1. When, then, I had given up either what I had attained in the desires of this world or what I wished to attain, and had betaken myself to the leisure of the Christian life, I first wrote, not yet baptized, Against the Academics or On the Academics, in order to remove from my mind—as far as I could, by all the reasonings I was able to muster—their arguments, which instill in many a despair of finding the truth and forbid one to assent to anything at all and altogether forbid the wise man to approve anything as though it were manifest and certain, since to them all things seem obscure and uncertain; and these arguments moved me too. This was accomplished by the Lord's mercy and help.

2. But in those same three books of mine it does not please me that I so often invoked fortune (C. Acad. 1.1.1), although by this name I did not wish any goddess to be understood, but the chance outcome of things, whether in the goods or evils of our body or in external ones. Hence too come those words that no religion forbids us to say: "perhaps" (forte), "maybe" (forsan), "perchance" (forsitan), "possibly" (fortasse), "by chance" (fortuito)—all of which, nevertheless, must be referred back to divine providence.

This too I did not pass over in silence there, saying: for perhaps what is commonly called fortune is governed by some hidden order, and we call nothing in things chance except that whose reason and cause is hidden (C. Acad. 1.1.3). I did indeed say this; yet I regret having named fortune in that way there, since I see that men have it as a very bad habit, where it should be said "this God willed," to say "this fortune willed."

But as for what I said in a certain place: it has been so arranged, whether for our merits or by the necessity of nature, that the harbor of philosophy in no way receives the divine mind while it clings to mortal things, and the rest (C. Acad. 1.1.3)—either none of these two things should have been said, since even so the sense could have been complete, or it was enough to say for our merits, as it is true that misery is drawn from Adam (See Rom 5:12), and not to add or by the necessity of nature, seeing that the hard necessity of our nature arose deservedly from preceding iniquity.

Likewise, what I said there: that nothing at all is to be worshiped, and that whatever is discerned by mortal eyes, whatever any sense attains, is to be cast aside entirely (C. Acad. 1.1.3), words should have been added so that it would be said: whatever any sense of the mortal body attains; for there is also a sense of the mind. But I was then speaking in the manner of those who call nothing "sense" except that of the body, and nothing "sensible" except corporeal things. And so, wherever I spoke in this way, the ambiguity is scarcely avoided, except among those who are accustomed to this manner of speaking.

Likewise I said: what do you suppose it is to live happily, if not to live according to that which is best in man? (C. Acad. 1.2.5) And, explaining a little later what I had said was best in man: who, I said, would doubt that the best of man is nothing other than that part of the mind to whose rule the other things that are in man ought rightly to submit? And this—lest you ask for another definition—can be called mind or reason (C. Acad. 1.2.5). This indeed is true; for as far as man's nature is concerned, there is nothing in him better than mind and reason. But he who wishes to live happily ought not to live according to it; otherwise he lives according to man, whereas one must live according to God (See 1 Pet 4:6), so that he may be able to attain to blessedness; and in order to attain it our mind ought not to be content with itself, but must be made subject to God.

Likewise, answering him with whom I was disputing: here clearly, I said, you are not mistaken—which I would gladly wish to be an omen to you for the rest (C. Acad. 1.4.11). Although this was said not in earnest but in jest, I would nevertheless not wish to use that word. For I do not recall having read omen either in our sacred Scriptures (See 1 Kgs 20:33) or in the discourse of any ecclesiastical disputant, although from it is derived "abomination," which is found constantly in the divine books.

3. In the second book, that fable, as it were, about "philocalia" and "philosophy"—that they are sisters and begotten of the same parent (C. Acad. 2.3.7)—is utterly inept and insipid. For either "philocalia," as it is called, consists in nothing but trifles, and for this reason is by no reasoning a sister to "philosophy"; or, if this name is to be honored for the reason that, translated into Latin, it means love of beauty, and the beauty of wisdom is the true and highest beauty, then in incorporeal and highest things "philocalia" is the very same as "philosophy," and they are in no way like two sisters.

In another place, when I was treating of the soul, I said: destined to return more secure into heaven (C. Acad. 2.9.22). I would more safely have said "destined to go" rather than to return, on account of those who think that human souls, for the merits of their sins, were cast down or thrust from heaven into these bodies (See Plotinus, Enneads 4.8.5; Origen, On First Principles 1.6.23).

But I did not hesitate to say this for the reason that I said into heaven as though I were saying "to God," who is its author and founder, just as the blessed Cyprian did not hesitate to say: for since we possess a body from the earth and a spirit from heaven, we ourselves are earth and heaven (Cyprian, On the Lord's Prayer 16), and in the book of Ecclesiastes it is written: let the spirit return to God who gave it (Eccl 12:7); which is certainly to be understood in such a way that no resistance is offered to the Apostle when he says that those not yet born had done nothing good or evil (See Rom 9:11).

Without controversy, then, the original region of the soul's blessedness is God himself, who begot it not indeed from himself, but founded it from no other thing, just as he founded the body from earth. For as to its origin, by which it comes to be in the body—whether it is from that one soul which was first created, when man was made into a living soul (See Gen 2:7), or whether in like manner individual souls are made for individual persons—I neither knew then nor do I yet know.

4. In the third book: if you ask what seems to me, I said, I judge that the highest good of man is in the mind (C. Acad. 3.12.27). I would more truly have said "in God"; for the mind enjoys him, that it may be blessed, as its highest good.

Nor does that please me which I said: it is clear that one may swear by everything divine (C. Acad. 3.16.35; De serm. Dom. 1.17.51-52).

Likewise what I said about the Academics, that they knew the truth, the likeness of which they called the verisimilar, and that this very verisimilar I called the false thing which they approved (C. Acad. 3.18.40), was said wrongly for two reasons: either because what was in some way like some truth would be false—since in its own kind this too is true—or because they approved those false things which they called verisimilar, whereas they approved nothing and affirmed that the wise man approves nothing. But because they also called this very verisimilar the "probable," it came about that I said this of them.

The very praise, too, with which I exalted Plato or the Platonist or Academic philosophers (See C. Acad. 2.10.24; 3.17.37; 3.18.41) as much as it was not fitting to exalt impious men, not undeservedly displeased me, especially since against their errors Christian teaching must be greatly defended.

That also, in the comparison with the arguments of Cicero which he used in his books of the Academics, I called my own efforts mere trifles (C. Acad. 3.20.45), by which I refuted those arguments with the most certain reasoning—although it was said in jest and seems rather to be irony—ought nevertheless not to have been said.

This work begins thus: O Romanianus, would that a man fit for himself.

It happened that I wrote the book On the Happy Life not after the books On the Academics, but in their midst. It arose on the occasion of my birthday and was completed in a disputation of three days, as the work itself sufficiently indicates. In this book it was agreed among us, who were inquiring together, that there is no happy life except the perfect knowledge of God.

Now it displeases me there that I attributed more than I ought to Manlius Theodorus, to whom I wrote the book itself, although he was a learned and Christian man (De b. vita 1.5); and that there too I often named fortune (De b. vita 1.5); and that I said the happy life dwells, during the time of this life, in the mind of the wise man alone, however his body may be (De b. vita 4.25), whereas the Apostle hopes for the perfect knowledge of God—that is, the knowledge than which none greater is possible for man—in the future life (See 1 Cor 13:12), which alone is to be called the happy life, where also the incorruptible and immortal body (1 Cor 15:53) will be made subject to its spirit without any trouble or resistance.

Indeed I found this book in our copy interrupted, and lacking not a little; and it was thus copied out by certain brothers, nor had I yet found it complete with anyone, from which I might correct it, when I revised these works.

This book begins thus: If to the harbor of philosophy.

1. During the same period, among those that were written On the Academics, I also wrote two books On Order, in which a great question is treated: whether the order of divine providence contains all good and evil things. But since I saw the matter to be difficult to understand, and that those with whom I was dealing could only with great difficulty be brought by disputation to grasp it, I preferred to speak of the order of study, by which one can advance from corporeal to incorporeal things.

2. But in these books too it displeases me that the word fortune is often inserted (De ord. 2.9.27); and that I did not add "of the body" when I named the sense of the body (De ord. 1.1.3). And that I attributed much to the liberal disciplines (See Retract. 1.1.2), which many holy men greatly do not know; some, too, who do know them are not holy (De ord. 1.5.15; 1.8.24; 2.14.39); and that I mentioned the Muses as though they were certain goddesses, though in jest (De ord. 1.3.6; 1.8.24; 2.14.41); and that I called wonder a vice (De ord. 1.3.8); and that I said philosophers not endowed with true piety shone with the light of virtue (De ord. 1.11.31); and that I commended two worlds, one sensible and the other intelligible (See Plato, Republic 508c), not in the person of Plato or of the Platonists, but in my own, as though the Lord too had wished to signify this (De ord. 1.11.32), because he did not say "my kingdom is not of the world," but my kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), although it can be found to have been said by some manner of speaking; and if another world was signified by the Lord Christ, that one could more fittingly be understood in which there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1), when there shall be fulfilled what we pray when we say: your kingdom come (Matt 6:10).

Nor indeed did Plato err in this, in that he said there is an intelligible world, if we are willing to attend not to the word, which is unusual in ecclesiastical usage for that thing, but to the thing itself. For he called the intelligible world that eternal and unchangeable reason by which God made the world. He who denies that this exists must consequently say either that God made what he made irrationally, or that, when he was making it, or before he made it, he did not know what he was making, if there was no reason for making it with him. But if there was—as there was—Plato seems to have called this very thing the intelligible world. We would not, however, use this name, if we were already sufficiently versed in ecclesiastical letters.

3. Nor does that please me, that when I had said the greatest effort must be given to the best morals, I at once added: for our God will not be able to hear us otherwise, but those who live well he will hear most easily (De ord. 2.20.52). For it was said as though God does not hear sinners (John 9:31)—which someone said in the Gospel, but one who had not yet come to know Christ, by whom he had already been enlightened in body.

Nor does that please me, that I gave so much praise to the philosopher Pythagoras (De ord. 2.20.53), that whoever hears or reads this might think I had believed there were no errors in the Pythagorean teaching, whereas there are many, and those capital ones.

This work begins thus: Concerning the order of things, Zenobius.

1. Among these I also wrote two volumes, in accordance with my zeal and love for searching out the truth by reason concerning those matters I most desired to know, questioning myself and answering myself, as though we were two, reason and I, when I was alone; whence I named this work the Soliloquies.

But it remained unfinished, yet in such a way that in the first book it was asked, and somehow made clear, what sort of person he must be who wishes to perceive wisdom—which is certainly perceived not by the sense of the body but by the mind—and by a certain reasoning it is concluded at the end of the book that those things which truly are, are immortal.

In the second book, however, the matter of the immortality of the soul is long debated and not brought to completion.

2. In these books, to be sure, I do not approve what I said in prayer: God, who willed that none but the pure should know the truth (Solil. 1.1.2). For it can be answered that many who are not pure know many true things; nor was it defined here what the truth is which none but the pure can know, and what it is to know;

and that which is placed there: God, whose kingdom is the whole world, which sense does not know (Solil. 1.1.3). If God is to be understood, words should have been added so that it would be said "which the sense of the mortal body does not know." But if the world was meant, which sense does not know, that one is rightly understood which is to come with a new heaven and a new earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22); but here too those words should have been added so that it would be said: "the sense of the mortal body."

But I was still speaking in that manner in which sense is properly called that of the body; nor need that be repeated constantly which I have already said above on this point (Retract. 1.1.2), but this should be recalled wherever this manner of speaking is found in my writings.

3. And where I said of the Father and the Son: he who begets and he whom he begets is one (Solil. 1.1.4), it should have been said "are one," just as the Truth herself openly speaks, saying: I and the Father are one (John 10:30).

Nor does that please me, that I said that in this life, once God is understood, the soul is already blessed (Solil. 1.7.14)—unless perhaps in hope.

Likewise what I said: that one comes to union with wisdom not by one way alone (Solil. 1.13.23), does not sound well, as though there were another way besides Christ, who said: I am the way (John 14:6). This offense to religious ears was therefore to be avoided, although there is that one universal way, and there are other ways of which we also sing in the Psalm: make your ways known to me, O Lord, and teach me your paths (Ps 25:4 (24)).

And in that which was said there: that these sensible things are to be fled altogether (Solil. 1.14.24), care had to be taken lest we be thought to hold that view of Porphyry the false philosopher, by which he said that every body is to be fled (Porphyry, To Marcella 8; 32; 34; see De Civ. Dei 10.29; 22.12; 22.26-28). But I did not say "all" sensible things, but these, that is, corruptible ones. Yet this should rather have been said; for such sensible things will not exist in the new heaven and new earth of the age to come.

4. Likewise in a certain place I said that those instructed in the liberal disciplines, without doubt, dig out by learning those disciplines buried in them by forgetfulness, and in a manner unearth them again (Solil. 2.20.35). But this too I disapprove. For it is more credible that those who are even unskilled in certain disciplines answer truly about them, when they are questioned well, because the light of eternal reason is present to them, as far as they are able to grasp it, in which they behold these unchangeable truths—not because they once knew them and have forgotten them, as it seemed to Plato or such men (Plato, Phaedo 72e; Meno 81e-86b). Against their opinion, so far as the occasion afforded by the work undertaken allowed, I discoursed in the twelfth book of On the Trinity (De Trin. 12.15.24).

This work begins thus: As I was turning over within me many and various things.

1. After the books of the Soliloquies, having now returned from the countryside to Milan, I wrote the book On the Immortality of the Soul, which I had wished to be for me a kind of reminder for finishing the Soliloquies, which had remained incomplete. But somehow, against my will, it came into the hands of men, and it is named among my little works. It is so obscure, by the contortion and brevity of its reasonings, that it wearies even my own attention when it is read, and is scarcely understood by myself.

2. Then, thinking of nothing other than the minds of men, I said in a certain argument of that same book: nor can there be knowledge in that which learns nothing (De imm. an. 1.1). Likewise in another place I said: nor does knowledge embrace any thing except what pertains to some discipline (De imm. an. 1.1); nor did it come to mind that God does not learn a discipline, but possesses the knowledge of all things, in which there is also foreknowledge of things to come. Of the same kind is that which was said there: that life with reason belongs to nothing except the soul (De imm. an. 4.5); for God's life is not without reason, since with him there is both the highest life and the highest reason;

and that which I said somewhat earlier: that what is understood is always of such a kind (De imm. an. 1.1), whereas the mind too is understood, which is certainly not always of such a kind.

But what I said: that the mind cannot for this reason be separated from the eternal reason, because it is not joined to it by place (De imm. an. 6.11), I would surely not have said, if I had then been so instructed in the sacred Scriptures as to recall what is written: your sins separate between you and God (Isa 59:2). Whence we are given to understand that separation can be spoken of even of those things which had been joined not by places but incorporeally.

3. What I meant, too, when I said: if the soul lacks a body, it is not in this world (De imm. an. 13.22), I have not been able to recall. For surely the souls of the dead either do not lack a body or are not in this world—as though indeed the lower regions were not in this world? But because I set "to lack a body" as a good, perhaps by the word body I meant corporeal plagues. And if that is so, I used the word too unusually.

This too was rashly said: that by the supreme essence form is bestowed on the body through the soul, by which it is, in whatever degree it is. Through the soul, therefore, the body subsists, and exists by that very thing by which it is animated, whether universally, as the world, or particularly, as each individual animal within the world (De imm. an. 15.24). All this was said utterly rashly.

This book begins thus: If anywhere there is a discipline.

During the same period, when I was at Milan about to receive baptism, I also attempted to write Books on the Disciplines, questioning those who were with me and who did not shrink from studies of this kind; desiring, through corporeal things, either to arrive at or to lead others to incorporeal things by certain steps, as it were. But of these I was able to complete only the book On Grammar, which I afterward lost from our cupboard, and six volumes On Music, as far as concerns that part which is called Rhythm. But these same six books I wrote when I was already baptized and had already returned from Italy to Africa, for I had only begun this discipline at Milan. Of the other five disciplines likewise begun there—of dialectic, of rhetoric, of geometry, of arithmetic, and of philosophy—only the beginnings remained, which we have also lost; but I think they are held by some.

1. Now when, already baptized, I was at Rome, and could not bear in silence the boasting of the Manichees about their false and deceitful continence or abstinence, by which, to deceive the unskilled, they even set themselves above true Christians, with whom they are not to be compared, I wrote two books, one On the Ways of Life of the Catholic Church, and the other On the Ways of Life of the Manichees.

2. In the one, then, which is On the Ways of Life of the Catholic Church, where I set down the testimony in which is read: for your sake we are afflicted all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter (De mor. Eccl. cath. 1.9.14; see Ps 44:22 (43); Rom 8:36), the faultiness of our copy deceived me, who was then less mindful of the Scriptures, in which I was not yet practiced. For other copies of the same translation do not have for your sake we are afflicted, but for your sake we are put to death, which others expressed in one word: we are slain.

That this is truer the Greek books indicate, from which language the translation of the ancient divine Scriptures was made into Latin according to the Septuagint translators. And yet according to these words, that is, for your sake we are afflicted, I said much in my discussion which, in the matters themselves, I do not disapprove as false. Nevertheless, the agreement of the old and new Scriptures, which I desired to demonstrate, I certainly did not demonstrate from these words. I have said whence the error crept upon me; but from other testimonies I sufficiently showed the same agreement.

3. Similarly, a little later too, I set down a testimony from the book of Wisdom according to our copy, in which was written: for wisdom teaches sobriety, and justice, and virtue (Wis 8:7). And according to these words I discussed things that are indeed true, but found on the occasion of a faulty text. For what is truer than that wisdom teaches the truth of contemplation, which I thought was signified by the word "sobriety," and uprightness of action, which I wished to be understood by the other two, justice and virtue, whereas truer copies of the same translation have: for it teaches sobriety, and wisdom, and justice, and virtue? For by these names the Latin translator named those four virtues which are most commonly on the lips of the philosophers, calling temperance "sobriety," giving prudence the name "wisdom," expressing fortitude by the word "virtue," and rendering justice alone by its own name. But these four virtues, named by their own names in the same book of Wisdom, as they are called by the Greeks, we found long afterward in the Greek copies.

Likewise what I set down from the book of Solomon: vanity of those who act vainly, said Ecclesiastes, I did indeed read in many copies; but the Greek does not have this, but rather vanity of vanities (De mor. Eccl. cath. 1.21.39; see Eccl 1:2), which I afterward saw, and found that those Latin copies are truer which have of vanities, not of those who act vainly. Yet on the occasion of this faulty text, whatever I discussed appears to be true in the things themselves.

4. But as for what I said: that we should first love with full love the very one whom we wish to know, that is, God (De mor. Eccl. cath. 1.25.47), it would be better said "sincere" than full, lest perhaps it be thought that the love of God will not be greater when we shall see face to face (1 Cor 13:12). So, then, let this be understood as though full were said of that love than which none can be greater so long as we walk by faith; for it will be fuller, indeed fullest, but through sight.

Likewise what I said of those who help the needy, that they are called merciful, even if they are so wise that they are no longer disturbed by any pain of mind (De mor. Eccl. cath. 1.27.53), is not to be understood as though I had defined that there are such wise men in this life; for I did not say "since they are," but I said even if they are.

5. In another place, where I said: but now, when this human love has nourished and strengthened the mind that clings to your breasts, making it fit for following God, then, when his majesty has begun to disclose itself in as great a measure as suffices for man while he is an inhabitant of this earth, so great an ardor of love is born, and so great a fire of divine love rises up, that, with all vices burned away and the man sanctified and purified, it sufficiently appears how divinely it was said, 'I am a consuming fire' (De mor. Eccl. cath. 1.30.64; Heb 12:29), the Pelagians can think that I said this perfection can come to pass in this mortal life.

But let them not think this; for the ardor of love, made fit for following God and so great that it consumes all vices, can be born and grow in this life, but to accomplish that for which it is born—that no vice be present in a man—cannot here follow as a consequence, although so great a thing is accomplished by that same ardor of love where it can be accomplished and when it can be accomplished; so that, just as the washing of regeneration purifies from the guilt of all sins, which human birth has drawn down and iniquity has contracted, so that perfection may purify from the stain of all vices, without which human weakness cannot exist in this world;

as is to be understood also what the Apostle says: Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, cleansing her by the washing of water in the word, that he might present to himself a glorious Church, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5:25, 27). For this is the washing of water in the word by which the Church is cleansed. But since the whole Church, so long as it is here, says: forgive us our debts (Matt 6:12), it is certainly not here without spot or wrinkle or any such thing; yet from what it here receives, it is brought to that glory, which is not here, and to perfection.

6. In the other book, whose title is On the Ways of Life of the Manichees, that which I said: the goodness of God so orders all defecting things that they are there where they can most fittingly be, until by ordered movements they return to that from which they fell away (De mor. Eccl. cath. 2.7.9), is not to be understood as though all things return to that from which they fell away, as it seemed to Origen (Origen, On First Principles 2.3.3), but those that do return. For those who will be punished with everlasting fire do not return to God from whom they fell away, although all defecting things are so ordered that they are there where they can most fittingly be, since those too who do not return are most fittingly in punishment.

In another place: scarcely anyone, I said, doubts about beetles, that they come to be from dung rolled into a ball by them and buried (De mor. Eccl. cath. 2.17.63), whereas many doubt whether this is true, and many have not even heard of it.

This work begins thus: In other books I think we have dealt sufficiently.

1. In the same city I wrote a dialogue, in which many things are asked and discussed about the soul; that is, whence it comes, what it is like, how great it is, why it was given to the body, what it becomes when it comes to the body, and what it is like when it has departed (De quant. an. 1.1). But since how great it is was discussed most carefully and subtly—so that we might show, if we could, that it is not of corporeal magnitude and yet is something great—from this one inquiry the whole book took its name, so that it was called On the Size of the Soul.

