden grace of His Spirit, which He secretly infuses even into infants; so likewise he, in whom all die, besides being an example for imitation to those who wilfully transgress the commandment of the Lord, depraved also in his own person all who come of his stock by the hidden corruption of his own carnal concupiscence.

It is entirely on this account, and for no other reason, that the apostle says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men; in which all have sinned.” Romans 5:12 Now if I were to say this, they would raise an objection, and loudly insist that I was incorrect both in expression and sense; for they would perceive no sense in these words when spoken by an ordinary man, except that sense which they refuse to see in the apostle. Since, however, these are the words of him to whose authority and doctrine they submit, they charge us with slowness of understanding, while they endeavour to wrest to some unintelligible sense words which were written in a clear and obvious purport. “By one man,” says he, “sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” This indicates propagation, not imitation; for if imitation were meant, he would have said, “By the devil.” But as no one doubts, he refers to that first man who is called Adam: “And so,” says he, “it passed upon all men”.

Again, in the clause which follows, “In which all have sinned,” how cautiously, rightly, and unambiguously is the statement expressed! For if you understand that sin to be meant which by one man entered into the world, “In which [sin] all have sinned,” it is surely clear enough, that the sins which are peculiar to every man, which they themselves commit and which belong simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one sin, in and by which all have sinned, means another thing; since all were that one man. If, however, it be not the sin, but that one man that is understood, “In which [one man] all have sinned,” what again can be plainer than even this clear statement?

We read, indeed, of those being justified in Christ who believe in Him, by reason of the secret communion and inspiration of that spiritual grace which makes every one who cleaves to the Lord “one spirit” with Him, 1 Corinthians 6:17 although His saints also imitate His example; can I find, however, any similar statement made of those who have imitated His saints? Can any man be said to be justified in Paul or in Peter, or in any one whatever of those excellent men whose authority stands high among the people of God? We are no doubt said to be blessed in Abraham, according to the passage in which it was said to him, “In you shall all nations be blessed” — for Christ’s sake, who is his seed according to the flesh; which is still more clearly expressed in the parallel passage: “In your seed shall all nations be blessed.” I do not believe that any one can find it anywhere stated in the Holy Scriptures, that a man has ever sinned or still sins “in the devil,” although all wicked and impious men “imitate” him. The apostle, however, has declared concerning the first man, that “in him all have sinned;” Romans 5:12 and yet there is still a contest about the propagation of sin, and men oppose to it I know not what nebulous theory of “imitation.” (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, Book I:10-11).

It can easily be seen now how we all were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam and that not merely death but also sin passed upon all men and that, as a consequence, condemnation passed upon all men as well. Original Sin is not something done by imitation but that is, as the verses cited below also demonstrate, transmitted by natural generation.

The other main passage used by St. Augustine is 1 Corinthians 15:21-22:

“For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”

This passage may be seen as shortened version of what St. Paul states in Romans 5:12-19 and so the same explanation holds for it. Other passages the saint uses in support of the doctrine of Original Sin are Psalm 50:5, Wisdom 12:10-11, Ephesians 2:3-5 and Ecclesiasticus 25:33. They confirm the fact not just that all men are born fallen, but also point to the means by which Original Sin is transmitted. For instance Wisdom 12:10-11 states with regards the Chanaanites that their malice was natural and that they were “a cursed seed from the beginning”. The use of the word “seed” links the curse not to the disobedience of their wills but to their very nature which was so from the beginning. They were, as the apostle says elsewhere: “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). And why are they so? The answer is found on the chief text that teaches the doctrine of Original Sin: Romans 5:12. This is the same answer St. Augustine gives when explaining the passage in Wisdom 12:10-11:

“How, then, is the malice of every man inbred, and his seed cursed from the beginning, unless it be in respect of the fact, that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all have sinned”? Romans 5:12” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:20).

Additional passages that the saint did not felt the need to cite which point to the doctrine of Original Sin are Psalm 57:4, Genesis 8:21, Job 15:14 and Job 25:4. Of the fathers Tertullian (On the Soul, 40) and Origen (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3) may also be added as testimonies in support of the doctrine before the time of the saint.

More could be said about this subject but it is beyond the scope of this article to provide a more comprehensive analysis and defense of the doctrine of Original Sin. It is evident, however, from the testimonies given above that the doctrine is well founded in both Scripture and Tradition and that the Pelagians were departing from the apostolic faith with their denial of it.

