Ambitio et Superbia as Impediments to Theological Truth in Augustine's Writings

Ambitio et Superbia as Impediments to Theological Truth
 in Augustine’s Writings
By Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A.

Paper delivered by Fr. Doyle on June 9, 2006, at the convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America held
in San Antonio, Texas.

I call your attention to my handout to help you follow the basic lines of my argument. One of the great
challenges faced by the contemporary church is finding the right balance between the role of the pastoral
magisterium (the college of bishops in communion with its head, the bishop of Rome) to authoritatively
define church teaching and the duty of the scholarly community of theologians and exegetes who are
entrusted with several tasks: to deepen our understanding of the received doctrines by careful
exploration in light of modern knowledge and insights; to help us to uncover the original intention of the
biblical writer, to critique the limitations of the received formulas of faith and to probe them for better
expressions which are more faithful to the underlying res (truth of the matter) being signified in the
traditional formulations; and lastly, to search for deeper insight into the consequences and implications of
faith convictions. There is always some tension in finding the proper balance between allowing
theologians the freedom to fulfill their prophetic task by critiquing the tradition and exploring the
consequences of new founded insights, and the constructive role of theology to loyally promote, defend,
and protect those precious truths which constitute “the rich deposit of faith.”
         The challenge today is compounded by the shift in Roman Catholic theology from seminaries
and monasteries to the academy as the primary venue where theological debate and exploration takes
place. The system of rewards in fact is quite different. The previous system tilted heavily towards
rewarding theologians who were deemed loyal and perhaps “conservative” in promoting the received
tradition. The present reality is that the theological enterprise is conducted primarily in the academy
comprised of college s and universities which reward participants for tenure and promotion largely on the
basis of publications in prestigious journals. The current system tends to favor publications largely on the
basis of originality, innovation and fresh perspectives which are viewed as ground breaking. This, in
turn, shapes the kind of theological investigation which is encouraged. Consequently the theologian
experiences some degree of pressure to be “original and innovative” in order to assure a “place at the
table.” I would like to explore Augustine of Hippo’s critique of the roles played by ambitio and supurbia
in the theological enterprise of seeking religious truth by focusing on one of his anti-Arian letters and a
sampling of his anti-Pelagian works. I will focus on Augustine’s hermeneutics of suspicion regarding the
roles played by ambition, pride and innovation as potential obstacles in attaining religious truth.
         The rather vigorous response to Roger Haight’s Jesus Symbol of God1 by not only the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2 but the theological community in some way served the
context in which I decided to explore the delicate issue of the blinding role of ambition and pride in
uncovering theological truth. Many compelling reviews of Haight’s book were published by members of
this society and members of other learned societies and have appeared in the prestigious theological
journals.3 Father Haight was a rather popular professor at the Weston Jesuit School of Theology and

1
  Roger Haight, Jesus Symbol of God, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001.
2
  See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Notification on the Book Jesus Symbol of God,” Origins 34:36
(February 24, 2005)
3
  Some of the reviews I found particularly insightful were John Cavadini’s published in Commonweal 126 (October
1999) 22-24; Anthony Baxter’s published in the Journal of Theological Studies 51 (April 2000) 400-405; John
MacQuarrie’s published in Expository Times 111 (December 1999) 103-104 and the rather lengthy review published
by Edward Jeremy Miller in Horizons 27 (Spring 2000) 164-184.
                                                                                                                      1
                                          Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                               © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

highly esteemed by colleagues. Because of the Vatican investigation of his work, many of his colleagues
were reluctant to take him on publicly either in print or at scholarly meetings. I remember an informal,
private conversation I had four year ago with a fellow Jesuit who taught systematic theology for years at
the Gregorian University, Fr. Jacques Dupuis, who also suffered a formal Vatican investigation. I asked
him what he thought of Father Haight’s book. He told me flatly, “he’s wrong of course as I’ve
communicated to him privately but I refuse to publish anything that would give the Vatican more
ammunition that could be hurtful.” A year later or so, at the annual convention of the CTSA (Catholic
Theological Society of America), Fr. Haight was invited to an open forum to discuss his work and
respond to queries and criticisms of his colleagues. I sensed that a truly honest, open exchange never
really took place. There was a large turnout and some lively discussion but members were reluctant to
add to his burden and Fr. Haight refused to concede any of the more serious shortcomings and concerns
raised by his colleagues. Fr. Haight was perceived to be another victim of the infamous Holy Office and
he became a cause célèbre for those who deplore the authoritarian tendencies in the Vatican curia. This is
neither the time nor the place to discuss the specific merits of Jesus, Symbol of God but it sparked my
interest in the role that politics (desire for recognition and approval) plays in theological discourse, in
particular the role of ambition and pride.
         Augustine is vigilant about the corruptive role of pride. In fact, it explains original sin, Adam and
Eve’s fundamental act of disobedience against God. Augustine views ignorantia and infirmitas as
consequences of original sin.4 As a result of original sin, human being’s ability to reason is clouded and
corrupted given to self-serving deceptions. He makes specific reference to the “darkness of mind”
(tenebras mentis) which prevails before baptism in even a rational person, in particular the deep ignorance
of the newly born.5 Because of infirmitas, human beings find themselves with a weakened will, unable to
carry out the consequences of correct teaching. There is no neat Latin word to translate the contemporary
term of “theologian” or “biblical exegete.” But we know this enterprise was carried out more often than
not in late antiquity by gifted, skilled pastors who were usually bishops or presbyters. I would like to
look at relevant texts where Augustine is on guard about the corrosive impact that pride and ambition
might play in the theological enterprise. The bishop himself was quite aware of his own pride and the
attendant enthusiasm for accolades after a job well done. Shortly after his ordination as a bishop he writes
in Book X of the Confessions: “The enemy of our true happiness therefore lies in wait for those of us who
by reason of our official positions in human society must of necessity be loved and honored by our
fellows.”6 Surely Augustine has in mind the occupational hazards of a bishop who loves heartfelt
compliments for a sermon just preached. The bishop’s warnings about the potential hazards that
ambition and pride might play in theological debate is particularly evident in his anti-Arian writing and
his Anti-Pelagian writings. I will focus on Augustine’s thoughts found in De peccatorum meritis et
remissione (The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins, Marriage and Desire (De nuptiis et concupiscentia) and
Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian) all anti-Pelagian works, and in
Letter 238 addressed to Pascentius, an anti-Arian work.
         A convenient summary of the core Pelagian propositions condemned by the Council of Carthage
is found in Roland Teske’s “Introduction” to De peccatorum meritis et remissione (The Punishment and
Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones):