2. In this book, that which I said: that it seemed to me the soul brought all the arts with it, and that what is called learning is nothing other than remembering and recollecting (De quant. an. 20.34), is not to be understood as though from this it were approved that the soul once lived, either here in another body or elsewhere, whether in a body or outside a body, and that the things it answers when questioned, though it did not learn them here, it learned beforehand in another life (See De Trin. 12.15.24; Plato, Phaedo 72).

For it can be the case, as we have already said above in this work (Retract. 1.4.4), that this is possible for the reason that the nature of the soul is intelligible and is connected not only with intelligible but also with unchangeable things, made in such an order that, when it moves itself to those things to which it is connected or to itself, in so far as it sees them, in so far does it answer truly about them.

Nor indeed did it bring all the arts with it in that way and hold them with it; for of the arts that pertain to the senses of the body—as many parts of medicine, as all of astrology—it can say nothing except what it has learned here.

But those things which the understanding alone grasps, for the reason I have said, it answers when it has been well questioned, either by itself or by another, and has recollected them.

3. In another place: I would wish, I said, to say more on this point and to bind myself, while I as it were instruct you, to do nothing other than to be restored to myself, to whom I most owe myself (De quant. an. 28.55), where I seem rather to have had to say be restored to God, to whom I most owe myself. But because a man must first be restored to himself, so that there, as if by a step made, he may rise from there and be lifted up to God—just as that younger son first returned to himself and then said: I will arise and go to my father (Luke 15:18)—therefore I spoke thus. Finally I soon added: and so to become a friendly servant to the Lord (De quant. an. 28.55; Horace, Satires 2.7.2-3). So what I said, to whom I most owe myself, I referred to men; for I owe myself to myself more than to other men, although to God more than to myself.

This book begins thus: Since I see that you abound in leisure.

1. While we were still staying at Rome, we wished to inquire by disputation whence evil comes. And we disputed in such a way that, if we could, the reason, when considered and treated, might bring what we believed about this matter—subject to divine authority—even to our understanding, as far as we could manage by discussion with God's help. And since it was agreed among us, after the matter had been carefully examined by reason, that evil arose from nothing but the free choice of the will, the three books to which that same disputation gave birth were called On Free Will. The second and third of these I finished in Africa, having already been ordained a priest at Hippo Regius, as best I then could.

2. In these books many things were discussed in such a way that certain incidental questions, which either I could not unravel or which required a long discourse at the time, were so deferred that, on either side, or on all the sides of those same questions—in which it was not clear which view better agreed with the truth—our reasoning was nevertheless brought to this conclusion: that, whichever of them might be true, God was to be believed worthy of praise, or even shown to be such (See De lib. arb. 1.2.4; 1.16.35; 3.16.46; 3.22.65).

For that disputation was undertaken on account of those who deny that the origin of evil is derived from the free choice of the will, and who contend that God, if it is so, the Creator of all natures, is to be blamed; wishing in this way, according to the error of their impiety (for they are Manichees), to introduce a certain nature of evil, unchangeable and coeternal with God. But of the grace of God, by which he so predestined his elect that he himself also prepared the wills of those who now use free choice in them, nothing was discussed in these books, on account of the question proposed. Where, however, occasion arose for grace to be mentioned, it was mentioned in passing, not defended with laborious reasoning, as though that were the subject. For it is one thing to ask whence evil comes, and another to ask whence one returns to the former good, or attains to a greater one.

3. Therefore let the new Pelagian heretics, who so assert the free choice of the will that they leave no place for the grace of God—since they assert that it is given according to our merits—not exalt themselves, as though I had pleaded their cause, because I said many things in these books in favor of free choice, which the purpose of that disputation required.

For I said in the first book: that evil deeds are punished by the justice of God, and I added: for they would not justly be punished, unless they were done by the will (De lib. arb. 1.1.1).

Likewise, when I was showing that the good will itself is so great a good that it is deservedly to be set before all corporeal and external goods, I said: you see, therefore, now, as I think, that it is placed in our will whether we enjoy or lack so great and so true a good. For what is so placed in the will as the will itself? (De lib. arb. 1.12.26)

And in another place: what reason, then, I said, is there why we should think it doubtful that, even if we were never wise before, we nevertheless by the will deserve and lead a praiseworthy and happy life, and by the will a base and wretched one? (De lib. arb. 1.13.28)

Likewise in another place: from which it is concluded, I said, that whoever wishes to live rightly and honorably, if he wishes to will this in preference to fleeting things, attains so great a thing with such ease that for him to have what he willed is nothing other than to will it (De lib. arb. 1.13.29).

Likewise elsewhere I said: for that eternal law, to the consideration of which it is now time to return, has established with unchangeable stability that merit lies in the will, but reward and punishment in blessedness and misery (De lib. arb. 1.14.30).

And in another place: what each one chooses to pursue and embrace, I said, was settled to be placed in the will (De lib. arb. 1.16.34).

And in the second book: for man himself, I said, in so far as he is man, is some good, because when he wills he can live rightly (De lib. arb. 2.1.2).

And in another place I said: that one cannot act rightly except by that same free choice of the will (De lib. arb. 2.18.47).

And in the third book: what need is there to ask, I said, whence this movement arises by which the will is turned away from the unchangeable good to a changeable good, since we confess that it belongs to the soul alone and is voluntary and for this reason culpable, and all teaching on this matter is useful for this: that, with that movement disapproved and restrained, we may turn our will away from the fall into temporal things toward enjoying the eternal good? (De lib. arb. 3.1.2)

And in another place: most excellently, I said, does truth cry out about you. For you could not perceive that anything else is in our power except what we do when we will. Therefore nothing is so much in our power as the will itself. For it is at hand at once, with no interval whatever, as soon as we will (De lib. arb. 3.3.7).

Likewise in another place: for if you are praised, I said, for seeing what you ought to do, since you do not see it except in him who is the unchangeable truth, how much more he who both commanded the willing and supplied the power and did not permit unwillingness to go unpunished? (De lib. arb. 3.16.46)

Then I added, saying: for if each one owes what he has received, and man was so made that he necessarily sins, then this he owes: that he sin. When, therefore, he sins, he does what he owes. But if it is wicked to say this, no one is forced by his own nature to sin (De lib. arb. 3.16.46).

And again: what, at last, could be, I said, the cause of the will before the will? For either it too is a will, and one does not depart from this root of the will, or it is not a will, and it has no sin. Either, therefore, the will is the first cause of sinning, or no sin is the first cause of sinning, and there is no one to whom sin is rightly imputed except the one sinning. There is, therefore, no one to whom it is rightly imputed except the one willing (De lib. arb. 3.17.49).

And a little later: who, I said, sins in that which can in no way be guarded against? But sin is committed; therefore it can be guarded against (De lib. arb. 3.18.50).

Pelagius used this testimony of mine in a certain book of his. When I had answered that book, I wished the title of my book to be Nature and Grace.

4. In these and similar words of mine, because the grace of God is not mentioned—of which there was then no question—the Pelagians think, or can think, that I held their view. But they think this in vain. For it is the will by which one both sins and lives rightly; and this we treated of in these words. The will itself, therefore, unless it is freed by the grace of God from the servitude by which it was made a slave to sin (Rom 6:17, 20), and is helped to overcome the vices, cannot be lived rightly and piously by mortals. And this divine benefit by which it is freed, unless it preceded the will, would be given to its merits and would not be grace, which is certainly given freely. This we have treated of sufficiently in other little works of ours See C. duas epp. Pelag. 1.18.36; De spir. et litt. 27ff.; De natura et gratia 47, 55; De gestis Pelag. 7ff.; De grat. Christi 1.4.5; De grat. et lib. arbit. 5.10; 21.42., refuting those new heretics who are enemies of this grace;

although even in these books On Free Will, which were written not at all against them—since they did not yet exist—but against the Manichees, we were not altogether silent about this grace of God, which they try by abominable impiety to take away. For we said in the second book: that not only great but also the least goods cannot exist except from him from whom are all goods, that is, God (De lib. arb. 2.19.50);

and a little later: the virtues, I said, by which one lives rightly are great goods; but the forms of any bodies whatever, without which one can live rightly, are the least goods; while the powers of the soul, without which one cannot live rightly, are intermediate goods. No one makes bad use of the virtues; but of the other goods, that is, the intermediate and the least, anyone can make use not only well but also badly. And therefore no one makes bad use of virtue, because the work of virtue is the good use of those things which we can also use not well, but no one who uses well uses badly. Wherefore the abundance and greatness of God's goodness has bestowed being not only on great but also on intermediate and least goods. His goodness is more to be praised in great than in intermediate, and more in intermediate than in least goods, but more in all of them than if he had not bestowed all (De lib. arb. 2.19.50).

And in another place: only hold fast, I said, an unshaken piety, so that no good may occur to you, whether sensing or understanding or thinking in any way whatever, which is not from God (De lib. arb. 2.20.54).

Likewise in another place I said: but since man cannot of his own accord rise again as of his own accord he fell, let us hold with firm faith the right hand of God stretched out to us from above, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ (De lib. arb. 2.20.54).

5. And in the third book, when I had said that which I mentioned Pelagius too had used from my little works (Retract. 1.9.3): for who, I said, sins in that which can in no way be guarded against? But sin is committed; therefore it can be guarded against (De lib. arb. 3.18.50), I immediately went on to add: and yet certain things done even through ignorance are disapproved and judged to be in need of correction, as we read in the divine authorities. For the Apostle says: 'I obtained mercy because I acted ignorantly' (1 Tim 1:13); and the Prophet says: 'remember not the sins of my youth and my ignorances' (Ps 25:7 (24)).

There are also things done by necessity that are to be disapproved, where a man wishes to act rightly and cannot. For whence come those words: 'for the good that I will I do not, but the evil that I hate, this I do' (Rom 7:15); and that: 'to will is present with me, but to accomplish the good is not' (Rom 7:18), and that: 'the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, so that you do not do the things that you would' (Gal 5:17).

Now, since to doubt about the omnipotence and justice of God is the mark of a madman, this punishment is just and is paid for some sin. For no unjust ruler could either filch man away as though from a God who was ignorant, or wrest him away from one unwilling, as though from one weaker, whether by terrifying or by contending, so as to torment man with an unjust punishment. It remains, therefore, that this just punishment comes from the condemnation of man (De lib. arb. 3.18.51).

And in another place: to approve, I said, false things for true, so that one errs unwillingly, and, with the pain of the carnal bond resisting and tormenting, to be unable to refrain from lustful works, is not the nature of man as he was established, but the punishment of one condemned. But when we speak of the free will of acting rightly, we are speaking of course of that will in which man was made (De lib. arb. 3.18.52).

6. Behold, so long before the Pelagian heresy had arisen, we disputed thus, as though we were already disputing against them. For since all goods were said to be from God—that is, both great and intermediate and least—free choice of the will is indeed found among the intermediate goods, because we can also use it badly, but it is nevertheless such that without it we cannot live rightly. But the good use of it is already a virtue, which is found among the great goods, which no one can use badly. And because all goods, as has been said—both great and intermediate and least—are from God, it follows that the good use of free will, which is a virtue and is counted among the great goods, is also from God (De lib. arb. 2.19.50-53).

Then it was said: from which misery, most justly inflicted on sinners, the grace of God frees us, because man of his own accord, that is, by free choice, was able to fall but not also to rise. To this misery of just condemnation belong the ignorance and difficulty which every man suffers from the beginning of his birth, nor is anyone freed from this evil except by the grace of God (De lib. arb. 2.20.54; 3.18.50).

This misery the Pelagians refuse to derive from just condemnation, denying original sin. And yet, even if ignorance and difficulty were the natural beginnings of man, even so God would be not to be blamed but to be praised, as we argued in that same third book (De lib. arb. 3.20.58; see 3.22.64).

This disputation is to be held against the Manichees, who do not accept the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, in which original sin is recounted, and who contend that whatever is read on this point in the Apostolic Writings was inserted with detestable shamelessness by corruptors of the Scriptures, as though it had not been said by the Apostles. But against the Pelagians this must be defended which both Scriptures, which they profess to accept, commend.

This work begins thus: Tell me, I beg you, whether God is not the author of evil.

1. Now, already settled in Africa, I wrote two books On Genesis Against the Manichees. For although in the earlier books, in whatever I discussed in order to show that God is the supremely good and unchangeable Creator of all changeable natures, and that no nature or substance is evil in so far as it is a nature and a substance, our attention was on guard against the Manichees, yet these two books were published most openly against them, in defense of the Old Law, which they attack with the vehement zeal of a mad error: in the first, from that which is written, in the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen 1:1), until the seven days are completed, where it is read that God rested on the seventh day. In the second, from that which is written, this is the book of the creation of heaven and earth (Gen 2:4), until Adam and his wife were sent out of paradise, and a guard was set over the tree of life. Then at the end of the book I set the faith of catholic truth against the error of the Manichees, briefly and openly comprising what they say and what we say.

2. But as for what I said: that light, however, does not feed the eyes of irrational birds, but the pure hearts of those who believe God and turn themselves away from the love of visible and temporal things to the fulfilling of his precepts, which all men can do if they will (De Gen. contra Manich. 1.3.6), let not the new Pelagian heretics suppose it was said in accordance with their view. For it is entirely true that all men can do this if they will; but the will is prepared by the Lord, and is increased by the gift of love so much that they are able—which here was not said for the reason that it was not necessary to the present question.

But as for what is there read, that the blessing of God, by which it was said, increase and multiply (Gen 1:28), is to be believed to have been changed into carnal fecundity after sin (De Gen. contra Manich. 1.19.30)—if it cannot seem to be said in any other way than that those people would not have had human children unless they had sinned, I do not approve it at all.

Neither does it follow that, for this reason, what is said in the book of Genesis—that green herbs and fruit-bearing trees are given as food to every kind of beast and to all birds and to all serpents—is to be understood as taken only in allegory, because there are both quadrupeds and birds which seem to live on flesh alone (De Gen. contra Manich. 1.20.31). For it could be that they were nourished by men even from the fruits of the earth, if, on account of the obedience by which those men served God without any iniquity, they deserved to have all the beasts and birds serving them in every way.

Likewise it may give pause how I said of the people of Israel: still, with bodily circumcision and sacrifices, that people served the law as though in the sea of the nations (De Gen. contra Manich. 1.23.40)—seeing that among the nations they could not sacrifice, just as we see them now too remaining without sacrifices (C. litt. Petil. 2.27.87), unless perhaps the fact that they immolate a sheep for the Passover be reckoned as a sacrifice.

3. In the second book, too, that which I set down—that by the name of fodder life can be signified (De Gen. contra Manich. 2.3.4; Gen 2:5), whereas copies of a better translation do not have fodder but hay—does not seem aptly said. For the word "hay" does not suit the signification of "life" as fodder does.

Likewise I do not seem (De Gen. contra Manich. 2.5.6) to have rightly called prophetic the words in which it is written: why is earth and ashes proud? (Sir 10:9), because it is not read in the book of one whom we are certain is to be called a prophet.

Nor did I understand, as he wished, that saying of the Apostle where he adduces a testimony from Genesis, saying: the first man Adam was made a living soul (1 Cor 15:45), when I was expounding what is written: God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man was made into a living soul, or a living soul (Gen 2:7). For the Apostle adduced that testimony in order to prove that there is an animal body; but I thought it was to be shown from this that man was first made an animal being, not the body of man alone (De Gen. contra Manich. 2.8.10).

But as for what I said: that sins harm no nature except their own (De Gen. contra Manich. 2.29.43), I said it for this reason, that whoever harms a just man does not truly harm him, since indeed he even increases his reward in heaven (Matt 5:12; Luke 6:23), but truly harms himself by sinning, because for that very will to harm he will receive what he has done. The Pelagians can indeed drag this saying to their dogma, and so say that the sins of others did not harm little children, because I said: sins harm no nature except their own, not considering that little children—who certainly belong to human nature—draw original sin for this reason, that in the first human beings human nature sinned, and through this no sins harmed human nature except its own. For through one man, in whom all sinned, sin entered into the world (Rom 5:12); for I said that sins harm not any man, but any nature, except their own.

Likewise, in that which I said a little later, that there is no natural evil (De Gen. contra Manich. 2.29.43), they can seek a similar hiding place, unless this saying is referred to such a nature as was first established without fault; for that is truly and properly called the nature of man. But we use the word in a transferred sense, so as to call "nature" even man as he is born, according to which manner of speaking the Apostle said: for we too were once by nature children of wrath, like the rest (Eph 2:3).

This work begins thus: If the Manichees were choosing whom they might deceive.

1. Then, as I mentioned above (Retract. 1.6), I wrote six books On Music, of which the sixth itself became most widely known, since in it is treated a matter worthy of knowledge: how from corporeal and spiritual but changeable numbers one arrives at the unchangeable numbers, which are already in the unchangeable truth itself, and so the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made (Rom 1:20). Those who cannot do this and yet live by the faith of Christ (Rom 1:17; 3:26; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38), come to behold those things more surely and happily after this life. But those who can, if the faith of Christ—who is the one Mediator between God and men (De musica 6.1.1; 1 Tim 2:5)—is lacking to them, perish with all their wisdom.

2. In this book, that which I said: for bodies are the better the more they abound in numbers of this kind, but the soul becomes better by lacking these numbers which it receives through the body, when it turns itself away from the carnal senses and is reformed by the divine numbers of Wisdom (De musica 6.4.7), is not to be understood as though there will be no corporeal numbers in the incorruptible and spiritual bodies, since they will be far more beautiful and seemly, or as though the soul will not sense them when it is in its best state, in the way that here it becomes better by lacking them.

For here it has need to turn itself away from the carnal senses in order to grasp intelligible things, because it is weak and less able to apply its attention to both at once; and among these corporeal things an enticement must now be guarded against, so long as the soul can be enticed to base delight. But then it will be so firm and perfect that it will not be turned away by corporeal numbers from the contemplation of Wisdom, and will so sense them that it is not enticed by them, nor become better by lacking them; but it will be so good and upright that they can neither escape its notice nor occupy it.

3. Likewise what I said: but this health will then be most firm and most certain, when this body has been restored to its former stability at its own certain time and order (De musica 6.5.13), is not to be thought said as though there will not be bodies after the resurrection better than those of the first human beings in paradise—since those bodies will no longer have to be nourished by the corporeal foods by which these were nourished; but the former stability is to be understood in this sense, that those bodies will suffer no sickness, just as these could not suffer it before sin.

4. In another place: more laborious, I said, is the love of this world. For what the soul seeks in it—namely, constancy and eternity—it does not find, since the lowest beauty is completed by the passing away of things, and what in it imitates constancy is conveyed through the soul from the supreme God, since the form that is changeable only in time is prior to that which is changeable both in time and in place (De musica 6.14.44).

These words, if they can be understood in such a way that the lowest beauty is understood only in the bodies of men and of all animals which live with bodily sense, manifest reason defends. For this is what in that beauty imitates constancy: that the same bodies remain in their structure, in so far as they remain, and this is conveyed into them from the supreme God through the soul (See De Civ. Dei 7.6). For the soul holds the structure itself together, that it may not dissolve and flow apart; which we see happens in the bodies of animals when the soul departs. But if the lowest beauty is understood in all bodies, this saying forces one to believe that the world itself is an animal, so that into it too, what in it imitates constancy is conveyed from the supreme God through the soul. But that this world is an animal, as Plato thought, and very many other philosophers (See Plato, Timaeus 30b; Cicero, De nat. deorum 1.30.52; 2.22; 2.30; 2.32), I have neither been able to investigate by certain reason, nor have I learned that it can be persuaded by the authority of the divine Scriptures. Hence I noted that something of this sort, said by me in a way that could be so taken, was rashly said even in the book On the Immortality of the Soul (De imm. an. 15.24; Retract. 1.5.3)—not because I affirm this to be false, but because I do not grasp it to be true, that the world is an animal. This indeed I do not doubt is to be held unshaken: that this world is not God to us, whether it has any soul or none; for if it has any, he who made it is our God, and if it has none, this world can be the God of nothing, much less ours. Yet that there is a spiritual and life-giving power—even if the world is not an animal—which power in the holy angels serves God for adorning and administering the world, and by whom it is not understood, is most rightly believed. But by the name "holy angels" I would now call every holy spiritual creature established in God's secret and hidden ministry; yet holy Scripture is not accustomed to signify angelic spirits by the name "souls."

Accordingly, in that which I said near the end of this book: the rational and intellectual numbers of the blessed and holy souls receive the very law of God—without which a leaf does not fall from the tree, and by which the hairs of our head are numbered—with no nature interposed, and transmit it down to earthly and infernal jurisdictions (De musica 6.17.58), I do not see how the word "souls," set down here according to the holy Scriptures, can be shown to be correct, since here I wished only the holy angels to be understood, whom I do not recall having read anywhere in the divine canonical writings to have souls.

This book begins thus: For quite long enough, almost.

During the same period I wrote a book whose title is On the Teacher, in which it is disputed and inquired and found that there is no teacher who teaches a man knowledge except God, according to that also which is written in the Gospel: one is your Teacher, Christ (Matt 23:10).

This book begins thus: What do we seem to you to be wishing to accomplish when we speak?

1. Then too I wrote the book On True Religion, in which it is argued in manifold ways and most copiously that the one true God—that is, the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit—is to be worshiped with true religion; and with how great a mercy of his the Christian religion, which is the true religion, has been granted to men through the temporal dispensation; and how man is to be fitted to the same worship of God by a certain way of his life. Above all, however, this book speaks against the two natures of the Manichees.

