---
title: "Letters · Epistulae"
author: "Augustine"
translator: "James Houston Baxter"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Church Fathers"
section: 41 of 62
url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-letters/41/
cite: "Augustine, tr. James Houston Baxter, Letters · Epistulae, section 41. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-letters/41/"
---

# Letters · Epistulae

*Augustine, tr. James Houston Baxter*

Augustine’s letters in Latin beside English.

> Latin: ed. James Houston Baxter, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, stoa0040.stoa011, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: James Houston Baxter, from the Perseus Digital Library (stoa0040.stoa011.perseus-eng1). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 41. Letter 41

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-letters/41/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-letters/41/#p-N

[¶0] 1. I would not for anything venture to cherish resentment that I have not been honoured with letters from your Holiness; for it is better for me to believe that you, my saintly lord and deservedly revered brother, were without anyone to convey them, than to harbour the suspicion that your Grace was scorning me. But now, as I have learned that Luke, the servant of God by whom I am sending this letter to you, is going to return very shortly, I shall give hearty thanks to the Lord and to your Benignity, if you have the kindness to visit me by letter. As for Pelagius, our brother and your son, to whom I hear you show much affection, I suggest that the affection you show him be such that the people who know him and have carefully listened to him may not imagine that your Holiness is being deceived by him.

> Latin: 1. Quod tuae sanctitatis scripta non merui, nihil audeo suscensere; melius enim perlatorem credo defuisse, quam me suspicor a tua veneratione contemptum, domine beatissime et merito venerabilis frater. Nunc vero, quoniam servum dei Lucam, per quem ista direxi, cito comperi esse rediturum, agam domino et tuae benignitati uberes gratias, si me litteris fueris visitare dignatus. Pelagium vero fratrem nostrum, filium tuum, quem audio quod multum diligis, hanc illi suggero exhibeas dilectionem, ut homines, qui eum noverunt et diligenter audierunt, non ab eo tuam sanctitatem existiment falli.

[¶1] 2. Some of his disciples, indeed, young men of very noble birth and education in the liberal arts, b gave up their worldly prospects at his persuasion and betook themselves to the service of God. When, however, they gave evidence of certain theories at variance with sound doctrine as contained in the Gospel of the Saviour and declared in the words of the apostles—that is, when they were discovered to be arguing against the grace of God, by means of which we become Christians and in which “we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith,”a and were beginning to reject their errors under my strictures, they gave me a book which, they said, was by the same Pelagius, asking me instead to reply to him. After I saw that it was my duty to do so in order the more thoroughly to drive that wicked error from their hearts, I read it and composed an answer.

> Latin: 2. Nam quidam ex discipulis eius adulescentes honestissime nati et institutis liberalibus eruditi spem, quam habebant in saeculo, eius exhortatione dimiserunt et se ad dei servitium contulerunt. In quibus tamen cum apparuissent quaedam sanae doctrinae adversantia, quae salvatoris evangelio continetur et apostolicis sermonibus declaratur, id est cum invenientur contra dei gratiam disputari, propter quam Christiani sumus et in qua spiritu ex fide spem iustitiae expectamus, et admonitionibus nostris inciperent emendari, dederunt mihi librum, quem eiusdem Pelagii esse dixerunt, rogantes ut ei potius responderent. Quod posteaquam vidi me facere debere, ut eo modo error ipse nefarius de cordibus eorum perfectius auferretur, legi atque respondi.

[¶2] 3. In that book he declares the grace of God to be only nature, in which we are created with free-will. As for that grace, however, which Holy Scripture commends to us in countless texts, teaching that it is by it that we are justified, that is, made just, and assisted, by God's mercy, in doing or completing every good work (as is shown too very clearly by the prayers of the holy, in which those things are sought from the Lord which have been enjoined by the Lord)—this grace, then, he not only passes over in silence, but advances many statements opposed to it. (For he asserts and urgently argues that through free-will alone human nature can be sufficient to do the works of righteousness and keep all God's commandments. From that anyone can see, on reading the same book, what an attack is made upon the grace of God, of which the apostle says, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”b and how there is no place left for that divine assistance because of which it is our duty to say, when we pray, “Lead us not into temptation” c; further, the Lord seems to have had no reason for saying to the apostle Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not,” a if all this receives its fulfilment in us without any help from God, but by the power of our will alone.