4
  pecc. mer. I, 37, 68. hoc tam magnum ignorantiae atque infirmitatis malum si in hac uita iam nati paruuli
contraxerunt, ubi, quando, quomodo magna aliqua impietate commissa repente tantis tenebris inuoluti sunt?
5
  pecc. mer. I, 36, 67. illas, inquam, consideremus tenebras mentis utique rationalis, in quibus et deum prorsus
ignorant, cuius sacramentis etiam cum baptizantur obsistunt; in has quaero unde et quando summersi sint.
6
  Conf X, 36, 59. et contremunt fundamenta montium, Itaque nobis, quoniam propter quaedam humanae societatis
officia necessarium est amari et timeri ab hominibus, instat adversarius verae beatitudinis nostrae ubique spargens in
laqueis euge, euge, ut, dum avide colligimus, incaute capiamur et a veritate tua gaudium nostrum deponamus atque
in hominum fallacia ponamus, libeatque nos amari et timeri non propter te, sed pro te….
                                                                                                                     2
                                          Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                               © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

1) “Adam was created mortal so that he would die whether he sinned or did not sin.” 2)“The sin
         of Adam harmed him alone and not the human race.”3) “The law leads to the kingdom just as the
         Gospel does.” 4)“Before the coming of Christ there were human beings without sin.” 5)“Newly
         born infants are in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression.” 6)“The whole
         human race does not die through the death or transgression of Adam, nor does the whole human
         race rise through the resurrection of Christ.” 7

The specific issue of original sin and the persuasiveness of Augustine’s arguments are not our central
concern here, but rather Augustine’s method of arguing a particular position based on his understanding
of the received tradition expressed in both Scripture and/or the Church’s ancient doctrine.
         Theologians at times are prone to twist (peruertere ac detorquere) the meaning of words and to
stretch the usual conventions of language in order to prove their theories. The expression “original sin”
(originale peccatum) first appears in Augustine’s writings in De peccatorum meritis et remissione¸ his earliest
anti-Pelagian writing, begun shortly after the Council of Carthage in late Fall 411 or early 412.8 Because
the primary meaning of baptism is “forgiveness of sins” and since newborns are incapable of personal
sin, the only possible explanation for the Church’s ancient custom of baptizing babies is that the inherited
sin and guilt of Adam is being forgiven the child. The very form of the ritual including exorcism,
renunciation of sin, exsufflation and profession of faith underscores that real sin is forgiven. The specific
polemic between Pelagius, his followers and Augustine involves the correct interpretation of Scripture in
Romans: “But if Christ is in you, the body is indeed dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account
of righteousness (Rom 8:10).” Augustine concludes the only possible meaning of this verse is that death
of the body must indeed be the punishment of sin. To hold otherwise is to “twist and distort (peruertere ac
detorquére) the perfectly clear meaning of scripture as we choose.”9 The verb detorquére is repeated several
times within three paragraphs. The central biblical issue is the meaning of Romans 5:12: “Through one
man sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus it10 was passed on to all human beings in
whom all have sinned.”11 [READ Latin: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum
mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransivit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.] Augustine’s opponents here believe
that the death being referred to by Paul in this passage is not the death of the body which they deny
Adam merited in sinning, but rather the death of the soul which occurs in the sin itself.12 Augustine

