Letter to Augustine (among Augustine's letters the 226th)

To the most blessed lord, revered with all my soul and very dear in Christ, our father Augustine, Hilary. 1. When the questions of the objectors cease, the searches of the more diligent, [undertaken] to learn what one can without any fear not know, are often pleasant, and therefore, I think, the zeal of this message of ours will be even more pleasant [to you], which, in accordance with the assumptions of some, shows something contrary to the truth, cares about bringing benefit through the advice of Your Holiness not so much to yourself as to those who are confused and confused, about Most blessed lord, revered with all my soul and very dear father in Christ! 2. And these are the [issues] that are discussed in Massilia, and in other places in Gaul. Some say that it is new and useless for preaching [the doctrine that] people [to be saved] must be chosen according to the purpose of God, so that they themselves can neither acquire this nor retain it, unless the will is given to them to believe. They believe that all the power of preaching will be destroyed if they begin to say that there is nothing in people that it could motivate [to good]. They agree that every man perished in Adam, and therefore no one can be freed by his own decision, but they argue that it is true and befits preaching to think that when the opportunity to acquire salvation is proclaimed to the defeated and unable to rise on their own, then they, by virtue of the fact that they wanted and believed, can be healed of their illness, [thanks to this] they acquire an increase in this [their] faith, and as a result of this, their complete healing. In addition, they agree that no one is strong enough to start any other business, much less to complete it; After all, they think that it should not be considered a certain deed [serving] to their healing when any sick person, whose will is frightened and suppressed, wants to be healed. Therefore, in relation to what is said: “Believe and you will be saved” 2 - they think that one of these two things is required [from a person], and the other is offered [to him], so that if what is required is revealed, then what is offered will then be given. Based on this, they believe that faith must be manifested by the person whose nature it is provided for by the will of the Creator. They think that there is no [nature] so corrupted or weakened that it does not want or cannot be healed, therefore everyone is either healed of his illness, or, not wanting it, is punished along with this illness. And grace is not denied if it is said that there precedes such a will that requires a great Physician and is no longer capable of anything on its own. Therefore, they want to give such meaning to evidence like this: “according to the measure of faith that God has given to each”, as if [God] provides help to the one who began to desire, and not the desire itself is also granted; since [in the latter case] others, equally guilty, are rejected from this gift, who in a similar way could have been delivered if the will to believe, which was given to [others], equally unworthy, had been given to them in the same way. And if, they say, it is believed that the [will] of all has remained such, thanks to which everyone is able to reject [the calling] or submit to it, then, as they believe, the concept of the elect and the rejected should be given depending on the profit (de compendio), that is, on what is added to each person as the merit of his own will. 3. And when they are asked why this is preached to someone somewhere, but not preached to [others]; Why is something being preached now that was previously preached to almost no one, just as it is not preached to some nations now? They say that all this depends on Divine foreknowledge, [namely] that the truth should be proclaimed at the time, there and to those when and where, according to [God’s] foreknowledge, they should believe in it. And they claim that they can prove this by the testimony not only of other church writers, but also by the former reasoning of Your Holiness, although there you taught with no less clarity of truth about the same grace. This is [for example, the testimony] that Your Holiness spoke in the question against Porfiry “About the time of the Christian faith”: “Christ deigned to appear to people and preach His teaching among them at a time about which he knew that there would then be people ready to believe in Him, and in the place about which he knew this” 4. [They also cite a passage] from the book [of commentary] on the Epistle to the Romans, where, [explaining the words of the apostle]: “You will say to me: “Why is he still accusing? For who can resist His will? 5 - you say this: “It is clear that [the apostle] responds to this inquiry in a similar way for the purpose of making us understand that the first merits of faith and ungodliness can be revealed to spiritual men who no longer live according to earthly man, [that is] how God, by foreknowledge, chooses those who believe and condemns those who do not believe: He chooses the first not because of works, and condemns the second not because of works, but by faith He bestows the first He will act well [in the future], but the unbelief of others hardens, leaving them, so that they act badly” 6 . And in the same book above [you say]: “First of all, all [people] are equal in merit, and one cannot speak of election in relation to things that are equal in all respects. But since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, and God does not choose those works that He Himself bestows when He gives the Holy Spirit, so that out of love we do good deeds, He chooses faith, since everyone, if he does not believe and does not remain in the will to accept, will not accept the gift of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, thanks to which he can do good according to the love He has poured out. So, God does not choose in foreknowledge anyone’s works, since He Himself intends to give them, but He chooses in foreknowledge faith, so that He chooses him whom He foreknew would believe, and He gives him the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he will also inherit eternal life. After all, the same apostle says: “There is one and the same God, who works all things in all” 7 “. However, nowhere does it say: “God believes everything in everyone.” So, what we believe is ours, and what we do [good deeds] is His.” 8 And other things said in the same work; they declare that they accept and approve all this as being in accordance with the truth of the gospel. 