Two Newly Opened Letters to the East

Epistolary heritage of the blessed. Aurelius Augustine has about 300 letters of various contents: on theology, philosophy, polemics, exegesis, ecclesiology, liturgics, ethics, etc. Two of them were sent to the eastern bishops of St. Cyril of Alexandria (Letter 4) and Atticus of Constantinople (Letter 6). These letters (especially Letter 6) are one of the evidence of the anti-Pelagian polemics of the blessed. Augustine. Letter 4 (5 chapters) was probably written in the summer of 417. It, in particular, deals with the explanation of the phrase: “Not all sinners are punished with eternal fire.” According to the author of the letter, sinners are divided into 2 categories: those who are punished by fire and are saved, and those who are doomed to eternal torment. If all sinners are punished with eternal fire, then it means that the Atonement has no power, and the entire human race will burn in Gehenna, for everyone has sinned. *According to the numbering of all letters from the blzh. Augustine has serial number 274. Letter 6 (8 chapters), presumably written in 416-417. It raises the question of gender relations in paradise, before the Fall, and in the present fallen state of human nature. Blzh. Augustine makes a distinction between the desire of marriage and the desire of the flesh. These considerations were necessary to justify the baptism of children. The author of the letter is convinced that original sin is transmitted to a person at the moment of carnal conception and is eliminated by baptism. *According to the numbering of all letters from the blzh. Augustine has serial number 276. Quite extensive correspondence from blzh. Augustine of Ippona has about 300 letters addressed to various individuals, living in the vast majority of cases in the western part of the then unified Roman Empire 1. And only three letters from this huge collection are addressed to bishops of the Greek, language and culture, East. One of these letters (Ep. 179) is to John, bishop. Jerusalem - has long been known to the scientific world, the other two (Ep. 4* to St. Cyril of Alexandria and Ep. 6* to Atticus of Constantinople) were discovered relatively recently, in the late 1970s, by professor at the University of Vienna Johannes Divjak, along with many other letters of Blessed. Augustine. When I. Divzhak was looking through the manuscripts of the municipal library of Marseille, a 15th century manuscript fell into his hands. (Massiliensis lat. 209), originating from southern France and containing the text of 29 hitherto unknown letters illustrated with miniatures, 26 of which belong to Bl. Augustine and refer to the last years of his life. While preparing these letters for publication, the text of which in the Marseilles manuscript is full of lacunae and errors, I. Divzhak unexpectedly discovered in the Paris National Library another, more ancient and important manuscript of Gothic writing (Par. lat. 16861), dating from the 11th–12th centuries. 2. Based on these two manuscripts within the so-called. The Vienna Corps carried out a critical edition of the newly discovered letters 3 . In September 1982, in Paris, at the suggestion of the same I. Divzhak, a round table was held dedicated to the philological, historical and theological analysis of the new collection of letters 4 . Nowadays, almost no one doubts their authenticity: both in language and rhetorical style, and in content, they are similar and contain numerous parallels with the unconditionally authentic letters of the Bishop of Ippon 5. Although the newly discovered texts do not contain any significant dogmatic data that would allow a new look at the theology of their author, nevertheless, in them one can find a number of interesting information about the character of that era, about the life and pastoral activity of the blessed one. Augustine. In particular, the historian will find in them a lot of valuable information concerning the last stage of the development of Donatism, Priscillianism and Pelagianism in the West, cases of appeal to the authority of the Roman See, as well as information about monastic life in circles close to the blessed. Augustine. Two letters from the blessed Augustine to the East (Ep. 4* and 6*), the translation of which is proposed as part of this publication, attracts special attention from researchers 6 . The point is not only that they represent a very rare example of the conversion of a blzh. Augustine to the eastern bishops, and even to such famous ones as St. Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, which in itself is very curious. These letters, especially Ep. 6*, are also one of the evidence of the anti-Pelagian polemics of the blj. Augustine, as well as the role he attached to the fight against the spread of this heresy in the East. Let us consider the historical and theological context of these letters. Addressed to St. The letter to Cyril (Ep. 4*), apparently, was not the first and not the only letter that the Bishop of Ipponia wrote to his Alexandrian “brother and co-servant.” Blzh. Augustine had previously sent at least one letter to St. Kirill about the same Pelagian heresy. This letter, which has not reached us, is mentioned by the main opponent of the blzh. Augustine - bishop Julian of Eclan, supporter of the Pelagian heresy. “In the letter that you sent to Alexandria,” Julian reproached Augustine, “you boast so much about this work [we are talking about the “Dialogue against Pelagius” by Bl. Jerome], why are you saying that Pelagius, crushed by him [Jerome] under the weight of the texts of Scripture, is unable to defend free will” 7 . Ep. 4*, most likely, was written by blzh. Augustine in the summer of 417, a few months after he completed his small treatise "De gestis Pelagii", which he wrote after receiving from St. Cyril of Alexandria “Acts” (gesta) of the Church Council, which took place on December 20, 415 in Diospolis in Palestine. In the spring of 416 Blzh. Augustine first addressed a letter to John of Jerusalem, asking him to send the “Acts” of the Council of Diospolis, at which Pelagius was acquitted. Having received no response from John, Augustine writes him a second letter (Ep. 179) in the summer of the same year 8. However, this time John is in no hurry to fulfill Augustine’s request, and on January 17, 417 he dies. The “Acts” of the Council of Diospolis are sent to the Bishop of Ipponia through a certain monk Justus by St. Cyril of Alexandria, to