2. In this book, in a certain place: let it be, I said, manifest and perceived by you that no error could have existed in religion, if the soul did not worship in place of its God a soul or a body or its own phantasms (De vera religione 10.18). Here I put soul for the whole incorporeal creation, not speaking in the manner of the Scriptures, which, when they do not use the word in a transferred sense, I do not know whether they wish anything to be understood by "soul" except that by which mortal animals live, among which are also men, so long as they are mortal. But a little later I comprised the same sense better and more briefly, where I said: let us not, therefore, serve the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25) nor become vain in our thoughts (Rom 1:21), and religion is perfect (De vera religione 10.19). For by the one word "creature" I signified both, that is, the spiritual and the corporeal. There remains what I said there: or its own phantasms; on account of which I said here: nor become vain in our thoughts.

3. Likewise what I said: this is, in our times, the Christian religion, to know and to follow which is the most secure and most certain salvation (De vera religione 10.19), was said according to this name, not according to the very thing of which this is the name. For the thing itself, which is now called the Christian religion, existed also among the ancients and was not lacking from the beginning of the human race, up until Christ himself came in the flesh, from which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christian. For when, after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, the Apostles had begun to preach him, and very many believed, the disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch, as it is written (See Acts 11:26). Therefore I said, this is, in our times, the Christian religion, not because it did not exist in earlier times, but because it received this name in later times.

4. In another place: attend, therefore, I said, to these things that follow, carefully and piously, as far as you can, for such persons God helps (De vera religione 10.20). This is not to be understood as though he helps only such persons, since he also helps those who are not such, that they may be such—that is, that they may seek carefully and piously; but such persons he helps to find.

Likewise elsewhere: then, I said, it will be a consequence that, after the bodily death which we owe to the first sin, at its own time and in its own order this body will be restored to its former stability (De vera religione 12.25). This is to be understood thus, that even the former stability of the body, which we lost by sinning, had such great felicity that it did not incline toward the decline of old age. To this former stability, therefore, this body will be restored in the resurrection of the dead. But it will have more, so that it is not sustained by corporeal foods, but to its sufficiency is given life by the spirit alone (1 Pet 3:18), when it shall have risen into a life-giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45), for which reason it will also be spiritual. But that which existed first, although it would not have died unless man had sinned, was nevertheless made animal, that is, into a living soul.

5. And elsewhere: so far is sin a voluntary evil, I said, that it is in no way sin if it is not voluntary (De vera religione 14.27). This definition can seem false; but if it is carefully examined, it will be found most true. For one must think of that sin which is sin only, not that which is also the punishment of sin, as I showed above, when I mentioned certain things from the third book On Free Will (Retract. 1.9.5). Although even those things which are not undeservedly called involuntary sins, because they are perpetrated either by those who do not know or by those who are forced, cannot in every way be committed without the will, since both he who sins in ignorance certainly sins by the will—in that he thinks that to be done which ought not to be done—and he who, with the flesh lusting against the spirit (Gal 5:17), does not do the things he wills, lusts indeed unwillingly, and in that does not do what he wills, but if he is overcome, he consents to concupiscence willingly, and in that does only what he wills, being of course free from justice and a slave of sin (Rom 6:20, 17). And that which in little children is called original sin, since they do not yet use the choice of the will, is not absurdly called "voluntary" as well, because, contracted from the first evil will of man, it has become in a manner hereditary. It is not, therefore, false that I said: so far is sin a voluntary evil that it is in no way sin if it is not voluntary (De vera religione 14.27). Therefore by the grace of God not only is the guilt of all past sins loosed in all who are baptized in Christ, which is done by the Spirit of regeneration, but in adults the will itself is healed and prepared by the Lord, which is done by the spirit of faith and love.

6. In another place, in that which I said of the Lord Jesus Christ: he did nothing by force, but everything by persuading and admonishing (De vera religione 16.31), it had not occurred to me that he cast the sellers and buyers out of the temple with a whip (Matt 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45). But what is this, or how great is it? Although he also cast out the demons, unwilling, from men, not by the word of persuasion but by the force of power (See Matt 9:32; Mark 1:34; Luke 4:35)?

Likewise in another place: first, I said, those are to be followed who say that the one supreme God, the only true God, is alone to be worshiped. If the truth does not shine forth among these, then at last one must move on (De vera religione 25.46). This can seem to be said as though I had doubted about the truth of this religion. But I said it as was fitting for the one to whom I was writing. For I said, if the truth does not shine forth among these, in no way doubting that it would shine forth among them, just as the Apostle says: if Christ has not risen (1 Cor 15:14), certainly not doubting that he had risen.

7. Likewise what I said: nor have those miracles been permitted to last into our times, lest the soul always seek visible things, and the human race grow cold by the habituation to those things by whose novelty it had been kindled (De vera religione 25.46), is indeed true; for it is not the case now, when hands are laid on the baptized, that they so receive the Holy Spirit as to speak in the tongues of all nations (See Acts 2:4; 10:46), nor now are the sick healed by the shadow of Christ's preachers passing by (See Acts 5:15), and any such things as were then done, which it is clear afterward ceased.

But what I said is not to be understood in such a way that no miracles are believed to be done now in the name of Christ. For I myself, when I wrote this very book, already knew that a blind man had been given sight at the bodies of the martyrs of Milan in that same city (See Confess. 9.7.16; De Civ. Dei 22.8.2; Sermon 286.5), and several other things, of such a kind as so many are done even in these times, that we can neither know them all nor enumerate those that we know.

8. And in another place, that which I said: as the Apostle says: 'all order is from God' (De vera religione 41.77; Rom 13:1), the Apostle did not say in these words, although the sense seems to be the same. For he says: but the things that exist are ordained by God (Rom 13:1).

And elsewhere: altogether, I said, let no one deceive us: whatever is rightly blamed is rejected in comparison with something better (De vera religione 41.78). This was said of substances and natures—for that was the subject under discussion—not of good actions and sins.

Likewise elsewhere: but not even so, I said, is man to be loved by man as carnal brothers or sons or spouses or any kinsmen, or relatives by marriage, or fellow citizens are loved, for this love too is temporal. For we would have no such ties, which come about by being born and dying, if our nature, remaining in the precepts and image of God, were not relegated to this corruption (De vera religione 46.88).

This sense I altogether disapprove, which I have already disapproved above too in the first book On Genesis Against the Manichees (Retract. 1.10.2). For it leads to this: that those first spouses are believed not to have been going to beget human descendants unless they had sinned, as though it were necessary that those who were to die should be begotten, if they were begotten from the intercourse of male and female.

For I had not yet seen that it could have come about that those who were not to die should be born of those who were not to die, if human nature had not been changed for the worse by that great sin; and through this, if fecundity and felicity had remained both in the parents and in the children, up to the certain number of the saints which God predestined (See Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5, 11), men would be born not to succeed parents who were dying, but to reign with parents who were living. There would, therefore, be these kinships and ties of marriage as well, if no one transgressed and no one died.

9. Likewise in another place: tending toward the one God, I said, and binding back our souls to him alone, whence religion is believed to be so called, let us be free of all superstition (De vera religione 55.111). In these words of mine the explanation that was given of why religion is so called pleased me more. For it does not escape me that the authors of the Latin language set forth another origin of this name: that religion is so called because it is re-chosen (Cicero, De nat. deorum 2.28.72). This word is composed from "choosing" (legendo), that is, "electing" (eligendo), so that "religion" (religo) seems to be Latin in the same way as "I elect" (eligo).

This book begins thus: Since the whole way of a good and happy life.

1. Now, already a priest at Hippo Regius, I wrote the book The Advantage of Believing to my friend, whom I knew to have been deceived by the Manichees and to be still held in that error, and to mock the discipline of the catholic faith, because men were commanded to believe, but were not taught what was true by the most certain reasoning.

In this book I said: yet in those precepts and commandments of the law which it is now not lawful for a Christian to use—such as the sabbath, or circumcision, or sacrifices, and anything of this kind—such great mysteries are contained that every pious person understands nothing to be more pernicious than that whatever is there be taken to the letter, that is, to the word, but nothing more wholesome than that it be revealed by the spirit. Hence it is: 'the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.' (De util. cred. 3.9; 2 Cor 3:6)

But I expounded these words of the apostle Paul otherwise, and, as it seems to me—or rather as appears from the things themselves—much more fittingly, in the book which is entitled The Spirit and the Letter, although this sense too is not to be rejected (De spir. et litt. 5.7; see Retract. 2.37).

2. Likewise I said: for there are two kinds of persons praiseworthy in religion. One is of those who have already found, who must also be judged most blessed; the other of those who seek most diligently and most rightly. The first, then, are already in possession itself, the others on the way—by which, however, one arrives most certainly (De util. cred. 11.25). In these words of mine, if those who have already found—whom we said are already in possession itself—are so understood as most blessed, that they are most blessed not in this life but in that which we hope for and toward which we tend by the way of faith, this sense has no error.

For they are to be judged to have found what was to be sought, who are already there where we, by seeking and believing—that is, by holding the way of faith—desire to arrive. But if these are thought to be, or to have been, in this life, that does not seem to me to be true—not because in this life nothing true at all can be found which is discerned by the mind and not believed by faith, but because whatever it is, it is so little that it does not make men most blessed. For what the Apostle says, we now see through a mirror in an enigma (1 Cor 13:12), and, now I know in part, is not discerned by the mind; it is plainly discerned, but does not yet make men most blessed.

For that makes men most blessed which he says: but then face to face, and, then I shall know even as I am known (1 Cor 13:12). Those who have found this are to be said to stand in the possession of blessedness, to which the way of faith leads which we hold, and to which by believing we desire to arrive. But who exactly are those most blessed who are already in that possession to which this way leads is a great question. And that the holy angels are there is no question.

But concerning holy men already deceased, whether they at least are to be said to stand already in that possession is rightly asked. For they have indeed already been stripped of the corruptible body by which the soul is weighed down; but they too still await the redemption of their body (Rom 8:23), and their flesh rests in hope (Ps 16:9 (15)), and does not yet shine forth in the incorruption to come. But whether, for contemplating the truth with the eyes of the heart, as it is said, face to face, they have any less on this account, this is not the place to inquire by disputation.

Likewise what I said: for to know great and honorable, and even divine, things is most blessed (De util. cred. 11.25), we ought to refer to that same blessedness. For in this life, however much that is known, it is not yet most blessed, since incomparably far greater is what remains unknown of it.

3. And what I said: that it makes much difference whether something is held by the certain reasoning of the mind, which we call to know, or is usefully commended to posterity to be believed on report or in writing; and a little later: what we know, therefore, we owe to reason; what we believe, to authority (De util. cred. 11.25), is not to be understood in such a way that, in more ordinary speech, we should fear to say we know what we believe on suitable witnesses.

For when we speak strictly, we say we know that alone which we comprehend by the firm reasoning of the mind. But when we speak in words more suited to common usage—as the divine Scripture too speaks—let us not hesitate to say that we know both what we perceive by the senses of our body and what we believe on trustworthy witnesses, provided, however, that we understand what difference lies between these and that.

4. Likewise what I said: it is doubtful to no one that all men are either foolish or wise (De util. cred. 12.27), can seem to be contrary to that which is read in the third book On Free Will: as though indeed human nature admitted no intermediate affection besides folly and wisdom (De lib. arb. 3.24.71). But that was said there where it was asked, concerning the first man, whether he was made wise or foolish or neither—since in no way could we call foolish one who was made without fault, folly being a great fault; and how we should call wise one who could be seduced was not sufficiently clear. And therefore, for the sake of brevity, I wished to say: as though indeed human nature admitted no intermediate affection besides folly and wisdom. For I had in view also little children, who, although we confess that they draw original sin, can nevertheless properly be called neither wise nor foolish, since they do not yet use free choice either well or badly. But here I said that all men are either wise or foolish, wishing those to be understood who already use reason, by which they are distinguished from beasts so that they are men, just as we say that all men wish to be happy. For do we fear, in this saying so true and manifest, that little children—who cannot yet wish this—might be understood?

5. In another place, when I had mentioned the miracles which the Lord Jesus did when he was here in the flesh, I added, saying: why, you say, are these not done now? (De util. cred. 16.34) And I answered: because they would not move us unless they were wonderful, but if they were customary, they would not be wonderful (De util. cred. 16.34). But I said this because such great miracles, and all of them, are not done now—not because none are done even now.

6. At the end of the book: but since this discourse of ours, I said, has gone on much longer than I thought, let us here make an end of the book, in which I want you to remember that I have not yet begun to refute the Manichees, and have not yet attacked those trifles, nor disclosed anything great about the Catholic Church itself, but have wished only to root out for you, if I could, the false opinion about true Christians maliciously or ignorantly instilled in us, and to raise you up to learning certain great and divine things. Therefore let this volume be as it is; but when your mind has been made more peaceable, I shall perhaps be readier in the rest (De util. cred. 18.36).

I did not say these things as though I had written nothing against the Manichees up to then, or had committed nothing of catholic doctrine to writing, since so many volumes published above on both matters testify that I was not silent; but in this book written to him I had not yet begun to refute the Manichees, and had not yet attacked those trifles, nor disclosed anything great about the Catholic Church itself, since I hoped that, this beginning having been made, I would write to him the very things that here I had not yet written.

This book begins thus: If to me, Honoratus, it seemed to be one and the same thing.

1. After this book I wrote, still a priest, against the Manichees On the Two Souls, of which they say one is a part of God, the other from the race of darkness, which God did not create, and which is coeternal with God. And they rave that both these souls, one good and the other evil, are in one man; saying, of course, that this evil one belongs to the flesh, which flesh they also say belongs to the race of darkness; but that the good one is from an adventitious part of God, which clashed with the race of darkness and mingled the two. And all the good things of man they attribute to that good soul, but all the evil things to that evil soul.

In this book, that which I said: that there is no life of any kind whatever which, by the very fact that it is life, and in so far as it is life at all, does not pertain to the supreme source and principle of life (De duab. anim. 1.1), I said in such a way that it is understood to pertain to the Creator as a creature, but not to be thought to be of him as a part of him.

2. Likewise what I said: that sin is nowhere except in the will (De duab. anim. 12), the Pelagians can think was said in their favor on account of little children, whom for this reason they deny to have sin which is remitted to them in baptism, because they do not yet use the choice of the will. As though indeed the sin which we say they draw originally from Adam—that is, being implicated in his guilt, and on this account held liable to punishment—could be anywhere except in the will, by which will it was committed, when the transgression of the divine precept was made. This saying too can be thought false, by which we said, sin is nowhere except in the will, because the Apostle said: but if I do that which I do not will, it is no longer I that work it, but the sin that dwells in me (Rom 7:20). For this sin is so far from being in the will that he says: that which I do not will, this I do. How, then, is sin nowhere except in the will? But this sin, of which the Apostle spoke thus, is called sin for this reason, that it was made by sin and is the punishment of sin—since indeed this is said of the concupiscence of the flesh, which he discloses in what follows, saying: I know that there does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, good: for to will is present with me, but to accomplish the good is not (Rom 7:18).

For the perfection of good is that not even concupiscence of sin be in a man, to which indeed, when one lives well, the will does not consent. Nevertheless it does not accomplish the good, because concupiscence is still present, against which the will struggles; the guilt of which concupiscence is loosed in baptism, but the weakness remains, against which, until it is healed, every faithful person who advances well struggles most diligently. But the sin which is nowhere except in the will is to be understood especially as that which just condemnation has followed; for this entered into the world through one man (Rom 5:12). Although this sin too, by which one consents to the concupiscence of sin, is committed only by the will. On account of this I said also in another place: therefore one does not sin except by the will (De duab. anim. 14).

3. Likewise in another place I defined the will itself, saying: the will is a movement of the mind, with nothing forcing it, either toward not losing or toward attaining something (De duab. anim. 14). This was said in order that by this definition the willing might be distinguished from the unwilling, and so that the attention might be referred to those who were the first in paradise, the origin of evil for the human race, sinning with nothing forcing them—that is, sinning by free will, because they both knowingly acted against the precept, and that tempter persuaded that this be done, but did not force it. For he too who sinned in ignorance can not unfittingly be said to have sinned unwillingly, although he too did willingly what he did in ignorance; thus not even his sin could be without the will.

This will, of course, as it was defined, was a movement of the mind, with nothing forcing it, either toward not losing or toward attaining something. For, since if he had not willed he would not have done it, he was not forced to do it. Because he willed, therefore, he did it, even if he did not sin because he willed, not knowing that what he did was sin. Thus neither could such a sin be without the will, but it was by the will of the deed, not by the will of the sin, which nevertheless, once done, was sin; for that was done which ought not to have been done. But whoever sins knowingly, if he can without sin resist the one forcing him to sin and yet does not, certainly sins willingly, since he who can resist is not forced to yield. But he who cannot resist forcing desire with a good will, and therefore acts against the precepts of justice, this is now so far sin that it is also the punishment of sin. Wherefore it is most true that sin cannot exist without the will.

4. Likewise the definition of sin by which we said: sin is the will to retain or to attain what justice forbids, and from which one is free to abstain (De duab. anim. 15; see Op. imp. C. Iul. 1.104; Enarr. in Ps. 57.18), is true for this reason, that what is defined is that which is sin only, not that which is also the punishment of sin. For when it is such that it is at once both sin and the punishment of sin, how much is it that the will avails under dominating desire, unless perhaps, if it is pious, to pray for help? For it is free in so far as it is freed, and in so far is it called will. Otherwise the whole of it is desire, which is properly to be called will, which is not, as the Manichees rave, an addition of an alien nature, but a fault of our own, from which we are not healed except by the grace of the Savior. But if anyone says that desire itself is nothing other than the will, but a faulty will and one in servitude to sin, he is not to be resisted, nor is a controversy to be made about words when the matter is agreed. For even so it is shown that there is no sin without the will, whether in act or in origin.

5. Again, in that which I said: I could now ask whether that evil kind of souls, before it was mingled with the good, had had any will. For if it did not have one, it was without sin and innocent, and therefore in no way evil (De duab. anim. 16). Why, then, they say, do you speak of the sin of little children, whose will you do not hold guilty? It is answered that they are held guilty not by the property of will, but by origin. For what is every earthly man by origin except Adam? But Adam certainly had a will, by which will, when he had sinned, sin entered into the world through him (Rom 5:12).

6. Likewise, in that which I said: souls can in no way be evil by nature (De duab. anim. 17), if it is asked how we are to understand what the Apostle says, we too were by nature children of wrath, like the rest (Eph 2:3), we answer that by "nature" in these words of mine I wished to be understood that which is properly called nature, in which we were created without fault. For that is called "nature" on account of origin, which origin certainly has a fault, which is against nature.

And again, in that which was said: that anyone be held guilty of sin because he did not do what he could not do is the mark of the utmost iniquity and madness (De duab. anim. 17); why, then, they say, are little children held guilty? It is answered: because they are held guilty from the origin of him who did not do what he could do—namely, to keep the divine command.

But as for what I said: whatever those souls do, if they do it by nature, not by will—that is, if they lack a movement of the mind free both to act and not to act—if, finally, no power is granted them of abstaining from their work, we cannot hold them guilty of sin (De duab. anim. 17), the question about little children does not disturb this for the reason that they are held guilty from the origin of him who sinned by will, when he did not lack a movement of the mind free both to act and not to act, and had the fullest power of abstaining from the evil work. This the Manichees do not say of the race of darkness, which they introduce in most fabulous fashion, and contend that this nature was always evil and never good.

7. But this can be asked: how did I say: even if there are souls—which for now is uncertain—given over to corporeal functions not by sin but by nature, and which touch us, though they are inferior, by some inner nearness, they ought not on that account to be held evil, because we, when we follow them and love corporeal things, are evil (De duab. anim. 20); seeing that I said this of those of whom I had begun to speak above, saying: although, even if it be granted to them that we are enticed to base things by another, inferior kind of souls, they do not thence conclude either that those souls are evil by nature or that these are the supreme good (De duab. anim. 20). For I carried the disputation about these down to this place, where I said: even if there are souls—which for now is uncertain—given over to corporeal functions not by sin but by nature, and the rest.

It can be asked, then, why I said which for now is uncertain, when I ought by no means to have doubted that there are no such souls. But I said this for the reason that I had met with men who said that the devil and his angels are good in their own kind and in that nature in which God created them, such as they are in their proper order, but that it is evil for us if we are enticed and seduced by them, while if we beware of them and overcome them, it is fitting and glorious. And those who say this seem to themselves, in order to prove it, to adduce suitable testimonies from the Scriptures: either that which is written in the book of Job, when the devil was being described: this is the beginning of the Lord's creation, which he made to be mocked by his angels (Job 40:19 (according to the LXX)), or that in the hundred and fourth Psalm: this dragon, which you formed to mock it (Ps 104:26 (103)).

This question, which was to be taken up and solved not against the Manichees, who do not hold this, but against others who do hold it, I did not then wish to treat and unravel, lest I make the book much longer than I wished, since I saw that, even if this were granted, the Manichees ought nevertheless—and now could—be refuted, who by a most insane error introduce a nature of evil coeternal with the eternal good. Therefore I said which for now is uncertain, not because I doubted about it, but because between me and those whom I had found to think thus, this question was not yet resolved; which, however, in other books of mine far later, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, I resolved according to the holy Scriptures with as much clarity as I could (De Gen. ad litt. 11.20ff).

8. In another place: therefore, I said, by loving corporeal things we sin, because we are both commanded by justice to love spiritual things and able by nature to do so, and then we are in our own kind best and most blessed (De duab. anim. 20). Here it can be asked why I said we are able by nature and not by grace. But against the Manichees the question concerned nature.