4. Now, as regards foreknowledge, and also predestination or purpose, they maintain that all this refers to the fact that God foreknew, predestined, or intended to choose those who would believe in the future. And about this faith it is impossible to say: “What do you have that you did not receive?” 9, since it was preserved in that very nature, even if damaged, which was given at the very beginning healthy and perfect. And when Your Holiness says that no one will remain [in goodness] unless he receives the strength for that continuation, then they accept this only in the sense that to whom this is given, it is given as a reward for a previous personal decision, even a weak one. They say that the decision is free only in relation to whether or not you want to accept treatment. Further, they also declare that they disgust and condemn if anyone believes that there is any power left in anyone by which he himself can achieve health. And they do not want them to preach about such abiding [in goodness], which cannot be either prayerfully earned or lost through stubbornness [of the will]. They also do not want to be referred to the uncertainty of the will of God in those cases where it is obvious to them, as they believe, where any principle of the will comes from, serving to retain or lose [this stay in good]. Also, the testimony that you offered: “He was caught up so that malice would not change his mind” 10, they consider it necessary to eliminate as non-canonical. So, they understand foreknowledge in the sense that, as one should think, [people] are foreknown for the sake of future faith, and no one is given such a stay from which it is impossible for him to retreat, [but is given something] from which he can fall away and evade of his own free will. 5. And they argue that the custom of admonition becomes useless if it is said that there is nothing left in a person that can be prompted [to goodness] by reproach. For they declare and say that this 11 is so inherent in nature that when the truth is preached to one who does not know it, it should be attributed to the benefit of the grace present (praesentis gratiae) 12 . And if, they say, people are predestined to one of two parts 13, so that no one can move from one to the other, why is such insistence of external reproach needed? Doesn’t this create in a person, if not a complete faith, then at least grief from wounded weakness, isn’t he afraid of the danger of a demonstrated death? After all, if someone cannot be afraid of what they frighten him with, then this happens because of the will that he has acquired; and there is no need to blame him for what he does not want now, but [he should be blamed] for that and with someone who once did not want so much that he deserved to fall, along with his descendants, into such condemnation that he would never want to acquire something righteous, but always strive only for the bad. And if there is some sorrow arising from the impulse of the reproacher, then, as they say, this is the reason why one will be rejected and the other accepted, and therefore there is no need to establish separate parts [of people] to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away. 6. Further, they find it difficult to bear that division of grace, [according to which] one [grace] was given then to the first man, and another is given now to all, “so that he did not receive such abiding by which he could abide, but one without which, by means of [one] free decision, he could not abide. And now, the saints predestined by God’s grace into the Kingdom of God are not given such help in their stay, but their stay itself is given to them as help, so that not only can they not remain without this gift, but they also abide no other way than thanks to this gift” 14 . They are so embarrassed by these words of Your Holiness that they say that they lead people into some kind of despair. After all, they say, if Adam was given such help that he could both persist in righteousness and deviate from righteousness, and the saints are now given such help that they cannot deviate (if at the same time they received such an abiding will that they cannot desire another), and some are so abandoned that they either do not rebel, or, having rebelled, fall away again - then, they say, the benefit of incentive and threat belongs to that will, which has free power both to remain and to remain. to retreat, and not to that which, by inevitable necessity (inevitabili necessitate), is characteristic of not desiring righteousness, except for those who are thus created along with those subject to condemnation in the general mass [of sinners], who are nevertheless drawn from it by redeeming grace. Therefore, they want the nature of all [people] to differ only in this way from the first man, that he, who desires with all the combined forces of will, was helped by grace, without which he could not remain [in goodness], and [other people], since these forces are lost and destroyed, grace, by faith alone, not only restores them from the fall, but also supports them in their everyday life. And they assert that everything else given to the predestined can be lost and regained by them of their own free will, which would be false if they considered true the statement that some have received such abiding that they cannot but remain [in good]. 7. Therefore, they also do not accept and do not wish that the number of those subject to election or rejection should be definite and precise, and they support a different interpretation of the saying 15 than the one taken from you 16, namely, that God desires that all people in general be saved, that is, not only those who are among the saints, but all in their entirety, without any exception. And there is no need to be afraid of what they can say that someone perishes contrary to His will, but, they say, just as God does not want anyone to commit sin or abandon righteousness, and yet it is constantly abandoned [by people] contrary to His will, and sins are committed, just as He wants all people to be saved, but not all people want to be saved. Also, those Scripture testimonies about Saul and David that you offered, they consider not relevant to the question of motivation under discussion; but they attribute some of them to the fact that thanks to them, in their opinion, it is possible to understand the grace that helps every person after [the effort of] the will, or they attribute them to the calling itself, which is offered to the unworthy. And they declare that they can confirm this with certain passages from your works, and from other [works] that would take a long time to list. 8. And they do not allow the case of infants to be cited as an example for adults, but they say that Your Holiness also touched on this before that you considered this issue unclear and preferred to doubt the punishment of