whom John of Jerusalem apparently gave them. Treatise of the blessed Augustine's "De gestis Pelagii", written by him in the spring of 417 immediately after the arrival of Justus, is a kind of commentary on these "Acts" 9 in which he criticizes the decision of the council that acquitted Pelagius. At the time of writing Ep. 4* to blzh. Augustine had not yet received yet another piece of bad news: in September 417, Innocent I's successor, Pope Zosimus, did not follow his predecessor's course towards Pelagius and lifted the latter's excommunication. (This news would reach Carthage only in November of that year.) As for St. himself. Kirill, his position on this issue was apparently similar to the position of Pope Zosima, and Bl. Augustine most likely guessed this. The fact that in the Alexandrian Church they showed, if not sympathy, then condescension towards the Pelagians and Pelagius himself, is evidenced by the following fact: a certain Bishop Eusebius (about whom nothing is known) in his letter to St. Cyril from 418 reminds us that Pelagius and Celestius were condemned by Pope Innocent I, and he, Cyril, accepted them into communion in Alexandria, despite the fact that the Pelagians were condemned by all other Eastern Churches 10. One way or another, darling. Augustine sends an answer to St. through the monk Justus. Cyril, in which he thanks him for sending the “Acts” of the Council of Diospolis, informs him about the compilation of the treatise “De gestis Pelagii” and, finally, tells how the deliverer of the letter, the monk Justus, was accused by his companions of allegedly forging one expression from this treatise in a heretical sense. Justus, without feeling guilty, decided to personally visit Augustine and compare his copy of the treatise with the original. Upon verification, it turned out that there was no error in Just’s manuscript and the disputed phrase actually belonged to the blj. Augustine, who hastens to explain to St. To Cyril its Orthodox meaning: he recommends to his brother to take care of Justus and all those Latins who, having retired to the Greek country, risk falling into Pelagian error, since Greek shepherds, not knowing the Latin language well enough, cannot always correctly understand the thoughts of these “emigrants” and protect them from becoming rigid in heresy. The phrase that became the object of controversy was: “Not all sinners are punished with eternal fire.” Blzh. Augustine suggests that it is completely Orthodox and can only confuse the Pelagians, or rather some Latin monks 11 who settled in the monasteries of the East, in Alexandria or its environs. At the council in Diopolis, Pelagius was justified by the fact that “he spoke in accordance with the Gospel 12, which says that sinners go into eternal torment, and the righteous into eternal life” 13. Pelagius distinguished among sinners “impious” (impii), that is, pagans, “heretics” (negatores) and “apostates” (praevaricatores). All of them, without distinction, are doomed, in his opinion, to eternal torment, since their sins cannot be redeemed by anything. Blzh. Jerome asked Pelagius whether it was too early for him to take the place of the Divine Judge, not allowing the mercy of God to intervene 14? Blzh. Augustine also believed that Pelagius was too categorical. According to the Bishop of Ippon, sinners are divided into two categories: those who are punished by fire and are saved, in the words of the Apostle, “as if from fire,” 15 and those who are doomed to eternal torment. The fire that the apostle speaks about. Paul, this is not the fire of eternal torment and the Last Judgment. Augustine does not say what kind of fire this is, whether sinners are punished with it in this life or after death. For him, however, it is clear that the rigorism of Pelagius leads the followers of this heretic to the proud thought that they have no sin, while those who openly confess themselves to be sinners and pray for the forgiveness of their sins are plunged into the abyss of despair. If all sinners are punished with eternal fire, then it means that the Atonement has no power, and the entire human race will burn in Gehenna, for everyone has sinned. The second, more extensive, letter (Ep. 6*), addressed to the successor of St. John Chrysostom at the See of St. Atticus (406–425), also associated with the anti-Pelagian polemics of the bl. Augustine 16. The famous Augustinian Peter Brown draws attention to the fact that the Pelagians were of particular interest in Constantinople, because during the persecution of St. They supported John Chrysostom's side. Some of Chrysostom's homilies were translated into Latin by the Pelagian deacon Anian of Keled († after 419) and were quoted by heretics in polemics with the “traductionists,” that is, the Orthodox led by Bl. Augustine, who argued that original sin is transmitted to offspring through the carnal union of a man and a woman 17. Therefore, it is not surprising that blzh. Augustine turns to St. Atticus with a letter, the main theme of which is the issue of gender relations (in general and marriage relations in particular) in paradise, before the Fall and in the current fallen state of human nature. The dating of this letter remains controversial. I. Divzhak 18 believed that it was written in 416–417, citing the fact that the bearer of the letter was the priest Innocent, about whom Bl. Augustine mentions in the introduction that he arrived in Ippon in the summer of 416 with a letter from Blessed. Jerome and immediately left for Palestine, taking with him several letters from the blessed. Augustine, including Ep. 19* to blzh. Jerome and, it is supposed, Ep. 6* 19 . M.