7
  Augustine¸ Answer to the Pelagians, I¸ Intro. Tr and Notes Roland J. Teske, Ed. John Rotelle, O.S.A., (Hyde Park,
NY: New City Press, 1997) 20.
8
  pecc. mer. 9, 9 hinc enim etiam in paruulis nolunt credere per baptismum solui originale peccatum quod in
nascentibus nullum esse omnino contendunt. [Teske’s translation: “Hence, they refuse to believe that in the case of
little children original sin is removed by baptism, since they maintain that there is no sin at all in newborns.”]
9
  pecc. mer.I, 6, 6. quocirca si, ut dubitari non potest, spiritus uita est propter iustitiam, hoc est merito iustitiae,
profecto corpus mortuum propter peccatum quid aliud quam merito peccati intellegere debemus aut possumus, si
apertissimum scripturae sensum non pro arbitrio peruertere ac detorquere conamur? Similarly pecc. mer. I, 9, 9. hoc
autem apostolicum testimonium, in quo ait: per unum hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum et per peccatum mors,
conari eos quidem in aliam nouam detorquere opinionem tuis litteris intimasti, sed quidnam illud sit quod in his
uerbis opinentur tacuisti.; pecc. mer. I, 9, 10 sed quia eius uerba sunt, cuius auctoritati doctrinae que succumbunt,
nobis intellegendi obiciunt tarditatem, cum ea quae perspicue dicta sunt in nescio quid aliud detorquere conantur.
10
   Here Teske reminds us in his critical Notes that Augustine’s Old Latin version omits the subject mors (death)
found in the Vulgate version: “Et ita in omnes homines mors pertansiit.” Thus Augustine believes that he has clear
biblical evidence that the sin of Adam was passed on to all human beings.
11
   pecc. mer. I, 9, 10 citing Romans 5:12. “Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors;
et ita in omnes homines pertransivit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.”
12
   pecc. mer. I, 9, 9 quantum autem ex aliis comperi, hoc ibi sentiunt, quod et mors ista, quae illic commemorata est,
non sit corporis, quam nolunt adam peccando meruisse, sed animae, quae in ipso peccato fit, et ipsum peccatum non
propagatione in alios homines ex primo homine, sed imitatione transisse..
                                                                                                                       3
                                           Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                                © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

initially interpreted the relative pronoun in the clause “in whom all have sinned” (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) as referring both to the sin of Adam, “in which,” and to the person of Adam, “in whom.”
Teske reminds us that neither interpretation is acceptable to modern exegesis and adds furthermore, the
bishop himself later came to understand that the relative pronoun could not have referred to “sin,” since
the Greek word is feminine, while the relative pronoun is masculine.13 Augustine notes “the carefulness,
the propriety, the clarity with which the next clause is stated, in whom, all have sinned (Rom 5:12).”14 The
bishop of Hippo employs rigorous language in his conclusion:
          Thus we have contracted from Adam, in whom we have all sinned, not all our sins, but only
          original sin. But from Christ in whom we are all justified, we obtain the forgiveness not only of
          that original sin, but also of the other sins we have added to it.15

         No self-respected Christian theologian will dare call into question the authority of Paul “but
[Augustine adds] because they are the words of one to whose authority and teaching they yield [namely,
the apostle Paul], they [Pelagius and his sympathizers] accuse us [Augustine] of being slow to
understand, while they try to twist (detorquére) a perfectly clear statement into some other meaning.”16
The fundamental issue, of course, is how to correctly interpret Scripture when there are conflicting texts
that come into play leaving a certain amount of ambiguity. Augustine develops fairly comprehensive
principles for correct interpretation in De doctrina christiana, a work he labored over for several decades.
The first three books focus on the de modo inveniendi, how to discover and unlock what the specific words
of Scripture mean. In Book I he suggests that love is the fundamental hermeneutical principle for correct
understanding of Sacred Scripture.17 The Bishop of Hippo then explains why interpreting Scripture can
be such a difficult, arduous task: “in order to break down pride with hard labor and to save intelligence
from boredom, since it readily forms a low opinion of things that are too easy to work out.”18 This leads
us to the question of which Scripture is to be consulted. Augustine clarifies immediately those [scriptures]
which have “the authority of the majority of the Catholic Churches, among which, of course, are those
that have the privilege of being apostolic sees.”19 But what are we to do in cases of ambiguity or where

13
   See Teske, Answer to the Pelagians I/23, n. 15, 77.
14
   pecc. mer. I, 9, 10 sed quia eius uerba sunt, cuius auctoritati doctrinae que succumbunt, nobis intellegendi obiciunt
tarditatem, cum ea quae perspicue dicta sunt in nescio quid aliud detorquere conantur. and pecc. mer. I, 10, 11. hinc
omnino nec aliunde apostolus dicit: per unum hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum et per peccatum mors; et ita in
omnes homines pertransiuit, in quo omnes peccauerunt.
15
   pecc. mer. I, 13, 16 ; 42. ac per hoc ab adam, in quo omnes peccauimus, non omnia nostra peccata, sed tantum
originale traduximus; a christo uero, in quo omnes iustificamur, non illius tantum originalis sed etiam ceterorum,
quae ipsi addidimus, peccatorum remissionem consequimur.
16
   pecc. mer. I, 9, 10 sed quia eius uerba sunt, cuius auctoritati doctrinae que succumbunt, nobis intellegendi
obiciunt tarditatem, cum ea quae perspicue dicta sunt in nescio quid aliud detorquere conantur. also see the general
thrust of Ep. 238, ¶4 and 5 where Augustine accuses Pascentius of playing games with verbal gymnastics arguing
over particular signa (the suitability of the term homooúsion) rather than focusing on the res of the argument
17
   doctr chr. I, 36, 40. quisquis igitur scripturas diuinas uel quamlibet earum partem intellexisse sibi uidetur, ita ut eo
intellectu non aedificet istam geminam caritatem dei et proximi, nondum intellexit.
18
   doctr chr. II, 6, 7; 131. quod totum prouisum esse diuinitus non dubito ad edomandam labore superbiam et
intellectum a fastidio reuocandum, cui facile inuestigata plerumque uilescunt. All English translations are taken
from Edmund Hill’s translation in Teaching Christianity, The Works of St. Augustine, I/11. Intro. Tr, and notes
Edmund Hill, O.P., Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1996. The final number indicates the page of the English
edition. I will sometimes slightly amend specific words looking for more current expressions.
19
   doctr chr. II, 8, 12; 134. in canonicis autem scripturis, ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium auctoritatem
sequatur, inter quas sane illae sint, quae apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt.tenebit igitur hunc
modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas, quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, praeponat eis, quas quidam
non accipiunt; in eis uero, quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas, quas plures grauiores que accipiunt, eis,
quas pauciores minoris que auctoritatis ecclesiae tenent.
                                                                                                                         4
                                            Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                                 © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

