Primary source documents

chapter 7: Theology and christological debates in the 5th century

Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Nestorius

Source: Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Volume 14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1994, 405-7.

The most ardent opponent of Nestorius was Cyril of Alexandria (c.380-444). Cyril had sent several letters to Nestorius, trying to convince him of his theological mistakes. The text below is part of the second letter, dated Jan.-Feb. 430. During the Council of Ephesus 431, this letter was presented to the assembly and officially adopted. It thus constitutes part of what is called the orthodox faith of the church.

   To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord. 

   […] The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union. […] for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body. […]

   This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh. These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God.

Cyril of Alexandria, The Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius

Source: Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Volume 14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1994, 419-442.

The ‘twelve anathemas’ (condemnations) against Nestorius were part of a letter that Cyril wrote in November 430, some months after the letter above. (‘Anathemas’ are an expression of official condemnation.) This letter with its twelve anathemas was, like the letter above, submitted to the council of Ephesus in 431. However, in contrast to the letter written in January / February 430, this letter was not officially approved. However, it is clear that the council fully endorsed Cyril’s teaching; the anathemas were subsequently adopted by the council in Chalcedon in 451.

I. If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema.

II. If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at  the same time: let him be anathema.

III. If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴν): let him be anathema.

IV. If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

V. If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because “the Word was made flesh,” and “hath a share in flesh and blood as we do:” let him be anathema.

VI. If anyone, after the Incarnation calls another than Christ the Word, and ventures to say that the form of a servant is equally with the Word of God, without beginning and uncreated, and not rather that it is made by him as its natural Lord and Creator and God, and that he has promised to raise it again in the words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up again”; let him be anathema.

VII. If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virgin is the Only-begotten, who was born from the bosom of the Father, before the morning star was (Ps 109:3) and does not rather confess that he has obtained the designation of Only-begotten on account of his connection with him who in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father; and besides, if any one calls another than the Emmanuel Christ let him be anathema.

VIII. If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα ) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema.

IX. If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

X. Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him (ἰδικῶς ἄνθρωπον), who is become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.

XI. Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord giveth life and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him [i.e., the Word] only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh giveth life because it is that of the Word who giveth life to all: let him be anathema. 

XII. Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema.

Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (11 November 1994)

Source: J. Neuner, S.J. and J. Dupuis, S.J. (eds.) The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church. Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition. New York: Alba House, 1996, p.254 (chap. 683)

Although not belonging to the period of the early church, the text below is an important document that shows something of the recent reconciliation between long-separated parts of the church. 

This joint declaration was signed by Pope John Paul II for the Roman Catholic Church and by Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV for the Assyrian Church of the East. It shows sensitivity to the different traditions by not insisting on the controversial title of ‘Mother of God’. At the same time it emphasizes the true union of the two natures of Christ, upholding the Chalcedonian definition of the relationship between the two natures of Christ as without confusion or change and without division or separation.

   Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operation. But far from constituting “one and another”, the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

   Christ therefore is not an “ordinary man” whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of this Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying [to] the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.
Leo I of Rome, Letter to Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople (449)

Source: Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Volume 14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1994, 502-505.

The letter of Pope Leo I to the Patriarch of Constantinople Flavian (13 June 449), a text known as Tome, became the single most important contribution to the resolution of the question of how Christ can be human and divine at the same time. The letter rejects the teaching of Eutyches for over-emphasizing the divine nature of Christ. Leo I distinguishes clearly between the two natures and balances them by antithetic expression. The document was that era’s clearest expression of the doctrine of the incarnation. 

The excerpt below, around one-fifth of the whole letter, contains several important passages of Leo’s argument.