-F. Berroir believes that the last letter was written several years later. The learned Dominican refers chiefly to the fact that in Ep. 6* heretics, in contrast to the Orthodox (catholices), are called Pelagianes, which, in his opinion, is a later terminus technicus of the anti-Pelagian polemic. In any case, the letter was written before 425, when the bishop died. Atticus. Blzh. Augustine writes this letter around the time (after 420) when the Pelagian bishop Julian of Eclunus, treading on a sore spot, attacks him with merciless criticism, arguing that Augustine never broke with his Manichaean past and continues to be Manichaean on the issue of marriage, since he believes that in marriage, original sin is transmitted through carnal union. Justifying myself, darling. Augustine sets out his teaching on this issue by distinguishing between the desire of marriage (concupiscentia nuptiarum) and the desire of the flesh (concupiscentia carnis). It should be noted that the teaching of the bl. Augustine about the relationship of the sexes in paradise, before the Fall, underwent some changes over time. At first, during the period of the anti-Manichaean controversy, he believed that Eve in paradise was supposed to serve Adam only as a spiritual assistant, with whom Adam was supposed to share the purely spiritual joys of communion with God 21 . Augustine then began to believe that woman was created only to assist man in bearing children 22 . However, carnal communication between a man and a woman occurred only after the Fall as a consequence of original sin and in the absence of control on the part of the will, which caused shame in the first parents in front of their own nakedness (Gen. 3:7) 23. Julian of Eclun began to criticize Augustine for the fact that, by demanding the baptism of infants, he allegedly casts a shadow on the marriage as a result of which these babies are born. If through carnal communication between spouses original sin is transmitted, like some kind of disease, shouldn’t marriage itself be recognized as sinful? To answer this question, blzh. Augustine examines in detail the aspect of marriage that was the focus of attention, namely, the carnal communication of the spouses. What was the nature of this communication before and after the Fall? In 420 Blzh. Augustine in his treatise “Contra duas epistulas Pelagii” offers his opponent Julian to choose one of four possibilities: 1) either the first parents in paradise indulged in carnal intercourse whenever they wanted; 2) or they curbed their attraction by force of will when carnal communication did not seem necessary; 3) or, conversely, by force of will they caused a certain attraction when it was necessary to give birth to children; 4) or there was no desire of the flesh at all, and the organs responsible for procreation were completely subordinate to the will, like arms, legs and other members of the body. We see that these same possibilities are considered in this letter (Ep. 6*, 6–8). Augustine certainly rejects the first two, but he allows the third and fourth possibilities: before the Fall, the ancestors either had no sexual desire at all, or it was different from what it is now, dispassionate, “calm,” subordinate to the will. In the modern fallen state, this attraction of the flesh has acquired a passionate and sinful character. Those people who get married “use” this, essentially, passionate attraction for good purposes: to have children - the main purpose of marriage, according to Roman law. Thus, the attraction of the flesh is “ennobled” and can be called the “attraction of marriage,” although this, of course, is no longer the marriage in which people were before the Fall and which God blessed (Gen. 1:28). In a fallen state, even in marriage, an element of passion remains: when entering into a carnal relationship, spouses do not always have the goal of having children and can use legitimate carnal communication “intolerantly” and “disorderly” (intemperanter). Blzh. Augustine warns against such an understanding of marriage, however, interpreting 1 Cor. 7, 5–6, notes that ap. Paul, out of condescension, allows spouses to have carnal intercourse even when they do not set themselves the goal of procreation. This is precisely condescension, the lesser of evils, designed to save spouses from intemperance and “grave sins” (ne peccata damnabilia committantur). All these discussions about the nature of carnal relationships in and outside of marriage are needed by the blessed. Augustine to justify the need for child baptism. He is convinced that original sin (peccatum originale) is transmitted to man at the moment of carnal conception and is eliminated by baptism. Even if we are talking about children born in marriage from baptized parents, the guilt (reatus) of original sin enters into them and can be eliminated by spiritual rebirth, in which the remission of all sins occurs. Guilt disappears, but sin is not only guilt, and after baptism a certain corrupting influence of infection (contagionis affectio) continues in a person, some kind of disorganizing, provoking sin, passionate force remains, which is inherited. In this letter, blzh. Augustine says nothing about how to deal with this force. We can say that this was the most pressing question of the anti-Pelagian polemic: how grace and human free will are combined in this struggle. This is a separate topic, the consideration of which was not part of the tasks of the blzh. Augustine within Ep. 6*. Below we place a translation of the two letters in question, made according to the edition of I. Divzhak: Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera. Sect. 2. Pars 6. Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae / Recensuit J. Divjak (CSEL 88). Vindobonae, 1981. P. 26–29; 32–38. The numbering of paragraphs corresponds to the specified edition; the headings preceding each paragraph belong to the publisher and are translated along with the main text. Each letter has a double numbering: the first digit with an asterisk (*) corresponds to the serial number of the letter in the newly discovered collection of I. Divzhak, the number in square brackets corresponds to the number in the generally accepted continuous numbering of all letters from the blzh. Augustine. In the translation, words that are not contained in the Latin text, but are necessary for a better understanding of the meaning, are placed in square brackets. SECTION I. CREATIONS OF ST. FATHERS IN RUSSIAN TRANSLATION TO THE MOST BLESSED LORD, THE venerable and venerable brother and co-servant Kirill, with due marks of respect, AUGUSTINE OF THE LORD [SENDS] GREETINGS. Augustine greets Cyril through the monk Justus 1. I completely entrust myself to Your holy prayers, conveying to Your honor the humility of [my] greetings through the servant of God named Justus, whom I recently became acquainted with as a good brother; when he came from there [from Alexandria] here to us and intended to return from us back to himself, he provided us with a very pleasant opportunity to fulfill our duty in these signs of respect for Your Beatitude. I think that I should not remain silent about the reason that prompted him to come to us, for I learned it from his own explanations. In his work "On the Acts of Pelagius" Augustine