Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VI/Treatises/Against the Pelagians/Prologue

by Philip Schaff et al.

Pelagians:

Dialogue Between Atticus, a Catholic, and Critobulus, a Heretic.

————————————

The anti-Pelagian Dialogue is the last of Jerome’s controversial works, having been written in the year 417, within three years of his death. It shows no lack of his old vigour, though perhaps something of the prolixity induced by old age. He looks at the subject more calmly than those of the previous treatises, mainly because it lay somewhat outside the track of his own thoughts. He was induced to interest himself in it by his increasing regard for Augustin, and by the coming of the young Spaniard, Orosius, in 414, from Augustin to sit at his feet. Pelagius also had come to Palestine, and, after an investigation of his tenets, at a small council at Jerusalem, in 415, presided over by Bishop John, and a second, at Diospolis in 416, had been admitted to communion. Jerome appears to have taken no part in these proceedings, and having been at peace with Bishop John for nearly twenty years, was no doubt unwilling to act against him. But he had come to look upon Pelagius as infected with the heretical “impiety,” which he looked upon (i. 28) as far worse than moral evil; and connected him, as we see from his letter to Ctesiphon (CXXXIII.), with Origenism and Rufinus; and he brings his great knowledge of Scripture to bear upon the controversy. He quotes a work of Pelagius, though giving only the headings, and the numbers of the chapters, up to 100 (i. 26–32); and, though at times his conviction appears weak, and there are passages (i. 5, ii. 6–30, iii. 1) which give occasion to the observation that he really, if unconsciously, inclined to the views of Pelagius, and that he is a “Synergist,” not, like Augustin, a thorough predestinarian, the Dialogue, as a whole, is clear and forms a substantial contribution to our knowledge. Although its tone is less violent than that of his ascetic treatises, it appears to have stirred up the strongest animosity against him. The adherents of Pelagius attacked and burned the monasteries of Bethlehem, and Jerome himself only escaped by taking refuge in a tower. His sufferings, and the interference of Pope Innocentius in his behalf, may be seen by referring to Letters CXXXV.–CXXXVII., with the introductory notes prefixed to them.

The following is a summary of the argument: Atticus, the Augustinian, at once (c. 1) introduces the question: Do you affirm that, as Pelagius affirms, men can live without sin? Yes, says the Pelagian Critobulus, but I do not add, as is imputed to us, “without the grace of God.” Indeed, the fact that we have a free will is from grace. Yes, replies Atticus, but what is this grace? Is it only our original nature, or is it needed in every act. In every act, is the reply (2); yet one would hardly say that we cannot mend a pen without grace (3), for, if so, where is our free will? But, says Atticus (5), the Scriptures speak of our need of God’s aid in everything. In that case, says Critobulus, the promised reward must be given not to us but to God, Who works in us. Reverting then to the first point stated, Atticus asks, does the possibility of sinlessness extend to single acts, or to the whole life? Certainly to the whole as well as the part, is the answer. But we wish, or will to be sinless; why then are we not actually sinless? Because (8) we do not exert our will to the full. But (9) no one has ever lived without sin. Still, says the Pelagian, God commands us to be perfect, and he does not command impossibilities. Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth are represented as perfectly righteous. No, it is answered (12), faults are attributed to each of them. John says, “He that is born of God sinneth not” (13); yet, “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves.” The Apostles, though told to be perfect (14) were not perfect: and St. Paul says (14a), “I count not myself to have apprehended.” Men are called just and perfect only in comparison of others (16), or because of general subjection to the will of God (18), or according to their special characteristics (19), as we may speak of a bishop as excellent in his office, though he may not fulfil the ideal of the pastoral epistles (22).

