Letter 226: Hilarius asks Augustine to answer Massilian objections to grace, predestination, and perseverance.

To Augustine, most blessed father, longed for with all affection and greatly to be honored in Christ: Hilarius. When there are no questions from opponents, the inquiries of eager students are usually welcome, since they help them learn even things they could safely have left unknown. I think the careful report I am sending will be still more welcome, because it points out, from the arguments some people are advancing, views that stand against the truth. It is not so much for my own sake as for those who are troubling others and being troubled themselves that I am seeking help from Your Holiness's counsel, most blessed father, longed for with all affection and greatly to be honored in Christ. These, then, are the things now being debated at Massilia, and in other places in Gaul as well. Some say it is new and useless for preaching to teach that certain people are chosen according to God's purpose in such a way that they can neither take hold of faith nor keep it unless the will to believe is given to them. They think all the force of preaching is excluded if nothing is said to remain in human beings that preaching can stir up. They agree that every human being perished in Adam and that no one can be set free from that fall by his own choice. But they say it is more fitting to truth, or at least more useful for preaching, to say this: when the chance of obtaining salvation is announced to people who are prostrate and unable to rise by their own strength, then, because they have chosen and believed that they can be healed of their sickness, they receive both the growth of that faith and the full effect of their healing. They agree that no one is sufficient for beginning any work, much less completing it. Yet they do not count it as part of the healing work itself when each sick person, terrified and begging, wants to be healed. When Scripture says, "Believe, and you will be saved," they say one thing is demanded and the other is offered; if the demanded thing is given back, then the offered thing is granted. From this they conclude that faith must be shown by the person whose nature received this capacity by the Creator's will. They think no nature is so depraved or extinguished that it either ought not or cannot wish to be healed. On that ground a person is either healed from his sickness, or, if he refuses, punished with his sickness. Nor, they say, is grace denied if a will of this sort comes first, a will that seeks such a physician without yet having any strength of its own. Passages such as "as God has allotted to each the measure of faith," and similar texts, they want to mean that the one who has begun to will is helped, not that the will itself is also given. Otherwise, they say, others equally guilty would be excluded from this gift, even though they too could be freed if the will to believe, granted to people equally undeserving, were granted to them as well. If it is said that some such power has remained in everyone, by which a person can either despise or obey, they think the explanation of the chosen and the rejected is neatly solved by attaching to each person the merit of his own will. When they are asked why preaching is given to some people or in some places and not to others, or why it is preached now when once it was not preached to almost everyone, as even now it is not preached to some nations, they say this belongs to divine foreknowledge: truth was, or is, announced at the time, in the place, and to the people where God knew beforehand it would be believed. They claim to prove this not only from the testimony of other catholic writers, but also from Your Holiness's earlier discussion, though there you taught the same grace with no less clarity. They cite what Your Holiness said against Porphyry on the time of the Christian religion: that Christ chose to appear to human beings and have his doctrine preached among them when and where he knew there would be people who would believe in him. They also cite your book on Romans, where, answering the question, "Why does he still complain? For who resists his will?" you wrote that even spiritual people, not living according to the earthly person, can see the first merits of faith and impiety: how God by foreknowledge chooses those who will believe and condemns unbelievers, choosing the former not from works and condemning the latter not from works, but granting to the faith of the former that they may work well, and hardening the impiety of the latter by abandoning