shows how Pelagius was acquitted 2. Your sincerity, I believe, remembers that you sent to us the ecclesiastical Acts (gesta), drawn up in the province of Palestine, 24 in which Pelagius, considered to be a true believer (catholices), was acquitted, hiding behind cunning verbal tricks and thus deceiving our brothers who then presided as judges, while on the opposite side there was no one who could refute him. After I had examined and assiduously researched these Acts as best I could, I wrote a book about them, addressed to our venerable brother and fellow minister Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage 25 . In it, as far as the Lord gave me, I showed what course of action the Catholics judges followed in relation to the answers of Pelagius, so that they acquitted him as a true believer. In fact, many who were involved in his error boasted that after the acquittal of Pelagius, his heretical teachings were also confirmed as orthodox by the decree of the Catholic bishops; and since they everywhere boasted of this, many, not knowing when this event took place, much to the temptation of the Churches, believed that it was so. Justus, checking his copy with Augustine's manuscript, finds it accurate 3. Thus, in order to remove this above-mentioned opinion, I carefully compiled a book in which, as far as was in my power, I showed that even if Pelagius was justified - [justified] not by God, Whom no one can deceive, but by people whom [Pelagius] was able to deceive - nevertheless, those destructive doctrines were completely condemned when he himself pronounced an anathema on them. And this book of mine, which was owned by the aforementioned servant of God Justus, the bearer of this letter addressed to Your Honor, confused some because in it I was arguing that not all sinners will be punished with eternal fire; they said that this passage in the book, as he himself explained to me, was not written by me in these exact terms, but was forged by him himself. Therefore, embarrassed by this thought, he sailed to us by sea with this copy of his, believing that it was probably damaged, since he was firmly convinced that he had not made any mistakes in copying 26. Having compared his copy with ours with my help, because I knew the issue well, he discovered that he had an intact copy. According to the teachings of the heretic Pelagius, all sinners are punished by eternal fire 4. Therefore, since this concerns us, I suspect - God forbid that we become unkind, but rather full of love and not worthy of contempt! - I suspect that the phrase in which we assert that not all, but only some sinners will be condemned to eternal torment, is not liked by those who assert that the saints live in this mortal life without sin in such a way that in order to receive remission of their sins - since they do not have them - the saints do not even need the Lord's Prayer, in which the whole Church cries: Forgive us our debts 27 . Your holiness, undoubtedly, provides that such people must be corrected, turning them away from the wrong path of this error. For it is evident that this doctrine is derived from the unsound doctrine of Pelagius, which asserts that all sinners will be punished with eternal fire, so that those who truthfully confess that they are not without sin have no hope of forgiveness. Thus, as a result, they either act impudently, 28 believing that their present life has no sin at all, or they languish in despair as already predestined for eternal punishment. However, the blessed apostle says: The fire will test everyone’s work, what it is. Whoever's work that he built survives will receive a reward. And whoever’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; however, he himself will be saved, but as if from fire 29. But these apostolic words should not be taken as words about the fire of the final judgment, but they must be understood as what is said about what precedes this judgment, both in this life and after death. However, one should in every possible way avoid the misconception that all sinners are predestined to go to the torment of eternal fire if they have not lived here a life free from any sin. It is also necessary to ensure that those who hold this opinion do not turn out to be experts in other teachings of Pelagius, no less, but rather more reckless, and that this terrible infection does not spread among a careless people 30 until the evil that the care of brotherly love has discovered in some has ceased and been cured. Augustine urges Cyril to protect Justus and free Christ's faithful from the Pelagian poison 5. So, I entrust our brother Justus to Your most pious Holiness, so that You will not only protect him from those who slander him, but also those whom he, not without reason, suspected of having allegedly lost their souls and become infected with Pelagian poison. Deign to correct them with Your pastoral zeal and Your fatherly condescension or, if necessary, with the severity of a doctor, or, if You find them sound in the faith, 31 Deign to free the spirit of that [brother] from the anxiety caused by this suspicion. Both he and they are Latins and came to those places from the Western Church, to which we also belong. That is why we should especially recommend them to Your Honor, so that there is no impression that they have chosen this country for themselves in order to avoid punishment by hiding among the Greeks - where their reasoning about the above-mentioned things is less clear and where it is therefore not easy to expose their errors. We also do this so that we do not grieve over the spiritual death of anyone, but in order to rejoice, as far as possible, in the salvation of everyone. TO THE MOST BLESSED LORD AND THE venerable brother and concelebrant ATTIKUS AUGUSTINE [SENDS] GREETINGS IN THE LORD. Augustine seems to be responding to a letter from Atticus, who considered him already deceased 1. Although I did not receive the letter of Your Holiness from the hands of the pious brother and fellow servant Innocent, 32 through whom I thought to receive it, nevertheless, he explained to me the reason why this happened. I write this [response] to You as if I had received a letter from Your Honor and am fulfilling my duty to answer it, being in good health through the favor of God and the assistance of Your prayers. For, since there was a certain rumor about me, 33 as the above-mentioned brother told me, you believed in it as a rumor common to people. Indeed, what