# Retractations - Author: [Augustine of Hippo](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/augustine-of-hippo/) - Latin title: *Retractationes* - Date: 426-427 (approximate) - Source: Pius Knöll, ed., Sancti Aureli Augustini opera, sect. I, pars 2, CSEL 36 (Vienna: Tempsky; Leipzig: Freytag, 1902) (Latin text: Pius Knöll, Retractationes (CSEL 36, 1902), digitized by Open Greek and Latin (csel-dev, University of Leipzig), CC BY-SA 4.0) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/ - Passages: 96 ## Retractations 0.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-0-1 - Source: CSEL 36:1–8 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he has long planned to review all his writings severely and to mark what he now finds wrong in them. ### Latin text Iam diu est, ut facere cogito atque dispono quod nunc adiuuante domino adgredior, quia differendum esse non arbitror, ut opuscula mea siue in libris siue in epistulis siue in tractatibus cum quadam iudiciaria seueritate recenseam et, quod me offendit, uelut censorio stilo denotem. neque enim quisquam nisi inprudens ideo, quia mea errata reprehendo, me reprehendere audebit. sed si dicit non ea debuisse a me dici, quae postea mihi etiam displicerent, uerum dicit et mecum facit. eorum quippe reprehensor est, quorum et ego sum. neque enim ea reprehendere deberem, si dicere debuissem. ### English translation (Claude) For a long time now I have been thinking about and planning to do something which I now undertake with the Lord's help, because I judge that it should not be put off: to go back over my small works, whether in books or in letters or in sermons, with a kind of judicial severity, and to mark what displeases me as if with a censor's pen. For no one but an imprudent person will dare to reproach me because I reproach my own errors. But if he says that I ought not to have said things which later displeased even me, he speaks the truth and takes my side. For he is a critic of the same things of which I too am a critic. Indeed, I should not be bound to criticize them if I had been right to say them. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 0.1 (CSEL 36:1–8; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-0-1). ## Retractations 0.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-0-2 - Source: CSEL 36:8–9 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Citing Scripture on judging oneself and on the danger of many words, Augustine says he must judge his own writings under Christ, the one true Master. ### Latin text Sed, ut uolet, quisque accipiat hoc quod facio; me tamen apostolicam illam sententiam et in hac re oportuit intueri, ubi ait: si nos ipsos iudicaremus, a domino non iudicaremur. illud etiam, quod scriptum est: ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum, terret me plurimum, non quia multa scripsi uel quia multa etiam, quae dictata non sunt, tamen a me dicta conscripta sunt — absit enim, ut multiloquium deputetur, quando necessaria dicuntur, quantalibet sermonum multitudine ac prolixitate dicantur — sed istam sententiam scripturae sanctae propterea timeo, quia et de tam multis disputationibus meis sine dubio multa colligi possunt, quae si non falsa, at certe uideantur siue etiam conuincantur non necessaria. quem uero Christus fidelium suorum non terruit, ubi ait: omne uerbum otiosum, quodcumque dixerit homo, reddet pro illo rationem in die iudicii? unde et eius apostolus Iacobus: sit omnis homo, inquit, uelox ad audiendum, tardus autem ad loquendum; et alio loco: nolite, inquit, plures magistri fieri, fratres mei, scientes, quoniam maius iudicium sumitis. in multis enim offendimus omnes. si quis in uerbo non offendit, hic perfectus est uir. ego mihi hanc perfectionem nec nunc arrogo, cum sim senex, quanto minus, cum iuuenis coepissem scribere uel apud populos dicere tantumque mihi tributum est, ut, ubicumque me praesente loqui opus esset ad populum, rarissime tacere atque alios audire permitterer et esse uelox ad audiendum, tardus autem ad loquendum. restat igitur, ut me ipse iudicem sub magistro uno, cuius de offensionibus meis iudicium euadere cupio. magistros autem plures tunc fieri existimo, cum diuersa atque inter se aduersa sentiunt. cum uero ipsum dicunt omnes et uerum dicunt, ab unius ueri magistri magisterio non recedunt. offendunt autem, non cum illius multa dicunt, sed cum addunt sua. sic quippe incidunt ex multiloquio etiam in falsiloquium. ### English translation (Claude) But let each person take what I am doing as he will; in this matter, at any rate, I had to keep in view that saying of the apostle where he says: “If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord.” That too which is written, “In much speaking you will not escape sin,” terrifies me greatly; not because I have written much, or because many things which were not dictated have nevertheless been taken down as said by me (for far be it that speaking of necessary things should be counted as much speaking, however great the number and length of the words in which they are said); but I fear this saying of holy Scripture because from so many disputations of mine many things can without doubt be gathered which, if not false, certainly seem, or are even proved, unnecessary. And whom among his faithful did Christ not terrify when he said: “Every idle word that a man speaks, he will render account for it on the day of judgment”? Hence his apostle James too says: “Let every man be quick to hear but slow to speak”; and in another place: “Do not become many teachers, my brothers, knowing that you receive a greater judgment. For in many things we all stumble. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man.” I do not claim this perfection for myself even now, when I am an old man; how much less when as a young man I had begun to write or to speak before congregations, and so much was granted to me that wherever it was necessary to speak to the people in my presence, I was very rarely allowed to keep silent and listen to others and be “quick to hear but slow to speak.” It remains, then, that I should judge myself under the one Master whose judgment on my stumbles I desire to escape. Now I think that people become “many teachers” when they hold different and mutually opposed opinions. But when all say the same thing and say what is true, they do not depart from the teaching of the one true Master. They stumble, however, not when they say many things of his, but when they add their own. For thus from much speaking they fall into false speaking as well. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 11:31: quotation, high confidence - Prov 10:19: quotation, high confidence - Matt 12:36: quotation, high confidence - Jas 1:19: quotation, high confidence - Jas 3:1: quotation, high confidence - Jas 3:2: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 11:31; Prov 10:19; Matt 12:36; Jas 1:19; Jas 3:1–2. Augustine plays on magistri, which can mean both “teachers” and “masters”. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 0.2 (CSEL 36:8–9; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-0-2). ## Retractations 0.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-0-3 - Source: CSEL 36:9–10 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says he includes even his writings as a catechumen and will review his works in the order written so that readers can follow his progress. ### Latin text Scribere autem mihi ista placuit. ut haec emittam in manus hominum, a quibus ea, quae iam edidi, reuocare et emendare non possum. nec illa sane praetereo, quae catechumenus iam, licet relicta spe, quam terrenam gerebam, sed adhuc saecularium litterarum inflatus consuetudine scripsi, quia et ipsa exierunt in notitiam describentium atque legentium et leguntur utiliter, si nonnullis ignoscatur uel, si non ignoscatur, non tamen inhaereatur erratis. quapropter quicumque ista lecturi sunt, non me imitentur errantem, sed in melius proficientem. inueniet enim fortasse, quomodo scribendo profecerim, quisquis opuscula mea ordine, quo scripta sunt, legerit. quod ut possit, hoc opere, quantum potero, curabo, ut eundem ordinem nouerit. ### English translation (Claude) I have decided to write these things so that I may send them out into the hands of people from whom I cannot recall the works I have already published in order to correct them. Nor indeed do I pass over the things I wrote while still a catechumen, when I had given up the earthly hope I used to cherish but was still puffed up by the habits of secular literature; for these too have come to the knowledge of copyists and readers and are read with profit, provided some things are pardoned or, if they are not pardoned, at least the errors are not clung to. Therefore let whoever is going to read these things not imitate me in my errors but in my progress toward the better. For perhaps whoever reads my small works in the order in which they were written will find how I made progress by writing. So that he may be able to do this, I will take care in this work, as far as I can, that he may know that order. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 0.3 (CSEL 36:9–10; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-0-3). ## Retractations 1.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-1 - Source: CSEL 36:11–18 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing Against the Academics, Augustine regrets his frequent talk of fortune, some loose expressions about the senses, the mind, and the soul's return to heaven, and his excessive praise of the Platonists. ### Latin text Cum ergo reliquissem uel quae adeptus fueram in cupiditatibus huius mundi uel quae adipisci uolebam et me ad Christianae uitae otium contulissem, nondum baptizatus contra Academicos uel de Academicis primum scripsi, ut argumenta eorum, quae multis ingerunt ueri inueniendi desperationem et prohibent cuiquam rei adsentiri et omnino aliquid, tamquam manifestum certumque sit, adprobare sapientem, cum omnia eis uideantur obscura et incerta, ab animo meo, quia me mouebant, quantis possem rationibus amouerem. quod miserante atque adiuuante domino factum est. Sed in eisdem tribus libris meis non mihi placet totiens me appellare fortunam, quamuis non aliquam deam uoluerim hoc nomine intellegi, sed fortuitum rerum euentum uel in corporis nostri uel in externis bonis aut malis. unde et illa uerba sunt, quae nulla religio dicere prohibet: forte, forsan, forsitan, fortasse, fortuito, quod tamen totum ad diuinam reuocandum est prouidentiam. hoc etiam ibi non tacui dicens: etenim fortasse, quae uulgo fortuna nominatur, occulto quodam ordine regitur, nihilque aliud in rebus casum uocamus, nisi cuius ratio et causa secreta est. dixi quidem hoc, uerum tamen paenitet me sic illic nominasse fortunam, cum uideam homines habere in pessima consuetudine. ubi dici debet: hoc deus uoluit, dicere: hoc uoluit fortuna. quod autem quodam loco dixi: ita conparatum est siue pro meritis nostris siue pro necessitate naturae, ut diuinum animum mortalibus inhaerentem nequaquam philosophiae portus accipiat et cetera, aut nihil horum duorum dicendum fuit, quia etiam sic sensus posset esse integer, aut satis erat dicere: pro meritis nostris, sicut uerum est ex Adam tracta miseria, nec addere: siue pro necessitate naturae, quandoquidem naturae nostrae dura necessitas merito praecedentis iniquitatis exorta est. itemque illic quod dixi: nihil omnino colendum esse totumque abiciendum quidquid mortalibus oculis cernitur, quidquid ullus sensus adtingit, addenda erant uerba, ut diceretur: quidquid mortalis corporis sensus adtingit; est enim sensus et mentis. sed eorum more tunc loquebar, qui sensum non nisi corporis dicunt et sensibilia non nisi corporalia. itaque ubicumque sic locutus sum, parum est ambiguitas euitata nisi apud eos, quorum consuetudo est locutionis huius. item dixi: quid censes aliud esse beate uiuere nisi secundum id, quod in homine optimum est, uiuere? et quid dixerim in homine esse optimum, paulo post explicans: quis, inquam, dubitauerit nihil esse aliud hominis optimum quam eam partem animi, cui dominanti obtemperare conuenit cetera, quaeque in homine sunt? haec autem, ne aliam postules definitionem, mens aut ratio dici potest. hoc quidem uerum est — nam quantum adtinet ad hominis naturam, nihil est in eo melius quam mens et ratio — sed non secundum ipsam debet uiuere, qui beate uult uiuere. alioquin secundum hominem uiuit, cum secundum deum uiuendum sit, ut possit ad beatitudinem peruenire, propter quam consequendam non se ipsa debet esse contenta, sed deo mens nostra subdenda est. item respondens ei, cum quo disputabatur: hic plane, inquam, non erras; quod ut tibi omen sit ad reliqua, libenter optauerim. hoc licet non serio, sed ioco dictum sit, nollem tamen eo uerbo uti. omen quippe me legisse non recolo siue in sacris litteris nostris siue in sermone cuiusquam ecclesiastici disputatoris, quamuis abominatio inde sit dicta, quae in diuinis libris adsidue reperitur. In secundo autem libro prorsus inepta est et insulsa illa quasi fabula de philocalia et philosophia, quod sunt germanae et eodem parente procreatae. aut enim philocalia quae dicitur non nisi in nugis est et ob hoc philosophiae nulla ratione germana aut, si propterea est hoc nomen honorandum, quia latine interpretatum amorem pulchritudinis significat et est uera ac summa sapientiae pulchritudo, eadem ipsa est in rebus incorporalibus atque summis philocalia, quae philosophia, neque ullo modo sunt quasi sorores duae. alio loco, de animo cum agerem, dixi: securior rediturus in caelum. iturus autem quam rediturus dixissem securius propter