> Latin: 3. In hoc libro ille dei gratiam non appellat nisi naturam, qua libero arbitrio conditi sumus. Illam vero, quam innumerabilibus testimoniis sancta scriptura commendat ea nos iustificari, hoc est iustos fieri docens et in omni opere bono sive agendo sive perficiendo dei misericordia iuvari, quod etiam orationes sanctorum apertissime ostendunt, quibus ea petuntur a domino, quae praecipiuntur a domino, hanc ergo gratiam non solum tacet, sed ei contraria multa loquitur. Adfirmat enim vehementerque contendit per solum liberum arbitrium sibi humanam sufficere posse naturam ad operandam iustitiam et omnia dei mandata servanda. Unde quis non videat, cum eundem librum legerit, quem ad modum oppugnetur gratia dei, de qua dicit apostolus: Miser ego homo! Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? Gratia dei per dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, et nullus locus divino adiutorio relinquatur, propter quod orantes dicere debeamus: Ne nos inferas in temptationem, sine causa etiam dominus apostolo Petro dixisse videatur: Rogavi pro te, ne deficiat fides tua, si hoc totum in nobis nullo auxilio dei sed potestate voluntatis impletur?

[¶3] 4. So these perverted and sacrilegious arguments not only give the lie to our prayers, in which we ask the Lord for anything that we read and believe that the holy have asked, but also are in conflict with the benediction we give, when over the people we utter the prayer and petition to God that He will “make them to increase and abound in love one towards another and towards all men,” b and “grant them according to the riches of His glory to be strengthened with might by his Spirit,”c and “fill them with joy and peace in believing and make them to abound in hope and in the power of the Holy Spirit.” d Why do we ask these things for them which we know the apostle asked from the Lord for the nations, if even now our nature, created with free-will, can provide all of them for itself by its own will? And why does this same apostle say too, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” e if we are led by the spirit of our nature to be made the sons of God? And why does he likewise say, “The Spirit helpeth our infirmities,” f if our nature is created such that it does not need any help from the Spirit to do the works of righteousness? And why does Scripture say, “But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it,” g if we have been created such that by the strength of our freewill we are able to overcome all temptations by simply enduring them?

> Latin: 4. His itaque disputationibus perversis et impiis non solum contradicitur orationibus nostris, quibus a domino petimus quicquid sanctos petisse legimus et tenemus, verum etiam benedictionibus nostris resistitur, quando super populum dicimus optantes eis et poscentes a domino, ut eos abundare faciat in caritate invicem et in omnes et det eis secundum divitias gloriae suae virtute corroborari per spiritum eius et impleat eos omni gaudio et pace in credendo et abundent in spe et potentia spiritus sancti. Ut quid eis ista petimus, quae populis a domino petisse apostolum novimus, si iam natura nostra creata cum libero arbitrio omnia haec sibi potest sua voluntate praestare? Ut quid etiam dicit idem ipse apostolus: Quotquot enim spiritu dei aguntur, hi filii sunt dei, si spiritu naturae nostrae agimur, ut efficiamur filii dei? Ut quid dicit similiter: Spiritus adiuvat infirmitatem nostram, si natura nostra sic creata est, ut spiritu ad opera iustitiae non indigeat adiuvari? Ut quid scriptum est: Fidelis autem deus, qui non permittet vos temptari super id quod potestis, sed faciet cum temptatione etiam exitum, ut possitis sustinere, si iam ita conditi sumus, ut viribus liberi arbitrii universas temptationes sustinendo superare possimus?

[¶4] 5. Why need I dilate upon the point to your Holiness, when I already realize that I am wearying you, especially as you listen to my letter through an interpreter? a If you love Pelagius, may he too love you, or rather deceive himself and not you! For when you hear him confessing God's grace and God's help, you think he means the same as you do, who understand them in the light of the Catholic rule of faith, because you are unacquainted with what he has written in his book. For this reason I have sent the book itself and the reply I wrote to it; from these your Reverence may see what grace or help of God he speaks of, when the objection is made to him that he is speaking of something opposed to the grace and help of God. Open his eyes then by teaching and exhorting him and praying for the salvation he ought to have in Christ, so that he may confess that grace of God the saints are proved to have confessed, when they sought those things from the Lord which He commanded them to seek, for those things would have not been commanded unless to the end that our will should be revealed, nor would they be asked for, unless to the end that the weakness of our will should have the help of Him who commanded them.