At bottom, the denial of Original Sin only serves to dilute the redemptive work of Christ. From the Pelagian view, Christ can in no way be the savior of innocent infants who stand in no need of baptismal regeneration or the forgiveness of sins. Nor is our nature raised to new holiness by Grace but we are simply forgiven the sins we do in imitation to Adam and are instructed by external commands without any interior supernatural help on what we have to do in order to be saved. Since according to the Pelagians the Mosaic Law was as effective for the attainment of salvation as the Gospel, then Christ’s work on the cross was not truly necessary. The Pelagian view would have it that justice could be by the law, but as St. Paul states: “if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

All the above said, it is true that St. Augustine contributed a great deal to the development of the doctrine of Original Sin, in expanding the doctrine on it’s nature, consequences and transmission. However, this was not due to a desire for innovation but the result of the traditional Catholic doctrine having to be defended against new attacks. As he says in one of his letters, it is by the means of heresies that “the doctrine of the holy religion is tested and developed” (Letter 137, 4:16). St. Augustine did not invent the fact that we are all born with Original Sin, rather, his teaching was a legitimate development of an already existing doctrine, which as he said in the quote above and which all the testimonies cited confirm: “the catholic faith holds from ancient times”.

…

Part two will be posted soon and as stated in the introduction, it will cover St. Augustine’s teaching against the Pelagian on nature, the law, grace and free will and will be based on three of his writings against them.

In the mean time, any comments, corrections or suggestions on any point of this entry are welcome.

God Bless,

“You have heard, O man worthy of all honour, the confession of our ignorance; you perceive what is requested at your hands. Your reputation is interested in our obtaining an answer to these questions. Ignorance may, without harm to religion, be tolerated in other priests; but when we come to Bishop Augustine, whatever we find unknown to him is no part of the Christian system. May the Supreme God protect your venerable Grace, my lord truly holy and justly revered!”

Here we see a certain excess of praise towards the saint coming from Volusianus, which is in a sense similar to that of which sometimes us Catholics are guilty of when it comes to the worship of dulia we give to the Blessed Virgin and the saints. St. Augustine responded to Volusianus on the same year (Letter 137) and answered the questions he had sent to him, but before he moved to that he told him in response to the above paragraph:

“I begin, therefore, by requesting you to lay aside the opinion which you have too easily formed concerning me, and dismiss those sentiments, though they are gratifying evidences of your goodwill, and believe my testimony rather than any other’s regarding myself, if you reciprocate my affection. For such is the depth of the Christian Scriptures, that even if I were attempting to study them and nothing else from early boyhood to decrepit old age, with the utmost leisure, the most unwearied zeal, and talents greater than I have, I would be still daily making progress in discovering their treasures; not that there is so great difficulty in coming through them to know the things necessary to salvation, but when any one has accepted these truths with the faith that is indispensable as the foundation of a life of piety and uprightness, so many things which are veiled under manifold shadows of mystery remain to be inquired into by those who are advancing in the study, and so great is the depth of wisdom not only in the words in which these have been expressed, but also in the things themselves, that the experience of the oldest, the ablest, and the most zealous students of Scripture illustrates what Scripture itself has said: “When a man has done, then he begins.” Sirach 18:6″

His humility is one of the things I love the most about the saint, despite his great mind and the high regard with which he was held even on his own time, he still kept a humble spirit and remained down to earth. He is a true model for the Bishop who has the laymen looking up to him for guidance not just in theological questions but also in matters of virtue. Another example of this humility of the saint comes from the preface to the third book on his work On The Trinity, where he says:

“Assuredly, as in all my writings I desire not only a pious reader, but also a free corrector, so I especially desire this in the present inquiry, which is so important that I would there were as many inquirers as there are objectors. But as I do not wish my reader to be bound down to me, so I do not wish my corrector to be bound down to himself. Let not the former love me more than the catholic faith, let not the latter love himself more than the catholic verity.”

This humility, of course, is not limited to St. Augustine, but as it is the fruit of God’s grace (Colossians 3:11-15), it is common to all the saints. The apostles too showed the same humility when people wanted to offer sacrifices to them (Acts 14:8-15). Humility, the hallmark of the saints, is something which we should strive to imitate and something which with the help of the intersession of the humble saints and of God’s grace we too are able to attain. The key is to know, as St. Augustine did, that “the only cause of any good that we enjoy is the goodness of God” (Enchiridion, 23).