eos, qui putant animos humanos pro meritis peccatorum suorum de caelo. lapsos seu deiectos in corpora ista detrudi. sed ego propterea non dubitaui dicere, quia ita dixi in caelum, tamquam dicerem ad deum, qui eius est auctor et conditor, sicut beatus Cyprianus non cunctatus est dicere: nam cum corpus e terra, spiritum possideamus e caelo, ipsi terra et caelum sumus. et in libro Ecclesiastae scriptum est: spiritus reuertatur ad deum, qui dedit illum. quod utique sic intellegendum est, ut non resistatur apostolo dicenti nondum natos nihil egisse boni aut mali. sine controuersia ergo quaedam originalis regio beatitudinis animi deus ipse est, qui eum non quidem de se ipso genuit, sed de nulla re alia condidit, sicut condidit corpus e terra. nam quod adtinet ad eius originem, qua fit, ut sit in corpore, utrum de illo uno sit, qui primum creatus est, quando factus est homo in animam uiuam, an similiter fiant singulis singuli, nec tunc sciebam nec adhuc scio. In libro tertio: si quid mihi uideatur quaeris, inquam, in mente arbitror esse summum hominis bonum. uerius dixissem: in deo; ipso enim mens fruitur, ut beata sit, tamquam bono summo suo. nec illud mihi placet, quod dixi: liquet deierare per omne diuinum. item quod dixi de Academicis, quia nouerant uerum, cuius simile appellabant uerisimile, idque ipsum uerisimile appellaui falsum, quod adprobabant, duas ob causas non recte dictum est, uel quod falsum esset, quod aliquo modo esset simile alicuius ueri, quia in genere suo et hoc uerum est, uel quod adprobabant ista falsa, quae uocabant uerisimilia, cum illi nihil adprobarent et adfirmarent nihil adprobare sapientem. sed quia hoc ipsum uerisimile etiam probabile nuncupabant, hinc factum est, ut de illis dicerem. laus quoque ipsa, qua Platonem uel Platonicos seu Academicos philosophos tantum extuli. quantum inpios homines non oportuit, non inmerito mihi displicuit. praesertim contra quorum errores magnos defendenda est Christiana doctrina. illud etiam, quod in conparatione argumentorum Ciceronis, quibus in libris suis Academicis usus est, meas nugas esse dixi, quibus illa argumenta certissima ratione refutaui, quamuis iocando dictum sit et magis ironia dicebatur, non debuit tamen dici. Hoc opus sic incipit: O utinam, Romaniane, hominem sibi aptum. ### English translation (Claude) When, then, I had left behind both what I had gained in the desires of this world and what I wished to gain, and had betaken myself to the leisure of the Christian life, before I was baptized I first wrote Against the Academics, or On the Academics, in order to remove from my mind, with whatever arguments I could, their arguments, which in many people produce despair of finding the truth and forbid the wise man to assent to anything or to approve anything at all as if it were clear and certain, since to them everything seems obscure and uncertain; for these arguments troubled me. This was done through the Lord's mercy and help. But in these same three books of mine I am not pleased that I so often spoke of fortune, although I did not intend some goddess to be understood by this name, but the chance outcome of things, whether in the goods or evils of our body or in external ones. Hence also those words which no religion forbids us to say: “by chance,” “perchance,” “perhaps,” “perhaps,” “fortuitously”; all of which, however, must be referred back to divine providence. I did not keep silent about this there either, when I said: “For perhaps what is commonly called fortune is governed by a certain hidden order, and we call nothing else chance in events but that whose reason and cause is secret.” I did indeed say this; nevertheless I regret having named fortune there in that way, since I see that people have a very bad habit: where they ought to say, “God willed this,” they say, “Fortune willed this.” As for what I said in one place, “It has been so arranged, whether in accordance with our merits or by the necessity of nature, that the harbor of philosophy does not receive the divine mind clinging to mortal things,” and so on: either neither of these two should have been said, since even so the sense could be complete, or it was enough to say “in accordance with our merits,” as is true of the misery drawn from Adam, without adding “or by the necessity of nature,” since the hard necessity of our nature arose from the merit of preceding iniquity. Likewise where I said there, “Nothing at all is to be worshiped, and everything is to be cast away that is seen by mortal eyes, that any sense touches,” words should have been added so that it read “that any sense of the mortal body touches”; for there is also a sense of the mind. But at that time I was speaking in the manner of those who call nothing sense except that of the body, and nothing sensible except what is bodily. So wherever I have spoken in this way, ambiguity has not been avoided sufficiently, except among those for whom this way of speaking is customary. Again I said: “What do you think living happily is, other than living according to what is best in man?” And explaining a little later what I had called best in man, I said: “Who would doubt that nothing is best in man other than that part of the soul to which, as it rules, all the other things that are in man should be obedient? And this, lest you ask for another definition, can be called mind or reason.” This is indeed true, for as far as man's nature is concerned, there is nothing better in him than mind and reason; but whoever wishes to live happily ought not to live according to it. Otherwise he lives according to man, whereas one must live according to God in order to be able to arrive at happiness; and to attain it our mind must not be content with itself but must be made subject to God. Again, in replying to the one with whom I was disputing, I said: “Here you are plainly not mistaken; and I would gladly wish that this be an omen for you for the rest.” Although this was said not seriously but in jest, I would nevertheless rather not have used that word. For I do not recall having read “omen” either in our sacred writings or in the discourse of any churchly disputant, although “abomination,” which is found constantly in the divine books, is named from it. In the second book, that so-called fable about philocaly and philosophy, that they are sisters born of the same parent, is altogether silly and insipid. For either what is called philocaly is concerned only with trifles, and for that reason is in no way a sister of philosophy; or, if this name is to be honored because, translated into Latin, it means love of beauty, and the true and highest beauty is that of wisdom, then in incorporeal and supreme things philocaly 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: “it will return to heaven more safely.” I would have said “go” rather