Leo [the bishop] to his [most] dear brother Flavian.
   Having read your Affection’s letter, the late arrival of which is matter of surprise to us, and having gone through the record of the proceedings of the bishops, we have now, at last, gained a clear view of the scandal which has risen up among you, against the integrity of the faith; and what at first seemed obscure has now been elucidated and explained. By this means Eutyches, who seemed to be deserving of honour under the title of Presbyter, is now shown to be exceedingly thoughtless and sadly inexperienced, so that to him also we may apply the prophet’s words, “He refused to understand in order to act well: he meditated unrighteousness on his bed.” […]

   For when God is believed to be both “Almighty” and “Father,” it is proved that the Son is everlasting together with himself, differing in nothing from the Father, because he was born as “God from God,” Almighty from Almighty, Coeternal from Eternal; not later in time, not inferior in power, not unlike him in glory, not divided from him in essence, but the same Only-begotten and Everlasting Son of an Everlasting Parent was “born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.” This birth in time in no way detracted from, in no way added to, that divine and everlasting birth; but expended itself wholly in the work of restoring man, who had been deceived; so that it might both overcome death, and by its power “destroy the devil who had the power of death.” For we could not have overcome the author of sin and of death, unless he who could neither be contaminated by sin, nor detained by death, had taken upon himself our nature, and made it his own. For, in fact, he was “conceived of the Holy Ghost” within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore him as she had conceived him, without loss of virginity. […]

   Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same “Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus,” might from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable. Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. By “ours” we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in the Saviour; and the fact that he took on himself a share in our infirmities did not make him a partaker in our transgressions. He assumed “the form of a servant” without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that “emptying of himself,” whereby the Invisible made himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power. Accordingly, the same who, remaining in the form of God, made man, was made man in the form of a servant. For each of the natures retains its proper character without defect; and as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not impair the form of God. […]

   Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from his seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because he who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, he began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed his infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death. And born by a new mode of birth; because inviolate virginity, while ignorant of concupiscence, supplied the matter of his flesh. What was assumed from the Lord’s mother was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin’s womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours. For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as “God” is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so “Man” is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind. For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly Son of God, and truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Man, inasmuch as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” God, inasmuch as “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.” Man, inasmuch as he was “made of a woman, made under the law.'

Augustine, Confessions Book I, Chapter 1:1 – about the yearning of our heart

Source: Augustine, Confessions and Enchiridion, edited and translated by Albert Cook Outler, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, 31-2.

Augustine was an important spiritual writer who deeply inspired the cultural history of the West. His Confessions initiated a tradition of introspection that can be seen as one of the roots of modern psychology.

Excerpted below are the first sentences of the work, which has 13 books in all. In Book I, Augustine remembers his infancy and childhood, seeing God’s grace as constantly present throughout his life. 

      "Great art thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is thy power, and infinite is thy wisdom." [Ps. 145:3 and Ps. 147:5] And man desires to praise thee, for he is a part of thy creation; he bears his mortality about with him and carries the evidence of his sin and the proof that thou dost resist the proud. Still he desires to praise thee, this man who is only a small part of thy creation. Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee. Grant me, O Lord, to know and understand whether first to invoke thee or to praise thee; whether first to know thee or call upon thee. But who can invoke thee, knowing thee not? For he who knows thee not may invoke thee as another than thou art. It may be that we should invoke thee in order that we may come to know thee. But "how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe without a preacher?" [2Rom. 10:14] Now, "they shall praise the Lord who seek him," [Ps. 22:26] for "those who seek shall find him” [Matt. 7:7] and, finding him, shall praise him. I will seek thee, O Lord, and call upon thee. I call upon thee, O Lord, in my faith which thou hast given me, which thou hast inspired in me through the humanity of thy Son, and through the ministry of thy preacher.

Augustine Confessions Book III, Chapter 7:12 – following the Manichean teaching

Source: Augustine, Confessions and Enchiridion, edited and translated by Albert Cook Outler, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, 68-69.

For a considerable time, Augustine sought answers to his burning questions from various philosophical and religious schools. The third book of his Confessions describes his student days in Carthage, his interest in the philosophy of Cicero and in the teaching of the Manicheans, and his mother’s dream of his eventual return to the true Christian faith. 

The text below describes what attracted him to the Manichean teaching.