And it is certainly grace that brings it about that nature, once healed, may be able to do what, while corrupted, it cannot, through him who came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10; Matt 18:11). Yet, mindful even then of this grace, I prayed for my closest friends, who were still held by that deadly error, and I said: great God, almighty God, God of supreme goodness, whom it is right to believe and understand to be inviolable and unchangeable, Triune Unity, whom the catholic Church worships, I pray as a suppliant, having experienced your mercy in myself, that you not permit the men with whom from boyhood I have had the fullest agreement in every association to dissent from me in your worship (De duab. anim. 24).

Praying thus, I certainly held already by faith not only that those converted to God are helped by his grace to advance and be perfected—where it can still be said that this grace is given for the merit of their conversion—but also that they are converted to God belongs to the grace of God itself, since indeed I prayed for those who were very greatly turned away from him, and prayed that they might be converted to him.

This book begins thus: With the help of God's mercy.

1. In the same period of my priesthood I disputed against a certain Fortunatus, a priest of the Manichees, who had lived a very long time at Hippo and had seduced so many that on their account it pleased him to dwell there. This disputation, as we contended, was taken down by notaries, as though official acts were being compiled; for it has both a date and a consul. We took care to gather this into a book to be committed to memory. The question is treated there of whence evil comes, I asserting that the evil of man arose from the free choice of the will, while he labored to persuade us of a nature of evil coeternal with God. But on the following day he at last confessed that he found nothing to say against us. He did not indeed become a catholic, but nevertheless departed from Hippo.

2. In this book, that which I said: I say that the soul was made by God, like all the other things that were made by God, and that among those which almighty God made, the chief place was given to the soul (Acta c. Fortun. 1.13), I said in such a way that I wished it to be understood generally of the whole rational creation, although in the holy Scriptures that the angels are called "souls" either cannot be found at all or cannot easily be found, as we have already said above (Retract. 1.11.4).

Likewise in another place: I say, I said, that there is no sin if one does not sin by one's own will (Acta c. Fortun. 2.21). Here I wished that sin to be understood which is not also the punishment of sin; for of such punishment I said elsewhere in the same disputation what was to be said (Acta c. Fortun. 1.15; Retract. 1.15.2).

Likewise I said: that afterward that same flesh, which tormented us with punishments while we remained in sins, may be made subject to us in the resurrection, and may shake us with no adversity so as to keep us from observing the law and the divine precepts (Acta c. Fortun. 2.29). This is not to be understood as though in that kingdom of God, where we shall have an incorruptible and immortal body, the law and precepts are to be taken from the divine Scriptures; but because there the eternal law will be most perfectly observed, and those two precepts about loving God and neighbor (See Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27) we shall hold not in reading, but in that perfect and everlasting love itself.

This work begins thus: On the fifth day before the Kalends of September, when Arcadius Augustus for the second time and Rufinus, most illustrious men, were consuls.

During the same period, before the bishops who commanded me this—who were holding a plenary council of all Africa at Hippo Regius—I, a priest, disputed On Faith and the Creed. This disputation, at the most diligent insistence of some of those who loved us more intimately, I gathered into a book; in which the matters themselves are discussed in such a way, however, that there is not made that weaving together of words which is handed down to the candidates to be held in memory.

In this book, when the resurrection of the flesh was being treated: the body, I said, will rise according to the Christian faith, which cannot deceive. To whomever this seems incredible, he attends to what the flesh is now, but does not consider what it will be; because at that time of the angelic change it will no longer be flesh and blood but only body (De fide et symb. 10.24), and the rest, which I there discussed about the change of earthly bodies into heavenly bodies, since the Apostle said, when speaking of this: flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). But whoever so understands these things as to think that the earthly body, such as we now have, is so changed by the resurrection into a heavenly body that neither these members nor the substance of flesh will exist in the future, is without doubt to be corrected, being reminded of the body of the Lord, who after the resurrection appeared in those same members, not only to be beheld with the eyes but also to be handled with the hands, and confirmed by word also that he had flesh, saying: handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh as you see me to have (Luke 24:39).

Whence it is clear that the Apostle did not deny that the substance of flesh will exist in the kingdom of God, but either called by the name of flesh and blood the men who live according to the flesh, or the very corruption of the flesh, which then certainly will be none. For when he had said, flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, it is rightly understood that, as if expounding what he had said, he immediately added: nor shall corruption possess incorruption (1 Cor 15:50). On this matter—difficult for persuading unbelievers—whoever reads the last book The City of God will find that I discussed it as diligently as I could (De Civ. Dei 22.5; 22.21).

This book begins thus: Since it is written.

When I had composed two books On Genesis Against the Manichees (Retract. 1.10), since I had treated the words of Scripture according to their allegorical signification, not daring to expound to the letter such great secrets of natural things—that is, how the things said there could be taken according to historical literalness—I wished to try, in this most laborious and most difficult work too, what I could do; but in expounding the Scriptures my apprenticeship sank under so great a weight of the burden, and, with one book not yet finished, I rested from the labor which I could not sustain.

But in this work, when I was reviewing my little works, this very one, just as it was, unfinished, came into my hands—which I had neither published nor decided to destroy, since I afterward wrote twelve books whose title is The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Retract. 2.24.1). In these, although many things seem rather to be sought than found, yet this one is in no way to be compared with them. But after I had reviewed this one too, I wished it to remain, that it might be an index, as I judge, not useless, of my first attempts at unfolding and scrutinizing the divine words; and I wished its title to be Unfinished Literal Commentary on Genesis.

For I found it dictated up to these words: the Father is only Father, nor is the Son anything other than the Son; because even when he is called the likeness of the Father, although it shows that no unlikeness intervenes, yet the Father is not alone, if he has a likeness (De Gen. ad litt. lib. imp. 16.60). After these I took up again the words of Scripture, to be once more considered and treated: and God said: 'let us make man to our image and likeness' (Gen 1:26). Up to this point I had left the dictated book unfinished. But what follows there I thought should be added when I reviewed it; yet not even so did I finish it, but, with this too added, I left it unfinished. For if I had finished it, I would at least have discussed all the works and words of God which pertain to the sixth day.

In this book, to note the things that displease me, or to defend those which, not well understood, may displease others, has seemed to me superfluous. For I rather briefly advise that those twelve books be read, which I made long afterward as a bishop, and that this one be judged from them.

This one, then, begins thus: Concerning the obscurities of natural things, which we perceive to have been made by almighty God the artificer, one must treat not by affirming but by inquiring.

1. During the same period I wrote two volumes On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew. In the first of these, on account of that which is written, blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (Matt 5:9), I said: Wisdom befits the peacemakers, in whom all things are already ordered, and no movement is in rebellion against reason, but all things obey the spirit of man, since he too obeys God (De serm. Dom. 1.4.11). This rightly gives pause, in the way I said it. For it cannot come about for anyone in this life that the law warring against the law of the mind (See Rom 7:23) be altogether not in the members, since indeed, even if the spirit of man so resisted it that he slipped into no assent to it, it would nevertheless not on that account fail to war against him. This, then, which was said—that no movement is in rebellion against reason—can rightly be understood of the peacemakers now doing this, by subduing the desires of the flesh, so that one may at some time come to that most full peace.

2. Accordingly, that which in another place, when, repeating the same gospel saying, I had said, blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God, I added, saying: and these things can indeed be fulfilled in this life, as we believe they were fulfilled in the Apostles (De serm. Dom. 1.4.12), is to be understood not so that we suppose that in the Apostles living here no movement of the flesh warred against the spirit, but that these things can be fulfilled here only so far as we believe they were fulfilled in the Apostles—namely, by that measure of human perfection which perfection can have in this life.

For it was not said: these things can be fulfilled in this life, for we believe they were fulfilled in the Apostles; but it was said: as we believe they were fulfilled in the Apostles, so that they may be fulfilled as they were fulfilled in them—that is, by a certain perfection of which this life is capable—not as those things are to be fulfilled which we hope for in that most full peace, when it shall be said: where, O death, is your contention? (1 Cor 15:55)

3. In another place, the testimony I inserted: for God does not give the Spirit by measure (De serm. Dom. 1.6.17; John 3:34), I had not yet understood is more truly taken properly of Christ. For to other men, unless the Spirit were given by measure, Elisha would not have asked for double what was in Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9).

Likewise that which is written, not one iota or one tittle shall pass from the law until all things are accomplished (Matt 5:18), when I was expounding it, I said: that nothing else can be understood except a vehement expression of perfection (De serm. Dom. 1.8.20). Here it is rightly asked whether this perfection can be so understood that it nevertheless remains true that no one who already uses the choice of the will lives here without sin.

For by whom can the law be fulfilled down to one tittle, except by him by whom all the divine commands are done? But among those same commands is also that which we are bidden to say: forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors (Matt 6:12), which prayer the whole Church says until the end of the age. All the commands, therefore, are reckoned to be done, when whatever is not done is forgiven.

4. As for what the Lord says: whoever shall break one of these least commandments and teach men so (Matt 5:19ff), and the rest, down to that place where he says: unless your justice shall abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (De serm. Dom. 1.9.21)—I expounded it much better and more fittingly in other later sermons of mine, which it would be long to weave again here. But the sense there is brought to this: that the justice of those who say and do is greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees. For of the scribes and Pharisees the Lord himself says in another place: for they say and do not do (Matt 23:3).

We also understood better afterward (See De Civ. Dei 21.27) that which is written: whoever is angry with his brother (Matt 5:22; De serm. Dom. 1.9.25). For the Greek copies do not have without cause, as it is placed here, although the sense itself is the same. For we said that this is to be considered: what it is to be angry with one's brother, since he is not angry with his brother who is angry at his brother's sin. He, therefore, who is angry at his brother and not at his sin is angry without cause.

5. Likewise what I said: this is to be understood also of father and mother and the other bonds of blood, so that in them we hate what the human race has been allotted by being born and dying (De serm. Dom. 1.15.41), sounds as though these ties would not exist if, with no preceding sin of human nature, no one died—a sense which I have already disapproved above (Retract. 1.10.2; 1.13.8). For there would surely be kinships and ties of marriage, even if, with no original sin existing, the human race grew and multiplied without death. And through this the question must be solved otherwise—why the Lord commanded that enemies be loved (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27), when in another place he commands that both parents and children be held in hatred (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26)—not as it is solved here, but as we have often solved it later (De Civ. Dei 21.26; De vera religione 45.85ff): that is, that we love enemies in order to gain them for the kingdom of God, and hate kinsmen if they hinder us from the kingdom of God.

6. Likewise concerning the precept by which it is forbidden to dismiss a wife except for fornication (Matt 5:32), I here disputed most scrupulously (De serm. Dom. 1.16.43). But what fornication the Lord wishes to be understood, on account of which it is lawful to dismiss a wife—whether that which is condemned in unchastity, or that of which it is said, you have destroyed everyone who fornicates away from you (Ps 73:27 (72)), in which this too is certainly included (for he does indeed fornicate away from the Lord who, taking the members of Christ, makes them the members of a harlot (1 Cor 6:15))—must be thought over again and again, and sought out.

Nor do I wish, in a matter so great and so difficult to discern, that the reader think this disputation of ours ought to suffice for him; but let him read other things too, whether ours which were written afterward, or those of others better considered and treated (Quaest. in Hept. 2.71; see Sermon 162); or, if he can, let him himself examine, with a more vigilant and intelligent mind, the things which here may rightly give pause. Not because every sin is fornication (for God does not destroy every sinner, who daily hears his saints saying, forgive us our debts (Matt 6:12), while he destroys everyone who fornicates away from him), but how this fornication is to be understood and limited, and whether even on account of this it is lawful to dismiss a wife, is a most hidden question.

That it is, however, lawful on account of that which is committed in unchastity, there is no question. And where I said: that this was permitted, not commanded, I did not attend to another Scripture saying: he who keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious (Prov 18:22). Nor indeed would I say that that woman was to be reckoned an adulteress even after she heard from the Lord: neither will I condemn you; go, and now sin no more (John 8:11), if she heard this obediently.

7. In another place, the sin of a brother unto death, of which the apostle John says, I do not say that one should pray for it (1 John 5:16), I so defined as to say: I think the sin of a brother unto death is when, after the recognition of God through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, anyone attacks the brotherhood and is driven by the firebrands of envy against the very grace by which he was reconciled to God (De serm. Dom. 1.22.73). This indeed I did not affirm, since I said that I thought this; but nevertheless there should have been added: "if he ended this life in this so wicked perversity of mind," since one must certainly not despair of anyone, however wicked, established in this life, and one does not imprudently pray for him of whom one does not despair.

8. Likewise in the second book: no one, I said, will be permitted to be ignorant of the kingdom of God, when his Only-Begotten shall come from heaven not only intelligibly but also visibly in the lordly man, 'to judge the living and the dead' (De serm. Dom. 2.6.20; see 2 Tim 4:1). But I do not see whether he is rightly called the lordly man who is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5), since he is certainly the Lord. But who in his holy household cannot be called a lordly man? And this, indeed, that I might say it, I read in certain catholic treaters of the divine words See Epiphanius, Ancoratus 93; Athanasius, Exposition of the Faith 1, 4; Disp. c. Ar. 20; Cassian, Conferences 11.13.. But wherever I said this, I would wish I had not said it (De serm. Dom. 2.6.22; see Enarr. in Ps. 1.1; 8.13). For afterward I saw that it is not to be said, although it can be defended by some reasoning.

Likewise what I said: for the conscience of almost no one can hate God (De serm. Dom. 2.14.48), I do not see should have been said; for there are many of whom it is written: the pride of those who hate you (Ps 74:23 (73)).

9. In another place, in that which I said: that the Lord said, 'sufficient for the day is its own evil,' for this reason, that the very necessity of taking food will press upon us, which I think was for this reason called evil, because it is penal for us, for it pertains to this frailty which we deserved by sinning (De serm. Dom. 2.17.56; see Matt 6:34), I did not attend to the fact that bodily nourishment was given even to the first human beings in paradise, before they deserved this punishment of death by sinning. For they were so immortal in a body not yet spiritual but animal that nevertheless in immortality of this kind they made use of corporeal nourishments.

Likewise what I said: which God chose for himself, 'a glorious Church having no spot or wrinkle' (De serm. Dom. 2.19.66; see Eph 5:27), I did not say because it is now already such in every part, although it would not be doubted to have been chosen for this: that it may be such when Christ, its life, shall appear (Col 3:4); for then it too will appear with him in glory, on account of which glory it was called a glorious Church.

Likewise, what the Lord says: ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you (Matt 7:7), I thought it laborious to expound how these three differ among themselves (De serm. Dom. 2.21.71f); but far better are they all referred to most insistent petition. For he shows this where he concluded them all with the one word, saying: how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him (Matt 7:11), for he did not say "to those who ask and seek and knock."

This work begins thus: The sermon which the Lord spoke.

Wishing also that the cause of the Donatists should come to the knowledge of the very humblest common folk, and of the wholly unskilled and untaught, and that it should cling to their memory as far as could be brought about through us, I made a Psalm to be sung to them, in Latin letters, but only up to the letter "V." Such pieces they call "abecedarians."

The last three letters I omitted; but in place of them I added at the end a kind of epilogue, as though Mother Church were addressing them. The hypopsalma too, which is the response, and the preface of the case, which was nonetheless to be sung, are not in the order of the letters; for their order begins after the preface. But I did not wish this to be done in any kind of meter, lest the necessity of meter compel me to certain words less commonly in popular use.

This Psalm begins thus: All you who rejoice in peace, now judge truly, which is its hypopsalma.

1. I also wrote, in that same period of my priesthood, the book Against the Letter of Donatus, who was the second bishop of the party of Donatus after Majorinus at Carthage; in which letter he labors to have it believed that the baptism of Christ exists only in his communion—which we contradict in this book.

In it I said in a certain place of the apostle Peter, that upon him as upon a rock the Church was founded (See Optatus of Milevis, On the Donatist Schism 1.19; 3.1), which sense is also sung by the mouth of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, where he says of the cock: at his crowing the rock of the Church itself washed away its fault (Ambrose, Hymn 1; see Hexaem. 5.24.88). But I know that I afterward very often so expounded (See Sermon 76.1.1) that which was said by the Lord: you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (Matt 16:18; John 1:42), that it should be understood of him whom Peter confessed when he said: you are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt 16:16; John 6:69), and thus Peter, named from this rock, should figure the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt 16:19). For it was not said to him, "you are the rock," but, you are Peter. But the rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4); whom Simon, having confessed—as the whole Church confesses him—was called Peter. But which of these two views is the more probable, let the reader choose.

2. In another place I said: God seeks no one's death, which is to be understood thus, that man acquired death for himself by forsaking God, and he acquires it who does not return to God, according to what is written: God did not make death (Wis 1:13). But that too is no less true: life and death are from the Lord God (Sir 11:14)—life, namely, from the giver, death from the avenger.

3. Likewise what I said, that Donatus, whose letter I was refuting, asked that the Emperor give bishops from overseas as judges between himself and Caecilian (See De bapt. 6.34.65; C. Crescon. 2.27.33), it is found more probable that not he but another Donatus, of the same schism, however, did this. But that one was not the Carthaginian bishop of the Donatists, but the one from Casae Nigrae, who nevertheless first committed that wicked schism at Carthage. Nor indeed did Donatus of Carthage institute that Christians be rebaptized, which I had believed him to have instituted when I was answering his letter. Nor did he himself remove from the middle of a sentence of the book Ecclesiasticus the words necessary to the matter, where, since it is written, he who is baptized by a dead man, and again touches him, what does his washing profit? (Sir 34:30; see Ep. 108.6), this man set it down as though it were written: "he who is baptized by a dead man, what does his washing profit?" But that, even before there was a party of Donatus, very many copies—African ones, however—so had it that there was not in the middle and again touches him, we learned afterward. And if I had known this then, I would not have said so much against this man as against a thief of the divine word or a violator of it.

This book begins thus: I had heard from you yourself when present.

1. In the same period there came into my hands certain Disputations of Adimantus, who had been a disciple of Mani, which he composed against the Law and the Prophets, attempting to show the gospel and apostolic writings as contrary to them. To him, then, I replied, setting down his words and giving to them my response. This work I concluded in one volume, and in it I answered certain questions not once but a second time, since what I had first answered had been lost and was found only after I had already answered a second time. Some of those same questions I solved in popular ecclesiastical sermons (Sermons 1; 50; 142; 153). Still others I have not yet answered; some remained which were passed over because other, more urgent matters pressed, the accumulation of forgetfulness being added as well.

2. In this, then, I said: for by certain fixed shadows and figures of things before the Lord's coming, according to the wonderful and most orderly distribution of the times, that people was held which received the Old Testament; yet in it there is so great a preaching and foretelling of the New Testament that none, however lofty and divine, of the precepts and promises in the gospel and apostolic teaching are found which are lacking even to those old books (C. Adiman. 3.4). But "almost" should have been added, and it should have been said: so that "almost" no precepts and promises, however lofty and divine, are found in the gospel and apostolic teaching which are lacking even to those old books.

For what is it that the Lord says in the gospel sermon on the mount: you have heard that it was said to the ancients this, but I say to you this (Matt 5:21-22), if he himself commanded nothing more than was commanded in those old books? Then, that the kingdom of heaven was promised to that people, we do not read among the things which were promised by the Law given through Moses on Mount Sinai (See Exod 19:3-4), which is properly called the Old Testament; which the Apostle says was prefigured by the slave girl of Sarah and her son (Gal 4:22-23); but there the New too was figured by Sarah herself and her son.

Accordingly, if the figures are examined, all things are found prophesied there which have been presented or are awaited to be presented through Christ. Nevertheless, on account of certain precepts not figured but proper, which are found not in the Old Testament but in the New, it would be said more cautiously and moderately, "almost none," than that there are none here which are not there as well—although there are there those two precepts about the love of God and neighbor (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5; Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:37-39), to which most rightly all things, both legal and prophetic and gospel and apostolic, are referred.

3. Likewise what I said: that in three ways the name of "sons" is taken in the holy Scriptures (C. Adiman. 5.1), was said less considerately. For we without doubt passed over certain other ways; as one is called a son of hell (Matt 23:15), or an adoptive son (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5), which are certainly said neither according to nature nor according to teaching nor according to imitation. Of these three ways, as though they were the only ones, we gave examples: according to nature, as the Jews are sons of Abraham (John 8:37); according to teaching, as the Apostle calls his sons those whom the Gospel taught (1 Cor 4:14-15); according to imitation, as we are sons of Abraham, whose faith we imitate (Gal 3:7).

But what I said: when it shall have put on incorruption and immortality, it will no longer be flesh and blood (C. Adiman. 12.5; see 1 Cor 15:54), was said of carnal corruption—that the flesh will not exist—not of the substance according to which the body of the Lord was called flesh even after the resurrection (Luke 24:39).

4. In another place: unless each one, I said, change his will, he cannot work good, which he teaches to be placed in our power in another place, where he says: 'either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad' (C. Adiman. 26.1; see Matt 12:33). This is not against the grace of God which we preach. For it is in the power of man to change his will for the better; but that power is none, unless it be given by God, of whom it was said: he gave them power to become sons of God (John 1:12). For since that is in our power which we do when we will, nothing is so much in our power as the will itself; but the will is prepared by the Lord (Prov 8:35 (according to the LXX)). In this way, then, he gives the power. So too is to be understood what I said afterward: that it is in our power that we deserve either to be grafted in by the goodness of God or to be cut off by his severity (C. Adiman. 27.1), because nothing is in our power except what follows our will, which, when it is prepared strong and powerful by the Lord, the work of piety is easily done, even that which was difficult and impossible.

This book begins thus: Concerning that which is written: 'in the beginning God made heaven and earth.'