> Latin: 5. Quid pluribus agam apud sanctitatem vestram, quando quidem me onerosum sentio, maxime quia per interpretem audis litteras meas? Si diligitis Pelagium, diligat vos etiam ipse, immo magis se ipsum et non vos fallat. Cum enim auditis eum confiteri gratiam dei et adiutorium dei, putatis hoc eum dicere quod et vos, qui catholica regula sapitis, quoniam quid in libro suo scripserit, ignoratis. Propter hoc ipsum librum misi et meum, quo ei respondi; unde perspiciat venerabilitas vestra quam gratiam vel adiutorium dei dicat, quando illi obicitur quod gratiae dei et adiutorio contradicat. Proinde ostende illi docendo et hortando et pro eius salute, quae in Christo esse debet, orando, ut eam dei gratiam confiteatur, quam probantur sancti dei fuisse confessi, cum a domino ea ipsi peterent, quae illis iubebat ut facerent, quoniam neque haberentur, nisi ut nostra voluntas ostenderetur, neque peterentur, nisi ut voluntatis infirmitas ab illo, qui iusserat, iuvaretur.

[¶5] 6. Let the question be openly put to him whether he approves of praying the Lord that we fall not into sin. If he disapproves of it, let the apostle be read in his ears, in the words, “Now I pray to God that ye do no evil” b: but if he does approve of it, let him openly preach that grace which assists us, so that he himself may be kept from doing much evil. For it is by this grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord that all those who are delivered, are delivered, since no one can be delivered in any other way than through it. For that reason it is written, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” a not that no one will be damned, but that no one will be delivered in any other way; for just as all those who are children of men are so through Adam, so all those who are children of God are so through Christ. So all children of men are able to become such only through Adam, and all of them who have become children of God, only through Christ. Let him therefore openly express his views on this further point, whether he accepts the fact that even little children, who have not yet reached the stage of willing righteousness or of refusing it, yet because of one man, by whom “sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” b are delivered by the grace of Christ—whether even for them, because of original sin, he believes that the blood of Christ was shed, which was, to be sure, shed for the remission of sins. c About these points in particular I am anxious to know what he believes and holds, what he definitely confesses and preaches. In the other points, however, that are raised against him, even if he be proved to be in error, none the less until he accepts correction, it is more tolerable to bear with him.

> Latin: 6. Aperte interrogetur, utrum ei placeat orandum esse a domino, ne peccemus. Quod si ei displicet, legatur in auribus eius apostolus dicens: Oramus autem ad deum, ne quid faciatis mali; si autem placet, aperte praedicet gratiam, qua iuvamur, ne ipse faciat multum mali. Hac enim gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum omnes liberantur, quicumque liberantur, quoniam nemo praeter ipsam quolibet alio modo liberari potest. Propter hoc scriptum est: Sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, sic et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur, non quia nemo damnabitur, sed quia nemo aliter liberabitur, quia, sicut nulli nisi per Adam filii hominis, ita nulli nisi per Christum filii dei. Omnes itaque filii hominis nonnisi per Adam et omnes ex eis filii dei nonnisi per Christum fieri possunt. Aperte itaque etiam hinc exprimat quid sentiat, utrum placeat ei etiam parvulos, qui nondum iustitiam possunt velle vel nolle, tamen propter unum hominem, per quem peccatum intravit in mundum et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt, per Christi gratiam liberari, utrum etiam pro ipsis fusum credat sanguinem Christi propter originale peccatum, qui utique in remissionem fusus est peccatorum. De his maxime ab illo volumus nosse quid credat, quid teneat, quid certe confiteatur et praedicet. In aliis autem, quae illi obiciuntur, etiamsi errare convincitur, tamen, donec corrigatur, tolerabilius sustinetur.

[¶6] 7. Further, I beg you to have the kindness to send to me the minutes of the Church council d which declare him to be cleared of the charge of heresy. This I beg at the desire of many bishops who have, like me, been troubled by the indefinite rumour about this; I have written, however, asking this in my own name for the reason that I did not want to miss the opportunity of the messenger, who is in a position, I understand, to return to us speedily. In place of these minutes Pelagius has already sent us not indeed any portion of the minutes, but a kind of defence of himself, written by his own hand, in which he says he has answered the objections of the Gauls. a In it, to leave other matters out, he replied to the objection made to him that he had said man could live without sin and keep God's commandments if he wished to; his words are: “I maintained that this power was conferred upon him by God; I did not maintain that any person would be found who had never committed a sin from his infancy to his old age, but that after turning from sin by his own effort and with the help of God's grace he can live without sin, and that the fact of having sinned does not prevent a man from turning from it at a future date.”