than “return” more safely, because of those who think that human souls, fallen or cast down from heaven for the merits of their sins, are thrust into these bodies. But I did not hesitate to say it, because I said “to heaven” as though I were saying “to God,” who is its author and creator; just as blessed Cyprian did not hesitate to say: “For since we have the body from the earth and the spirit from heaven, we ourselves are earth and heaven.” And in the book of Ecclesiastes it is written: “Let the spirit return to God, who gave it”; which must of course be understood in such a way as not to contradict the apostle, who says that those not yet born had done nothing good or evil. Without controversy, then, a kind of original region of the soul's happiness is God himself, who did not indeed beget it from himself, but created it from nothing else, as he created the body from earth. For as regards its origin, by which it comes to be in the body, whether it comes from that one man who was created first, when man was made a living soul, or whether individual souls are similarly made for individual people, I did not know then and I still do not know. In the third book I said: “If you ask what I think, I believe that man's highest good is in the mind.” I would have said more truly “in God”; for the mind enjoys him as its highest good in order to be happy. Nor am I pleased with what I said: “It is permitted to swear by every divine thing.” Likewise what I said of the Academics, that they knew the truth, whose likeness they called the truth-like, and that I called this very truth-like thing, which they approved, false, was not rightly said, for two reasons: either because what was in some way like something true would be false, since in its own kind this too is true; or because they approved those false things which they called truth-like, whereas they approved nothing and asserted that the wise man approves nothing. But because they also called this truth-like thing the probable, it came about that I spoke of them so. The very praise, too, with which I extolled Plato or the Platonists or the Academic philosophers more than was fitting for ungodly men has not undeservedly displeased me, especially since Christian teaching must be defended against their great errors. That too which I said, that in comparison with the arguments of Cicero which he used in his Academic books, my own arguments, by which I refuted those arguments with most certain reasoning, were trifles, although it was said in jest and rather as irony, nevertheless ought not to have been said. This work begins thus: “O that, Romanianus, a man fitted to himself…” ### Scripture references - Eccl 12:7: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:11: allusion, high confidence - Gen 2:7: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Dom. or. 16 (On the Lord's Prayer): quotation, high confidence - Cicero, Academica (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine's Latin title is Contra Academicos (or De Academicis). The five Latin words forte, forsan, forsitan, fortasse, fortuito are given as English equivalents. - Quotations: Cyprian, On the Lord's Prayer 16; Eccl 12:7; Rom 9:11; Gen 2:7 (allusion). Augustine states that he does not know the origin of the soul (creation of each soul or derivation from Adam). - “Omen” and “abomination” (abominatio): Augustine follows the ancient derivation of abominatio from omen. - Cicero's Academic books: the Academica. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.1 (CSEL 36:11–18; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-1). ## Retractations 1.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-2 - Source: CSEL 36:18–19 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Happy Life, Augustine regrets excessive praise of Mallius Theodorus, his talk of fortune, and placing the happy life in this present life. ### Latin text Librum de beata uita non post libros de Academicis, sed inter illos ut scriberem contigit. ex occasione quippe ortus est diei natalis mei et tridui disputatione conpletus, sicut satis ipse indicat. in quo libro constitit inter nos, qui simul quaerebamus, non esse beatam uitam nisi perfectam cognitionem dei. Displicet autem illic, quod Mallio Theodoro, ad quem librum ipsum scripsi, quamuis docto et Christiano uiro, plus tribui quam deberem, et quod fortunam etiam illic saepe nominaui, et quod tempore uitae huius in solo animo sapientis dixi habitare beatam uitam, quomodolibet se habeat corpus eius, cum perfectam cognitionem dei, hoc est, qua homini maior esse non possit, in futura uita speret apostolus, quae sola beata uita dicenda est, ubi et corpus incorruptibile atque inmortale spiritui suo sine ulla molestia uel reluctatione subdetur. sane istum librum in nostro codice interruptum repperi et non parum minus habere, et sic a fratribus quibusdam descriptus est, nec adhuc apud aliquem integrum inueneram, ex quo emendarem, quando haec retractaui. Hic liber sic incipit: Si ad philosophiae portum. ### English translation (Claude) It happened that I wrote the book On the Happy Life not after the books On the Academics but in between them. It arose on the occasion of my birthday and was completed in a three-day discussion, as it itself indicates clearly enough. In this book it was agreed among us who were inquiring together that there is no happy life except the perfect knowledge of God. What displeases me in it is that I attributed more than I should have to Mallius Theodorus, to whom I wrote the book, although he was a learned and Christian man; and that I often named fortune there too; and that I said that in the time of this life the happy life dwells in the mind of the wise man alone, however his body may be, whereas the apostle hopes for perfect knowledge of God, that is, knowledge than which none greater is possible for man, in the future life, which alone is to be called the happy life, where the body too, incorruptible and immortal, will be subject to its spirit without any trouble or resistance. Indeed, I found this book incomplete in our copy, lacking not a little, and it was copied in that state by some brothers; and until now I had not found a complete copy with anyone from which to correct it when I reviewed these things. This book begins thus: “If to the harbor of philosophy…” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 13:12: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De beata uita. The apostle's hope of perfect knowledge in the future life alludes to 1 Cor 13:12. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.2 (CSEL 36:18–19; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-2). ## Retractations 1.