   For I was ignorant of that other reality, true Being. And so it was that I was subtly persuaded to agree with these foolish deceivers when they put their questions to me: "Whence comes evil?" and, "Is God limited by a bodily shape, and has he hairs and nails?" and, "Are those patriarchs to be esteemed righteous who had many wives at one time, and who killed men and who sacrificed living creatures?" In my ignorance I was much disturbed over these things and, though I was retreating from the truth, I appeared to myself to be going toward it, because I did not yet know that evil was nothing but a privation of good (that, indeed, it has no being); and how should I have seen this when the sight of my eyes went no farther than physical objects, and the sight of my mind reached no farther than to fantasms? And I did not know that God is a spirit who has no parts extended in length and breadth, whose being has no mass — for every mass is less in a part than in a whole—and if it be an infinite mass it must be less in such parts as are limited by a certain space than in its infinity. It cannot therefore be wholly everywhere as Spirit is, as God is. And I was entirely ignorant as to what is that principle within us by which we are like God, and which is rightly said in Scripture to be made "after God's image."

Augustine, Confessions Book VIII, Chapter 7:16-17 – about some of his struggles with worldly desires

Source: Augustine, Confessions and Enchiridion, edited and translated by Albert Cook Outler, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, 168-9.

Book VIII of the Confessions recounts Augustine’s conversion to Christ. This section, from the seventh chapter, offers a strong example of Augustine’s sense of sin and his resistance to spiritual change. Ponticianus was a court official who visited Augustine and told him about the conversion of Anthony and others. These stories moved Augustine deeply and triggered renewed self-scrutiny. Augustine compellingly describes his inner turmoil and struggle and his wish to maintain a life dedicated to the satisfaction of worldly desires.

  16. Such was the story Ponticianus told. But while he was speaking, thou, O Lord, turned me toward myself, taking me from behind my back, where I had put myself while unwilling to exercise self-scrutiny. And now thou didst set me face to face with myself, that I might see how ugly I was, and how crooked and sordid, bespotted and ulcerous. And I looked and I loathed myself; but whither to fly from myself I could not discover. And if I sought to turn my gaze away from myself, he would continue his narrative, and thou wouldst oppose me to myself and thrust me before my own eyes that I might discover my iniquity and hate it. I had known it, but acted as though I knew it not—I winked at it and forgot it. 17. But now, the more ardently I loved those whose wholesome affections I heard reported—that they had given themselves up wholly to thee to be cured—the more did I abhor myself when compared with them. For many of my years — perhaps twelve—had passed away since my nineteenth, when, upon the reading of Cicero's Hortensius, I was roused to a desire for wisdom. And here I was, still postponing the abandonment of this world's happiness to devote myself to the search. For not just the finding alone, but also the bare search for it, ought to have been preferred above the treasures and kingdoms of this world; better than all bodily pleasures, though they were to be had for the taking. But, wretched youth that I was—supremely wretched even in the very outset of my youth—I had entreated chastity of thee and had prayed, "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet." For I was afraid lest thou shouldst hear me too soon, and too soon cure me of my disease of lust which I desired to have satisfied rather than extinguished. And I had wandered through perverse ways of godless superstition—not really sure of it, either, but preferring it to the other, which I did not seek in piety, but opposed in malice.

Augustine, The City of God 14: 28 and 15: 1 – the origins and destinies of the two cities

Source: Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I, Volume 2. Augustine’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1994, 649-52.

In the City of God, Augustine develops his theology of history and his political theology. The first text below is part of the larger argument of books 11 to 14, about the origin of the two cities, whose growth and progress is then described in books 15 to 18 from where the second section comes.

Book 14 Chapter 28 — Of the Nature of the Two Cities, the Earthly and the Heavenly.

   Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, “Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.” [Ps 3:3] In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, “I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength.” [Ps 18:1] And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God “glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,” — that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride, — ”they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, “and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” [Rom 1:21-25] But in the other city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, “that God may be all in all..” [1Cor 15:28]

Book 15 Chapter 1 — Of the Two Lines of the Human Race Which from First to Last Divide It.