Sacred Scripture seems to contradict itself or good reason, or the regula fidei makes a particular
interpretation untenable? A straightforward example readily comes to mind in light of reading N. T.
Wright’s The Last Word—how do we make sense of the commandment to “honor our father and our
mother,” when Jesus in Mark 3:31-35 demonstrates that he ignored his mother and brothers in favor of
his followers and in Luke 14:26 warned his followers that they would have to be prepared to hate their
father, mother and almost everyone else as well.20 We must pay attention to the entire context: “to the
sections that precede and that follow the ambiguous context.”21 If the ambiguity can still not be resolved
from either the regula fidei or the context, the exegete or theologian is free to phrase it in any of the ways
that are open.22
         Augustine often accuses his theological opponents of “twisting” perfectly clear language into
“some other meaning.” It doesn’t matter so much whether a particular term such as homooúsion can be
found in Scripture as long as the thing itself (res) can be found there. The bishop grounds his theological
argument on correct method. That is precisely why he insists that theological debate take place in the
proper forum with secretaries and scribes carefully documenting the conversation. In Letter 238
Augustine writes to Pascentius, an Arian layman, insisting that they meet “face to face” (praesens cum
praesente) and that their arguments be properly recorded.23 Pascentius had earlier agreed to this in the
morning but evidently backed down by dinner time. In another context involving a debate with Donatist
bishops, Augustine also suggests a peaceful, neutral venue which allows for a dispassionate expose of all
the relevant issues without outside interference of sympathizers.24 The bishop is particularly mindful of
selective memory, partial memory or subtle changing of language:
         In that way neither of us might be confused by forgetfulness or annoyed by the disagreement and
         might say that something that was said was not said or that something that was not said was
         said. For those who desire an argument more than the truth often seek concealment for their
         weak defense.25

Augustine notes that Pascentius has changed his words but is willing to attribute this to forgetfulness
rather than deliberate deceit.26 [READ Latin: quod nulla credo fraude, sed oblivione factum esse.] The

20
   N. T. Wright, The Last Word, (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) 43.
21
  doctr chr. II, 2, 2; 169. quod si ambae uel etiam omnes, si plures fuerint partes ambiguitatis, secundum fidem
sonuerint, textus ipse sermonis a praecedentibus et consequentibus partibus, quae ambiguitatem illam in medio
posuerunt, restat consulendus, ut uideamus, cuinam sententiae de pluribus, quae se ostendunt, ferat suffragium eam
que sibi contexi patiatur. Wright argues similarly in The Last Word, 119-120.
22
   doctr chr. III, 2, 5. quae ambiguitas uno consequenti uerbo diiudicatur, quod positum est enim; quam particulam
qui abstulerunt interpretes, illa potius sententia ducti sunt, ut non solum compelli ex duobus, sed etiam duorum
habere concupiscentiam uideretur.
23
   Ep. 238, 1 . Volueram quidem, petente te atque instante, ut meminisse dignaris, immo vero pro merito aetatis ac
dignitatis tuae iubente te, de fide christiana etiam praesens cum praesente
24
   Ep. 44, 14; CSEL 34, 121. Videtur autem mihi, ut turbulentas turbas et impedimentum potius quam adiumentum
afferents omnino divitemus, et vere ex animo amico atque tranquillo…ubi nullius nostrum esset ecclesia.
25
   Ep. 238, 2. an qui usque adeo nolebat eam disceptantium iudicio subtrahi, ut mandata litteris vellet etiam
legentium memoriae commendari, ne quisquam vel oblivione opinatus, vel dissensione irritatus, diceret ab aliquo
nostrum aut non esse dictum quod dictum erat, aut dictum esse quod dictum non erat. In his enim solent latebras
suae malae defensionis inquirere, qui contentionis sunt cupidiores quam veritatis. Hoc autem nec a te nec a me, nec
de te nec de me dici posset, si in fide condicti permaneres, ut verba nostra exciperentur et scriberentur; praesertim
quia tu ipse in iis verbis quibus fidem tuam pronuntiasti, quoties ea repetisti, toties variasti. Also see par. 7-9.
26
   Ep. 238, 2 . quod nulla credo fraude, sed oblivione factum esse.
                                                                                                                        5
                                          Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                               © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