1. While I was still a priest, it happened that at Carthage, among us who were together, the Apostle's Letter to the Romans was read, and I was asked certain questions by the brothers; and when I answered them as I could, they wished that what I said should rather be written down than poured forth without writing. When I complied with them, one book was added to my earlier little works.

In this book: but what he says, I said, 'we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal,' sufficiently shows that the law cannot be fulfilled except by spiritual persons, such as the grace of God makes them (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 41; see Rom 7:14). This I certainly wished to be taken not in the person of the Apostle, who was already spiritual, but of a man placed under the law and not yet under grace (See Rom 1:11; 6:14-15). For thus I first understood these words, which afterward, having read certain treaters of the divine words whose authority moved me (Cyprian, On the Lord's Prayer 16; Ambrose, On Penance 1.3), I considered more diligently and saw that what he says—we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal—can be understood even of the Apostle himself. This I showed as diligently as I could in those books which I lately wrote against the Pelagians De grat. Christi 43; C. duas epp. Pelag. 1.17-25; C. Iul. 2.3; 6.23.70; Op. imp. C. Iul. 1.99; Sermon 154; see Exp. ep. ad Gal. 5; De Civ. Dei 22.21..

In this book, then, both that which was said, but I am carnal, and then the rest down to that place where he says, wretched man that I am, who will free me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 7:24-25), I said describes a man still established under the law, not yet under grace, wishing to do good but, overcome by the concupiscence of the flesh, doing evil. From the domination of this concupiscence nothing frees but the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 7:25), by the gift of the Holy Spirit, through whom love poured out in our hearts (Rom 5:5) overcomes the concupiscences of the flesh, so that we do not consent to them for doing evil, but rather do good.

Whence indeed the Pelagian heresy is already overthrown, which wishes that the love by which we live well and piously be not from God to us but from ourselves. But in those books (C. duas epp. Pelag. 1.10.17; De perf. iust. hom. 11.28; De grat. Christi 39, 43-44) which we published against them, we showed that these words are better understood even of the spiritual man, already established under grace, on account of the body of flesh, which is not yet spiritual but will be in the resurrection of the dead, and on account of the very concupiscence of the flesh, with which the saints so contend, not consenting to it for evil, that nevertheless they do not lack its movements—against which, as they war, they resist—in this life; but they will not have them in that life, where death shall be swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:54).

On account of this concupiscence, therefore, and those very movements which are so resisted that they nevertheless are in us, any saint already placed under grace can say all these things which I here said are the words of a man not yet placed under grace but under the law. To show this here would be long, and where I have shown it has been said (See Retract. 1.23.1).

2. Likewise, disputing what God chose in the one not yet born, to whom he said that the elder would serve, and what in the same elder, likewise not yet born, he rejected—concerning whom, on this account, is mentioned the prophetic testimony, though brought forth long afterward: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Rom 9:13; see Mal 1:2-3)—I carried my reasoning to this point, that I said: God, therefore, did not in his foreknowledge choose the works of anyone, which he himself was going to give, but chose faith in his foreknowledge, so that the very one whom he foreknew would believe in him, him he chose, to whom he would give the Holy Spirit, so that by working good he might also attain eternal life (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 60; see De praed. sanct. 1.3).

I had not yet inquired more diligently, nor had I yet found, what is the election of grace, of which the same Apostle says: a remnant has been saved by the election of grace (Rom 11:5). Which is certainly not grace, if any merits precede it, lest then what is given be rendered not according to grace but according to debt, repaid to merits rather than bestowed.

Accordingly, what I immediately said: for the same Apostle says: 'the same God who works all things in all' (1 Cor 12:6), but nowhere is it said: God believes all things in all, and then I added: that we believe, therefore, is ours; but that we do good is his who gives the Holy Spirit to those who believe (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 60), I would surely not say, if I already knew that faith itself too is found among the gifts of God, which are given in the same Spirit (See 1 Cor 12:9). Both, therefore, are ours, on account of the choice of the will, and both are nevertheless given through the Spirit of faith and love. For it is not love alone, but, as it is written: love with faith from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 6:23).

3. And what I said a little later: for it is ours to believe and to will, but his to give to those who believe and will the capacity to work well through the Holy Spirit, through whom 'love is poured out in our hearts' (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 61; see Rom 5:5), is indeed true; but by the same rule both are his, because he prepares the will, and both are ours, because it is not done except by our willing.

And through this, what I also said afterward: that we can neither will unless we are called; and when, after the calling, we have willed, our will and our running do not suffice, unless God both supply strength to those who run and lead them where he calls (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 62), and then I added: it is clear, therefore, that 'it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy' (Rom 9:16) that we work well, is altogether most true.

But I discussed too little about the calling itself, which is made according to the purpose of God. For not of all who are called is it such, but only of the elect. And so what I said a little later: for as in those whom God chooses it is not works but faith that begins the merit, so that through the gift of God they may work well, so in those whom he condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that through that very punishment they also work evil (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 62), I said most truly. But that the merit of faith itself is also the gift of God, I neither thought ought to be inquired into nor said.

4. And in another place: for on whom he has mercy, I said, he makes him work well, and whom he hardens, he leaves him to work evil. But that mercy is granted to a preceding merit of faith, and that hardening to a preceding impiety (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 62; see Rom 9:18), which is indeed true. But it had still to be asked whether the merit of faith too comes from the mercy of God—that is, whether this mercy is shown in a man only because he is faithful, or whether it was also shown that he might be faithful.

For we read the Apostle saying: I obtained mercy that I might be faithful (1 Cor 7:25); he did not say, "because I was faithful." To the faithful, therefore, it is indeed given, but it was given also that he might be faithful. And so most rightly I said in another place in the same book: since, if not from works but from the mercy of God we are both called that we may believe, and to those who believe it is granted that we work well, this mercy is not to be envied to the gentiles (Exp. quar. prop. ad Rom. 64), although there I treated less diligently of that calling which is made through the purpose of God.

This book begins thus: These are the meanings in the Letter to the Romans of Paul the Apostle.

1. After this book I expounded the same Apostle's Letter to the Galatians, not piecemeal, that is, passing over some things, but continuously and the whole. This exposition I comprised in one volume.

In it, that which was said: the earlier Apostles, therefore, were truthful, who were sent not by men but by God through a man—namely, through Jesus Christ still mortal. Truthful too is the last Apostle, who was sent through Jesus Christ now wholly God after his resurrection (Exp. ep. ad Gal. 2.3), was said now wholly God on account of the immortality which he began to have after the resurrection, not on account of the divinity always immortal, from which he never departed, in which he was wholly God even when he was still going to die. But the following words make this sense plain; for I added, saying: the earlier ones are the other Apostles, through Christ still in part a man, that is, mortal; the last is the apostle Paul, through Christ now wholly God, that is, in every part immortal (Exp. ep. ad Gal. 2.4). For this I said in expounding what the Apostle says: not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father (Gal 1:1), as though Jesus Christ were now not a man. For there follows: who raised him from the dead, so that from this it might appear why he said: nor through a man. Accordingly, on account of immortality, even now Christ God is not a man; but on account of the substance of human nature, in which he ascended into heaven, even now he is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5), since he will come in the same way as those who saw him going into heaven saw him (Acts 1:11).

2. Likewise what I said: the grace of God is that by which our sins are forgiven us so that we are reconciled to God, but peace is that by which we are reconciled to God (Exp. ep. ad Gal. 3), is to be understood in such a way that we nevertheless know that both pertain to the general grace of God, just as in the people of God one thing is specially Israel, another Judah, and yet both generally Israel.

Likewise, when I was expounding: what then? The law was set forth as the grace of transgression, I thought it should be punctuated so that there is a question, what then? and then a response, the law was set forth as the grace of transgression (Exp. ep. ad Gal. 24; see Gal 3:19). This indeed does not shrink from the truth; but a better punctuation seems to me this, that there is a question, what then is the law? And the response is brought in: it was set forth for the sake of transgression (Ep. 82.20).

But what I said: most orderly, therefore, does he add: 'but if you are led by the Spirit, you are no longer under the law' (Gal 5:18), so that we understand those to be under the law whose spirit so lusts against the flesh that they do not do the things they will—that is, do not hold themselves unconquered in the love of justice, but are overcome by the flesh lusting against them (Exp. ep. ad Gal. 47), arises from that understanding by which I thought that what was said—the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, for these are opposed to one another, so that you do not do the things that you would (Gal 5:17)—pertains to those who are under the law, not yet under grace.

For I had not yet understood that these words befit also those who are under grace, not under the law, for this reason: that they too, the concupiscences of the flesh against which they lust by the spirit, although they do not consent to them, would nevertheless wish not to have at all, if they could. And therefore they do not do whatever they will, because they will to lack them and cannot. For they will not have them then, when they will not have corruptible flesh either.

This book begins thus: The reason for which the Apostle writes to the Galatians is this.

I had undertaken an exposition of the Letter to the Romans too, as of the one to the Galatians. But if this work had been finished, there would have been many books. Of these I completed one in the disputation of the salutation alone, that is, from the beginning down to that place where he says: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 1:7). For it came about that we lingered, when we wished to solve a most difficult question that arose in our discourse, about the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is not forgiven either in this age or in the age to come (Sermon 71; Ep. ad Rom. inch. exp. 14ff.; see Matt 12:32).

But then I ceased to add other volumes expounding the whole Letter, deterred by the magnitude and labor of the work itself, and I turned aside to other, easier things. So it came about that I left alone the book which I had made first, whose title I wished to be Unfinished Exposition of the Letter to the Romans.

There, what I said—that grace consists in the remission of sins, but peace in reconciliation with God (Ep. ad Rom. inch. exp. 23), wherever I said this, is not to be understood as if peace itself and reconciliation do not pertain to general grace, but that by the name of grace he specially signified the remission of sins, just as we speak of the law both specially, according to what was said, the Law and the Prophets (Matt 22:40; Rom 3:21), and generally, so that in it the Prophets too are included (See Rom 6:14; 1 Cor 9:21).

This book begins thus: In the Letter which Paul the Apostle wrote to the Romans.

1. There is also among the things we have written a certain lengthy work, which is nevertheless reckoned as one book, whose title is Miscellany of Eighty-three Questions. But since they had been scattered over many sheets—because from the very first time of my conversion, after we came to Africa, they were dictated as I was questioned by the brothers, when they saw me at leisure, with no order kept by me—I, now a bishop, ordered them to be collected and one book made of them, with numbers added, so that whatever anyone wishes to read he may easily find.

2. The first of these questions is: whether the soul is from itself.

The second: on free choice.

The third: whether man is made worse with God as the author.

The fourth: what the cause is that man is made worse.

The fifth: whether an irrational animal can be happy.

The sixth: on evil.

The seventh: what is properly called soul in a living being.

The eighth: whether the soul is moved by itself.

The ninth: whether truth can be perceived by the senses of the body. In which, that which I said: everything that the corporeal sense touches, which is also called sensible, is changed without any interval of time (De divv. qq. 83, 9), is without doubt not true in the incorruptible bodies of the resurrection; but now no sense of our body touches them, unless perhaps something of the kind is revealed by divine power.

The tenth: whether the body is from God.

The eleventh: why Christ was born of a woman.

The twelfth, in the place where the title is the saying of a certain wise man, is not mine. But because it became known through me to certain brothers, who were then collecting these things from me most diligently, and it pleased them, they wished to write it among ours. It is, however, by a certain Fonteius of Carthage, On Cleansing the Mind for Seeing God—which he wrote indeed as a pagan, but died a baptized Christian.

The thirteenth is: by what evidence it is established that men excel beasts.

The fourteenth: that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not a phantasm.

The fifteenth: on the intellect.

The sixteenth: on the Son of God.

The seventeenth: on the knowledge of God.

The eighteenth: on the Trinity.

The nineteenth: on God and the creature.

The twentieth: on the place of God.

The twenty-first: whether God is not the author of evil. Here it must be seen that what I said be not badly understood: he is not the author of evil who is the Author of all things that exist, because in so far as they exist, in so far are they good (De divv. qq. 83, 21), and lest from this it be thought that the punishment of the evil is not from him, which is certainly evil to those who are punished. But I said this in the way in which it was said, God did not make death (Wis 1:13), though elsewhere it is written, death and life are from the Lord God (Sir 11:14). The punishment of the evil, therefore, which is from God, is indeed evil to the evil, but it is among the good works of God, since it is just that the evil be punished, and everything that is just is certainly good.

The twenty-second is: that God does not suffer necessity.

The twenty-third is: on the Father and the Son. Here I said: that he himself begot her by whom he is called wise, Wisdom (De divv. qq. 83, 23); but we treated this question better afterward in the book On the Trinity (De Trin. 6.2.3).

The twenty-fourth is: whether both sin and right action are in the free choice of the will. That it is so is altogether most true; but that the will may be free for acting rightly, it is freed by the grace of God.

The twenty-fifth is: on the cross of Christ.

The twenty-sixth: on the difference of sins.

The twenty-seventh: on providence.

The twenty-eighth: why God willed to make the world.

The twenty-ninth: whether there is anything up or down in the universe.

The thirtieth: whether all things were created for the use of man.

The thirty-first is not mine either, but Cicero's (Cicero, De inventione 2.53.159-160). But because this too became known to the brothers through me, they wrote it among those things which they were collecting, wishing to know how the virtues of the mind were divided and defined by him.

The thirty-second is: whether one person understands any thing more than another, and so the understanding of the same thing proceeds to infinity.

The thirty-third: on fear.

The thirty-fourth: whether nothing else is to be loved than to be free of fear.

The thirty-fifth: what is to be loved. In which, that which I said: that that is to be loved which is nothing other to have than to know (De divv. qq. 83, 35.1), I do not sufficiently approve. For they did not lack God to whom it was said: do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? (1 Cor 3:16), and yet they did not know him, or did not know him as he is to be known. Likewise what I said: no one, therefore, knows the happy life and is wretched (De divv. qq. 83, 35.1); I said "knows" in the way in which it is to be known. For who is wholly ignorant of it—at least among those who already use reason—since they know that they wish to be happy (See Cicero, Tusc. disp. 5.10.28; Retract. 1.14.4)?

The thirty-sixth is: on nourishing love. Here I said: God, therefore, and the mind, when they are loved, are properly called love most purified and consummated, if nothing else is loved (De divv. qq. 83, 36.1). But if this is true, how then does the Apostle say: no one ever hated his own flesh (Eph 5:29), and from this admonishes that wives be loved? But it was said for this reason, it is properly called love, since the flesh is indeed loved, yet not properly, but on account of the soul to which it is subject for use. For even if it seems to be loved for its own sake, when we do not wish it to be deformed, its comeliness must be referred to something else—namely, to that from which all things are comely.

The thirty-seventh is: on the ever-born.

The thirty-eighth: on the conformation of the soul.

The thirty-ninth: on foods.

The fortieth: since the nature of souls is one, whence come the diverse wills of men?

The forty-first: since God made all things, why did he not make them equal?

The forty-second: how the Wisdom of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, was both in his mother's womb and in heaven.

The forty-third: why the Son of God appeared in a man, and the Holy Spirit in a dove? (Matt 3:16)

The forty-fourth: why the Lord Jesus Christ came so long afterward? Here, when I was mentioning the ages of the human race as of one man, I said: nor was it fitting that the Master come from God, by imitation of whom one might be formed unto the best morals, except at the time of youth (De divv. qq. 83, 44). And I added that to this purpose is what the Apostle says, that under the law, as under a tutor, little ones were guarded (Gal 3:24-25).

But it may give pause why elsewhere we said that Christ came in the sixth age of the human race, as in old age (De Gen. contra Manich. 1.23.40). This, then, which was said of youth, refers to the vigor and fervor of faith, which works through love (Gal 5:6); but that about old age refers to the number of the times. For both can be understood in the totality of men, which cannot be in the ages of individuals; just as in the body there cannot be at once both youth and old age, but in the mind there can—the one on account of alacrity, the other on account of gravity.

The forty-fifth is: against the astrologers.

The forty-sixth: on the ideas.

The forty-seventh: whether we shall ever be able to see our own thoughts. Here, what I said: that angelic bodies, such as we hope to have, are to be believed most luminous and ethereal (De divv. qq. 83, 47), if this is taken without the members which we now have and without the substance—though incorruptible—of flesh, is in error. But this question, about seeing our thoughts, was treated much better in the work The City of God (De Civ. Dei 22.29).

The forty-eighth is: on things to be believed.

The forty-ninth: why the children of Israel sacrificed visibly the victims of cattle.

The fiftieth: on the equality of the Son.

The fifty-first: on man made to the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26; 5:3). Here, what is it that I said: man is not rightly called man without life, when even the corpse of a man is called a man? Therefore I ought at least to have said, "is not properly called," where I said, is not rightly called. Likewise I said: nor is it unskillfully distinguished that the image and likeness of God is one thing, and "to the image and likeness of God"—as we understand man to have been made—another (De divv. qq. 83, 51.4; see De Trin. 7.6.12). This is not to be understood as though man is not called the image of God, since the Apostle says: a man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God (1 Cor 11:7), but he is also said to be made "to the image" of God, which the Only-Begotten is not said to be, who is only the image, not "to the image."

The fifty-second: on that which was said: 'it repents me that I made man' (Gen 6:6-7).

The fifty-third: on the gold and silver which the Israelites received from the Egyptians (Exod 3:22; 12:35).

The fifty-fourth: on that which is written: 'but for me it is good to cling to God' (Ps 73:28 (72)). Here, what I said: but that which is better than every soul, this we call God (De divv. qq. 83, 54), ought rather to have been said, "better than every created spirit."

The fifty-fifth: on that which is written: 'there are sixty queens, eighty concubines, and young maidens of whom there is no number' (Song 6:8).

The fifty-sixth: on the forty-six years of the building of the Temple (John 2:20).

The fifty-seventh: on the hundred and fifty-three fish (John 21:11).

The fifty-eighth: on John the Baptist.

The fifty-ninth: on the ten virgins (Matt 25:1).

The sixtieth: 'but of the day and the hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son of man, but the Father alone' (Matt 24:36).

The sixty-first: on that which is written in the Gospel, that the Lord fed the crowds on the mountain from five loaves (Matt 14:15-21). Here, what I said: that the two fish signify those two persons, namely the royal and the priestly, to whom also that most sacred anointing pertained (De divv. qq. 83, 61.2), ought rather to have been said: "pertained especially," since we read that the Prophets too were sometimes anointed (1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 61:1). Likewise what I said: Luke, who presented Christ as a priest ascending after the abolition of sins, ascended through Nathan to David, because Nathan was the prophet sent, by whose rebuke David obtained the abolition of that very sin by repenting (De divv. qq. 83, 61.2), is not to be understood as though that Nathan who was the son of David was himself the prophet (Luke 3:31; see Retract. 2.16), because here too it was not said, "because he himself was the prophet sent," but it was said, because Nathan was the prophet sent (2 Kgs 12:1-2), so that the mystery is understood not in the same man but in the same name.

The sixty-second is: on that which is written in the Gospel: 'that Jesus baptized more than John, although he himself did not baptize, but his disciples' (John 4:1-2). Here, what I said: that robber to whom it was said, 'amen I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43), who had not received baptism itself (De divv. qq. 83, 62), this indeed we find that others before us, rulers of the holy Church, set down in their writings (Cyprian, Ep. 73.22; Ambrose, On Penance 11; Hilary, Tr. in Ps. 66.26; see Hilary, De Trin. 10.34); but by what evidence it can be sufficiently shown that that robber was not baptized, I do not know. On this matter it is treated more diligently in certain of our later little works, especially in that which we wrote to Vincentius Victor, On the Origin of the Soul (De orig. an. 3.9.12).

The sixty-third: on the Word.

The sixty-fourth: on the Samaritan woman (John 4:9).

The sixty-fifth: on the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:44).

The sixty-sixth: on that which is written: 'or are you ignorant, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?' (Rom 7:1) down to that place where it is written: he will give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit dwelling in you (Rom 8:11). Here, wishing to expound that which the Apostle says: we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal (Rom 7:14), I said: that is, I consent to the flesh, not yet freed by spiritual grace (De divv. qq. 83, 66.5). This is not to be understood as though the spiritual man, already established under grace, cannot say this even of himself, and the rest down to that place where it was said: wretched man that I am, who will free me from the body of this death? (Rom 7:24)—which I afterward learned, as I have already confessed before (Retract. 1.23.1). Again, expounding that which the Apostle says, the body indeed is dead because of sin (Rom 8:10), I said: he calls the body dead so long as it is such that the want of temporal things troubles the soul (De divv. qq. 83, 66.6). But it seemed to me afterward much better (De pecc. merit. 1.7.7; see De Trin. 4.3; Enarr. in Ps. 45.17) that the body was called dead because it now has the necessity of dying, which it did not have before sin.

The sixty-seventh: on that which is written: 'for I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the future glory which shall be revealed in us' (Rom 8:18) down to that which was said: 'for by hope we were saved' (Rom 8:24). Here, when I was expounding that which is written, and the creation itself shall be freed from the servitude of corruption (Rom 8:21), I said: 'and the creation itself,' that is, man himself, when, the seal of the image having now been lost because of sin, he remained only a creature (De divv. qq. 83, 67.4). This is not to be understood as though man lost the whole of what he had of the image of God.

For if he had lost it altogether, there would be no reason why it should be said: be reformed in the newness of your mind (Rom 12:2), and: we are transformed into the same image (2 Cor 3:18); but again, if he had lost the whole, nothing would remain from which it should be said: although man walks in an image, yet he is troubled in vain (Ps 39:6 (38)).

Likewise what I said: that the highest angels live spiritually, but the lowest live animally (De divv. qq. 83, 67.5), was said more boldly of the lowest than can be shown either by the holy Scriptures or by the things themselves, because even if perhaps it can, it can only with the greatest difficulty.