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-3 - Source: CSEL 36:19–22 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Order, Augustine regrets his talk of fortune, his overvaluing of the liberal arts, his own endorsement of Plato's two worlds, and his praise of Pythagoras. ### Latin text Per idem tempus, inter illos quidem, qui de Academicis scripti sunt, duos etiam libros de ordine scripsi, in quibus quaestio magna uersatur, utrum omnia bona et mala diuinae prouidentiae ordo contineat. sed cum rem uiderem ad intellegendum difficilem satis aegre ad eorum perceptionem, cum quibus agebam, disputando posse perduci, de ordine studendi loqui malui, cum a corporalibus ad incorporalia potest profici. Verum et his libris displicet mihi saepe interpositum fortunae uocabulum; et quod non addebam: corporis, quando sensus corporis nominaui; et quod multum tribui liberalibus disciplinis, quas multi sancti multum nesciunt, quidam etiam sciunt et sancti non sunt; et quod Musas quasi aliquas deas quamuis iocando commemoraui; et quod admirationem uitium nuncupaui; et quod philosophos non uera pietate praeditos dixi uirtutis luce fulsisse; et quod duos mundos, unum sensibilem, alterum intellegibilem, non ex Platonis uel ex Platonicorum persona, sed ex mea sic commendaui, tamquam hoc etiam dominus significare uoluerit, quia non ait: regnum meum non est de mundo, sed: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo, cum possit et aliqua locutione dictum inueniri et, si alius a domino Christo significatus est mundus, ille congruentius possit intellegi, in quo erit caelum nouum et terra noua, quando conplebitur quod oramus dicentes: adueniat regnum tuum. nec Plato quidem in hoc errauit, quia esse mundum intellegibilem dixit, si non uocabulum, quod ecclesiasticae consuetudini in re illa inusitatum est, sed ipsam rem uelimus adtendere. mundum quippe ille intellegibilem nuncupauit ipsam rationem sempiternam atque incommutabilem, qua fecit deus mundum. quam qui esse negat, sequitur, ut dicat inrationabiliter deum fecisse quod fecit, aut, cum faceret uel antequam faceret, nescisse, quid faceret, si apud eum ratio faciendi non erat. si uero erat, sicut erat, ipsam uidetur Plato uocasse intellegibilem mundum. nec tamen isto nomine nos uteremur, si iam satis essemus litteris ecclesiasticis eruditi. Nec illud mihi placet, quod cum dixissem: summa opera danda est optimis moribus, mox addidi: deus enim noster aliter nos exaudire non poterit; bene autem uiuentes facillime exaudiet. sic enim dictum est, tamquam deus non exaudiat peccatores; quod quidem dixit in euangelio, sed ille, qui nondum cognouerat Christum, a quo iam fuerat inluminatus in corpore. nec illud placet, quod Pythagorae philosopho tantum laudis dedi, ut, qui hanc audit uel legit, possit putare me credidisse nullos errores in Pythagorica esse doctrina, cum sint plures idemque capitales. Hoc opus sic incipit: De ordine rerum, Zenobi. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time, between those books 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 things, good and evil. But when I saw that the matter was difficult to understand and that those with whom I was dealing could hardly be brought by discussion to grasp it, I preferred to speak of the order of study, by which one can progress from bodily things to incorporeal ones. But in these books too I am displeased by the word “fortune,” often inserted; and that I did not add “of the body” when I named the senses of the body; and that I attributed much to the liberal disciplines, of which many saints are quite ignorant, while some who know them are not saints; and that I mentioned the Muses as though they were some goddesses, although in jest; and that I called wonder a vice; and that I said that philosophers not endowed with true piety shone with the light of virtue; and that I commended two worlds, one sensible, the other intelligible, not as the view of Plato or the Platonists but as my own, as though the Lord too had wished to signify this, because he did not say, “My kingdom is not of the world,” but, “My kingdom is not of this world”; whereas it may be found to have been said by some figure of speech, and, if another world was signified by the Lord Christ, that world can more fittingly be understood in which there will be a new heaven and a new earth, when what we pray when we say, “Your kingdom come,” is fulfilled. Nor did Plato indeed err in this, that he said there is an intelligible world, if we are willing to attend not to the word, which is unusual in church usage for that matter, but to the thing itself. For he called intelligible world the very eternal and unchangeable reason by which God made the world. Whoever denies that this exists must say that God made irrationally what he made, or that when he was making it, or before he made it, he did not know what he was making, if the reason for making it was not with him. But if it was, as it was, Plato seems to have called it the intelligible world. Yet we would not use that name if we were already sufficiently instructed in church literature. Nor am I pleased that, after saying, “The greatest care must be given to the best morals,” I soon added, “For otherwise our God will not be able to hear us; but those who live well he will hear most easily.” For this was said as though God does not hear sinners; which was indeed said in the Gospel, but by one who did not yet know Christ, by whom he had already been enlightened in body. Nor am I pleased that I gave so much praise to the philosopher Pythagoras that whoever hears or reads it might think I believed there were no errors in the Pythagorean teaching, whereas there are many, and fundamental ones. This work begins thus: “The order of things, Zenobius…” ### Scripture references - John 18:36: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:10: quotation, high confidence - Rev 21:1: allusion, high confidence - John 9:31: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De ordine. Quotations: John 18:36; Matt 6:10; allusion to Rev 21:1 (new heaven and new earth). “God does not hear sinners” is said by the man born blind (John 9:31). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.3 (CSEL 36:19–22; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-3). ## Retractations 1.