them so that they work evil. They also quote the earlier passage in the same work: that all are equal before merit, and among things entirely equal there can be no election; that since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not choose the works he himself gives when he gives the Holy Spirit so that we may do good by love, but he does choose faith, because unless someone believes and remains in the will to receive, he does not receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured in and good can be done. In that way, you said, God does not choose in foreknowledge anyone's works, which he himself will give, but chooses faith in foreknowledge, so that the one he foreknew would believe is the one he chose to receive the Holy Spirit and so, by doing good, obtain eternal life. They say they accept these and the other statements in that work as agreeing with gospel truth. But they contend that foreknowledge, predestination, and purpose mean that God foreknew, predestined, or purposed to choose those who were going to believe. They say that this faith cannot be asked about with the words, "What do you have that you did not receive?" because it remained in the same nature, although wounded, that had first been given whole and perfect. When Your Holiness says that no one perseveres unless he has received the strength to persevere, they accept it only in this sense: that it is given to those whose own choice, though powerless, has nevertheless gone before, a choice free only to admit or refuse the medicine. They declare that they themselves detest and condemn anyone who thinks some strength has remained in a person by which he can advance toward health. But they do not want perseverance preached in such a way that it cannot either be obtained by humble prayer or lost by stubbornness. They do not want to be brought back to what they call the uncertainty of God's will, when in their view the beginning of the will, whatever its quality, is evident enough for receiving or admitting grace. The passage you used, "He was taken away lest wickedness change his understanding," they say should be omitted because it is not canonical. So they understand foreknowledge to mean that people are foreknown because of future faith, and they deny that anyone is given such perseverance that he is not permitted to desert it. In their view, a person can fall away from it and grow weak by his own will. They also say the custom of exhorting is useless if nothing is said to remain in a human being that correction can awaken. They admit that this belongs to nature only in such a way that the very preaching of truth to an ignorant person must be referred to the benefit of present grace. But they ask: if people have been predestined to one side or the other so that no one can pass from one group to the other, what is the point of such urgent outward correction? If from a human being there arises, if not full faith, at least grief over wounded weakness, or fear at the danger of death when it is shown to him, then why is that not the reason one person is rejected and another accepted? If no one can fear what he is threatened with unless the will by which he fears is received, then he is not to be blamed because he does not now will, but only in that man and with that man who once refused in such a way that he deserved to incur, along with his descendants, this condemnation: never to want what is right, and always to seek what is wrong. If, however, there is some kind of grief that rises at the exhortation of the one who corrects, they say that is precisely the reason one is rejected and another taken up; and so there is no need for fixed divisions to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away. They are also offended by the way grace is divided between the grace given to the first human being and the grace now given to the saints: that Adam received perseverance not in the sense that it made him persevere, but in the sense that without it he could not persevere by free choice; whereas now the saints predestined by grace for the kingdom are given not such a help of perseverance, but such a help that perseverance itself is given to them, so that they not only cannot persevere without this gift, but by this gift cannot be anything except persevering. Your Holiness's words disturb them so much that they say this brings a kind of despair upon human beings. If Adam was helped in such a way that he could either stand in righteousness or turn away from righteousness, while now the saints are helped in such a way that they cannot turn away, provided they have