carefully recorded proceedings should then be signed by each party to verify these are indeed the specific
words that were debated.27
          Similarly, in Marriage and Desire, an anti-Pelagian work written in 418-419, the bishop notes: “it
often happens that memory is mistaken about the precise words, while it preserves the thought.”28 He
accuses his opponent of conveniently employing circumlocutions, just as Adam and Eve sewed together
loin cloths to cover themselves.29 Having learned the importance of careful record keeping the hard way,
Augustine decided to respond to Julian of Eclanum in his laborious Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum
(=Unfinished Works in Answer to Julina), written at the very end of his life but never fully completed due to
his death, by quoting virtually the first six books of his opponent’s To Florus, probably written between
423-426 where he cites verbatim Julian’s passage and then responds with his own commentary and
critique 30. He will not allow Julian to bamboozle him with slick language and selective omission of key
phrases as Pelagius successfully accomplished at the Council of Diospolois where his teaching was
vindicated and declared “orthodox” by a council of Eastern bishops whose Latin skills were not quite
adequate to the level of the debate. Augustine himself had experienced the same from Julian’s response to
his Marriage and Desire written in two parts (Book I written during the winter of 418-419 and Book II
written either in 421 or 422) in response to a request by Count Valerius. In Book II, paragraphs 3 -6, Julian
had omitted the testimony of the apostle [Paul] which he had included and then later cited Augustine “in
such a way that in some places he splits the sentences by removing words in the middle and in others he
clips them off by removing the final words.”31 Augustine apologizes for annoying the reader who must
read lengthy quotes in order to make sure that he is not misrepresenting his opponent or quoting him out
of context.32
          Letter 238 written to Pascentius, is particularly illustrative of Augustine’s enlightened theological
method, in particular his willingness to depart from biblical language in expounding theological truth.
For example, in Ep. 238, 3 the bishop is willing to accept an alternate wording to the regula fidei, but
refuses to accept the Arian’s omitting the term “Father” when he “believes in God the Father almighty,
invisible, unbegotten, incomprehensible, and in Jesus Christ, his Son, God, born before ages, through
whom all things were made, and in the Holy Spirit.”33 Augustine shows himself willing to accept variant
formulations of the regula fidei as long as the substantial content is unequivocally the same. There is no
slavish attachment to simply repeating archaic formulas. Yet, subtle innovations in the formulaic

27
   Ep. 238,4, 26, tamen ea non solum dictata conscribi uolui, sed etiam manu mea subscribenda curaui, quod quidem
et antea uolueram, si, quod inter nos placuerat, seruaretur.; ¶29 huic scripturae a me dictatae et relectae augustinus
subscripsi.
28
   nupt. et conc. II, 4, 12, Marriage and Desire, 59. solet enim accidere, ut memoria fallat in uerbis, dum tamen
sententia teneatur.
29
   nupt. et conc. II, 7, 17, Marriage and Desire, 63. nonne tibi uidentur haec uerba folia esse ficulneae, sub quibus
latet quid aliud quam id quod pudet? ita quippe iste sibi circumlocutionis huius obstacula sicut illi succinctoria
consuerunt.
30
   Con Iul. Imp (Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum), Answer to the Pelagians III: Unfnished Work in Answer to
Julian,” Intro., tr. and notes, Roland J. Teske¸ The Works of St. Augustine, Ed. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., Hyde Park,
NY: New City Press, 1999.
31
   nupt. et conc. II, 3-6, Marriage and Desire, 55-56. ¶1. in his uerbis meis testimonium apostoli quod interposui
praetermisit, cuius se premi magna mole sentiebat. ¶3 nunc ad ea, quae sicut uoluit nostra proposuit, quae sua
opposuerit uideamus. sequuntur enim iam uerba eius et, sicut iste insinuauit, qui tibi chartulam misit, prius aliquid
de praefatione conscripsit procul dubio librorum illorum de quibus pauca decerpsit.
32
   nupt. et conc. II, 4, 10. Marriage and Desire, 59. non itaque pigeat utraque huic opusculo nostro indita, et ea
scilicet, quae ille dixit, et ea, quae ipse respondeo, uniuersa adtendere et considerare lectorem.
33
   Ep. 238, 3; CSEL 57. “Quod cum mihi ad legendum dedisses, animadverti minus te scripsisse: "Patrem", cum
scripsisses: "Deum omnipotentem, invisibilem, ingenitum, innatum". Quod ubi commemoravi, non post multam
altercationem addidisti: "Patrem": et "incapabilem" quidem, quod verbis dixeras, scripto praetermiseras; sed nulla
hinc a me facta commemoratio est.”
                                                                                                                     6
                                          Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                               © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