is more worthy of belief than to say that a mortal has died, since this thing will undoubtedly befall everyone who lives in the flesh? But when from other messengers who arrived later, he heard that I was alive and reported this to Your love, then You, as he told me, were very happy and thanked God, although this news still remained unconfirmed with you. The pastoral care of Atticus in the correction of the Pelagians is praised 2. Therefore, Sir, I should not doubt that You will receive my letter with joy, however, by the right of love, with even greater hope and with great zeal, I ask you to write to me the answer that You should have sent me and did not send, although I consider the letter sent by Your Beatitude to my brother of the same mind 34 as sent to both of us. From it I learned with joy that Your Holiness, with pastoral care, acts so as not only to correct the perversity of some Pelagians, but also to be vigilant against their tricks. The attraction of marriage is not at all diabolical 3. Truly, it is not surprising that they slander the Catholics whenever they try to reflect in this way what is said in order to refute their poisonous teachings. For which of the faithful defends the true faith from them so much as to reject marriage, which the Creator and Maker of the world has blessed? Which true believer would argue that the attraction (concupiscentia) of marriage is connected with the devil's action, when it is through it, even if no one sinned, that the human race would begin to spread, so that this blessing would be fulfilled: be fruitful and multiply 35? Through the sin of man, in which all have sinned, 36 this blessing - so obvious, so amazing and praiseworthy that it is before everyone's eyes - has not lost at all the effect of its goodness, manifested in the fertility of nature. Who among the faithful does not extol the action of God in the creation of every soul and all flesh and, when contemplating them, does not send up a song 37 to the Creator, Who not only then, before the Fall, created, but even now still creates everything very well 38? The Pelagians wickedly teach that infants have no need of Baptism 4. But they [the Pelagians], in their already perverted mind, in their disastrous blindness, confuse evil, which entered nature as a punishment for wrongdoing (merito culpae), and good, [originally] inherent in nature. They praise the Creator of men in such a way that they deny the necessity of a Savior for infants, as if the latter had no sins, as their condemnable teaching asserts. And they think that they can support this ungodly error of theirs by praising marriage, claiming that marriage will also be condemned if the offspring born from it is condemned if it is not reborn [in Baptism]. In fact, they do not understand that one thing is the good of marriage - a good that even after the Fall marriage did not lose, and another thing is the original evil (originale malum), which marriage did not then commit, nor does it now commit, but finds it already perfect and uses it in a good way, when it does not do in it what gives pleasure, but only what is appropriate 39 . They [the Pelagians] do not want to take this into account because of their error, which they prefer to defend instead of beingware of it. Pelagians make no distinction between the desire of marriage and the desire of the flesh 5. Because of this error, they do not distinguish between the attraction of marriage (concupiscentia nuptiarum) - that is, the attraction inherent in the purity of marriage, the attraction permitted by the Law for the propagation of offspring, the attraction of marriage (vinculi socialis), by which the two sexes are united - and the attraction of the flesh (concupiscentia carnis), which is indiscriminately kindled by both lawful and illicit pleasures and which, through the attraction of marriage, which knows how to use it in a good way, is curbed from unlawful pleasures and calms down on permitted ones. Against the attack of this lust [of the flesh], which wars against the law of the mind, 40 all chastity rises, both of those who are married, so that they may use it in a good way, and of abstainers [from marriage] and consecrated virgins, so that they may abstain from using it for the sake of something better and more glorious. So, those [heretics] shamelessly praise the desire of the flesh, 41 in which there is only the desire for intercourse, without distinguishing it from the desire for marriage, in which there is the obligation of procreation, 42 while the first people were ashamed of this [lust of the flesh] when they covered with fig leaves those parts of the body that they should not have been ashamed of before the Fall. After all, they were naked and not ashamed, 43 so that we understand that the passionate impulse of which they were ashamed is born in human nature along with death. Indeed, they then had reason to be ashamed when they realized that they would of necessity have to die 44 . So, this lust of the flesh, which should be prudently and soberly distinguished from the lust of marriage, [the Pelagians] praise so much that they think that if no one sinned in paradise, then without this lust it would be impossible to give birth to children 45 in the body intended for that [paradise] life, just as now they are not born without it in this body doomed to death, in this body from which the apostle desires to be freed through Jesus Christ 46. It is absurd to believe that the ancestors had the attraction of the flesh 6. Thus, it turns out that this opinion of theirs, resulting from frivolous ignorance, follows such absurd nonsense that even among themselves, no matter what the shamelessness that makes a person’s head stubborn, this opinion can find absolutely no support. In fact, even if in paradise before the fall this attraction of the flesh had taken place, the presence of which we feel in ourselves as a kind of movement, so disordered that it should either be restrained from any kind of use by the bridle of chastity, or reduced to good use with the help of the goodness of marriage, although in itself it is evil - [if this attraction had existed in paradise], then, of course, in a place of such great bliss a person would not have serve him in a shameful and slavish manner, when, whenever a desire arises, he would begin to unite with his wife so often, without having any need to produce offspring, but only to satisfy passionate lust (libidinis appetitus) even