   […] Yet I trust we have already done justice to these great and difficult questions regarding the beginning of the world, or of the soul, or of the human race itself. This race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil. […] When these two cities began to run their course by a series of deaths and births, the citizen of this world was the first-born, and after him the stranger in this world, the citizen of the city of God, predestinated by grace, elected by grace, by grace a stranger below, and by grace a citizen above. By grace, — for so far as regards himself he is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned in its origin: but God, like a potter (for this comparison is introduced by apostle judiciously, and not without thought), of the same lump made one vessel to honor, another to dishonor. […] For the city of the saints is above, although here below it begets citizens, in whom it sojourns till the time of its reign arrives, when it shall gather together all in the day of the resurrection; and then shall the promised kingdom be given to them, in which they shall reign with their Prince, the King of the ages, time without end.

Augustine, A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 23 and chapter 39 – about the nature and number of the predestined

Source: Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I, Volume 5. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1994, 1316. 1335

Augustine’s controversy with Pelagius went to the heart of his view about man’s total depravity and man’s radical dependence on God’s saving grace. It was indeed a struggle for the foundations of Christianity. Augustine thus spent considerable intellectual energy to write on topics like human sin, free will (or, rather, the lack thereof), and the necessity of grace. If man had been created essentially good and able to choose between good and evil, then salvation through Christ would have been unnecessary. Jesus Christ would simply have been a teacher of wisdom and morality. However, if man were unable to choose – i.e., unable to choose God – then the necessary consequence was that those called into the Christian community are chosen not by their own decision but by God’s. The theory of God’s predestination is thus a natural result of the teaching that man has no free will. 

The text below, from one of Augustine’s many letters and treatises against the Pelagian teaching, shows some elements of Augustine’s theory of predestination.

Chapter 23 —Those Who are Called According to the Purpose Alone are Predestinated.

   For this reason the apostle, when he had said, “We know that to those who love God He worketh all things together for good,”—knowing that some love God, and do not continue in that good way unto the end,—immediately added, “to them who are the called according to His purpose.”[Rom 8:28] For these in their love for God continue even to the end; and they who for a season wander from the way return, that they may continue unto the end what they had begun to be in good. Showing, however, what it is to be called according to His purpose, he presently added what I have already quoted above, “Because whom He did before foreknow, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called,” to wit, according to His purpose; “and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”[Rom 8:29] All those things are already done: He foreknew, He predestinated, He called, He justified; because both all are already foreknown and predestinated, and many are already called and justified; but that which he placed at the end, “them He also glorified” (if, indeed, that glory is here to be understood of which the same apostle says, “When Christ your life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory”[Col 3:4]), this is not yet accomplished. Although, also, those two things—that is, He called, and He justified—have not been effected in all of whom they are said,—for still, even until the end of the world, there remain many to be called and justified,—nevertheless, He used verbs of the past tense, even concerning things future, as if God had already arranged from eternity that they should come to pass. For this reason, also, the prophet Isaiah says concerning Him, “Who has made the things that shall be.”[Isa 45:11] Whosoever, therefore, in God’s most providential ordering, are foreknown, predestinated, called, justified, glorified,—I say not, even although not yet born again, but even although not yet born at all, are already children of God, and absolutely cannot perish. These truly come to Christ, because they come in such wise as He Himself says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will not cast out;” [John 6:37] and a little after He says, “This is the will of the Father who hath sent me, that of all that He hath given me I shall lose nothing.”[John 6:39] From Him, therefore, is given also perseverance in good even to the end; for it is not given save to those who shall not perish, since they who do not persevere shall perish.

Chapter 39.—The Number of the Predestinated is Certain and Defined.

   I speak thus of those who are predestinated to the kingdom of God, whose number is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor taken from them; not of those who, when He had announced and spoken, were multiplied beyond number. For they may be said to be called but not chosen, because they are not called according to the purpose. But that the number of the elect is certain, and neither to be increased nor diminished,—although it is signified by John the Baptist when he says, “Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham,”[Matt 3:8,9] to show that they were in such wise to be cut off if they did not produce fruit, that the number which was promised to Abraham would not be wanting,—is yet more plainly declared in the Apocalypse: “Hold fast that which thou hast, lest another take thy crown.” [Rev 3:11] For if another would not receive unless one should have lost, the number is fixed.