received such perseverance of willing that they cannot will otherwise, and if others are abandoned in such a way that they either do not come at all or, having come, go away, then, they say, exhortation and warning applied to the former will, the one that had free power both to remain and to desist. They do not apply to a will that is bound by unavoidable necessity not to want righteousness, except in those who were created together with the whole condemned mass in order to be excepted by liberating grace. In this alone, they say, the nature of all differs from the first human being: grace helped him while the strength of his will was intact, without which he could not persevere; it raises these people when they have lost their strength and believe, and also supports them as they walk. But whatever has been given to the predestined, they maintain, can be either lost or kept by their own will. That would be false only if they thought some had received a perseverance by which they cannot be anything except persevering. For the same reason they also refuse to accept that there is a definite number of the chosen and the rejected. They do not accept your explanation of the sentence that God wills all people to be saved, but take it to mean all human beings without exception, not only those who will belong to the number of the saints. Nor, they say, should anyone fear that some perish against God's will. Just as God does not will anyone to sin or abandon righteousness, and yet righteousness is constantly abandoned and sins are committed against his will, so he wills all people to be saved, though not all are saved. The scriptural testimonies you used about Saul and David they do not think bear on the question of exhortation. Other passages they refer either to the grace by which each person is helped after willing, or to the calling itself, which is granted to the undeserving. They say they can show this from those places in your works and in the works of others, though it would take too long to pursue them. They will not allow the case of little children to be used as an example for adults. They say Your Holiness touched this question only so far as to leave it uncertain, preferring that doubt remain about their punishments. You remember that this is how it was set out in the third book On Free Choice, and it has been able to give them an opening. They do the same with the books of others whose authority stands in the Church. Your Holiness sees how much this can help the objectors unless we bring forward stronger, or at least equal, authorities, for your wise devotion knows how many people in the Church are held in a view, or moved away from a view, by the authority of names. In the end, after wearing us all out, their argument, or rather their complaint, turns to this, with even those who do not dare reject their definition agreeing: "What need was there for this uncertain discussion to disturb the hearts of so many who understand so little? Without this definition, they say, the catholic faith was defended usefully for so many years by so many interpreters, in so many earlier books, yours and others', both against other opponents and especially against the Pelagians." These things, my father, and many more without end, if I may confess my deepest wish, I would rather have brought in person. Or, since I did not deserve that, I would at least have preferred to send everything that troubles them after collecting it over a longer time, so that I might hear how each objection in this matter should be refuted, or, if it cannot be refuted, how it should be borne. Since neither wish was granted, I chose to send these things as best I could in summary rather than keep completely silent about such serious opposition. Some of the people involved are of such a rank that lay people, according to church custom, must show them the highest reverence. With God's help we have taken care to preserve that reverence, while also not keeping silent, when needed, about what the poverty of our strength suggested in defense of this question. So now, as briefly as the haste of the bearer allowed, I have offered these points as a reminder. It belongs to your holy wisdom to see what must be done, so that the contention of such important people may either be overcome or moderated. I now think it will do little good merely to give them a reasoned answer, unless authority is also added, an authority that tirelessly contentious hearts cannot overstep. But I certainly must not be silent about this: they say that, with this one exception, they admire Your Holiness in all your