The sixty-eighth: on that which is written: 'O man, who are you to answer back to God?' (Rom 9:20) Here I said: that even if anyone, by lighter sins, or certainly by however graver and many sins, has nevertheless, by great groaning and grief of repenting, become worthy of the mercy of God, it is not of him—who, if he were left, would perish—but of God who shows mercy, who comes to the aid of his prayers and griefs. For it is too little to will, unless God shows mercy; but God, who calls to peace, does not show mercy unless the will has gone before unto peace (De divv. qq. 83, 68.5). This was said after repentance. For there is a mercy of God preceding even the will itself, which, if it were not, the will would not be prepared by the Lord (Prov 8:35). To that mercy belongs the calling itself, which precedes even faith (See Retract. 1.23.2-3). Treating of which a little later, I said (De divv. qq. 83, 68.6): but this calling, which works—whether in individual men or in peoples and in the human race itself—through the opportunities of the times, is of a high and deep ordering. To which pertains also that: 'in the womb I sanctified you' (Jer 1:5), and: 'when you were in the loins of your father I saw you' (See Heb 7:10); and: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated' (Mal 1:3; Rom 9:13), and the rest; although that testimony, when you were in the loins of your father I saw you, whence it occurred to me as though it were Scripture, I do not know.

The sixty-ninth: on that which is written: 'then the Son himself also will be subject to him who subjected all things to him' (1 Cor 15:28).

The seventieth: on that which the Apostle says: 'death is swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your contention? Where, O death, is your sting? But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law' (1 Cor 15:54-55).

The seventy-first: on that which is written: 'bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ' (Gal 6:2).

The seventy-second: on the eternal times.

The seventy-third: on that which is written: 'and in habit found as a man' (Phil 2:7).

The seventy-fourth: on that which is written in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians: 'in whom we have redemption, the remission of sins, who is the image of the invisible God' (Col 1:14-15).

The seventy-fifth: on the inheritance of God.

The seventy-sixth: on that which the apostle James says: 'but do you wish to know, O vain man, that faith without works is idle?' (Jas 2:20)

The seventy-seventh: on fear, whether it is a sin.

The seventy-eighth: on the beauty of images.

The seventy-ninth: why did the magicians of Pharaoh do certain miracles as Moses the servant of God did? (See Exod 7:11, 22; 8:1, 7)

The eightieth: against the Apollinarists.

The eighty-first: on the fortieth and the fiftieth.

The eighty-second: on that which is written: 'for whom the Lord loves he rebukes; and he scourges every son whom he receives' (Heb 12:6).

The eighty-third: on marriage (See De bono coniug. 3.3; De coniug. adult. 1.8.8ff), on that which the Lord says: if anyone dismisses his wife, except for the cause of fornication (Matt 19:9).

This work begins thus: Whether the soul is from itself.

Likewise I wrote the book Lying, which, even if it is understood with some labor, has nonetheless a not useless exercise of wit and mind, and is rather profitable for forming morals toward loving truthful speech. This one too I had decided to remove from my little works, because it seemed to me both obscure and convoluted and altogether troublesome, for which reason I had not even published it. Then, when I had afterward written another, whose title is Against Lying, I had decided, and ordered, much more that this one should not exist; but it was not done. And so, in this review of my little works, when I found it safe, I directed that this one too, once reviewed, should remain, especially because there are in it certain necessary things which are not in that other one. But the title of that one is Against Lying; of this one, Lying, because throughout that one there is an open assault on lying, but a great part of this one is engaged in the disputation of inquiry. Yet both are directed to the same end.

This book begins thus: Great is the question concerning lying.

1. Of the books I worked out as a bishop, the first two are to Simplician, the prelate of the Church of Milan, who succeeded the most blessed Ambrose, on various questions, two of which, from the Letter of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, I gathered into the first book.

The first of these is: on that which is written: 'what then shall we say? Is the law sin? Far from it!' (Rom 7:7) down to that place where he says: who will free me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 7:24-25). In which (De divv. qq. ad Simplic. 1.1.9) those words of the Apostle, the law is spiritual, but I am carnal (Rom 7:14), and the rest, by which the flesh is shown to contend against the spirit, I so expounded as though a man were being described who is still established under the law, not yet under grace (Rom 6:14). For long afterward I came to know that these words can be even those of the spiritual man—and this more probably (See Retract. 1.23.1).

The second question in this book is from that place where he says: and not only so, but Rebecca also, having conceived at one intercourse by Isaac our father (Rom 9:10), down to that place where he says: unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom and would have been made similar to Gomorrah (Rom 9:29).

In the solution of this question (See De Civ. Dei 16.35) labor was indeed expended in favor of the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God prevailed; nor could one arrive except at this: that the Apostle is understood to have said, with the clearest truth: for who distinguishes you? And what do you have that you have not received? But if you have received, why do you boast as though you had not received? (1 Cor 4:7) Wishing to show this too, the martyr Cyprian comprised the whole in the very title, saying: that one must boast in nothing, since nothing is ours (Cyprian, Testim. 3.4).

2. In the second book the remaining questions are treated, and solved according to our small ability, which are all from the Scripture which is called Kingdoms.

The first of these is: on that which is written: 'and the spirit of the Lord leapt upon Saul' (1 Sam 10:10), while elsewhere it is said: 'and the evil spirit of the Lord upon Saul' (1 Sam 16:14). Expounding which, I said: although it is in the power of each what he wills, yet it is not in anyone's power what he can do (De divv. qq. ad Simplic. 2.1.4). This was said for the reason that we do not say a thing is in our power except what comes about when we will; where, first and chiefly, is the willing itself. For without any interval of time the will itself is at hand when we will. But this power too, for living well, we receive from above, when the will is prepared by the Lord (Prov 8:35 (according to the LXX)).

The second question is: how it was said: 'it repents me that I made Saul king' (1 Sam 15:11).

The third: whether the unclean spirit that was in the witch could bring it about that Samuel was seen by Saul and spoke with him (1 Sam 28:7-20).

The fourth: on that which is written: 'King David went in and sat before the Lord' (2 Sam 7:18).

The fifth: on that which Elijah said: 'O Lord, witness of this widow with whom I dwell at her house, you have done evil to kill her son' (1 Kgs 17:20).

This work begins thus: Most pleasing indeed and most sweet.

The book Answer to the Letter of Mani Which They Call The Foundation refutes only its opening parts; but in its other portions notes were affixed where it seemed fitting, by which the whole is overturned, and by which I might be reminded, if ever I should have leisure to write against the whole.

This book begins thus: The one true almighty God.

The book The Christian Combat was written for the brothers unlearned in Latin eloquence, in a humble style, containing the rule of faith and precepts of living.

In it, that which was set down: nor let us listen to those who deny that the resurrection of the flesh is to come and mention what the apostle Paul says: 'flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God' (1 Cor 15:50), not understanding what the Apostle himself says: 'this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality' (1 Cor 15:53); for when this has been done, it will no longer be flesh and blood but a heavenly body (De agone Christ. 32.34), is not to be understood as though the substance of flesh will not exist, but the Apostle is to be understood to have called by the name of flesh and blood the very corruption of flesh and blood (See Retract. 1.16.2; De Civ. Dei 22.5; 22.21), which certainly will not exist in that kingdom, where the flesh will be incorruptible; although it can also be understood otherwise, so that we take the Apostle to have called by flesh and blood the works of flesh and blood, and to mean that those who have perseveringly loved these things will not possess the kingdom of God.

This book begins thus: The crown of victory.

1. The books On Christian Doctrine, since I found them unfinished, I preferred to finish rather than, leaving them thus, to pass on to reviewing other things. I therefore completed the third, which had been written up to that place (De doctr. Christ. 3.25.35) where the testimony from the Gospel is mentioned about the woman who hid leaven in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened (Luke 13:21). I added also a last book, and filled out that work with four books, the first three of which help that the Scriptures may be understood, but the fourth, how the things we understand are to be set forth.

2. In the second book, indeed (De doctr. Christ. 2.8.13), about the author of the book which many call The Wisdom of Solomon—that this too, like Ecclesiasticus, was written by Jesus Sirach—I afterward learned that it is not so established as was said by me, and I found it altogether more probable that he is not the author of this book.

But where I said: with these forty-four books the authority of the Old Testament is bounded (De doctr. Christ. 2.8.13), I called it the Old Testament from the custom by which the Church now speaks. But the Apostle does not seem to call anything the Old Testament except that which was given on Mount Sinai (Gal 4:24).

And in that which I said: that holy Ambrose solved a question of the history of the times, as though Plato and Jeremiah had been contemporaries, my memory deceived me. For what that bishop said on this matter is read in the book which he wrote On the Sacraments, or On Philosophy De doctr. Christ. 2.28.43; see De Civ. Dei 8.11; Ambrose, Exp. in Ps. 118.18; On Noah and the Ark 8.24; On the Sacraments of Regeneration, or On Philosophy; see C. Iul. 2.5.14; 7.20..

This work begins thus: There are certain precepts.

There are two books of mine whose title is Against the Party of Donatus (See Ep. 93). In the first of these I said that it did not please me that schismatics be violently constrained to communion by the force of any secular power (See Ep. 93.5.17). And truly it did not then please me, since I had not yet experienced either how much evil their impunity would dare, or how much the diligence of discipline could contribute toward changing them for the better.

This work begins thus: Since the Donatists to us.

1. The thirteen books of my Confessions praise the just and good God, both for my evils and for my goods, and rouse the human intellect and affection toward him. As far as concerns me, they did this in me when they were written, and do it when they are read. What others think of them, they themselves shall see; but I know that they have pleased and do please many brothers greatly. From the first to the tenth they are written about me; in the other three about the holy Scriptures, from that which is written, in the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen 1:1), down to the rest of the sabbath (Gen 2:2).

2. In the fourth book, when I was confessing the misery of my mind over the death of a friend, saying that our soul had in a manner been made one out of two: and therefore, I said, perhaps I feared to die, lest he whom I had greatly loved should wholly die (Confess. 4.6.11). This seems to me like a light declamation rather than a grave confession, although this ineptitude is somewhat tempered by what was added: perhaps.

And in the thirteenth book, what I said—that a firmament was made between the spiritual upper waters and the corporeal lower ones (Confess. 13.32.47), was said without sufficient consideration; but the matter is very deeply hidden.

This work begins thus: Great are you, O Lord.

1. Answer to Faustus the Manichee, who blasphemed the Law and the Prophets and their God and the incarnation of Christ, and said that the Scriptures of the New Testament, by which he is convicted, had been falsified—I wrote a great work, setting forth his words and giving my responses. There are thirty-three disputations; why should I not call them books? For although some among them are very short, they are nevertheless books. But one of them, where the life of the Patriarchs is defended by us against his accusations, is of as great length as almost none of my books (C. Faustum 22).

2. In the third book, then, when I was solving the question how Joseph could have two fathers (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23), I said indeed that, born of one, he was adopted by another (C. Faustum 3.3); but I ought also to have stated the kind of adoption. For what I said sounds as though another father had adopted him while living. But the Law adopted sons even for the dead, commanding that the brother of a brother who had died without sons should take his wife and raise up seed from her for his deceased brother. This indeed affords there a readier account concerning the two fathers of one man. Now they were brothers of the same mother in whom this happened, so that one took the wife of the other who had died, namely Jacob, by whom Matthew relates that Joseph was begotten (Matt 1:16). But he begot him for his maternal brother, whose son Luke says Joseph was (Luke 3:23)—certainly not begotten, but adopted by the law.

This is found in the writings of those who wrote on this matter in recent memory after the Lord's ascension. For Africanus did not pass over in silence even the name of the same woman who bore Jacob, the father of Joseph, by her former husband Matthan—who was the father of Jacob, the grandfather of Joseph according to Matthew—and who by her later husband Melchi bore Heli, whose adoptive son Joseph was (Africanus, Ep. to Aristides 3.9-15). This indeed, when I answered Faustus, I had not yet read; but nevertheless I could not doubt that, through adoption, it could come about that one man had two fathers.

3. In the twelfth and in the thirteenth (C. Faustum 12.23; 13.10), concerning the second son of Noah, who was called Ham, it was so argued as though he had been cursed by his father not in his son Canaan, as Scripture shows, but in himself (See Gen 9:25).

In the fourteenth, such things were said of the sun and moon as though they perceive and therefore endure their vain worshipers (C. Faustum 14.12), although the words there can be taken as transferred from the animate to the inanimate, by the manner of speaking which is called in Greek metaphor; as it is written of the sea: that it roars in its mother's womb, wishing to go forth (Job 38:8), since it certainly has no will.

In the twenty-ninth: far be it, I said, that there be any shamefulness in the members of the saints, even the genital ones. They are indeed called dishonorable, because they do not have that form of comeliness which the members placed in the open have (C. Faustum 29.4). But a more probable account was given afterward in other writings of ours (De Civ. Dei 22.19) of why the Apostle too called them dishonorable—namely, on account of the law in the members warring against the law of the mind (1 Cor 12:23; Rom 7:23), which came about from sin, not from the first establishment of our nature.

This work begins thus: There was a certain Faustus.

Against a certain Manichee named Felix, in the presence of the people, I disputed in the church for two days. For he had come to Hippo, intending to sow the same error; for he was one of their teachers, although unlearned in the liberal letters, but nevertheless more cunning than Fortunatus (See Confess. 5.6.11). The proceedings are ecclesiastical, but are counted among my books. There are, then, two books, in the second of which there was disputation about the free choice of the will, whether for working evil or good. But to dispute more diligently about the grace by which men become truly free—of whom it is written, if the Son shall free you, then you will be truly free (John 8:36)—we were compelled by no necessity, since such was the man with whom we were dealing.

This work begins thus: When Honorius Augustus was consul for the sixth time, on the seventh day before the Ides of December.

The book The Nature of the Good is against the Manichees, where it is shown that the unchangeable nature is God and the highest good, and that from him are the other natures, whether spiritual or corporeal, and that all of them, in so far as they are natures, are good; and what evil is, or whence it is, and how many evils the Manichees place in the nature of the good, and how many goods in the nature of the evil—which natures their error invented.

This book begins thus: The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God.

A certain Secundinus, not from those whom the Manichees call "the elect," but from those whom they call "hearers" (De haeres. 46; Confess. 3.10.18), whom I did not even know by face, wrote to me as a friend, honorifically reproaching me for assailing that heresy in writing, and admonishing me not to do so, and rather exhorting me to follow it, with a defense of it and a reproach of the Catholic faith.

To him I replied; but because at the head of the same little work I did not set down who was writing to whom, it is held not among my letters but among my books. There, from the beginning, his letter too is written out. But the title of this volume of mine is Answer to Secundinus the Manichee, which in my opinion I easily prefer to all that I have been able to write against that plague.

This book begins thus: Your goodwill toward me, which appears in your letter.

Meanwhile a certain Hilarus, a man of tribune's rank, a Catholic layman, irritated—I do not know from what cause, as usually happens—against the ministers of God, kept tearing apart with slanderous reproach, wherever he could, the custom which had then begun to be at Carthage (See Confess. 9.7.15), that hymns be said at the altar from the book of Psalms, whether before the oblation or while what had been offered was being distributed to the people, asserting that it ought not to be done (See Confess. 9.7.15). To him I replied, at the bidding of the brothers, and the book itself is called Against Hilarus.

This book begins thus: Those who say that the mention of the Old Testament.

There are certain expositions of certain passages from the Gospel according to Matthew, and others likewise according to Luke; the former were gathered into one book, the latter into the other. The title of this work is Questions on the Gospels. But why only those passages of the above-mentioned gospel books were expounded which are contained in these books of mine, and what they are, my prologue sufficiently indicates, with the same questions appended and numbered, so that anyone may find what he wishes to read by following the numbers.

In the first book, then, in that which was set down—that the Lord recounted his passion apart to two disciples (Quaest. Evang. 1.27)—the faultiness of the copy deceived us; for it was written twelve, not two (Matt 20:17; Luke 18:31).

In the second book (Quaest. Evang. 2.5), wishing to expound how Joseph, whose spouse the Virgin Mary was said to be, could have had two fathers, that which is reported—that a brother took the wife of his deceased brother, to raise up seed for him according to the law (Deut 25:5-6; Matt 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28)—I said was weak, because the one who would be born, the law commanded to receive the name of the deceased. This is not true; for the law commanded that the name of the deceased, as it was said, avail for this: that the son be called his son, not that the son be called by his name.

This work begins thus: This work was not written in such a way.

The book whose title is Notes on Job—whether it is to be held as mine, or rather as belonging to those who, as they could or wished, gathered into one body the notes written out from the margins of the copy—I could not easily say. For they are pleasing to very few who understand, who nevertheless must necessarily be offended at not understanding many things, because not even the very words that are expounded are written out in many places in such a way that it is clear what is being expounded.

Then such obscurity has followed the brevity of the sentences that the reader can scarcely bear it, who must necessarily pass over very many things not understood. Finally, I found the work itself so faulty in our copies that I could not correct it, nor would I wish it to be said to have been published by me, except that I know the brothers have it, to whose zeal it could not be denied.

This book begins thus: And great works were his upon the earth.

There is also our book The Catechizing of the Uninstructed, headed with this very title. In this book, where I said: nor did the angel who, with the other spirits, his attendants, by being proud forsook obedience to God and became the devil, harm God at all, but himself; for God knows how to order the souls that forsake him (De catech. rud. 18.30), it would be more fitting to say the spirits that forsake him, since the discussion was about angels.

This book begins thus: You have asked of me, brother Deogratias.

1. I wrote fifteen books On the Trinity, which is God, over a number of years. But when I had not yet finished the twelfth of them, and was holding them longer than those could bear who vehemently desired to have them, they were taken from me less corrected than they ought and could have been, when I should have wished to publish them.

After I learned this—because other copies of them too had remained with us—I had decided no longer to publish them myself, but to keep them so, that in some other little work of mine I might say what had befallen me concerning them.

Nevertheless, at the urging of the brothers, whom I had not the strength to resist, I corrected them as much as I thought they should be corrected, and completed and published them, attaching to them at the head the letter which I wrote to the venerable Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage; in which, as in a prologue, I set forth both what had happened, and what I had wished by my own thinking to do, and what I had done at the compulsion of the brothers' love.

2. In the eleventh book of these, when I was treating of the visible body, I said: wherefore to love that is to be estranged (De Trin. 11.5.9). This was said according to that love by which something is so loved that he who loves it thinks himself blessed in enjoying it. For to love corporeal form to the praise of the Creator, so that anyone, enjoying the Creator himself, may be truly blessed, is not to be estranged.

Likewise in the same book, where I said: nor do I remember a four-footed bird, because I have not seen one, but I behold such a fancy most easily, while to some winged form, such as I have seen, I add two other feet, such as I have likewise seen (De Trin. 11.10.17), in saying these things I could not recall the four-footed winged creatures which the law mentions (Lev 11:20). For it does not count among the feet the two hinder legs by which locusts leap, which it calls clean and therefore distinguishes from those unclean winged creatures which do not leap with those legs, such as beetles. For all winged creatures of this kind are called four-footed in the law.

3. In the twelfth (De Trin. 12.10.15), the so-called exposition of the Apostle's words, where he says: 'every sin whatever a man commits is outside the body' (1 Cor 6:18), does not satisfy me; nor do I think that what was said—but he who fornicates sins against his own body—is to be understood as though he does this who, for the sake of attaining the things that are sensed through the body, so as to place in them the end of his good, does something. For this comprises far more sins than that fornication which is perpetrated by unlawful intercourse (See Retract. 1.19.6; Sermon 162), of which it appears the Apostle was speaking when he said this.

This work, except for the letter which was afterward attached at its head, begins thus: The reader of these things which we discuss concerning the Trinity.

During the same years in which I was dictating, little by little, the books On the Trinity, I wrote others too, with continuous labor, interposing them in the times of those, among which are the four books Agreement among the Evangelists, on account of those who slander them as though they disagreed. The first book of these was written against those who, as though they honor Christ as a most wise man, or pretend to honor him, and therefore refuse to believe the Gospel, because those things were written not by him but by his disciples, whom they suppose to have attributed to him by error the divinity by which he was to be believed God.

In this book, what I said—that the nation of the Hebrews began from Abraham (De cons. evang. 1.14.21)—this too is indeed credible, that the Hebrews seem to be called as it were Abrahaeans. But they are more truly understood to be named from that one who was called Heber, as it were Heberaeans (Quaest. in Hept. 1.24), on which matter I discussed sufficiently in the sixteenth book The City of God (De Civ. Dei 16.3; 16.11).

In the second, when I was treating of the two fathers of Joseph, I said he was begotten by one and adopted by the other. But it should have been said, "adopted for the other" (De cons. evang. 2.3.5); for he had been adopted, according to the law (Deut 25:5-6), for the deceased (See Retract. 2.7.2)—which is rather to be believed—since the one who begot him had taken his mother, the wife of his deceased brother.

Likewise, where I said: but Luke ascends to David himself through Nathan, the prophet through whom God expiated his sin (De cons. evang. 2.4.12; see Luke 3:31), I ought to have said, "through the prophet of that name," lest it be thought to have been the same man, when it was another, although he too was called by this name (See Retract. 1.26 (question 61)).

This work begins thus: Among all the divine authorities.

In the three books Answer to the Letter of Parmenian, the Donatist bishop of Carthage and successor of Donatus, a great question is treated and solved: whether, in the unity and communion of the same sacraments, the evil contaminate the good; and it is argued how they do not contaminate, on account of the Church spread throughout the whole world, against which, by slander, they made a schism.