The discussion now turns to the words of Pelagius’ book. “All are ruled by their own will” (27). No; for Christ says, “I came not to do My own will.” “The wicked shall not be spared in the judgment.” But we must distinguish between the impious or heretics who will be destroyed (28) and Christian sinners who will be forgiven. Some of his sayings contradict each other or are trifling (29, 30). “The kingdom of heaven is promised in the Old Testament.” Yes, but more fully in the New. Returning to the first thesis, “That a man can be without sin if he wills it,” the Pelagian says, If things, like desires which arise spontaneously and have no issue, are reckoned blamable, we charge the sin on our Maker; to which it is only answered that, though we cannot understand God’s ways, we must not arraign His justice. In the rest of the book, Atticus alone speaks, going through the Old Testament, and showing that each of the saints falls into some sin, which, though done in ignorance or half-consciousness, yet brings condemnation with it.

Prologue.

————————————

1. After writing the^[1]letter to Ctesiphon, in which I replied to the questions propounded, I received frequent expostulations from the brethren, who wanted to know why I any longer delayed the promised work in which I undertook to answer all the subtleties of the preachers of Impassibility.^[2] For every one knows what was the contention of the Stoics and Peripatetics, that is, the old Academy, some of them asserted that the πάθη, which we may call emotions, such as sorrow, joy, hope, fear, can be thoroughly eradicated from the minds of men; others that their power can be broken, that they can be governed and restrained, as unmanageable horses are held in check by peculiar kinds of bits. Their views have been explained by Tully in the “Tusculan Disputations,” and Origen in his “Stromata” endeavours to blend them with ecclesiastical truth. I pass over Manichæus,^[3] Priscillianus,^[4] Evagrius of Ibora, Jovinianus, and the heretics found throughout almost the whole of Syria, who, by a perversion of the import of their name, are commonly called^[5]Massalians, in Greek, Euchites, all of whom hold that it is possible for human virtue and human knowledge to attain perfection, and arrive, I will not say merely at a likeness to, but an equality with God; and who go the length of asserting that, when once they have reached the height of perfection, even sins of thought and ignorance are impossible for them. And although in my former letter addressed to Ctesiphon and aimed at their errors, so far as time permitted, I touched upon a few points in the book which I am now endeavouring to hammer out, I shall adhere to the method of Socrates. What can be said on both sides shall be stated; and the truth will thus be clear when both sides express their opinions. Origen is peculiar in maintaining on the one hand that it is impossible for human nature to pass through life without sin, and on the other, that it is possible for a man, when he turns to better things, to become so strong that he sins no more.

2. I shall add a few words in answer to those who say that I am writing this work because I am inflamed with envy. I have never spared heretics, and I have done my best to make the enemies of the Church my own.^[6]Helvidius wrote against the perpetual virginity of Saint Mary. Was it envy that led me to answer him, whom I had never seen in the flesh?^[7]Jovinianus, whose heresy is now being fanned into flame, and who disturbed the faith of Rome in my absence, was so devoid of gifts of utterance, and had such a pestilent style that he was a fitter object for pity than for envy. So far as I could, I answered him also.^[8]Rufinus did all in his power to circulate the blasphemies of Origen and the treatise “On First Principles” (Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν), not in one city, but throughout the whole world. He even published the first book of^[9]Eusebius’ “Apology for Origen” under the name of^[10]Pamphilus the martyr, and, as though Origen had not said enough,^[11] vomited forth a fresh volume on his behalf. Am I to be accused of envy because I answered him? and was his eloquence such a rushing torrent as to deter me through fear from writing or dictating anything in reply?^[12]Palladius, no better than a villainous slave, tried to impart energy to the same heresy, and to excite against me fresh prejudice on account of my translation of the Hebrew. Was I^[13]envious of such distinguished ability and nobility? Even now the^[14]mystery of iniquity worketh, and every one chatters about his views: yet I, it seems, am the only one who is filled with envy at the glory of all the rest; I am so poor a creature that I envy even those who do not deserve envy. And so, to prove to all that I do not hate the men but their errors, and that I do not wish to vilify any one, but rather lament the misfortune of men who are deceived by knowledge falsely so-called, I have made use of the names of Atticus and Critobulus in order to express our own views and those of our opponents. The truth is that all we who hold the Catholic faith, wish and long that, while the heresy is condemned, the men may be reformed. At all events, if they will continue in error, the blame does not attach to us who have written, but to them, since they have preferred a lie to the truth. And one short answer to our calumniators, whose curses fall upon their own heads, is this, that the Manichæan doctrine condemns the nature of man, destroys free will, and does away with the help of God. And again, that it is manifest madness for man to speak of himself as being what God alone is. Let us so walk along the royal road that we turn neither to the right hand nor to the left; and let us always believe that the eagerness of our wills is governed by the help of God. Should any one cry out that he is slandered and boast that he thinks with us; he will then show that he assents to the true faith, when he openly and sincerely condemns the opposite views. Otherwise his case will be that described by the prophet:^[15] “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not returned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly.” It is a smaller sin to follow evil which you think is good, than not to venture to defend what you know for certain is good. If we cannot endure threats, injustice, poverty, how shall we overcome the flames of Babylon? Let us not lose by hollow peace what we have preserved by war. I should be sorry to allow my fears to teach me faithlessness, when Christ has put the true faith in the power of my choice.