deeds and words. It will be for you to decide how their contradiction in this matter should be borne. Do not be surprised that in this letter I have added some things, as I think, which I did not mention in the earlier one. Their definition now takes this shape, apart from matters I may have passed over through haste or forgetfulness. I ask that we may be worthy to have the books, once they are published, which you are preparing about all your work, especially so that, by their authority, if anything in your writings displeases you, we may no longer be afraid to set it aside from the dignity of your name. We also do not have your book On Grace and Free Choice. It remains for us to deserve to receive it, since we trust it will be useful for this question. I do not want Your Holiness to think I write these things as though I myself doubt what you have now published. My own punishment is enough: exiled from the delights of your presence, where I was nourished at your healthy breasts, I am tormented not only by your absence but also by the stubbornness of certain people who reject what is plain and criticize what they have not understood. I am so free from that suspicion that I think my own weakness is more blameworthy, because I bear such people too impatiently. How you judge these matters should be handled I leave, as I said, to your wisdom. I believed it belonged to me, because of the love I owe to Christ and to you, not to keep silent about the matters being questioned. Whatever, by the grace we admire in you, little and great alike, you are willing or able to do, we will receive with the deepest gratitude, as though it had been decreed by an authority most dear and most worthy of reverence. Because the bearer was pressing me, I feared that, conscious of my own powers, I might either fail to send everything or send even these points less worthily. So I asked a man distinguished in character, eloquence, and study to gather what he could and set it out in his own letter. I have taken care to send his letter joined to this one. He is the sort of man who, even apart from this necessity, should be judged worthy of Your Holiness's acquaintance. The holy deacon Leontius, your devoted servant, sends you many greetings with my relatives. May the Lord Christ deign to give your Fatherhood to his Church for many years, remembering me, my lord father. And below: Let Your Holiness know that my brother, on whose account especially we left here, has with his wife vowed perfect continence to God by mutual consent. Therefore we ask Your Holiness to be willing to pray that the Lord may deign to confirm and preserve this very thing in them.

EPISTOLA 226 Scripta eodem tempore. Hilarius, laicus quidam, A. quosdam errores Pelagianos denuntians inter Massilienses increbrescentes, ut de praedestinatione, de gratia voluntatis pedisequa, de fidelium electione, de perseverantiae dono, de libero arbitrio atque electorum numero (n. 1-6), locos indicans eius librorum a quibus illi argumenta sumerent ad sua commenta defendenda (nn. 3, 6, 8); haec rogans ut refellat librosque Retractationum poscens (nn. 9-10). Domino beatissimo ac toto affectu desiderando, et multum in Christo suscipiendo patri Augustino, Hilarius Quorumdam sententiae veritati adversantes. 1. Si cessantibus contradicentium quaestionibus gratae sunt plerumque studiosorum inquisitiones, ut etiam illa quae absque periculo ignorarentur, ediscant; arbitror gratiorem fore sedulitatem nostrae relationis, quae dum indicat secundum quorumdam prosecutiones quaedam adversantia veritati, non tam sibi quam illis qui turbantur et turbant, per consilium sanctitatis tuae satagit provideri, domine beatissime ac toto affectu desiderande, et multum in Christo suscipiende pater. Quousque homo sit lapsus. 2. Haec sunt itaque quae Massiliae, vel aliis etiam locis in Gallia ventilantur. Novum et inutile esse praedicationi quod quidam secundum propositum eligendi dicantur, ut id nec arripere valeant nec tenere, nisi credendi voluntate donata. Excludi putant omnem praedicandi vigorem, si nihil quod per eum excitetur, in hominibus remansisse dicatur. Consentiunt omnem hominem in Adam periisse, nec inde quemquam posse proprio arbitrio liberari: sed id conveniens asserunt veritati, vel congruum praedicationi, ut, cum prostratis et numquam suis viribus surrecturis annuntiatur obtinendae salutis occasio, eo merito quo voluerint et crediderint a suo morbo se posse sanari, et ipsius fidei augmentum, et totius sanitatis suae consequantur effectum. Caeterum ad nullum opus vel incipiendum, nedum perficiendum, quemquam sibi sufficere