Augustine of Hippo

For a man swollen with pride in comparison to another might say, “My faith distinguishes me,” or “my justice” or whatever. It is to prevent such ideas that the good teacher asks, “But what do you have that you have not received?” Did you not receive it from him who chose to distinguish you from another? It was he who chose to give you what another did not receive. “But if you have received, why do you glory as if you had not received it?” Now I ask, is the apostle concerned here with anything else than that “He who glories should glory in the Lord”? But nothing is so contrary to this sentiment than for anyone to glory in his own merits as if he and not the grace of God were responsible for them. I refer to that grace that distinguishes the good from the wicked, not one which is common to the good and the wicked. On this premise the grace by which we are living and rational creatures, and thus distinguished from beasts, would be enmeshed in nature. The grace by which the beautiful are distinguished from the ugly, or the intelligent from the stupid, is a grace that perceives nature. But that person whose pride the apostle was trying to restrain was not puffing himself up in comparison to the beasts, nor in comparison to the gifts of nature that might exist even in the worst of men. Rather, he was puffed up because he attributed some good thing which pertained to the morally good life to himself and not to God. Thus, he deserved to hear the rebuke, “For who distinguishes you? Or what do you have that you have not received?” For though the ability to possess faith belongs to our nature, is that also true of the actual possession of faith? “For not all men have faith,” although all men have the possibility of having faith.

Of course, there are those who misunderstand the same apostle when he writes, “He who was apt to steal, let him steal no longer; but let him labor, doing good with his hands, that he may have something to give to one who has need.” For, when he is ordering such persons to work so efficiently with their hands that they will also have something to bestow on others, his misinterpreters believe that he is going counter to the instruction which the Lord gives when he says, “Look at the birds of the air: they do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns.… Consider the lilies of the field: They neither toil nor spin.” Paul does not seem to have imitated the birds of the air and lilies of the field. He has repeatedly said of himself that he was working with his own hands so as not to burden anyone, and it is written of him that he joined with Aquila because of the similarity of their handicraft, so that they might work together to maintain a livelihood. From these and other such passages of the Scripture it is clear enough that our Lord does not reprove a man for procuring these things in the usual manner.

In the first place, we must prove that the blessed apostle Paul wished the servants of God to perform manual labor which would merit a great spiritual reward, and to do this without seeking food and clothing from anybody but to procure these commodities for themselves by their own work. Secondly, we must show that those gospel precepts by which some monks justify not only laziness but even arrogance are not contrary to the direction and example of the apostle. Let us examine the statements made by the apostle prior to this one: “If any man will not work, neither let him eat,” and the statements which follow it, so that the meaning which St. Paul intended may be gathered from the setting of the passage. What can be said in reply to this, since, indeed, by his own example he taught what he commanded, lest later someone might be permitted to interpret this with a view to his will and not his charity. For, the Lord had directed that apostle, as preacher of the gospel, as soldier of Christ, as planter of the vineyard, as shepherd of the flock, to live by the Gospel; nevertheless, St. Paul did not accept the payment due him in order to give example to those who wished to exact unmerited compensation.

Why, then, is it that, in what follows, where they mention what the Pelagians themselves think, they say they confess that “grace also assists the good purpose of every one, but that yet it does not infuse the desire of virtue into a reluctant heart”? They say this as if man of himself, without God’s assistance, has a good purpose and a desire of virtue, hence this preceding merit is supposedly worthy of being assisted by the subsequent grace of God. For they think perhaps that the apostle thus said, “For we know that he works all things for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to the purpose,” so as to wish the purpose of man to be understood. This purpose is then viewed as a good merit that the mercy of the God who calls might follow. They are ignorant that it is said, “Who are called according to the purpose,” so that this may be understood as the purpose of God, not man. Thus those whom he foreknew and predestinated as conformed to the image of his Son, he elected before the foundation of the world.… This then is the purpose of God, in relation to which it is said, “He works together all things for good for those who are called according to his own purpose.” Indeed subsequent grace assists man’s good purpose, but the purpose itself would not exist if grace did not precede.

Tell us something, O Lord, also of the resurrection of the flesh; for there have been those who denied it, asserting that this is the only resurrection which is wrought by faith. Of which resurrection the Lord has just now made mention, and inflamed our desire, because "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall live." It is not some of those who hear shall live, and others shall die; but "all that hear shall live," because all that obey shall live. Behold, we see a resurrection of the mind; let us not therefore let go our faith of the resurrection of the flesh. And unless Thou, O Lord Jesus, declare to us this, whom shall we oppose to those who assert the contrary? For truly all sects that have undertaken to engraft any religion upon men have allowed this resurrection of minds; otherwise, it might be said to them, If the soul rise not, why speakest thou to me? What meanest thou to do in me? If thou dost not make of the worse a better, why speakest thou? If thou dost not make a righteous of the unrighteous, why speakest thou? But if thou dost make righteous of the unrighteous, godly of the ungodly, wise of the foolish, thou confessest that my soul doth rise again, if I comply with thee and believe.

So, then, all those that have founded any sect, even of false religion, while they wished to be believed, could not but admit this resurrection of minds: all have agreed concerning this; but many have denied the resurrection of the flesh, and affirmed that the resurrection had taken place already in faith. Such the apostle resisteth, saying, "Of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection hath taken place already, and overthrow the faith of some." They said that the resurrection had taken place already, but in such manner that another was not to be expected; and they blamed people who were looking for a resurrection of the flesh, just as if the resurrection which was promised were already accomplished in the act of believing, namely, in the mind. The apostle censures these.