Footnotes

1. Letter CXXXIII.
2. ᾽Απάθεια.
3. Priscillian was a Spaniard, who began to propagate his views, which were a mixture of various heresies, about the year 370. See Robertson, p. 295 sq., and Note on Jerome, Letter CXXXIII.
4. Evagrius Iberita. The name is taken either from a town named Ibera or Ibora in Pontus, or from the province of Iberia. Jerome, in the letter to which he refers, styles Evagrius Hyperborita, but this is thought to be an error for Hyborita. It has been suggested that Jerome was playing on the word Iberita. He was born in 345. He wrote, amongst many other works, a treatise Περὶ ἀπαθείας (On Impassibility), and no doubt Jerome refers to this a few lines above. He was a zealous champion of Origen. See also Jerome, Letter CXXXIII. and note.
5. The Massalians or Euchites derived their name from their habit of continual prayer. The words are etymological equivalents (Massalians, from אלּצ to pray). The perversity lay in the misinterpretation of such texts as Luke xviii. 1, and 1 Thess. v. 17.
6. He was a Roman lawyer. His treatise was written about a.d. 383. See Jerome’s treatise against him in this volume.
7. See introduction to Jerome’s treatise against Jovinianus in this volume.
8. See Rufinus’ works, especially the Prolegomena, and Jerome’s controversy with him in vol. iii. of this series.
9. That is, Eusebius of Cæsarea (a.d. 267–338), who was called Pamphilus from his friendship with Pamphilus the martyr.
10. Suffered martyrdom a.d. 309. He erected a library at Cæsarea of 30,000 volumes. See Rufinus’ Preface to his Apology in this series, vol. iii., with introductory note.
11. See Rufinus on the adulteration of the works of Origen, in this series, vol. iii. p. 421.
12. Palladius, bishop of Hellenopolis, the biographer and trusted friend of Chrysostom, was born about 367. He visited Bethlehem about 387 and formed a very unfavourable opinion of Jerome. He highly commended Rufinus. According to Epiphanius, as well as Jerome, he was tainted with Origenism. Tillemont, however, thinks that another Palladius may be referred to in these passages. His accounts of Jerome and Rufinus are given in his “Historia Lausiaca,” c. 78 and 118.
13. Jerome was accused of envy or ill-will by Palladius. “Tanta fuit ejus invidia ut ab ea obrueretur virtus doctrinæ. Cum ergo multis diebus cum eo versatus esset sanctus Posidonius, dicit mihi in aurem, “Ingenua quidem Paula, quæ ejus curam gerit, præmorietur, liberata ab ejus invidia. Ut autem arbitror, propter hunc virum non habitabit vir sanctus in his locis, sed ejus pervadet invidia usque ad proprium fratrem.”—Pallad. Hist. Laus., § 78, cf. § 82.
14. 2 Thess. ii. 7.
15. Jer. iii. 10.