posse consentiunt: neque enim alicui operi curationis eorum annumerandum putant, exterrita et supplici voluntate, unumquemque aegrotum velle sanari. Quod enim dicitur: Crede, et salvus eris 1; unum horum exigi asserunt, aliud offerri; ut propter id quod exigitur, si redditum fuerit, id quod offertur deinceps tribuatur. Unde consequens putant exhibendam ab eo fidem, cuius naturae id voluntate Conditoris concessum est; et nullam ita depravatam vel exstinctam putant, ut non debeat vel possit se velle sanari; propter quod vel sanetur quis a sua, vel, si noluerit, cum sua aegritudine puniatur. Nec negari gratiam, si praecedere dicatur talis voluntas, quae tantum medicum quaerat, non autem quidquam ipsa iam valeat. Nam illa testimonia, ut est illud: Sicut unicuique partitus est mensuram fidei 2, et similia, ad id volunt valere, ut adiuvetur qui coeperit velle, non ut etiam donetur ut velit; reiectis ab hoc dono aliis pariter reis, et qui possent similiter liberari, si ea quae pariter indignis praestatur credendi voluntas, etiam ipsis similiter praestaretur. Si autem, aiunt, dicatur vel talem omnibus remansisse, qua vel contemnere quis valeat, vel obedire, de compendio putant rationem reddi electorum vel reiectorum in eo quod unicuique meritum propriae voluntatis adiungitur. Gratiam a Deo dari secundum praescientiam fidei. 3. Cum autem dicitur eis quare aliis vel alicubi praedicetur, vel non praedicetur, vel nunc praedicetur quod aliquando pene omnibus, sicut nunc aliquibus gentibus non praedicatum sit; dicunt id praescientiae esse divinae, ut eo tempore, et ibi, et illis veritas annuntiaretur, vel annuntietur, quando et ubi praenoscebatur esse credenda. Et hoc non solum aliorum catholicorum testimoniis, sed etiam Sanctitatis tuae disputatione antiquiore se probare testantur; ubi tamen eamdem gratiam non minore veritatis perspicuitate docueris: ut est illud quod dixit Sanctitas tua in quaestione contra Porphyrium, de tempore christianae religionis, "Tunc voluisse hominibus apparere Christum, et apud eos praedicari doctrinam suam, quando sciebat et ubi sciebat esse qui in eum fuerant credituri 3": vel illud de libro in Epistolam ad Romanos: Dicis itaque mihi, quid adhuc conqueritur? nam voluntati eius quis resistit? 4 "Cui sane inquisitioni, inquis, sic respondet, ut intellegamus spiritalibus viris, etiam non secundum terrenum hominem viventibus, patere posse prima merita fidei et impietatis, quomodo Deus praescientia eligat credituros, et damnet incredulos: nec illos ex operibus eligens, nec istos ex operibus damnans; sed et illorum fidei praestans, ut bene operentur, et istorum impietatem deserendo obdurans, ut male operentur"; et iterum in eodem libro superius, "Aequales omnes sunt ante meritum, nec potest in rebus omni modo aequalibus electio nominari. Sed quoniam Spiritus sanctus non datur nisi credentibus; non quidem Deus eligit opera quae ipse largitur, cum dat Spiritum sanctum, ut per caritatem bona operemur: sed tamen eligit fidem, quia nisi quis credat, et in accipiendi voluntate permaneat, non accipit donum Dei, id est Spiritum sanctum, per quem infusa caritate bonum possit operari. Non ergo eligit opera cuiusquam in praescientia, quae ipse donaturus est: sed fidem eligit in praescientia; ut quem crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegerit cui Spiritum sanctum daret, ut bona operando etiam aeternam vitam consequeretur. Dicit enim Apostolus: Idem Deus qui operatur omnia in omnibus 5. Nusquam autem dictum est, Deus credit omnia in omnibus: quod enim credimus, nostrum est; quod autem operamur, illius" 6; et caetera in eodem opere; quae se acceptare et probare testantur, tamquam convenientia evangelicae veritati. Quid de praedestinatione ac perseverantia sentiant contra A. 4. Caeterum praescientiam, et praedestinationem, vel propositum, ad id valere contendunt, ut eos praescierit, vel praedestinaverit, vel proposuerit eligere qui fuerant credituri: nec de hac fide posse dici: Quid habes quod non accepisti? 