when the wife is already pregnant, or he would have to fight it with all the forces of abstinence, so as not to be involved in well-known shameful deeds (ad ista foeda). So let [the heretics] choose from these two [opportunities] one which they like. For if a person slavishly served the lust of the flesh, so as not to resist [it], then there would be no honorable freedom (honesta libertas) there [in paradise]. On the contrary, if he resisted him, so as not to be his slave, then there would not be calm happiness (pacata felicitas). Both possibilities contradict either the beatific beauty (beatum decus) or the beautiful bliss (decora beatitudo) of paradise 47 . Baptism removes the crime of original sin, but a certain tendency towards indignation and frustration remains 7. Who doesn't see this? Who would contradict this most obvious truth, if not overcome by the most shameless stubbornness? So, two [assumptions] remain: either there [in paradise] there was no such lust of the flesh - the movement of which, against our will, even when it is not necessary, we feel in ourselves in the form of a muddy and disorderly attraction - even if there were an attraction of marriage there, which would preserve calm love between spouses; and the power of the mind, just as it gives orders to the hands and feet so that they act in a manner consistent with these members, would give in the same way orders to the reproductive organs so that they give birth to offspring so that in paradise it is conceived in a special, amazing way - without the heat of carnal passion - and in an equally amazing way is brought into the world - without birth pangs 48; or [second assumption]: even if this attraction of the flesh existed there, it, of course, was not the same as it is felt now, with all its annoyance and anxiety, by those who resist it either by the chastity of marriage, or the chastity of widowhood, or the chastity of virginity. For it penetrates even where there is no need for it, and with untimely or wicked desires it tries to deceive even the hearts of the faithful and saints. Even if we completely disagree with his restless urges, but rather fight them, still, driven by a more holy desire, we want them to not be in us at all, if possible, as this will one day happen. This is the perfection of good, which the saints do not yet have in this life, as the Apostle pointed out when he said: The desire for good is in me, but I do not have it to do it in a perfect way 49 . He did not say: to do, but: to do in a perfect manner (perfi cere), since a person does good when he does not agree with those desires, but does not do it in a perfect manner, since he has these desires. For [the apostle] says: The good that I want I do not do, but the evil that I do not want I do 50 . Of course, he did not do evil by betraying his members to satisfy evil desires, 51 but he said this about lustful impulses in themselves. Although he did not agree with them and did not do what they urged him to do, nevertheless, having them, he did what he did not want to have. Finally he adds: If I do what I do not want - that is, even if I do not agree with the desire, for I do not want to have lust, although I have it - then it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that lives in me 52. The guilt (reatus) of this sin enters (trahitur) by birth and is removed (retrahitur) by regeneration, in which the remission of all sins occurs. But, despite this, even after the elimination of guilt, some of its power, some corrupting influence of infection (contagionis affectio), still remains in the body subject to decay and mortality. It is with this that the reborn must fight if he succeeds [in virtue]. After all, if he can observe, even if not complete abstinence, but at least the chastity of marriage, then he will also have to fight this attraction of the flesh, so as not to commit adultery, so as not to indulge in debauchery and not to stain himself with any deadly and ungodly outrages, so that, finally, not to have unbridled relations with his own wife, with whom, by mutual agreement, he will have to abstain from carnal intercourse for a while, so that both he and she freely devoted themselves to prayers 53 and then were together again, so that Satan would not tempt them with their intemperance - this the Apostle tells them as permission, and not as a command 54. Some, misunderstanding these words, began to think that marriage was allowed as a permission. But this is not so, otherwise - what will not happen! – marriage would be considered a sin. For where condescension (venia) is made, there, of course, the fact is recognized that a certain guilt (culpa) is forgiven. However, the apostle, in the form of condescension, allows the spouses mutual carnal communication, to which they are prompted not by concern for the spread of offspring, but by the immoderation of satisfying lust. [The Apostle allows them this] so that they would not commit shameful (damnabilia) sins if they did not have a condescending indulgence. However, even if some married couples surpass [others] in the virtue of such great marital chastity that they enter into carnal intercourse with the sole purpose of procreating children, and, having once been baptized and regenerated, live in this way, - still, whatever offspring is born from them through this lust of the flesh, which [an attraction] in itself is not good, but which they make good use of through the good lust of marriage, [any offspring] turns out to be infected with original sin (originale peccatum). It can be removed only by regeneration [in baptism], it, without a doubt, accompanies the one who is born, if he is not reborn, just as the foreskin, which is removed only through circumcision, accompanies the son of the circumcised, unless this son is also circumcised 55. If the attraction of the flesh existed in heaven, it would be completely different from what it is now 8. So, if in paradise this attraction of the flesh took place, so that through it children would be born in fulfillment of the blessing given to marriage and realized through the multiplication of people, then it, of course, would not be the same attraction as it is now - an attraction capable of indiscriminately inciting with its movement both to what is permitted and to what is not permitted 56 . It would become involved in many shameful activities whenever it was allowed to achieve what it felt compelled to do. Therefore, it would be