In the third book of that work (C. ep. Parmen. 3, 1, 2), where I discussed how we are to understand the Apostle's words drive out the wicked person from among yourselves (1 Cor 5:13), I said that what I had written—that each should drive out the evil from himself—is not to be understood in that way, but rather that an evil person is to be removed from among good people, which happens through the discipline of the Church. The Greek makes this sufficiently clear, for there it is written without ambiguity so that one understands this wicked man, not "this evil thing"—although it was according to this latter sense too that I had replied to Parmenian.

This work begins thus: Many things, indeed, elsewhere against the Donatists.

Against the Donatists, who endeavor to defend themselves on the authority of the most blessed bishop and martyr Cyprian, I wrote seven books, On Baptism. In them I taught that nothing is so effective for refuting the Donatists and for shutting their mouths altogether, so that they may not defend their schism against the Catholic Church, as the letters and the conduct of Cyprian himself.

Wherever in these books I mentioned (De bapt. 1, 17, 26; 3, 18, 23; 4, 3, 5; 7, 10, 19) the Church that has no spot or wrinkle (Eph 5:27), it is not to be taken as though she were already such, but as one that is being prepared to be such, when she will also appear in glory. For now, on account of certain ignorances and weaknesses of her members, she has reason to say each day, as a whole: forgive us our debts (Matt 6:12. See De haeres. 88; De gestis Pelag. 12, 27).

In the fourth book, when I said that suffering can take the place of baptism (De bapt. 4, 22, 29), I gave a not altogether suitable example, that of the thief on the cross, since it is uncertain whether he had not in fact been baptized (Retract. 1, 26 (quaest. 62)).

In the seventh book, concerning the vessels of gold and silver set in a great house, I followed the view of Cyprian, who took these to refer to good people, and the vessels of wood and earthenware to evil people, applying to the former what is said, some indeed for honor, and to the latter what is said, but others for dishonor (Cyprian, Ep. 54, 3; see 2 Tim 2:20). But I more approve what I afterward found, or noticed, in Tyconius: that in both kinds some are to be understood as being for honor—not the gold and silver alone—and again in both kinds some for dishonor—not the wood and earthenware alone (Tyconius, De sept. regul. 7; see Ep. 41, 2; Quaest. in Hept. 2, 102).

This work begins thus: In those books which I wrote against the letter of Parmenian.

While we were carrying on many matters against the party of Donatus in frequent disputations, a certain layman of theirs at that time brought to the Church some things dictated or written against us, in the form of a few supposed proofs which they think support their cause; to these I replied very briefly.

The title of this little book is Against What Centurius Brought from the Donatists (Possid. Indic. 6, 12). And it begins thus: You say that, because it is written by Solomon, 'keep yourself from a strange woman.' (Prov 9:18 (LXX))

The two books whose title is To the Inquiries of Januarius contain many discussions of the sacraments, both those the Church observes universally and those she observes only in part—that is, not uniformly in all places; yet it was not possible to mention them all, but enough was said in answer to what had been asked. The first of these books is a letter, for it has at its head a statement of who is writing to whom. But this work is reckoned among the books because the one that follows, which does not bear our names, is much longer, and in it many more matters are treated.

In the first book, then, where I said of the manna that it tasted in each one's mouth according to his own will (Ep. 54, 3, 4), I cannot recall any source from which this could be proved except the book of Wisdom (Wis 16:21), which the Jews do not receive into the canonical authority. This, however, could have happened to the faithful, not to those murmurers against God, who would surely not have longed for other food if the manna had tasted to them of whatever they wished.

This work begins thus: To the things about which you have questioned me.

What compelled me to write the book The Work of Monks was this necessity: when monasteries had begun to be established at Carthage, some monks supported themselves by their own hands, obeying the Apostle (1 Thess 4:11), while others wished to live off the offerings of the devout in such a way that, doing no work by which to obtain or supply what they needed, they reckoned and boasted that they were rather fulfilling the gospel precept where the Lord says: look at the birds of the air and the lilies of the field (Matt 6:26, 28).

From this there had even begun to arise, among laypeople of a lower way of life but nonetheless fervent in zeal, tumultuous quarrels by which the Church was disturbed, some defending one position and some another. To this was added that some of those who said one ought not to work wore long hair. Hence the contentions grew, with some reproaching them and others, as it were, defending them, according to the partisan zeal of each side.

On account of these things the venerable elder Aurelius, bishop of the Church of that city, ordered me to write something on the matter, and I did so.

This book begins thus: In response to your command, holy brother Aurelius.

1. The heresy of Jovinian, by equating the merit of consecrated virgins with conjugal chastity, had such force in the city of Rome that some nuns, about whose chastity no suspicion had previously arisen, were said to have been brought down into marriage, especially since he pressed them with this argument, saying: Are you, then, better than Sarah, better than Susanna or Anna? And by recalling other women highly commended by the testimony of holy Scripture, he urged that those nuns could not think themselves better than these, or even equal to them. In this way too he broke down the holy celibacy of holy men by recalling the married patriarchs and comparing them.

The holy Church that is there resisted this monstrous teaching most faithfully and most firmly. But these arguments of his had lingered in the little speeches and whispers of certain people, which no one dared to urge openly. Yet, since the poisons were creeping about even in secret, they had to be met, by the means the Lord granted; and especially because it was being boasted that Jovinian could not be answered with praise of marriage, but only with disparagement of it.

For this reason I published a book whose title is The Excellence of Marriage. There, a great question was deferred—concerning the propagation of children before human beings, by sinning, deserved death, since the intercourse of mortal bodies seems to be a bodily matter; but it is explained afterward in other writings of ours, sufficiently, I think (De civ. Dei 14, 21-22).

2. I also said in one place: What food is to the health of the individual, intercourse is to the health of the race; and neither is without carnal pleasure, which nonetheless, when it is moderated and brought back to its natural use by the restraint of temperance, cannot be lust (De bono coniug. 16, 18). This was said because lust is not a good and right use of sexual desire. For just as it is evil to use good things badly, so it is good to use evil things well. On this matter I have argued more carefully elsewhere, especially against the new heretics, the Pelagians (De nupt. et concup. 2, 21, 36; C. Iul. 3, 7, 16; 5, 16, 60).

What I said about Abraham—that by this obedience that father Abraham, who was not without a wife, was ready to be without his only son, and slain by his own hand (De bono coniug. 23, 31), I do not altogether approve. For he ought rather to be believed to have believed that his son, if he were slain, would at once be restored to him by resurrection (See Serm. 2, 1, 1), as one reads in the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 11:19).

This book begins thus: Since each individual human being is a part of the human race.

After I had written The Excellence of Marriage, it was expected that I would write Holy Virginity; nor did I delay, and in a single volume, as best I could, I showed how great a gift of God it is and with how great a humility it must be guarded.

This book begins thus: We recently published the book on the excellence of marriage.

1. Around the same time I wrote twelve books On Genesis, from its beginning down to where Adam was sent out of paradise and a flaming sword was set to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen 3:24). But when eleven books had been completed up to this point, I added a twelfth, in which there is a more careful discussion of paradise.

The title of these books is inscribed The Literal Meaning of Genesis, that is, not according to allegorical significations (See Retract. 1, 10. 18), but according to the proper character of the events that took place. In this work more things were sought than found, and of those that were found fewer were established, while the rest were set down as though they had still to be inquired into.

These books I indeed began later, but finished before On the Trinity. Therefore I have now reviewed them in the order in which I began them.

2. In the fifth book, and wherever in these books I set down concerning the offspring to which the promise was made, that it was ordained 'through angels by the hand of a Mediator' (De Gen. ad litt. 5, 19, 38; 9, 16; see Gal 3:19), the Apostle does not have it so, as I afterward saw in the more accurate manuscripts, especially the Greek ones. For it was said of the law, which many Latin manuscripts, through a translator's error, have as though it were said of the offspring.

In the sixth book, what I said—that Adam lost by sin the image of God according to which he was made (De Gen. ad litt. 6, 27, 28), is not to be taken as though none of it remained in him, but that it was so disfigured as to need reforming.

In the twelfth book, concerning the regions below, I think I ought rather to have taught that they are beneath the earth than to have given a reason why they are believed or said to be beneath the earth, as if it were not so (De Gen. ad litt. 12, 33).

This work begins thus: All divine Scripture is twofold.

Before I finished the books On the Trinity and the books The Literal Meaning of Genesis, there arose the occasion of replying to the writings of Petilian the Donatist, which he had written against the Catholic Church; and this I could not put off.

And I wrote three volumes on this matter. In the first I replied, with what speed and truthfulness I could, to the first part of his letter which he had written to his own people—since it had not all come into our hands, but only its earlier, small part. This too is itself a letter to our people, but it is reckoned among the books because the other two on the same matter are books.

For afterward we found the whole of it, and I replied to it with as much diligence as I had to Faustus the Manichee—that is, first setting down his words under his own name, piece by piece, and under my own name my reply to each. But what I had written before, prior to finding the whole, reached Petilian, and in anger he tried to reply, saying against me rather whatever he pleased, but altogether failing in the matter at issue. Although this could very easily have been observed by comparing the writings of us both, I nonetheless took care, for the sake of slower readers, to demonstrate it by my reply. Thus a third book was added to this same work of ours.

This work begins, in the first book, thus: You know that we have often wished;

and in the second thus: In the first parts of Petilian's letter;

and in the third thus: I have read your letter, Petilian.

A certain Donatist grammarian named Cresconius, too, when he had come upon my letter in which I refuted the first parts of Petilian's letter that had then come into our hands (Retract. 2, 25), thought he ought to answer me, and wrote to me to that effect. To this work of his I replied in four books, in such a way, however, that I completed in three what the whole reply demanded.

But when I saw that everything he had written could be answered from the case of the Maximianists alone—whom they had condemned as their own schismatics, yet had afterward received some of them back into their own offices, and had not repeated the baptism given by them outside their communion—I added a fourth book as well, in which I showed this very point as carefully and clearly as I could. When I wrote these four books, the emperor Honorius had already issued laws against the Donatists (C. Crescon. 3, 43, 47; Ep. 105, 2, 9; Cod. Theod. 16, 5, 38-43. 52. 54).

This work begins thus: Not knowing when my writings could reach you, Cresconius.

After this, in order that the documents necessary against their error and on behalf of Catholic truth might reach the Donatists, I took care to gather them—whether from ecclesiastical records, or from public records, or from the canonical Scriptures. And first I sent these promised materials to them, so that they themselves might, if it could be done, demand them.

When these had come into the hands of some of them, someone—I do not know who—came forward to write against them without giving his name, confessing himself a Donatist in such a way as if that were his name. Replying to him, I wrote another book. But those documents which I had promised I joined to the very little book in which I had promised them, and I wished the two to be one; and I published it in such a way that it was first posted up to be read on the walls of the basilica which had formerly belonged to the Donatists. Its title is Proofs and Testimonies against the Donatists.

In this book we set down the acquittal of Felix of Aptungi Optatus of Milevis, De schism. Donat. 1, 18, 27; see Aug., Brev. collat. 3, 24, 42; Post collat. c. Donat. 33, 56; Ep. 43, 2, 3; 88, 3; 105, 8; C. Crescon. 3, 61, 67., the ordainer of Caecilian, not in that order which afterward became clear to us when the consuls had been carefully examined, but as though he had been acquitted after Caecilian, whereas it had taken place before.

There is also this: after I had cited the testimony of the apostle Jude, where he says, these are the ones who set themselves apart, worldly people, not having the Spirit (Jude 19), I added, saying: of whom the Apostle Paul also says, 'the unspiritual man does not receive the things that are of the Spirit of God' (1 Cor 2:14), these latter are not to be put on a level with those whom schism has cut off altogether from the Church.

For those latter the same apostle Paul says are babes in Christ, whom, not yet able to take solid food, he nonetheless nourishes with milk; but the others are to be counted not among little children but among the dead and the lost, so that, if any of them, being corrected, should be joined to the Church, it may rightly be said of him: he was dead and has come to life again, he was lost and is found (Luke 15:32; see 1 Cor 3:1-2).

This book begins thus: You who fear to consent to the Catholic Church.

I wished the title of the other book, which I mentioned above, to be Against an Unnamed Donatist.

Here likewise, concerning the acquittal of Caecilian's ordainer, the true order of time is not given.

There is also this, that I said: to the multitude of the weeds (See Matt 13:36), where all heresies are understood, lacks one necessary conjunction; for it ought to have been said: where both all heresies are understood, or: where even all heresies are understood. As it stands, it was said as though the weeds were only outside the Church and not also within the Church—whereas she herself is the kingdom of Christ, from which his angels will gather all causes of stumbling at the time of harvest (See Matt 13:41).

Hence Cyprian the martyr also says: Although weeds appear to be in the Church, our faith or our love ought not on that account to be hindered, so that, because we perceive that there are weeds in the Church, we ourselves should withdraw from the Church (Cyprian, Ep. 54, 3). This view we too have defended elsewhere (C. Crescon. 3, 31, 35; 4, 56, 67; C. Gauden. 2, 3, 3; Post collat. c. Donat. 6, 9, 20. 28), and especially against these same Donatists present at the conference.

This book begins thus: We promised proofs of the necessary matters, gathered in a brief summary.

When I saw that many were hindered from learning, by the labor of reading, how utterly devoid of reason and truth the party of Donatus is, I made a very short little book, in which I thought they should be warned by the case of the Maximianists alone, so that, being easy to copy, it might come into the hands of more people, and by its very brevity be more easily committed to memory. I gave it the title A Warning to the Donatists about the Maximianists.

This book begins thus: Whoever you are who are moved by the slanders and accusations of men.

Around the same time it fell to me, out of a certain discussion, that I had to write the little book On the Divination of Demons, whose title is just this.

But in a certain place in it, where I said: that demons sometimes learn with complete ease even the dispositions of human beings, not only those uttered by the voice but even those conceived in thought, when certain signs are expressed from the mind upon the body (De divin. daem. 5, 9), I stated a most hidden matter with a bolder assertion than I ought. For it has been ascertained, even by some experiences, that these things come to the knowledge of demons. But whether certain signs are given from the body of those who are thinking—signs perceptible to them but hidden from us—or whether they know these things by some other power, and that a spiritual one, can be discovered by human beings only with the greatest difficulty, or not at all.

This book begins thus: On a certain day, in the holy days of the octave.

Meanwhile there were sent to me from Carthage six questions, which a certain friend, whom I longed to see become a Christian, had put forward, so that they might be answered against the pagans—especially because he said that some of them had been raised by the philosopher Porphyry. But I do not think he is that famous Porphyry the Sicilian. I gathered the discussions of these questions into one book, not a long one, whose title is Six Questions Expounded against the Pagans (Ep. 102).

The first of them is: On the Resurrection;

the second: On the Time of the Christian Religion;

the third: On the Distinction of Sacrifices;

the fourth: On what is written, 'with the measure you give it will be measured to you' (Matt 7:2);

the fifth: On the Son of God according to Solomon;

the sixth: On the Prophet Jonah.

In the second of these, what I said: the salvation of this religion, through which alone true salvation is truly and truthfully promised, was never lacking to anyone who was worthy of it; and to whomever it was lacking, he was not worthy (Ep. 102, 2, 15), I did not say as though anyone were worthy by his own merits, but in the way the Apostle says that it was not by works but by him who calls that it was said: the elder shall serve the younger (Rom 9:12-13),

a calling which he asserts to belong to the purpose of God. Hence he says: not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace (2 Tim 1:9); and hence he likewise says: we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (Rom 8:28). Of this calling he says: that he may make you worthy of his holy calling (2 Thess 1:11).

This book, after the letter which was afterward added at its head (Ep. 102), begins thus: It troubles certain people, and they ask.

Among my little works I found an Exposition of the Epistle of James, which, on reviewing it, I noticed was rather a set of notes on certain passages of it, reduced to a book by the diligence of the brethren, who did not wish them to remain in the margins of the manuscript. They are therefore of some help, except that the epistle itself, which we were reading when I dictated these things, we did not have carefully translated from the Greek.

This book begins thus: To the twelve tribes that are in the dispersion, greeting.

There also came a necessity compelling me to write against the new Pelagian heresy, against which previously, when there was need, we had acted not by writings but by sermons and conversations (Serm. 26-27; 131; 153; 155-156; 158; 165; 169; 174; 176; 181), each of us as he could or ought. So when there were sent to me from Carthage their questions, which I was to resolve by writing back, I first wrote three books, whose title is The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins. There the chief discussion is of the baptism of infants on account of original sin, and of the grace of God by which we are justified, that is, made righteous—although in this life no one so keeps the commandments (1 John 3:24) of righteousness as not to need, in praying for his sins, to say: forgive us our debts (Matt 6:12). Holding views contrary to all this, they founded the new heresy.

In these books I thought their names should still be passed over in silence (De gestis Pelag. 23, 47), hoping that in this way they could more easily be corrected; indeed, even in the third book—which is a letter, but reckoned among the books because of the two to which I thought it should be joined (De pecc. merit. 3, 3, 5)—I set down the name of Pelagius himself not without some praise, since his life was being commended by many; and I refuted those views which in his writings he had set down not in his own person, but expounding what was being said by others—views which afterward, when now a heretic, he defended with most obstinate animosity. Celestius, however, his disciple, had already on account of such assertions deserved excommunication at Carthage in an episcopal court at which I was not present (De haeres. 88).

In the second book, in a certain place, I said: this he will grant to some at the end, that they may not feel death by reason of a sudden change (De pecc. merit. 2, 31, 50), reserving the matter for a more careful inquiry. For either they will not die, or, passing from this life into death and from death into eternal life by a most rapid change, as in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor 15:52), they will not feel death.

This work begins thus: Although in the midst of great and surging cares.

At the same time a certain friend of mine received from some Donatist presbyter a book On the One Baptism, with the information that Petilian, their bishop, had written it for Constantine. He brought it to me and urgently begged me to reply to it; and so it was done. I wished my own book, in which I replied, to have the same title, that is, On the One Baptism.

In this book, what I said—that the emperor Constantine, when the Donatists were bringing charges against Felix of Aptungi, the ordainer of Caecilian, did not deny him the opportunity of an accusation, although he had found them slanderous in the false charges against Caecilian (De un. bapt. 16, 28), was, when the order of times was afterward considered, found to be otherwise (De fide et oper. 4, 6; see Ep. 43, 2, 5). For the emperor first had the case of Felix heard by the proconsul, where he is recorded as acquitted; and afterward he himself, having had Caecilian heard together with his accusers, found him innocent, and there found them slanderous in their charges against him. This order of times, made clear by the consuls, far more forcefully convicts and utterly overturns the slanders of the Donatists in that case, as we have shown elsewhere (Retract. 2, 27).

This book begins thus: To answer those who hold differing views.

Among other works against the Donatists I also wrote a book, not very short as before, but large, and much more carefully done. In it appears how the case of the Maximianists alone utterly overturns their impious and most arrogant error against the Catholic Church—a schism that arose from the very party of Donatus.

This book begins thus: We have already said many things, we have already written many things.

At that very time, when we were being hard pressed against the Donatists and had already begun to be pressed against the Pelagians, a certain friend sent me five questions from Carthage and asked that I expound them for him in writing. They are these:

what is the meaning of that cry of the Lord: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Ps 22:1 (21); see Matt 27:46);

And: what is the meaning of what the Apostle says, 'that, being rooted and grounded in love, you may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth' (Eph 3:17-18).

And: which are the five foolish virgins and which the wise (See Matt 25:1).

And: what is the outer darkness (Matt 22:13).

And: how is it to be understood, 'the Word was made flesh' (John 1:14).

But I, looking to the above-mentioned new heresy hostile to the grace of God, set myself a sixth question, On the Grace of the New Testament. Discussing this, and inserting an exposition of the twenty-first Psalm, at the head of which is written what the Lord cried out on the cross—which that friend had put to me first of all to expound—I resolved all those five questions, not in the order in which they had been put, but as they could fittingly come up, as it were in their own places, while I was discussing the grace of the New Testament (Ep. 140).

This book begins thus: You have put to me five questions to be treated.

To him I had written three books, whose title is The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins, where there is also a careful discussion of the baptism of infants (Retract. 2, 33). He wrote back to me that he had been disturbed by my saying that it could happen that a person be without sin, if his will be not lacking, with the help of divine aid, although no one of such perfect righteousness either has been, or is, or will be in this life. For he asked how I could say that a thing could happen of which there is no example. On account of this inquiry of his I wrote a book whose title is The Spirit and the Letter, treating the apostolic sentence where he says: the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6). In this book, as far as God helped me, I argued keenly against the enemies of the grace of God, by which the ungodly is justified.

But when I was treating of the observances of the Jews, who abstain from certain foods according to the old law, I said: the ceremonies of certain foods (De spir. et litt. 21, 36; Ep. 82, 18), a word which is not in use in the Holy Writings. It nonetheless seemed fitting to me, because I remembered that ceremonies (Aulus Gellius, Noct. Atticae 4, 9, 8) were so named from "lacking" (carere), as it were carimoniae, in that those who observe them lack the things from which they abstain. But if there is another origin of this word, one that is repugnant to true religion, it was not according to that that I spoke, but according to the one I mentioned above.

This book begins thus: Having read the little works which I recently composed for you, dearest son Marcellinus.

Meanwhile there were sent to me, by certain brethren who were laymen indeed but devoted to the divine words, some writings which so distinguished Christian faith from good works as to urge that without this faith one cannot, but without those works one can, attain to eternal life. Replying to them, I wrote a book whose name is Faith and Works. In it I discussed not only how those who are reborn by the grace of Christ ought to live, but also what sort of people are to be admitted to the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5).

This book begins thus: It seems to certain people.