language which perhaps appeal to contemporary sensibilities may in effect neglect or shift attention off of
an important affirmation preserved in the ancient formula. Just last week I was introduced to such a
novel creed during the renewal of baptismal promises on the Solemnity of the Ascension at one of the
more vibrant parishes in Chicago where I had attended the North American Patristics Society annual
meeting. The parish is known for its diversity and sensitivity to inclusion and is generally showcased as a
model dynamic Catholic urban parish in the local press. Each clause of the interrogatory formula had
introduced subtle and not so subtle changes of terminology; most notably, the term “father” was
eliminated and substituted by “Creator.” I believe the innovative phrasing in each of the clauses was not
theologically neutral and risked overlooking key truths of our faith.
         We know that a certain diversity of language existed in the various baptismal creeds of local
churches and we can more or less reconstruct the actual baptismal creed used in Hippo by a careful
analysis of Augustine’s sermons to the neophytes during the Octave of Easter. Scholars generally agree
that the language was quite close to the creeds employed by Cyprian in Carthage and echoes the creeds
used in Rome.34 The bishop is even willing to declare his own profession of faith as if his orthodoxy were
under investigation. Augustine, however, refuses to settle for alternatives which might compromise the
meaning. Pascentius is not free to eliminate the term “Father” in his profession of faith. The bishop of
Hippo is acutely aware of the ever present danger in theology to adopt hastily one’s own position when
confronted with difficult passages from Scripture.35 The perennial danger in theology is the desire to
create a name for oneself.
         In De peccatorum meritis et remissione, the bishop makes frequent reference to “divine authority,”36
the “authority of Sacred Scripture,”37 the “authority of the apostle [Paul],” the “authority given to the
whole Church,”38 “authority of the eastern churches” who accept the Letter to the Hebrews as
canonical.39 It is not sufficient simply to cite the largest number of scriptural proofs to support a position.
One must consider the quality and context of the passages cited; namely what is hidden under the veil of
Old Testament passages may be fully revealed in the New Testament.40 Teske notes in his Introduction
that approximately one fourth of the words in the translation of the first book are direct quotations from
the Bible.41 Furthermore, texts that are found unclear should be interpreted in the light of those which are
perfectly clear.42 When Augustine is unable to refute the arguments of his opponents he insists that we

34
   I am grateful to J. Patout Burns who made this point at the recent NAPS meeting in Chicago, May 27, 2006.
35
   Ep. 238, 14; CSEL 57 Homines autem minus intelligentes, quid propter dicatur, praecipites volunt habere
sententias et Scripturis non diligenter scrutatis, arripiunt defensionem cuisque opinionis, et ab ea vel numquam vel
difficile deflectuntur, dum docti atque sapientes magis putari quam esse concupiscunt….
36
   pecc. mer. III, 4, 8. his atque huiusmodi aliis, quae nunc praetereo, testimoniis diuina luce clarissimis, diuina
auctoritate certissimis nonne ueritas sine ulla ambiguitate proclamat….
37
   pecc. mer. I, 22, 33 cedamus igitur et consentiamus auctoritati sanctae scripturae quae nescit falli nec fallere
[“Let us then yield and give our assent to the authority of sacred scripture which can neither deceive nor be
deceived.”]; II, 36, 58 Non enim parum paginarum divinarum auctoritati veritatique cesserunt ; 36, 59 quod etiam
hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima auctoritas esset.
38
   pecc. mer. I, 26, 39 porro quia paruulos baptizandos esse concedunt, qui contra auctoritatem uniuersae ecclesiae
procul dubio per dominum et apostolos traditam uenire non possunt…; I 33, 62 ubi ergo paruulos ponimus
baptizatos nisi inter fideles, sicut uniuersae ubique ecclesiae clamat auctoritas?; I, 34, 64 proinde isti posteriores
intuendo scripturas et auctoritatem totius ecclesiae et formam ipsius sacramenti…; III, 2, 2 ; III, 4, 9. “the authority
given to the whole Church through the Lord and the apostles.”
39
   pecc. mer. I, 27, 50. magisque me movet auctoritas Ecclesiarum orientalium.
40
   pecc. mer. I, 27, 53. Et multa quidem alia reperiri possunt, sed et finiendi huius operas cura non negligener
habenda est. De libris quoque Veteris Testamenti multas contestationes divinorum eloquiorum adhibere in hanc
sententiam supervacaneum putavi.
41
   Teske, 22.
42
   pecc. mer. I, 7, 7. Quanquam itaque verear ne res manifesta exponendo potius obscuretor, apostolicae tamen
sententiae lumen attende.
                                                                                                                           7
                                           Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                                © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

must hold onto the points which are perfectly clear in the scriptures. Only then can we proceed to clarify
those points which are obscure.43 When there is any question about the proper meaning of a text, the
bishop warns against fascination with novel interpretation and affirms:
        I find nothing but what the universal Church maintains. She must remain vigilant against all
        profane novelties.44

He is distrustful on innovation that sounds contrary to the ancient view of the Church.45 Augustine
further adds this shame possibly explains why Pelagius refused to have his name attached to the
innovative doctrine. Perhaps he does not really hold that human beings are born without sin since he
readily acknowledges that they need baptism in which sins are forgiven.46 Augustine was frankly
disturbed when he casually heard the novel idea while visiting Carthage that “little ones are not baptized
in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, but in order to be sanctified in Christ.”47 Nevertheless he
exercised pastoral prudence in deciding that it was not the right moment to correct this error (opportunum
non fuit). Augustine was inclined to ignore erroneous teaching promoted by unknown theologians with
minimal influence but found it necessary to react publicly once the matter had reached a crisis.48
         The bishop seems to make the distinction that it is one thing for a theologian to entertain a novel
idea in debate but far more serious to commit it in writing. He blasts Jovinian for being so bold as to
publish his opinion that nuns of an advanced age should consider marriage since virgins with vows of
virginity have no more merit before God than married believers.49 In Book III he reiterates the
importance of antiquity and consensus in establishment of certain Christian doctrine echoing the famous
semper, omnibus et ubique of Vincent of Lerins. The bishop does not equate the opinion of great doctors of
the Church as if they were a canonical authority but to demonstrate “when this new opinion [my
emphasis] arose, this teaching on original sin was preserved in the faith of the Church…with great
constancy.”50 Nevertheless, the cumulative evidence of recognized authorities carries great weight.51