7 cum in eadem natura remanserit, licet vitiata, quae prius sana ac perfecta donata sit. Quod autem dicit Sanctitas tua, neminem perseverare, nisi perseverandi virtute percepta; hactenus accipiunt, ut quibus datur, inerti licet, praecedenti tamen proprio arbitrio tribuatur: quod ad hoc tantum liberum asserunt, ut velit vel nolit admittere medicinam. Caeterum et ipsi abominari se et damnare testantur, si quis quidquam virium in aliquo remansisse, quo ad sanitatem progredi possit, existimet. Nolunt autem ita hanc perseverantiam praedicari, ut non vel suppliciter emereri, vel amitti contumaciter possit. Nec ad incertum voluntatis Dei deduci se volunt, ubi eis quantum putant ad obtinendum vel admittendum, evidens est qualecumque initium voluntatis. Illud etiam testimonium quod posuisti: Raptus est ne malitia mutaret intellectum eius 8; tamquam non canonicum definiunt omittendum. Unde illam praescientiam sic accipiunt, ut propter fidem futuram intellegendi sint praesciti: nec cuiquam talem dari perseverantiam, a qua non permittatur praevaricari; sed a qua possit sua voluntate deficere et infirmari. Quid de gratia sentiant contra A. 5. Asserunt inutilem exhortandi consuetudinem, si nihil in homine remansisse dicatur, quod correptio valeat excitare: quod quidem inesse naturae sic se dicere confitentur, ut hoc ipso quod ignoranti veritas praedicatur, ad beneficium praesentis gratiae referendum sit. Nam si sic praedestinati sunt, inquiunt, ad utramque partem, ut de aliis ad alios nullus possit accedere; quo pertinet tanta extrinsecus correptionis instantia? Si ab homine, etsi non fides integra, saltem vel dolor compunctae infirmitatis exoritur, aut periculum demonstratae mortis horretur. Nam si non potest timere quis unde terretur, nisi ea voluntate quae sumitur; non ex eo culpandus quod nunc non vult: sed in eo et cum eo qui sic aliquando noluit, ut eam damnationem cum suis posteris mereretur incurrere, ut numquam recta, semper autem prava vellet appetere. Si autem est qualiscumque dolor qui ad exhortationem corripientis oriatur: hanc ipsam dicunt causam, propter quam vel reiiciatur alius, vel alius assumatur: atque ita non opus esse partes constitui, quibus nec adiciendum sit aliquid, nec detrahendum. Frustra distingui inter Adami et nostram. 6. Deinde moleste ferunt ita dividi gratiam, quae vel tunc primo homini data est, vel nunc omnibus datur, "Ut ille acceperit perseverantiam, non qua fieret ut perseveraret, sed sine qua per liberum arbitrium perseverare non posset: nunc vero sanctis in regnum per gratiam praedestinatis non tale adiutorium perseverantiae detur, sed tale ut eis perseverantia ipsa donetur; non solum ut sine isto dono perseverantes esse non possint, verum etiam ut per hoc donum nonnisi perseverantes sint" 9. His verbis Sanctitatis tuae ita moventur, ut dicant quamdam desperationem hominibus exhiberi. Si enim, aiunt, ita Adam adiutus est, ut et stare posset in iustitia et a iustitia declinare, et nunc ita sancti iuvantur, ut declinare non possint, siquidem eam acceperunt volendi perseverantiam, ut aliud velle non possint; vel sic quidam deseruntur, ut aut nec accedant, aut, si accesserint, et recedant: ad illam voluntatem pertinuisse dicunt exhortationis vel comminationis utilitatem, quae et persistendi et desistendi obtinebat liberam potestatem; non ad hanc cui nolle iustitiam inevitabili necessitate coniunctum est, praeter illos qui sic concreati sunt his qui cum universa massa damnati sunt, ut exciperentur per gratiam liberandi. Unde in hoc solo volunt a primo homine omnium distare naturam, ut illum integris viribus voluntatis iuvaret gratia volentem, sine qua perseverare non poterat: hos autem amissis et perditis viribus credentes tantum, non solum erigat prostratos, verum etiam suffulciat ambulantes. Caeterum quidquidlibet donatum sit praedestinatis, id posse et amitti et retineri propria voluntate contendunt: quod tunc falsum esset, si verum putarent eam quosdam perseverantiam percepisse, ut nisi perseverantes esse non possint. Eligendorum et reiciendorum definitum numerum nolunt. 7. Inde est quod et illud pariter non accipiunt, ut eligendorum reiiciendorumque esse definitum numerum nolint: atque illius sententiae expositionem, non eam quae a te est deprompta, suscipiant 10, id est, ut nonnisi omnes homines salvos fieri velit; et non eos tantum qui ad sanctorum numerum pertinebunt, sed omnes omnino, ut nullus habeatur exceptus 11. Nec hoc timendum, quod quidam eo invito perire dicantur: sed quomodo, aiunt, non vult a quoquam peccari vel deseri iustitiam, et tamen iugiter illa deseritur contra eius voluntatem, committunturque peccata; ita eum salvari velle omnes homines, nec tamen omnes homines salvari. Testimonia etiam Scripturae quae de Saüle vel de David posuisti 12, non pertinere putant ad quaestionem quae de exhortatione versatur: alia autem ad id referunt, ut ex his eam gratiam accipiant commendari, qua unusquisque post voluntatem iuvatur; vel ad ipsam vocationem, quae praestatur indignis. Hoc enim et illis locis tuorum opusculorum et aliorum, quae persequi longum est, se demonstrare testantur. Parvulorum causa ad maiorum exemplum ne afferatur. 