After our conference with the Donatists had taken place, I briefly recorded what had been done, and set it down in writing according to the three days on which we conferred with them. I judged this work to be useful, so that anyone, being thereby informed, might either know without labor what was done, or, by consulting the numbers which I noted against each item, might read in the records themselves any passage he wished—since those records weary the reader by their excessive length. The title of this work is A Summary of the Conference.

This work begins thus: When the Catholic bishops and those of the party of Donatus.

I also wrote a book, large enough as I judge, carefully addressed to the Donatists themselves after the conference we had with their bishops, lest they be led astray by them any further. There I replied also to certain empty claims of theirs, such as could come to us, which, when defeated, they kept boasting where and as they could—besides what I said about the records of the conference, from which what was done might be briefly known. But I treated this much more briefly in a certain letter addressed again to the same people; yet because in the council of Numidia it was resolved by all of us who were there that this should be done, it is not among my letters. For it begins thus: Silvanus the elder, Valentinus, Innocentius, Maximinus, Optatus, Augustine, Donatus, and the other bishops of the council of Zerta, to the Donatists (Ep. 141).

This book begins thus: Why, Donatists, are you still being led astray?

I wrote a book On Seeing God (Ep. 147), where I deferred a more careful inquiry into the spiritual body which will exist in the resurrection of the saints—whether, or how, God, who is spirit (John 4:24), will be seen even through such a body. But afterward I explained that surely most difficult question sufficiently, as I think, in the last, that is, the twenty-second book, of The City of God (De civ. Dei 22, 29). I also found, in a certain manuscript of mine in which this book too is contained, a kind of memorandum made by me on this matter to Fortunatianus, bishop of Sicca, which is noted in the list of my little works neither among the books nor among the letters.

This book begins thus: Mindful of my debt;

and that one: as I asked when present, so now I remind you.

There also came into my hands at that time a certain book of Pelagius, in which he defended human nature, with all the argumentation he could, against the grace of God by which the ungodly is justified and by which we are Christians. So the book in which I replied to it, defending grace not against nature but as that by which nature is set free and governed, I named Nature and Grace.

In it I defended certain words, which Pelagius set down as though they were those of Xystus, the Roman bishop and martyr, as if they were truly the words of that same Xystus (De nat. et grat. 64, 77; see Jerome, Ep. 133, 3; Comm. in Ier. 22; Comm. in Ezech. 18); for so I had thought. But afterward I read that they were of Sextus the philosopher, not of Xystus the Christian.

This book begins thus: The book which you sent.

1. Meanwhile Rome was overthrown by the inrush of the Goths acting under their king Alaric, and by the onslaught of a great disaster. The worshipers of the many false gods, whom by the usual name we call pagans, trying to lay this overthrow to the charge of the Christian religion, began to blaspheme the true God more sharply and bitterly than usual. Wherefore I, burning with zeal for the house of God (Ps 69:10 (68); John 2:17), set out to write the books The City of God against their blasphemies and errors. This work occupied me for several years, because many other things kept intervening which ought not to be deferred and which claimed me first for their resolution. But this great work The City of God was at last completed in twenty-two books.

The first five of these refute those who wish human affairs to prosper in such a way that they reckon the worship of the many gods, which the pagans were accustomed to offer, to be necessary for this, and who contend that, because it is forbidden, these evils arise and abound.

The next five speak against those who acknowledge that these evils have never been lacking, nor will be lacking, to mortals, and that they vary—now great, now small—according to places, times, and persons, but who argue that the worship of the many gods, in which sacrifice is offered to them, is useful on account of the life that is to be after death.

In these ten books, then, those two empty opinions, hostile to the Christian religion, are refuted.

2. But lest anyone reproach us with having only refuted the views of others and not asserted our own, the other part of this work, which is contained in twelve books, does that—although, where there is need, we also assert what is ours in the first ten, and refute what is opposed in the last twelve.

Of the twelve following books, then, the first four contain the rise of the two cities, of which one is God's and the other this world's; the second four, their course, or running on; the third, which are also the last, their due ends.

Thus all twenty-two books, though they are written about both cities, nonetheless took their title from the better, so that it was called rather The City of God.

In the tenth of these books it ought not to have been put down as a miracle that in Abraham's sacrifice a flame made from heaven ran among the divided victims (De civ. Dei 10, 8; Gen 15:17), since this was shown to him in a vision.

In the seventeenth, what was said of Samuel—he was not of the sons of Aaron (De civ. Dei 17, 5; see Retract. 2, 55, 2), ought rather to have been said: "he was not the son of a priest." For it was more the lawful custom that the sons of priests should succeed the priests when they died. For Samuel's father is found among the sons of Aaron; but he was not a priest, nor among the sons in the sense that Aaron himself begot him, but in the sense that all of that people are called sons of Israel.

This work begins thus: The most glorious city of God.

Meanwhile I replied, with as much brevity and clarity as I could, to the inquiry of a certain Spanish presbyter, Orosius, concerning the Priscillianists and certain views of Origen which the Catholic faith disapproves. The title of this little work is To Orosius, against the Priscillianists and Origenists. For the inquiry itself is joined to my reply at its head.

This book begins thus: To answer you in your questioning, most beloved son Orosius.

I also wrote two books to the presbyter Jerome (Ep. 166; 167), who was dwelling in Bethlehem: one On the Origin of the Soul of man, the other On the Saying of the Apostle James, where he says: whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it (Jas 2:10), consulting him on both. But in the former I did not myself resolve the question I had put forward, while in the latter I did not keep silent about what seemed to me the way to resolve it, but consulted him on whether he too approved this. He wrote back praising this consultation of mine, but answered that he had no leisure to reply. I, however, did not wish to publish these books while he was still in the body, lest perhaps he should reply at some time, and they might be published together with his very reply.

But after his death I published the former for this purpose: that whoever reads it may be admonished either not to inquire at all how the soul is given to those being born, or at least, on a most obscure matter, to admit such a solution of this question (See Retract. 1, 1, 3; 2, 56) as is not contrary to those most evident things which the Catholic faith knows about original sin in infants—who, unless they are reborn in Christ, are without doubt to be condemned; and the latter for this purpose: that the solution of the question there treated, the very one that seemed right to us, may also be known.

This work begins thus: Our God, who has called us.

To Emeritus, bishop of the Donatists, who in our conference with them seemed to be the chief advocate of their cause, I wrote, some while after that same conference, a book useful enough, since it embraces with convenient brevity the matters by which they are overcome, or shown to have been overcome.

This book begins thus: If even now, brother Emeritus.

Around the same time, in the East—that is, in Syria Palestine—Pelagius was brought before an episcopal court by certain Catholic brethren, and, in the absence of those who had presented the document against him, since they could not arrive by the day of the synod, he was heard by fourteen bishops (See Contra Iul. 1, 5, 19; 7, 32; Opus imp. c. Iul. 2, 66; Ep. 186, 31), who, when he condemned those very doctrines that were read out against him from the document as hostile to the grace of Christ, pronounced him Catholic.

But when those same proceedings had come into our hands, I wrote a book about them, lest, on the supposition that he had been acquitted, the judges should be thought to have approved also those same doctrines—which, unless he had condemned them, he would in no way have departed from them except condemned.

This book begins thus: After there came into our hands.

At the same time I also wrote a book On the Correction of the Donatists on account of those who did not wish them to be corrected by the imperial laws (Ep. 185).

This book begins thus: I praise and congratulate and admire.

I wrote a book On the Presence of God, in which our purpose is especially watchful against the Pelagian heresy, though it is not named expressly. But in it there is also a laborious and subtle discussion concerning the presence of that nature which we call the supreme and true God, and concerning his temple (See De grat. Christi 1, 30, 32; 2, 17, 19; 21, 24).

This book begins thus: I confess, most beloved brother Dardanus.

After the Pelagian heresy, together with its authors, had been convicted and condemned by the bishops of the Roman Church—first Innocent, then Zosimus (Opus imp. c. Iul. 1, 16; 4, 3)—with the cooperation of the letters of the African councils, I wrote two books against them: one, On the Grace of Christ, the other, On Original Sin.

This work begins thus: How greatly we rejoice over your welfare, both bodily and especially spiritual.

Some while after the conference we had with the Donatist heretics, a necessity arose for us of going to Mauretania Caesariensis. There, at Caesarea itself, we saw Emeritus, bishop of the Donatists—one, that is, of the seven whom they had chosen for the defense of their cause, and who had labored most in that cause. What we transacted with him, in the presence of the bishops of that province and the people of the Church of Caesarea—the city of which he was both a citizen and the bishop of the said heretics—the ecclesiastical records testify, which are contained among my little works. There, finding nothing to answer, he heard, as though mute, the whole of my address, which I delivered concerning the Maximianists alone in his hearing and that of all who were present.

This book, or these proceedings, begin thus: In the consulship of the most glorious emperors Honorius, for the twelfth time, and Theodosius, for the eighth, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of October, at Caesarea, in the greater church.

Meanwhile there came into my hands a certain sermon of the Arians, without the name of its author. To this, at the request and insistence of the one who had sent it to me, I replied with all the brevity and speed I could; and I joined the same sermon to the head of my reply, and applied numbers to each section, so that by examining them one might easily observe what I had answered to each passage.

This book, after their sermon, which is joined at the head, begins thus: To their preceding argument I reply with this argument.

I wrote two books to the illustrious count Valerius, when I had heard that the Pelagians had written something to him about us—namely, that we were condemning marriage by asserting original sin. The title of these books is Marriage and Desire. For we defended the goodness of marriage, lest it be thought that the defect of marriage is the desire of the flesh and the law in the members warring against the law of the mind (Ep. 200; 207)—an evil of lust which conjugal chastity uses well for the procreation of children.

As to how there came to be two books: the first came into the hands of Julian the Pelagian, and he wrote four books against it (Opus imp. c. Iul. 1, 16; 4, 3), from which someone excerpted certain passages and sent them to count Valerius, and he in turn to us. When I had received these, I replied to them in another book (Ep. 200; 207; De nupt. et concup. 2, 2, 2).

The first book of this work begins thus: The new heretics, most beloved son Valerius;

and the second thus: Amid the cares of your military service.

I made seven books on the seven books of the divine Scriptures—that is, the five of Moses, and one of Joshua son of Nun, and another of Judges—noting the expressions of each that are less usual in our language, expressions which those who read the divine words, paying too little attention to the sense, treat as questions, when it is really a turn of phrase; and sometimes they dig out something that does not, indeed, conflict with the truth, but which the author by whom it was written is not found to have meant—rather, it appears more credible that he said it as a turn of phrase.

Now many obscure things in the holy Scriptures become clear once the turn of phrase is recognized. For this reason these turns of phrase are to be learned where the meaning is plain, so that even where it is hidden this very knowledge may come to one's aid and open them up to the attention of the reader.

The title of this work is Expressions on Genesis, and so on for each book.

But what I set down in the first book (Locut. 1, 18)—that it is written: and Noah did all the words that the Lord commanded him, so he did (Gen 6:22; 7:5), and which expression I said was similar to the one in the founding of creation where, after it is said and so it was done, there is added and God made (Gen 1:15. 24),—does not seem to me to be similar in every way to that. For in the latter the meaning too lies hidden, whereas in the former it is only a turn of phrase.

This work begins thus: The expressions of the Scriptures.

1. At the same time I also wrote seven books of Questions on those same divine books, which I wished to name thus because the things discussed there I put forward as matters rather to be inquired into than as questions resolved—although many more of them seem to me to be treated in such a way that they could not undeservedly be judged also resolved and expounded.

We had also begun to consider the books of Kingdoms in the same way; but, not having gone far, we turned our mind to other matters that pressed more urgently.

But in the first book, where the matter discussed is the spotted rods that Jacob set in the water, so that the ewes, set there at conception, might see them when they drank and bring forth spotted young (Quaest. in Hept. 1, 93), the reason was not well explained by us why he did not set them out for those conceiving again—that is, when they were conceiving other young—but only at the first conception (Gen 30:37). For the explanation of the other question (Quaest. in Hept. 1, 95), where it is asked why Jacob said to his father-in-law, and you cheated me of my wages by ten lambs (Gen 31:41), when unraveled truly enough, shows that this question, as it ought to have been resolved, was not resolved.

2. In the third book also, where the matter discussed is the high priest (Quaest. in Hept. 3, 82. 85)—how he begot sons, since he had the necessity of entering twice a day into the Holy of Holies, where the altar of incense was, to offer incense morning and evening (Exod 30:7-8), into which, as the law says, no unclean person could enter, and since the same law says that a man is made unclean even by conjugal intercourse (Lev 15:16), whom indeed it commands to wash with water, yet says that even after washing he is unclean until evening—whence I said that it followed that either he had to be continent, or on some days the incense had to be interrupted, I did not see that this did not follow. For what is written, he shall be unclean until evening, can be so understood that by evening itself he was no longer unclean, but only up to it, so that at the evening hour he might offer incense clean, having joined with his wife after the morning incense for the begetting of sons.

Likewise, where it was asked how the high priest was forbidden to go in over the dead body of his father (Lev 21:11), since he ought not to be made priest, when there was only one, except after the death of his priest father, I said: that for this reason it was necessary, while the father was not yet buried, immediately after his death, to appoint his son to succeed the father, also on account of the continuation of the incense, which had to be offered twice a day (Quaest. in Hept. 3, 83), a priest who is forbidden to go in over the death of his not-yet-buried father.

But I attended too little to the fact that this could be commanded rather on account of those who were to be high priests, not succeeding fathers who were high priests, but nonetheless from among the sons—that is, from the posterity of Aaron—if perchance a high priest either had no sons, or had such reprobate ones that none of them ought to succeed his father; just as Samuel succeeded the high priest Eli (1 Kgs 1:3; 3:1), though he was not himself a priest's son, yet was from among the sons, that is, from the posterity of Aaron.

3. Concerning the thief too, to whom it was said, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43), I put down as though certain that he had not been visibly baptized, whereas it is uncertain, and it is rather to be believed that he had been baptized, as I too afterward argued elsewhere (See Quaest. in Hept. 3, 84).

Likewise, what I said in the fifth book, where the mothers are mentioned in the gospel genealogies—that they are set down only together with the fathers (See Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23)—is indeed true, but does not pertain to the matter under discussion. For the matter under discussion was those who married the wives of brothers or kinsmen who had died without children, on account of the two fathers of Joseph, one of whom Matthew mentions and the other Luke. On this question I discussed carefully in this work, when we were reviewing our work Answer to Faustus the Manichee (Quaest. in Hept. 5, 46).

This work begins thus: When the holy Scriptures, which are called canonical.

At the same time a certain Vincentius Victor, in Mauretania Caesariensis, found in the possession of a certain Spanish presbyter, Peter, a little work of mine, where in a certain place I confessed that I did not know about the origin of the soul of each individual human being—whether they are propagated from that one soul of the first man and then from the parents, or whether, like that one, they are given individually to individuals without any propagation (Retract. 1, 1, 3; 2, 45)—but that I nonetheless knew the soul to be not a body but a spirit; and against these statements of mine he wrote two books to that same Peter, which the monk Renatus sent me from Caesarea.

Having read these, I gave my reply in four: one to the monk Renatus, another to the presbyter Peter, and two to that same Victor. But the one to Peter, although it has the length of a book, is nonetheless a letter, which I did not wish to separate from the other three. In all of these, in which many necessary matters are discussed, I defended my hesitation concerning the origin of the souls that are given to individual human beings, and I pointed out many errors and the perversities of his presumption. Yet I treated him, as a young man not to be hastily detested but still to be taught, with all the gentleness I could; and I received from him a written reply of his correction.

The book of this work addressed to Renatus begins thus: Your sincerity toward us;

and that to Peter thus: To the lord, most beloved brother and fellow presbyter Peter;

and the first of the two last, to Vincentius Victor, begins thus: What I thought I should write to you.

I wrote two books Adulterous Marriages, as far as I could according to the Scriptures, desiring to resolve a most difficult question. Whether I have done this most clearly I do not know; rather, I am aware that I have not arrived at the perfection of this matter, although I have opened up many of its recesses—as anyone who reads with understanding will be able to judge.

The first book of this work begins thus: The first question is, most beloved brother Pollentius.

And the second thus: To the things you had written to me.

Meanwhile a certain book of some heretic—whether a Marcionist or one of those whose error holds that this world was not made by God, and that the God of the Law given through Moses and of the Prophets pertaining to that same Law is not the true God but a most wicked demon—was being read at Carthage, with many gathering and listening most attentively, in the seaside square. Some most zealously Christian brethren came upon it and sent it to me to be refuted without any delay, earnestly asking that I not put off replying. I refuted it in two books, which I therefore entitled Answer to an Enemy of the Law and the Prophets, because the very manuscript that was sent did not have the name of its author.

This work begins thus: The book which you sent, most beloved brethren.

Around the same time Dulcitius, a tribune and notary, was here in Africa as the executor of the imperial orders issued against the Donatists. When he had sent a letter to Gaudentius of Thamugadi, bishop of the Donatists—one of those seven whom they had chosen in our conference as the authors of their defense—exhorting him to Catholic unity, and dissuading him from the burning with which he was threatening to consume himself and his people, together with the very Church in which he was, adding also that, if they thought themselves righteous, they should rather flee, according to the precept of the Lord Christ (See Matt 10:23), than burn themselves up in unholy fires,

he wrote back two letters: one short, because, as he asserted, the bearer was in haste, the other long, replying as though more fully and carefully. These the above-mentioned tribune thought ought to be sent to me, so that I might rather refute them myself; and both of these I refuted in one book.

When this had come into the hands of that same Gaudentius, he wrote back to me what seemed good to him, answering with no reasoning, but rather declaring that he could neither answer nor keep silent. Although this could appear plainly enough to those who read with understanding and compared our words and his, I nonetheless did not wish to leave whatever it was without a written reply. Hence it came about that these books of ours against him were two.

This work begins thus: Gaudentius of Thamugadi, bishop of the Donatists.

Then I also wrote a book Against Lying, the occasion of which work was this: that, in order to track down the Priscillianist heretics, who think their heresy should be concealed not only by denying and lying (C. mendacium 11, 25; 21, 41) but even by perjury, it seemed good to certain Catholics that they ought to feign themselves Priscillianists (C. mendacium 7, 18), so as to penetrate their hiding places. Forbidding this to be done, I composed this book.

This book begins thus: You sent me many things to read.

There follow four books, which I wrote Against Two Letters of the Pelagians to Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, because, when they had come into his hands, he himself had sent them to me, finding in them my name slanderously inserted.

This work begins thus: I had indeed known you, by the report of your most celebrated fame.

Meanwhile the four books of Julian the Pelagian (Retract. 2, 53), which I mentioned above, also came into our hands. In them I found that the things which the one who had sent them to count Valerius had excerpted from them were not all written to that same count in the way Julian had stated them, but that some of them had been somewhat altered. So I wrote six books against those four (Opus imp. c. Iul. 4, 5); but the first two of mine refute, with the testimonies of the saints who defended the Catholic faith after the Apostles, the impudence of Julian, who thought a Manichaean doctrine should be charged against us because we say that original sin is drawn from Adam—which sin is loosed through the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), not only in adults but also in infants. But how greatly Julian himself, by certain of his statements, aids the Manichees, I showed in the latter part of my first book. The other four of mine are given, one to each of theirs.

But in the fifth volume of this so great and so elaborate a work, where I mentioned that a deformed husband, lest his wife bear deformed children, was accustomed to set before her in intercourse a beautiful picture (C. Iul. 5, 14, 51), I put down as though certain the name of the man who was accustomed to do this, when it is uncertain, because my memory deceived me. For Soranus, an authority on medicine, wrote that a king of Cyprus was accustomed to do this, but did not give his proper name.

This work begins thus: Your insults and abusive words, Julian.

I also wrote a book On Faith, Hope, and Charity, when the one to whom it was written had asked of me that he might have some little work of mine that would never leave his hands—the kind the Greeks call an enchiridion. There (Enchirid. 2, 1) I seem to myself to have set out carefully enough how God is to be worshiped, which divine Scripture defines to be the true wisdom of man (De Trin. 12, 14, 22; 14, 1, 1; De spir. et litt. 11, 18; Ep. 140, 18, 45; 167, 3, 11).

This book begins thus: It cannot be said, most beloved son Laurentius, how greatly I delight in your learning.

I wrote the book The Care to Be Taken for the Dead when I had been asked by letter whether it profits anyone after death that his body is buried near the memorial shrine of some saint.

This book begins thus: For a long time, to your Holiness, venerable fellow bishop Paulinus.

The book which I entitled The Eight Questions of Dulcitius would not be mentioned in this work among my books, since it is composed of things written by me before in other works, were it not that some discussion is also found inserted in it by us, and that to one of those questions I gave a reply not from any other little work of mine, but such as could occur to me at the time.

This book begins thus: As far as it seems to me, most beloved son Dulcitius.

On account of those who, when the grace of God is defended (Ep. 214, 1; 215, 1), think that free choice is being denied, and so themselves defend free choice in such a way as to deny the grace of God (De grat. et lib. arb. 5, 10-11), asserting that it is given according to our merits, I wrote a book whose title is Grace and Free Choice. I wrote it to the monks of Hadrumetum, in whose monastery a contention about this matter had begun, so that some of them were compelled to consult me.

This book begins thus: On account of those who [defend] the free choice of man.

Again, to the same persons I wrote another book, which I entitled Rebuke and Grace, when it had been reported to me that someone there had said that no one should be rebuked if he does not do the commandments of God, but that one should only pray for him, that he may do them.

This book begins thus: Having read your letter, most beloved brother Valentinus.

I have recalled that I dictated these ninety-three works in two hundred and thirty-two books, when I reviewed them, not knowing whether I was still going to dictate any more; and the very review of them I published in two books, at the urging of the brethren, before I had begun to review the letters and the sermons to the people—some of them dictated, others delivered by me extempore.