43
   pecc. mer. III, 4, 7. Ego autem etsi refellere istorum argumenta non valeam, video tamen inhaerendum esse iis
quae in Scripturae sunt apertissima, ut ex his revelentur obscura, aut si mens nondum est idonea, quae posit ea vel
demonstrata cernere, vel abstrusa investigare, sine ulla hesitatione credantur.
44
   pecc. mer. I, 28, 56; 66. nihil invenitur nisi, quod universa Ecclesia tenet, quae adversus omnes profanas novitates vigilare
debet.
45
   pecc. mer. III, 5, 6, 132. uides ne obsecro , quemadmodum hoc totum pelagius non ex sua, sed ex aliorum persona
indiderit scriptis suis usque adeo sciens hanc nescio quam esse nouitatem, quae contra antiquam et ecclesiae insitam
opinionem sonare nunc coeperit, ut eam ipse confiteri aut uerecundatus aut ueritus fuerit.
46
   pecc. mer. III, 3, 6. et forte hoc ipse non sentit, quod sine peccato nascatur homo, cui fatetur necessarium esse
baptismum, in quo fit remissio peccatorum; quod sine peccato damnetur homo, quem necesse est non baptizatum in
non credentibus deputari,
47
   pecc. mer. III, 6, 12. cum illic carthaginem essemus, non ideo paruulos baptizari, ut remissionem accipiant
peccatorum, sed ut santificentur in Christo. qua nouitate permotus et quia oportunum non fuit, ut contra aliquid
dicerem, et non tales homines erant, de quorum essem auctoritate sollicitus, facile hoc in transactis atque abolitis
habui.
48
   pecc. mer. III, 6, 12. et ecce iam studio flammante defenditur, ecce scribendo etiam memoriae commendatur, ecce
res in hoc discrimen adducitur, ut hinc etiam a fratribus consulamur, ecce contra disputare atque scribere cogimur!
49
   pecc. mer. III, 7, 13. ante paucos annos romae quidam extitit iouinianus, qui sanctimonialibus etiam aetate iam
prouectioribus nuptias persuasisse dicatur non inliciendo, quo earum aliquam ducere uellet uxorem, sed disputando
uirgines sanctimonio dicatas nihil amplius fidelibus coniugatis apud deum habere meritorum…huius sane scripta -
nam et scribere ausus est - cum fratres ad hieronymum refellenda misissent….
50
   pecc. mer. III, 7, 14 ; 129. haec non ideo commemoraui , quod disputatorum quorumlibet sententiis tamquam
canonica auctoritate nitamur, sed ut appareat ab initio usque ad praesens tempus, quo ista nouitas orta est, hoc de
originali peccato apud ecclesiae fidem tanta constantia custoditum, ut ab eis, qui dominica tractarent eloquia, magis
certissimum proferretur ad alia falsa refutanda quam id tamquam falsum refutari ab aliquo temptaretur.
51
   See Eric Rebillard, “A New Style of Argument in Christian Polemic: Augustine and the Use of Patristic
Citations,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (Winter 200) 559-578. Rebillard reminds us that the Pelagian
                                                                                                                                   8
                                              Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                                   © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

Augustine puts theologians on guard who “find more pleasure in defending what they think
than in discovering what they should think.”52 Pride is blinding:
        The cause of all human failings is, after all pride. It was to overcome and destroy this pride, that
        such a remedy came down from heaven; to human beings puffed up with pride.53

There is real danger of misinterpreting words from Sacred Scripture for anyone “who is fully separated
from the Catholic faith and opposed to these same writings.”54 Even the Pelagians make no small
concession to the authority and truth of the Scriptures when they admitted that little ones needed
redemption, even if they refused to state clearly in their writings that they needed the forgiveness of sins:
“They used a different word, a (alio quippe verbo), a word also drawn from Christian doctrine, but they
said exactly the same thing.” 55 Theologians must be careful to hold in check ambitious presumption
especially when debating about a very obscure matter without the help of certain and clear proofs from
divine authorities, doing nothing to favor one side or another.56
         Augustine waits until Book III of De peccatorum meritis to name his opponent Pelagius and pays
him an immense compliment: “a holy man, as I hear, and a Christian of considerable religious
development (sancti uiri, ut audio, et non paruo prouectu christiani).”57 He later refers to him as “a fine and
praiseworthy man (bonum ac praedicandum virum).”58 Elsewhere he calls him an “exemplary Christian
(egregie christianus).”59 The bishop similarly praises Pelagius for not being rash or overconfident in
treating obscure questions such as the origin of the soul when the biblical testimony is unclear.60
         Augustine is well acquainted with the arguments that sound more pastorally sensitive such as
“even if little ones die without baptism, they will have salvation and eternal life since they are not bound
with any [personal] sin.61 Julian and other Pelagian sympathizers were inclined to read into John 3:5
“Unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one will not enter the Kingdom of heaven,” that such