8. Parvulorum autem causam ad exemplum maiorum non patiuntur afferri: quam et tuam Sanctitatem dicunt eatenus attigisse, ut incertum esse volueris, ac potius de eorum poenis malueris dubitari. Quod in libro tertio de Libero Arbitrio ita positum meministi 13, ut hanc eis occasionem potuerit exhibere. Hoc etiam de aliorum libris quorum est in Ecclesia auctoritas, faciunt quod perspicit Sanctitas tua non parum posse iuvare contradictores, nisi maiora, aut certe vel paria proferantur a nobis: non enim ignorat prudentissima pietas tua quanto plures sint in Ecclesia, qui auctoritate nominum in sententia teneantur, aut a sententia transferantur. Ad summam, fatigatis omnibus nobis, ad id prosecutio eorum, vel potius querela convertitur, consentientibus etiam his qui hanc definitionem improbare non audent, ut dicant: Quid opus fuit huiuscemodi disputationis incerto tot minus intellegentium corda turbari? Neque enim minus utiliter sine hac definitione, aiunt, tot annis a tot tractatoribus, tot praecedentibus libris et tuis et aliorum, cum contra alios, tum maxime contra Pelagianos, catholicam fidem fuisse defensam. Quanta sit A. auctoritas in haeresibus refellendis. 9. Haec, mi pater, et alia interminabiliter plura, ut summa mea vota confitear, per me deferre maluissem; vel, quia hoc non merui, saltem prolixiore tempore omnia quibus moventur, collecta dirigere: ut quidquid de hac re contradicitur, quatenus refelli, vel si ia non potest, tolerari deberet, audirem. Sed quia neutrum ex voto provenit, malui quomodo potui haec comprehensa dirigere, quam penitus de tanta quorumdam contradictione reticere. Sunt ex parte tales personae, ut his, consuetudine ecclesiastica, laicos summam reverentiam necesse sit exhibere. Quod quidem ita curavimus Deo iuvante servare, ut, cum opus fuit, non taceremus quae ad quaestionis huius assertionem exiguitas nostrarum virium suggerebat. Sed nunc summatim, quantum festinatio perlatoris admisit, haec velut commonendo suggessi. Tuae sanctae prudentiae est dispicere quid facto opus sit, ut talium et tantorum superetur vel temperetur intentio. Cui ego iam parum prodesse existimo te reddere rationem, nisi et addatur auctoritas quam transgredi infatigabiliter contentiosa corda non possint. Sed plane illud tacere non debeo, quod se dicant tuam Sanctitatem, hoc excepto, in factis et dictis omnibus admirari. Tuum erit decernere quomodo sit in hoc eorum contradictio toleranda. Nec mireris quod aliter vel aliqua in hac epistola addidi, quantum puto, quae in superiore non dixeram; talis est enim nunc eorum definitio, praeter illa quae per festinationem aut oblivionem fortasse praeterii. Petit Retractationes ac De gratia et libero arbitrio. 10. Libros, cum editi fuerint, quos de universo opere tuo moliris, quaeso habere mereamur; maxime ut per eorum auctoritatem, si qua tibi in tuis displicent, a dignitate tui nominis iam non trepidi sequestremus. Librum etiam de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio non habemus; superest ut eum, quia utilem quaestioni confidimus, mereamur accipere. Nolo autem Sanctitas tua sic me arbitretur haec scribere, quasi de iis quae nunc edidisti, ego dubitem. Sufficiat mihi poena mea, quod a praesentiae tuae deliciis exsulatus, ubi salubribus tuis uberibus nutriebar, non solum absentia tua crucior, verum etiam pervicacia quorumdam, qui non tantum manifesta respuunt, sed etiam non intellecta reprehendunt. Caeterum hac suspicione in tantum careo, ut potius infirmitatem meam, qua tales parum patienter fero, notabilem putem. Qualiter autem ad haec consulendum iudices, ut dixi, tuae sapientiae derelinquo. Nam ad me hoc pertinere credidi, pro ea quam Christo vel tibi debeo caritate, ut quae in quaestionem veniunt, non tacerem. Quidquid pro ea gratia quam in te pusilli cum magnis miramur, volueris aut valueris, gratissime accipiemus, tamquam a nobis carissima et reverendissima auctoritate decretum. Sane quia, urgente perlatore, timui ne vel non omnia, vel haec ipsa minus digne, conscius mearum virium, possem dirigere; egi cum viro, tum moribus tum eloquio et studio claro, ut quanta posset collecta suis litteris intimaret: quas coniunctas his destinare curavi. Est enim talis qui, etiam praeter hanc necessitatem, dignus tuae Sanctitatis notitia iudicetur. Sanctus Leontius diaconus cultor tuus, cum meis parentibus multum te salutat. Memorem mei Paternitatem tuam Dominus Christus Ecclesiae suae annis pluribus donare dignetur, domine pater. Et infra: Sciat Sanctitas tua, fratrem meum, cuius maxime causa hinc discessimus, cum matrona sua ex consensu perfectam Deo continentiam devovisse. Unde rogamus Sanctitatem tuam, ut orare digneris quo hoc ipsum in eis Dominus confirmare et custodire dignetur.