> Latin: 7. Peto etiam nobis transmittere, quibus perhibetur esse purgatus, ecclesiastica gesta digneris. Quod ex multorum episcoporum desiderio peto, quos mecum de hac re fama incerta perturbat; sed ideo solus hoc scripsi, quia occasionem perlatoris festinantis a nobis, quem cito ad nos audivi posse remeare, praetermittere nolui. Pro quibus gestis iam nobis misit non quidem ullam partem gestorum sed quandam a se conscriptam velut defensionem suam, qua se dixit obiectis respondisse Gallorum. In qua, ut alia omittam, cum ad illud responderet, quod ei obiectum est, eum dixisse posse hominem esse sine peccato et mandata dei custodire, si velit, “diximus,” inquit; “hanc enim illi deus possibilitatem dedit; non diximus quoniam inveniatur quis, ab infantia usque ad senectam qui numquam peccaverit, sed quoniam a peccatis conversus labore proprio et gratia dei adiutus potest absque peccato esse nec propter hoc in posterum erit inconvertibilis.”

[¶7] 8. In this reply of Pelagius your Reverence can discern that he has confessed that a man's earlier life, that is in infancy, is not without sin, but that he can be turned by his own effort, assisted by the grace of God, to the sinless life. Why then, in the book I have replied to, does he allege that Abel lived a life that was completely without sin? These are his words about this point: “This can with justice be said of those of whose good deeds and evil deeds alike Scripture has no record; but it would assuredly have recorded the sins of those whose righteousness it records, if it had perceived that they had sinned at all. But granted,” he says, “that in other ages the great throng of men made Scripture neglect to weave an account of the sins of every one: right at the very beginning of the world, when there were only four people in existence, what reason,” he asks, “can we give for its failure to mention the sins of every one? Is it because of the great number of people? There was as yet nothing of the kind. Is it because it remembered only those who had committed sin, and was unable to remember the one who had not committed any? To be sure,” he says. “in the first age of the world there were Adam and Eve. from whom were born Cain and Abel—four people only are mentioned as existing. Eve sinned; the Scripture has revealed that to us; Adam also sinned: the same Scripture does not omit to mention it, and that Scripture has testified too that Cain sinned as well, and it points out not only their sins, but also the nature of their sins. If Abel too had sinned, that too would have been mentioned by Scripture; but it is not mentioned, so he did not sin.” a I have culled from his book these words, which your Holiness will be able to find in the volume itself, so that you may understand what manner of credence you should afford him when he denies the other points as well; unless perhaps he says that Abel himself committed no sin, but that he was not therefore without sin and could not therefore bear comparison with the Lord.

> Latin: 8. In hac Pelagii responsione cernit reverentia tua hoc eum fuisse confessum, priorem hominis vitam, quae est ab infantia, sine peccato non esse, sed eum ad vitam, quae sine peccato sit, labore proprio et adiutus per gratiam dei posse converti. Cur ergo in hoc libro, cui respondi, Abel ita hic vixisse dicit, ut nihil omnino peccaverit? Nam eius de hac re ista sunt verba: “Hoc,” inquit, “recte dici potest de his, quorum neque bonorum neque malorum scriptura sit memor; de illis vero, quorum iustitiae meminit, et peccatorum sine dubio meminisset, si qua eos peccasse sensisset. Sed esto,” inquit, “aliis temporibus turbae numerositate omnium dissimulaverit peccata contexere, in ipso statim mundi primordio, ubi nonnisi quattuor homines erant, quid,” inquit, “dicimus, cur non omnium voluerit delicta memorare: Utrumne ingentis multitudinis causa, quae nondum erat? An quia illorum tantum, qui commiserant, meminit, illius vero, qui nulla commiserat, meminisse non potuit? Certe,” inquit, “primo in tempore Adam et Eva, ex quibus Cain et Abel nati sunt, quattuor homines tantum fuisse referuntur. Peccavit Eva, scriptura hoc prodidit; Adam quoque deliquit, eadem scriptura non tacuit; sed et Cain peccasse ipsa quoque scriptura testata est. Quorum non modo peccata, verum etiam peccatorum indicat qualitatem. Quod si et Abel peccasset,” inquit, “et hoc sine dubio scriptura dixisset; si non dixit, ergo nec ille peccavit.”