controversy represents the first debate that gives such prominence to patristic citations. In pecc mer. Jerome is
called upon as a witness not so much because of his doctrinal authority but because of his vast and expert knowledge
of ecclesiastical authors.
52
   pecc. mer. II, 10, 13; 89. quis huic euidentiae contradicit , nisi quem plus delectat defensare quod sentit quam quid
sentiendum sit inuenire?
53
   pecc. mer. II, 17, 27. nullius proinde culpae humanae in deum referas causam. uitiorum namque omnium
humanorum causa superbia est.
54
   pecc. mor. II, 33, 53. nec resistit his verbis divini libri, quae posui de labore hominis et de parturitione mulieris,
nisi qui prorsus alienus a fide catholica eisdem Litteris adversatur.
55
   pecc. mor. II, 36, 58. non enim parum scripturarum diuinarum auctoritati ueritati que cesserunt, qui etsi noluerunt
litteris suis aperte exprimere paruulis remissionem necessariam peccatorum, redemptionem tamen eis opus esse
confessi sunt. alio quippe uerbo, etiam ipso de christiana eruditione deprompto, nihil aliud omnino dixerunt.
56
   pecc. mer. II, 36, 58 etsi enim quodlibet horum, quemadmodum demonstrari et explicari possit, ignorem, illud
tamen credo, quod etiam hinc diuinorum eloquiorum clarissima auctoritas esset, si homo id sine dispendio promissae
salutis ignorare non posset.
57
   pecc. mer. III, 1, 1. uerum post paucissimos dies legi pelagii quaedam scripta, sancti uiri, ut audio, et non paruo
prouectu christiani
58
   pecc. mer. III, 3, 5. Verumtamen nos non neglegenter oportet attendere, istum, sicut cum qui noverunt loquuntur,
bonum ac praedicandum virum.
59
   pecc. mer. III, 3, 6. credo quod vir ille tam egregie christianus omnino non sentiat.
60
   pecc. mor. III, 10, 18. adtende, obsecro te, quemadmodum uir circumspectus pelagius - nam ex eius libro haec
quae modo posui uerba transcripsi - sensit quam in difficili de anima quaestione uersetur.
61
   pecc. mer. I, 30, 58. qua isti sententia nisi mouerentur, omnino paruulos nec baptizandos esse censerent. sed quia
non ait, inquiunt: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non habebit salutem uel uitam aeternam, tantummodo
autem dixit: non intrabit in regnum dei, ad hoc paruuli baptizandi sunt, ut sint etiam cum christo in regno dei, ubi
non erunt, si baptizati non fuerint, quamuis et sine baptismo si paruuli moriantur salutem uitam que aeternam
habituri sint, quoniam nullo peccati uinculo obstricti sunt.
                                                                                                                        9
                                           Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                                © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A

children were only excluded from heaven but not from “salvation and eternal life.” Augustine concludes
Book III of De peccatorum meritis et remissione with sobering advice toward those who are quick and
enthusiastic to embrace novel teaching which breaks with ancient truth:
        The point of that discussion, after all, was that some people think that infants have no need to be
        baptized, and we must oppose that novel idea with the truth. They do not state this point in plain
        words for fear that the well established and salutary custom of the Church would be unable to
        tolerate those who violate it.62

Conclusion
          I have attempted to demonstrate Augustine’s caution to enthusiastically embrace new
interpretations of Scripture that depart radically from the established tradition no matter how compelling
they might be on the surface. Theologians are particularly prone to promoting novel interpretations that
create a name for themselves. The resultant pride blinds theologians to the ancient truths expressed in the
received tradition. Although this may present a problem to contemporary systematic theology’s
enthusiasm for development of doctrine, a notion that I wholeheartedly endorse, the only remedy
recommended by the Bishop of Hippo is holy humility by which “we will be healed from that first cause
of all sins, that is, from the swelling of pride.”63
          What is ultimately at stake here is the “authority of the Word of God,” a topic carefully explored
in the latest book of one of the Church’s most talented living exegetes, N. T Wright, the Anglican Bishop
of Durham, England, The Last Word. Wright’s central claim is this phrase (the authority of Sacred
Scripture) can only make Christian sense if it is shorthand for “the authority of the triune God, exercised
somehow through Scripture.”64 He concludes his concise but incisive work with an admonition that
strikes me as faithful to Augustine’s fundamental concerns about preserving the truth of Christian
doctrine in contemporary circumstances. “It is time to establish a hermeneutic of trust (itself a sign of the
gospel!) [with our doctrinal past] in place of the hermeneutic of suspicion which the church has so
disastrously borrowed from the postmodern world.”65

62
   pecc. mer. III, 13, 22. id enim agit illa disputatio, contra cuius nouitatem antiqua ueritate nitendum est, ut infantes
omnino superfluo baptizari uideantur. sed aperte hoc non dicitur, ne tam firmata salubriter ecclesiae consuetudo
uiolatores suos ferre non possit.
63
   Pecc. mer. III, 13, 23. actionem gratiarum semper indulgentiae ipsius debeamus et sic ab illa prima causa omnium
uitiorum, hoc est a tumore superbiae, sancta humilitate sanemur.
64
   N. T. Wright, The Last Word, 23.
65
   Wright, 137.
                                                                                                                        10
                                            Courtesy of www.augustinianfriends.org.
                                                 © 2006 Daniel E. Doyle, O.S.A