infants. This, as you remember, is stated in a similar way in the third book [of the work] “On Free Decision” 17, which could have given them a reason [for such thoughts]. [They extract evidence] also from the books of other writers who have authority in the Church; and Your Holiness understands that this can greatly help our opponents if we do not provide greater or at least equal [evidence]. For your most intelligent piety knows well how many there are in the Church who hold certain opinions or turn away from them because of the authority of names. Finally, since we were all already tired, their investigation, or rather the accusation, turned to the one (with the sympathy of the Czechs who do not dare to reject this [your] statement) that they say: “Why was it necessary to confuse many hearts of less intelligent people with the unreliability of this reasoning? Indeed, with no less benefit and without this statement [about predestination], they say, for so many years by so many writers in so many previous books, both yours and other authors, the Catholic faith was defended both against other [heretics], and most of all - against the Pelagians. 9. I would prefer, my father, in order to fulfill my highest desire, to overthrow all this and an infinite number of similar things myself, but since I do not deserve this, at least send you, at a convenient time, collected everything that causes confusion, in order to hear me regarding everything about which [our opponents] object in this matter, how it should be refuted, and if it is impossible to refute, how it should be tolerated. But since neither one nor the other desire is fulfilled, I preferred to send what I managed to collect rather than completely remain silent about such an objection from some people. Partly involved in this are such persons for whom it is necessary that the laity, according to church custom, show them the highest respect. Although, with God's help, we took care to observe this, so that when necessary, we did not remain silent about the fact that the weakness of our strength gathered to clarify this issue 18. But now I have collected this in general terms, as if for a reminder, as far as the messenger’s haste allowed. I trust your holy prudence to consider what needs to be done in order to pacify or overcome this desire of theirs. And I think that in this matter your explanations will be of little use if authority is not added to them, which hearts that are constantly seeking competition cannot transgress. But of course, I must not remain silent about the fact that they say that they admire Your Holiness in all your deeds and words, with the exception of [only one] this. It's up to you to decide how you should approach their objection in this matter. And do not be surprised that I added something different, or said something differently in this letter, or, as it seems to me, said something that I did not say in the previous one; for this is their statement now [on this issue], and I might have missed something due to haste or forgetfulness. 10. I ask that we be worthy of having those books that you are preparing about all your work 19 when they are published; above all, so that thanks to their authority, if you don’t like something in your writings, we will fearlessly separate it from the dignity of your name. We also do not have the book “On Grace and Free Decision”; It will be very good if we are worthy to receive it, since we hope for its benefit in this matter. And I don’t want Your Holiness to think that I am writing this doubting what you recently revealed. My punishment is enough for me that I am excommunicated from the pleasures of your presence, where I fed on the saving milk of your teaching, and now I am tormented not only because of your absence, but also because of the stubbornness of some who not only reject what is clear, but also condemn what is incomprehensible to them. However, I am so devoid of the desire to suspect anyone of anything that I would rather show off my weakness, which is why I endure all this with insufficient patience. And what you decide to do with all this, as I have already said, I leave to your wisdom. For I have decided that it is not my business to remain silent about what raises questions, for the sake of the love that I owe to Christ and to you. And everything that you, by your grace, which we - small and great - marvel at in you, you want or decide, we will accept with gratitude, as a decision of an authority that is venerable and very dear to us. Because of the haste of the messenger, I was afraid that I might not send you everything you needed, or that what I was sending would be sent to [prepared] people less worthy, for I knew about my [weak] strengths. Therefore, I agreed with my husband, pure both in his morals and in his speech and teaching, so that he, as far as he could, collected everything relevant to the matter in his letter 20, which I then wanted to connect with him. For he is such that, even apart from this urgent need, it seems to me worthy of becoming known to Your Holiness. Holy Deacon Leonty, your admirer, warmly greets you with my parents. May the Lord Jesus Christ deign to grant to His Church your memorable Fatherhood for many years to come, O lord and father! [And below]: Let Your Holiness know that my brother, for whose sake we most of all departed from there [i.e. e. from Africa], in agreement with his wife, took a vow of perfect abstinence to God. Therefore, we ask Your Holiness that you deign to pray, so that God will deign to strengthen and preserve this in them. CPL 262. Translation based on the publication: Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina Accurante J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1845. T. 33. Col. 1007–1012. Places with discrepancies have been verified with the publication: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Latinorum. Vindobonae, 1911. Vol. 57. R. 468–481. Blazh. Augustine. Er. 102.2.4 Blazh. Augustine .Exp. Rom., 62 Blazh. Augustine. Exp. Rom., 12, 60 That is, attention to motivation and reproach. Apparently, we are talking about the original grace inherent in human nature from the moment of its creation by God That is, to those being saved or to those perishing. – Approx. ed. Blazh. Augustine. De corr. et al., 34. Apparently, the words ap. are meant. Paul from 1 Timothy 2:4: (God) Who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -Approx. ed. See: blessed. Augustine. De corr. et al., 44. See: blessed. Augustine. De libero arbitrio, III. 23.66–70 Hilary appears to be alluding to a previous letter to Augustine, now lost. We are talking about the books of Revisions. Apparently, Hilary is talking here about Prosper, whose letter is posted above.