[¶8] 9. Who alone in mortal flesh was without sin, since in Abel there was original sin inherited from Adam, not committed by himself in his own person (I wish he would at least make this assertion, so that we might for the present obtain from him a definite expression of opinion about infant baptism); or unless he says perhaps, since he has used the words “from infancy to old age,” that Abel did not sin because he is shown not to have lived to old age. This is not what his words indicate: he said that from the beginning the earlier period of life was given to sin, but that the later could be sinless; for he declares he did not state that anyone would be found who from infancy to old age had not committed sin, but that after turning from sin by his own effort and with the help of God's grace, he could live without sin. For when he says “turning from sin,” he shows that the earlier part of life was lived in sin. Let him then admit that Abel did sin, since his early life was lived in the world, and it, according to his admission, is not without sin; and let him take another look at his own book, where it is quite plain he did make the statement which in this defence he denies having made. a But if he asserts that this book, or this passage in the book, is not from his pen, I on my side have adequate witnesses, men of honour and reliability and undoubted friends of his own, and I can acquit myself by their testimony that they handed this same book to me containing that sentence and that they declared it was from the pen of Pelagius; that evidence at any rate is sufficient to deter anyone from saying that it was written or fabricated by me.

> Latin: 9. Haec verba de libro eius decerpsi, quae in ipso quoque volumine tua sanctitas poterit invenire, ut intellegatis quem ad modum et cetera neganti credere debeatis, nisi forte dicat ipsum Abel nihil peccasse, sed ideo non fuisse sine peccato et ideo non posse domino comparari, qui in carne mortali solus sine peccato fuit, quia erat in Abel originale peccatum quod de Adam traxerat, non in se ipso ipse commiserat—utinam saltem hoc dicat, ut interim eius de baptismo parvulorum certam sententiam tenere possimus!—aut si forte, quoniam dixit “ab infantia usque ad senectutem,” ideo dicat Abel non peccasse, quia nec senuisse monstratur. Non hoc indicant verba eius; ab initio priorem vitam dixit peccatricem, posteriorem vero posse esse sine peccato. Ait enim non se dixisse quoniam inveniatur quis ab infantia usque ad senectutem qui non peccaverit, sed quoniam a peccatis conversus labore proprio et gratia dei adiutus potest absque peccato esse. Cum enim dicit “a peccatis conversus,” ostendit priorem vitam in peccatis agi. Fateatur ergo quod peccaverit Abel, cuius prima vita fuit in saeculo, quam fatetur non carere peccatis, et respiciat librum suum, ubi eum dixisse constat quod ait in hac defensione: “Non diximus.”

[¶9] 10. Now among these let each man choose whom to believe. It is not my business to discuss the matter at any greater length. I ask you to convey to him by a sure hand, if he denies that those are his opinions, the points to which objection is taken as being in conflict with the grace of Christ. So plausible is his defence, indeed, that we shall rejoice with exceeding joy if he has not deceived your wise Holiness, unacquainted as you are with his other writings, by any ambiguous statement. For the rest we care not overmuch whether those perverted and impious opinions were never his, or if at last he has renounced them.

> Latin: 10. Si autem et hunc librum vel hunc in eo libro locum esse negaverit suum, ego quidem idoneos testes habeo honestos et fideles viros et eius sine dubio dilectores, quibus adtestantibus purgare me possum quod eundem librum ipsi mihi dederint et ibi hoc legatur eumque Pelagii esse dixerint, ut saltem hoc mihi sufficiat, ne dicat a me fuisse sive conscriptum sive falsatum. Iam inter illos eligat quisque cui credat. Meum non est de hac re diutius disputare. Rogamus, ut certe transmittas sibi, si 1 negaverit se ista sentire, quae illi obiciuntur inimica gratiae Christi. Tam quippe aperta est eius defensio, ut, si vestram sanctam prudentiam, qui eius alia scripta non nostis, nulla verborum ambiguitate fefellerit, magno gaudio gratulabimur non multum curantes, utrum illa perversa et impia numquam senserit an se ab eis aliquando correxerit.