Pelagius, From a Letter to Demetrias (413)

Source: B.R. Rees, Pelagius. Life and Letters. Volume II: The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1991), 36-38.

When Demetrias was 14 years old and about to get married, she decided to commit herself to a life of virginity. Her mother Juliana, from a wealthy Roman family, wrote to Pelagius and asked for his guidance. The text below is from Pelagius’ letter to the young girl. The Letter to Demetrias has 30 chapters and contains the most coherent account of Pelagius’ view on the goodness of human nature and the question of free will. 

The texts below are the second chapter and the beginning of the eleventh chapter. While the whole letter shows a strong encouragement to strive for moral perfection, the introductory sentences of the eleventh chapter reveal something of the possible pride that results from Pelagius’ anthropology.

   2, 1. Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and the conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach; for we can never enter upon the path of virtue unless we have hope as our guide and companion and if every effort expended in seeking something is nullified in effect by despair of ever finding it. I also think that on this occasion, when the good in our nature calls for a fuller exposition commensurate with the greater perfection of life which has to be inculcated in the listener's mind, I have special grounds for adhering to the same sequence of exhortation as I have followed in my other minor works, in order that the mind may not become more negligent and sluggish in its pursuit of virtue as it comes to believe less in its ability to achieve it, supposing itself not to possess something simply because it is unaware that it is present within. When it is desirable for a man to put a certain capacity to use, it always has to be brought to his attention, and any good of which human nature is capable has to be revealed, since what is shown to be practicable must be put into practice. Let us then lay this down as the first basis for a holy and spiritual life: the virgin must recognize her own strengths, which she will be able to employ to the full only when she has learned that she possesses them. The best incentive for the mind consists in teaching it that it is possible to do anything which one really wants to do: in war, for example, the kind of exhortation which is most effective and carries most authority is the one which reminds the combatant of his own strengths.

   2. First, then, you ought to measure the good of human nature by reference to its creator, I mean God, of course: if it is he who, as report goes, has made all the works of and within the world good, exceeding good, how much more excellent do you suppose that he has made man himself, on whose account he has clearly made everything else? And before actually making man, he determines to fashion him in his own image and likeness and shows what kind of creature he intends to make him. Next, since he has made all animals subject to man and set him as lord over creatures which have been made more powerful than men either by their bodily size and greater strength or by the weapons which they have in their teeth, he makes it abundantly clear how much more gloriously man himself has been fashioned and wants him to appreciate the dignity of his own nature by marvelling that strong animals have been made subject to him. For he did not leave man naked and defenceless nor did he expose him in his weakness to a variety of dangers; but, having made him seem unarmed outwardly, he provided him with a better armament inside, that is, with reason and wisdom, so that by means of his intelligence and mental vigour, in which he surpassed the other animals, man alone was able to recognize the maker of all things and to serve God by using those same faculties which enabled him to hold sway over the rest. Moreover, the Lord of Justice wished man to be free to act and not under compulsion; it was for this reason that 'he left him free to make his own decisions' (Sir.15:14 [New Jerusalem Bible]) and set before him life and death, good and evil, and he shall be given whatever pleases him (ibid. 17). Hence we read in the Book Deuteronomy also: I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you may live (Dt.30:19).

   11, 1. In this respect too then, you have possessions which rightly entitle you to be set above others, indeed even more so; for everyone realizes that your nobility in the physical sense and your wealth belong to your family, not to you, but no one except you yourself will be able to endow you with spiritual riches, and it is for these that you are rightly to be praised, for these that you are deservedly set above others, and they are things which cannot be within you unless they come from you. Is this spiritual life to be the only one which does not strive after progress and in which each and every one is supposed to stay just as he was at the outset instead of striving to achieve greater things in his desire for growth? […]

 
Copyright 2015 Tobias Brandner. All rights reserved.
Back to Top