necessary to fight against it in order to maintain chastity. On the contrary, it would be such - if it existed at all in paradise - that with it the flesh would never have any desires contrary to the spirit, 57 but in amazing harmony [the desire] would not transgress the command of the will, so that it would never appear, except when there is a need for it. It would never have leaked with its disordered and illicit desire into the spirit of the one who thinks. It would have nothing reprehensible that should be restrained by the bridle of abstinence or overcome by the effort of virtue, but, when necessary, with easy and willing obedience it would follow the will of the one who would use it. Therefore, now that it is not so, and there is a need for chastity to fight its effect with all its might, [Pelagians] must admit that it is infected with sin in such a way that under its influence those who were previously naked and not ashamed were put to shame. Let them not be surprised that only the Son of the Virgin, of whom they cannot say that He was conceived through this lust, did not receive original sin. I ask You to be lenient in that I have burdened Your holy wisdom with the verbosity of this letter, which I wrote not to make You more knowledgeable, but to refute before You their slanderous intrigues. Translation from Latin, introductory article and notes by E. V. Tkachev Statistical analysis of the corpus of letters from blzh. Augustin see: Mandouze A. Saint Augustin. L'aventure de la raison et de la grâce. Paris, 1968, pp. 553–563. It should be noted that the discovery of new texts of the bl. Augustine is not a mere accident, it is the result of systematic work on viewing medieval Latin manuscripts, carried out over more than 15 years in Vienna by prof. Rudolf Hanslik and his students. In the course of this enormous collective work, 8 volumes of detailed descriptions of manuscripts stored in libraries in different European countries and containing the works of the blessed one were published in the Journals of the Meetings of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Augustine. See: Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des heiligen Augustinus // Sitzungsberichte der Österreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Class. Wien. (Bd. 1, 1 and 1, 2 - manuscripts of Italy, Hrgb. M. Oberleitner, 1969 et 1970; Bd. 2, 1 and 2, 2 - manuscripts of Great Britain and Ireland, Hrgb. F. Römer, 1972; Bd. 3 - Poland and Scandinavian countries, Hrgb. F. Römer, 1973; Bd. 4 – Spain and Portugal, Hrgb. J. Divjak, 1973; Bd. 5, 1 and 5, 2 – Germany, Hrgb. 1976 and 1979). Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera. Sect. 2. Pars 6: Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae / Recensuit J. Divjak. Vindobonae, 1981 (CSEL 88). P. 3–138. The results of these studies were published by the Paris Center for Research Bl. Augustine: Les Lettres de Saint Augustin découvertes par J. Divjak // Communications présentées au colloque des 20 et 21 Septembre 1982. Études Augustiniennes. Paris, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as Colloque 1983). For some of these parallels, see the preface to the Italian translation of the letters: Sant’Agostino. Le lettere. Supplemento (1*–29*) / Introduz., traduz., note e indici di Luigi Carrozzi. Città Nuova Editrice. R., 1992. P. 8–10. See: Berrouard M.-F. Les Lettres 6* et 19* de saint Augustin. Leur date et les renseignements qu’elles apportent sur l’évolution de la crise “pélagienne” // REAug 27. 1981. P. 264–277; Bouhot J.-P. Une Lettre d’Augustin d’Hippone à Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Ep. 4*) // Colloque 1983. P. 147–154; Bonner G. Some remarks on Letters 4* and 6* // Ibid. P. 155–164. Aug. Opus imperfect. contra Iulian. 4, 88. PL 45, 1389. From Ep. 179 it is clear that this is not the first letter of the blzh. Augustine to John of Jerusalem. See also: Berrouard M.-F. Les Lettres 6* et 19* de saint Augustin. Leur date et les renseignements qu’elles apportent sur l’évolution de la crise “pélagienne” // REAug 27. 1981. P. 267. Consequently, it is better to translate the title of the treatise not “On the Acts of Pelagius”, but “On the Acts of Pelagius”, since it deals not so much with the acts committed by Pelagius, but with the acts of the Council of Diospolis on his issue. These Acts were translated into Latin by Marius Mercator; Pope Innocent I († March 12, 417) did not receive their full text, but only a summary. See: Aug. Ep. 183. Euseb. Ep. ad Cyrillum 49, pp. 113–115 (CSEL 35). We are talking about letters from the so-called. Collectio Avellana. Later, during the period of Christological disputes with Nestorius, St. Cyril radically changed his attitude towards the Pelagians and strictly persecuted them. Some researchers believe that this change was not so much a rethinking of the doctrine of Pelagius as a reaction to the connection of the Pelagians with Nestorius' teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia. See: Bonner G. Some remarks on Letters 4* and 6* // Colloque 1983. P. 156. Wed. Ep. 4*, 5: Latini sunt enim utrique et de Occidentali Ecclesia. Aug. De gestis Pel. 3, 9. Hier. Dial. Contra Pelagianos 1, 28. PL 23, 525. It is known that St. Atticus removed Celestius, one of the leaders of Pelagianism, from Constantinople. He left a memory of himself as a caring patron of the poor. His charitable activities were especially widespread in Nicaea. Although his name is not in the calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is placed under January 8 according to Art. Art. in "Synaxar" St. Nicodemus of the Svyatogorets and the “Complete Month of the East” by Archbishop. Sergius. See: Golubinsky E. E. History of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. M., 1903. P. 374 (first Greek supplement). Brown P. The Patrons of Pelagius, Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine. London, 1972, pp. 214–215. See also: Beatrice P. F. Tradux Peccati: Alle fonte della dottrina agostiniana del peccato originale. Milan, 1978 (Studia Patristica Mediolanensia 8). P. 256. This dating is supported by J. Madec and C. Pietri: Madec G. Du nouveau dans la correspondance augustinienne // REAug 27. 1981. P. 59. Pietri Ch. Les Lettres nouvelles et leurs témoignages sur l’histoire de l’Église romaine et de ses relations avec l’Afrique // Colloque 1983. P. 351. This priest Innocent traveled quite often and was a kind of courier, delivering letters to various persons in rather remote areas. He delivered from Rome a letter from Pope Boniface to Jerome and Jerome's answer to the pope (Hier. Ep. 153). In 419, the fathers of the Council of Carthage sent Innocenius to Alexandria with a request to St. Cyril to send them the acts of the Council of Nicea concerning the issue of appeal of bishops to the Roman See. There were no such acts in Africa, while Pope Zosima (417–418) presented them as proof that he had the right to accept into communion the African priest Apiarius, who had been expelled by his own bishop and who had previously been the abbot of a monastery subordinate to the clergy. Augustine. Zosima, as it turned out, presented the acts of the Council of Serdica in 343, which caused a sharp protest from African bishops. See: Ep. Cyrilli. Concilia Africae 419 // Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 149. P. 162. About the non-sinfulness of marriage in all its aspects. Augustine had earlier written a separate treatise, De bono coniugali. The doctrine of the connection between marital carnal relations and original sin is also set forth in the work De peccatorum meritis et remissione (412); then it did not cause any attacks on Augustine. In 421, Julian of Eclan will refer to him in his polemic with the Bishop of Ippon. Aug. De Gen. contra Man. 1, 19, 30; 2, 11, 15. Aug. De Gen. ad litt. 9, 3, 5. See: Aug. De nupt. et concup. 1, 6, 7; De grat. Christi et de pecc. orig. 2, 33, 38–40. De civ. Dei 14, 16, 26. The council in Diospolis in Palestine on the case of Pelagius took place on December 20, 415. The council consisted of 14 Palestinian bishops only, chaired by Eulogius of Caesarea. See about the cathedral: Hefele C., Leclercq H. Histoire des Conciles. Vol. 2, 1. Paris, 1908. P. 178–183. John of Jerusalem was in no hurry to send acts to Augustine because he felt to some extent his responsibility for allowing a council in his province, which not only did not confirm the condemnation of Pelagius by Western bishops, but also acquitted the heretic. Aug. De gest. Pel. 1, 1. This treatise is blessed. Augustine's De gestis Pelagii was translated into Greek. It was read in the 9th century. Patriarch Photius (Bibl. Cod. 54). This is probably the only work of the blj. Augustine, translated into Greek before Maximus Planuda (late 13th century). See: Altaner B. Augustinus in der griechische Kirche bis auf Photius // Idem. Kleine patristiche Schriften. B., 1967. S. 73 (TU 83) Quote from Virgil (Verg. Georg. 3:469): et serpant dira contagia per vulgus incautum. Presbyter Innocent, supplier of many letters from the blj. Augustine, Jerome and many others. See about it above, in the preface. The rumor that the bl. Augustine died. Most likely, we are talking about Aurelius of Carthage, to whom St. Atticus sent the letter, thinking that the bl. Augustine is no longer alive. Rom.5:12: in quo omnes peccaverunt. Interpretation of the bl. Augustine of this verse in comparison with the exegesis of the Eastern Church Fathers has been the subject of many studies. See, for example: Rapinchuk M. Universal sin and Salvation in Romans 5, 12–21 // Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42/3. 1999. P. 427–441; Poirier J. C. Romans 5, 13–14 and the Universality of Law // Novum Testamentum 38/4. 1996. P. 344–358; Weaver D. The Exegesis of Romans 5, 12 Among the Greek Fathers and Its Implications for the Doctrine of Original Sin: The 5th–12th Centuries // St Vladimir’s Seminary Theological Quarterly 29/3. 1985, pp. 231–257. Pun: non faciunt quidquid libet, sed tantum quod licet. Gen.3:6. The goodness of marriage itself, which inevitably includes carnal communication between the spouses, was not denied by Julian of Eclun; he only criticized Augustine’s distinction between the good attraction of marriage and the bad attraction of the flesh, not related to procreation. For Julian, the attraction of the flesh, beyond the control of the will, is something innocent and “natural” (Aug. De nupt. et concup. 2, 7:17); it existed in paradise before the Fall. Contrast and play on words: desiderium concumbendi and officium generandi. The presence of a passionate desire of the flesh in paradise before the Fall, according to the bl. Augustine, contradicts the very concept of heaven, it “upsets” heavenly bliss. If a person succumbs to this attraction, then his life, although it seems “blessed” to him, does not represent true beauty (decus). If he struggles with the lust of the flesh, his life is morally and spiritually beautiful (decora), but devoid of bliss. Only a natural dispassionate state, devoid of the sinful attraction of the flesh, is true paradise, beatum decus and decora beatitudo, happy beauty and beautiful happiness. Rome. 7, 18. velle adiacet mihi perfi cere autem bonum non invenio. According to Augustine, St. Paul is talking here about the attraction of the flesh that he feels in himself, but does not agree with it. Augustine’s attention is drawn to the verb perfi cere (translation of the Vulgate Greek κατεργάζομαι - “to make”, “to do”, “to act”, but also “to bring to perfection”). The apostle does (facit) well when he does not agree with the attraction of the flesh, but he cannot act in everything in a perfect manner (non perfi cit), since the very presence of an attraction, even if it arises against the will and is suppressed, is a passionate and imperfect state. 1 Corinthians 7:5–6. Blzh. Augustine quotes the text of St. Paul in the Old Latin translation: hoc autem dico secundum veniam non secundum imperium, - whereas in the Vulgate: hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam. Unlike indulgentia (permission), venia (indulgence) has a greater connotation of apology, forgiveness, which always implies the presence of guilt. 1 Cor.7:18–19. For the first time this image of circumcision appears in the blj. Augustine in De pecc. mer. et rem. 3, 18, 16. We meet it in one of the anti-Pelagian sermons (Serm. 294, 16:16), where the image of grain is added to it, which is sown without a husk, and is born in an ear with a husk. In his polemic with Julian, Augustine also uses the image of a cultivated olive tree, which sometimes produces wild fruits (Aug. De grat. Christi et de pec. orig. 2, 40:45). As a contrast to Julian’s theory of the “natural” attraction of the flesh before the Fall, the blessed one. Augustine proposes a hypothesis about the existence in paradise of a certain carnal attraction, completely subordinated to the will.