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-4 - Source: CSEL 36:22–25 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing the Soliloquies, Augustine corrects expressions about the pure knowing truth, the senses, the Father and Son being “one,” many ways to wisdom, fleeing all bodies, and learning as recollection. ### Latin text Inter haec scripsi etiam duo uolumina secundum studium meum et amorem ratione indagandae ueritatis de his rebus, quas maxime scire cupiebam, me interrogans mihique respondens, tamquam duo essemus ratio et ego, cum solus essem. unde hoc opus Soliloquia nominaui; sed inperfectum remansit, ita tamen, ut in primo libro quaereretur et utcumque appareret, qualis esse debeat, qui uult percipere sapientiam, quae utique non sensu corporis, sed mente percipitur, et quadam ratiocinatione in libri fine colligitur ea, quae uere sunt, esse inmortalia; in secundo autem de inmortalitate animae diu res agitur et non peragitur. In his sane libris non approbo, quod in oratione dixi: deus, qui nisi mundos uerum scire noluisti. responderi enim potest multos etiam non mundos multa scire uera; neque enim definitum est hic, quid sit uerum, quod nisi mundi scire non possint, et quid sit scire. illud, quod ibi positum est: deus, cuius regnum est totus mundus, quem sensus ignorat, si deus intellegendus est, addenda fuerant uerba, ut diceretur: quem mortalis corporis sensus ignorat. si autem mundus dictus est, quem sensus ignorat, ille recte intellegitur, qui futurus est caelo nouo et terra noua; sed etiam hic addenda erant illa, ut diceretur: mortalis corporis sensus. sed illo more adhuc loquebar, quo sensus proprie corporis appellatur, nec adsidue repetendum est, quod et superius inde iam dixi, sed hoc recolendum, ubicumque ista locutio in meis litteris inuenitur. Et ubi dixi de patre et filio: qui gignit et quem gignit. unum est, dicendum fuit: unum sunt, sicut aperte ipsa ueritas loquitur dicens: ego et pater unum sumus. nec illud mihi placet, quod in ista uita deo intellecto iam beatam esse, animam dixi, nisi forte spe. item quod dixi: ad sapientiae coniunctionem non una uia perueniri non bene sonat; quasi alia uia sit praeter Christum, qui dixit: ego sum uia. uitanda ergo erat haec offensio aurium religiosarum, quamuis alia sit illa uniuersalis uia, aliae autem uiae, de quibus et in Psalmo canimus: uias tuas, domine, notas fac mihi et semitas tuas doce me. in eo, quod ibi dictum est, penitus ista sensibilia fugienda, cauendum fuit, ne putaremur illam Porfyri falsi philosophi tenere sententiam, qua dixit omne corpus esse fugiendum. non autem dixi ego: omnia sensibilia, sed: ista, hoc est corruptibilia; sed hoc potius dicendum fuit, non autem talia sensibilia sensibilia futura sunt in futuri saeculi caelo nouo et terra noua. Item quodam loco dixi, quod disciplinis liberalibus eruditi sine dubio in se illas obliuione obrutas eruunt discendo et quodam modo refodiunt. sed hoc quoque inprobo. credibilius est enim propterea uera respondere de quibusdam disciplinis etiam inperitos earum, quando bene interrogantur, quia praesens est eis, quando id capere possunt, lumen rationis aeternae, ubi haec inmutabilia uera conspiciunt. non quia ea nouerant aliquando et obliti sunt, quod Platoni uel talibus uisum est. contra quorum opinionem, quantum pro suscepto opere dabatur occasio, in libro duodecimo de trinitate disserui. Hoc opus sic incipit: Voluenti mihi multa ac uaria mecum. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile I also wrote two volumes, following my interest and love of searching out the truth by reason concerning the things I most desired to know, questioning myself and answering myself, as though we were two, Reason and I, when I was alone. Hence I named this work Soliloquies. But it remained unfinished; yet in such a way that in the first book it was inquired, and it appeared somehow, what sort of person he should be who wishes to grasp wisdom, which is certainly grasped not by the sense of the body but by the mind; and at the end of the book it is concluded by a kind of reasoning that the things that truly are are immortal. In the second book, however, the immortality of the soul is discussed at length and not brought to a conclusion. In these books I do not approve what I said in the prayer: “God, who willed that only the pure should know the truth.” For one can reply that many who are not pure also know many true things. For it is not defined here what the truth is which only the pure can know, nor what knowing is. In what is set down there, “God, whose kingdom is the whole world, which sense does not know,” if God is to be understood, words should have been added so as to say, “which the sense of the mortal body does not know.” If, however, the world which sense does not know is meant, it is rightly understood as the one that is to be in the new heaven and the new earth; but here too those words should have been added, so as to say “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 I constantly repeat what I have already said about this above, but it should be remembered wherever this expression is found in my writings. And where I said of the Father and the Son, “He who begets and he whom he begets is one,” I should have said “are one,” as the Truth himself says openly: “I and the Father are one.” Nor am I pleased that I said that in this life, when God is understood, the soul is already happy, unless perhaps in hope. Likewise what I said, “One does not arrive at union with wisdom by one way,” does not sound well, as though there were another way besides Christ, who said, “I am the way.” This offense to religious ears should therefore have been avoided, although that universal way is one thing, and the other ways are another, of which we also sing in the Psalm: “Make your ways known to me, Lord, and teach me your paths.” In what was said there, that “these sensible things are to be utterly fled,” care should have been taken that we not be thought to hold that opinion of Porphyry, the false philosopher, in which he said that every body must be fled. I did not, however, say “all sensible things” but “these,” that is, corruptible ones. But it should rather have been said thus: but such sensible things will not exist in the new heaven and the new earth of the age to come. Likewise in one place I said that those educated in the liberal disciplines without doubt dig them out, buried in forgetfulness, within themselves by learning, and in a way unearth them again. But this too I disapprove. For it is more credible that even those unskilled in certain disciplines answer truly about them when they are well questioned, because the light of eternal reason is present to them, as far as they can grasp it, where they behold these unchangeable truths; not because they once knew them and have forgotten, as seemed to Plato and such as he. Against their opinion I have argued in the twelfth book On the Trinity, as far as the occasion was given by the work undertaken. This work begins thus: “As I was turning over many and various things with myself…” ### Scripture references - John 10:30: quotation, high confidence - John 14:6: quotation, high confidence - Ps 25:4 (24:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Rev 21:1: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence - Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: John 10:30; John 14:6; Ps 25:4 (24:4 LXX/Vulg.). Allusion to Rev 21:1. - Porphyry's view that “every body must be fled” is from his Return of the Soul, as Augustine reports it in City of God 10.29. - Against Platonic recollection: The Trinity 12.15.24 (not yet on this site). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.4 (CSEL 36:22–25; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-4). ## Retractations 1.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-5 - Source: CSEL 36:25–28 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Immortality of the Soul, Augustine calls it obscure and corrects several statements; he then lists his unfinished books on the liberal disciplines, of which only Grammar and six books On Music were completed. ### Latin text Post libros Soliloquiorum iam de agro Mediolanium reuersus scripsi librum de inmortalitate animae. quod mihi quasi commonitorium esse uolueram propter Soliloquia terminanda, quae inperfecta remanserant, sed nescio quo modo me inuito exiit in manus hominum et inter mea opuscula nominatur. qui primo ratiocinationum contortione atque breuitate sic obscurus est, ut fatiget, cum legitur, etiam intentionem meam uixque intellegatur a me ipso. Denique cogitans nihil aliud quam animos hominum in quadam argumentatione eiusdem libri dixi: nec esse in eo, qui nihil discit, disciplina potest; itemque alio loco dixi: nec ullam rem scientia conplectitur, nisi quae ad aliquam pertinet disciplinam, nec uenit in mentem deum non discere disciplinas et habere omnium rerum scientiam, in qua etiam praescientia est futurorum. tale est et illud, quod ibi dictum est, non esse uitam cum ratione ulli nisi animae; neque enim deo sine ratione uita est, cum apud eum et summa uita et summa sit ratio. et illud aliquanto superius dixi, id, quod intellegitur, eius modi esse semper, cum intellegatur et animus, qui utique non eius modi est semper. quod uero dixi: animum propterea non posse ab aeterna ratione separari, quia non ei localiter iungitur, profecto non dixissem, si iam tunc essem litteris sacris ita eruditus, ut recolerem, quod scriptum est: peccata uestra separant inter uos et deum. unde intellegi datur etiam earum rerum posse dici separationem, quae non locis. sed incorporaliter iuncta fuerant. Quid sit etiam, quod dixi: anima si caret corpore, in hoc mundo non est, non potui recordari. numquid enim animae mortuorum aut non carent corpore aut in hoc mundo non sunt? quasi uero inferi non sint in hoc mundo. sed quia carere corpore in bono potest, fortasse nomine corporis pestes corporeas appellaui. quod si ita est, nimis insolenter uerbo usus sum. illud quoque temere dictum est: a summa essentia speciem corporis per animam tribui, qua est, in quantumcumque est. per animam ergo corpus subsistit et eo ipso est, quo animatur, siue uniuersaliter, ut mundus, siue particulariter, ut unum quodque animal intra mundum; hoc totum prorsus temere dictum est. Hic liber sic incipit: Si alicubi est disciplina. Per idem tempus, quo Mediolani fui baptismum percepturus, etiam disciplinarum libros conatus sum scribere interrogans eos, qui mecum erant atque ab huius modi studiis non abhorrebant, per corporalia cupiens ad incorporalia quibusdam quasi passibus certis uel peruenire uel ducere. sed earum solum de grammatica librum absoluere potui, quem postea de armario nostro perdidi, et de musica sex uolumina, quantum adtinet ad eandem partem, quae rythmus uocatur. sed eosdem sex libros iam baptizatus iamque ex Italia regressus in Africam scripsi; incoaueram quippe tantummodo istam apud Mediolanium disciplinam. de aliis uero quinque disciplinis illic similiter incoatis, de dialectica, de rhetorica, de geometrica, de arithmetica, de philosophia, sola principia remanserunt, quae tamen etiam ipsa perdidimus, sed haberi ab aliquibus existimo. ### English translation (Claude) After the books of the Soliloquies, having now returned to Milan from the country, I wrote a book On the Immortality of the Soul. I had meant it to be a kind of memorandum for myself toward finishing the Soliloquies, which had remained unfinished; but somehow, against my will, it got into people's hands and is counted among my small works. In the first place it is so obscure because of the intricacy and brevity of its reasonings that it wearies even my own attention when it is read, and is hardly understood even by me. Then, thinking of nothing but human souls, I said in one argument of this book: “Nor can there be learning in one who learns nothing”; and likewise in another place I said: “Nor does knowledge embrace anything except what belongs to some discipline”; and it did not come to my mind that God does not learn disciplines and yet has knowledge of all things, in which there is also foreknowledge of the future. Of the same kind is what was said there, that there is no life with reason for anyone except the soul; for God's life is not without reason, since in him there is both the highest life and the highest reason. And a little before that I said that what is understood is always of the same kind, whereas the soul too is understood, and it certainly is not always of the same kind. As for what I said, that the soul cannot be separated from eternal reason because it is not joined to it spatially, I certainly would not have said it if I had already then been so instructed in the sacred writings as to remember what is written: “Your sins separate between you and God.” From this one is given to understand that there can also be said to be a separation of things that were joined not spatially but incorporeally. What I meant by saying, “If the soul lacks a body, it is not in this world,” I have not been able to recall. For do not the souls of the dead either lack a body or are they not in this world? As if the underworld were not in this world! But since lacking a body can be in a good sense, perhaps by the name “body” I meant bodily plagues. If that is so, I used the word too unusually. That too was rashly said: that from the highest being the form of the body is bestowed through the soul, by which it exists, to whatever degree it exists; that the body therefore subsists through the soul and exists by the very fact that it is animated, whether universally, like the world, or individually, like each animal within the world. All this was said quite rashly. This book begins thus: “If learning is anywhere…” During the same time, when I was at Milan about to receive baptism, I also tried to write books on the disciplines, questioning those who were with me and who were not averse to studies of this kind, wishing to arrive, or to lead others, through bodily things to incorporeal ones by certain fixed steps, as it were. But of these I was able to complete only the book on grammar, which I later lost from our book-cupboard, and six volumes on music, as far as concerns that part of it which is called rhythm. But I wrote those same six books after I was baptized and had returned from Italy to Africa; at Milan I had only begun that discipline. Of the other five disciplines begun there in the same way, on dialectic, on rhetoric, on geometry, on arithmetic, and on philosophy, only the beginnings remained, and even these we lost, but I think that some people have them. ### Scripture references - Isa 59:2: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: Isa 59:2. The last part of this section (from “During the same time”) is the separate chapter on the books of the disciplines in other editions (Retr. 1.6 in the Maurist numbering). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.5 (CSEL 36:25–28; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-5). ## Retractations 1.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-6 - Source: CSEL 36:28–34 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his two books on the morals of the Catholic Church and of the Manichaeans, Augustine corrects arguments built on faulty Latin copies, denies that perfection is reached in this life, and rejects Origen's view that all fallen beings return to God. ### Latin text Iam baptizatus autem cum Romae essem nec tacitus ferre possem Manicheorum iactantiam de falsa et fallaci continentia uel abstinentia, qua se ad inperitos decipiendos ueris Christianis, quibus conparandi non sunt, insuper praeferunt, scripsi duos libros, unum de moribus ecclesiae catholicae et alterum de moribus Manicheorum. In eo igitur, qui est de moribus ecclesiae catholicae, ubi posui testimonium, in quo legitur, quoniam propter te adficimur tota die, aestimati sumus ut oues, mendositas nostri codicis me fefellit minus memorem scripturarum, in quibus nondum adsuetus eram. nam eiusdem interpretationis alii codices non habent: propter te adficimur, sed propter te morte adficimur, quod uno uerbo alii dixerunt mortificamur. hoc esse uerius graeci libri indicant, ex qua lingua in latinam secundum Septuaginta interpretes ueterum diuinarum scripturarum est facta translatio. et tamen secundum haec uerba, id est: propter te adficimur, multa disputans dixi, quae in ipsis rebus non tamquam falsa inprobo, uerum tamen conuenientiam scripturarum ueterum et nouarum, quam demonstrare cupiebam, ex his dumtaxat uerbis non utique demonstraui. unde autem mihi error obrepserit, dixi; ex aliis uero testimoniis eandem conuenientiam sufficienter ostendi. Et paulo post testimonium posui de libro Sapientiae secundum codicem nostrum, in quo scriptum erat: sobrietatem enim sapientia docet et iustitiam et uirtutem, et secundum haec uerba disserui res quidem ueras, sed ex occasione mendositatis inuentas. quid enim uerius, quod sapientia doceat ueritatem contemplationis, quam nomine sobrietatis significatam putaui, et actionis probitatem, quam per duo alia intellegi uolui, per iustitiam atque uirtutem, cum codices eiusdem interpretationis ueriores habeant: sobrietatem enim et sapientiam docet et iustitiam et uirtutem? his enim omnibus latinus interpres quattuor illas uirtutes, quae maxime in ore philosophorum esse adsolent, nominauit, sobrietatem appellans temperantiam, prudentiae inponens nomen sapientiam, fortitudinem uero uirtutis uocabulo enuntians, solam iustitiam suo nomine interpretatus est. has autem quattuor uirtutes in eodem libro Sapientiae suis nominibus appellatas, sicut a Graecis uocantur, longe postea repperimus in codicibus graecis. item quod posui de libro Salomonis: uanitas uanitantium, dixit Ecclesiastes, in multis quidem codicibus legi, sed hoc graecus non habet; habet autem: uanitas uanitatum, quod postea uidi, et inueni eos latinos esse ueriores, qui habent uanitatum, non uanitantium. ex occasione tamen huius mendositatis quaecumque disserui, uera esse ipsis rebus apparet. Quod autem dixi: eum ipsum, quem cognoscere uolumus, hoc est deum, prius plena caritate diligamus, melius diceretur: sincera quam plena, nisi forte putatur caritatem dei non futuram esse maiorem, quando uidebimus facie ad faciem. sic itaque hoc accipiatur, tamquam plena dicta sit, qua maior esse non possit, quamdiu ambulamus per fidem; erit enim plenior, immo plenissima, sed per speciem. item quod dixi de his, qui subueniunt indigentibus, quia misericordes uocantur, etiam si sapientes usque adeo sint, ut iam nullo animi dolore turbentur, non sic accipiendum est, tamquam definierim in hac uita esse tales sapientes; non enim dixi: cum sint, sed dixi: etiam si sint. Alio loco, ubi dixi: iam uero, cum haec humana dilectio inhaerentem uberibus suis nutrierit et roborauerit animum, sequendo deo factus est idoneus; ubi eius maiestas ex tanta parte, quanta animi, dum terrae huius inhabitator est, sufficit, aperire se coeperit, tantus caritatis ardor innascitur et tantum diuini amoris consurgit incendium, ut exustis omnibus uitiis in homine sanctificato atque purgato satis appareat, quam diuine dictum sit: ego sum ignis consumens, possunt putare Pelagiani istam perfectionem in hac mortali uita me dixisse posse contingere. sed non hoc putent. ardor quippe caritatis sequendo deo factus idoneus et tam magnus, ut uitia cuncta consumat, in hac uita nasci et crescere potest, perficere uero, propter quod nascitur, ut nullum insit homini uitium, non consequenter hic potest, quamuis tanta ista res eodem ardore caritatis perficiatur, ubi perfici et quando perfici potest, ut. quemadmodum lauacrum regenerationis purgat a reatu omnium peccatorum, quae humana traxit natiuitas et contraxit iniquitas, ita illa perfectio purget ab omnium labe uitiorum, sine quibus esse non potest humana in hoc saeculo infirmitas. sicut accipiendum est etiam quod dixit apostolus: Christus dilexit ecclesiam et semet ipsum tradidit pro ea, mundans eam lauacro aquae in uerbo, ut exhiberet sibi gloriosam ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam aut aliquid eius modi. hic est enim lauacrum aquae in uerbo, quo mundatur ecclesia. sed cum tota dicat, quamdiu hic est: dimitte nobis debita nostra. non utique hic est sine macula aut ruga aut aliquid huius modi, ex eo tamen, quod hic accipit, ad illam gloriam, quae hic non est, perfectionemque perducitur. In alio libro, cuius est titulus: de moribus Manicheorum, illud. quod dixi: dei bonitas omnia deficientia sic ordinat, ut ibi sint, ubi congruentissime possint esse, donec ordinatis motibus ad id recurrant, unde defecerunt, non sic accipiendum est, tamquam omnia recurrant ad id, unde defecerunt, sicut Origeni uisum est, sed ea omnia, quae recurrunt. non enim recurrent ad deum, a quo defecerunt, qui sempiterno igne punientur, quamuis omnia deficientia sic ordinentur, ut ibi sint, ubi congruentissime possint esse, quia et illi, qui non recurrunt, congruentissime in poena sunt. alio loco: nemo fere, inquam, de scarabeis dubitat, quin de limo in pilam rotundato ab his atque obruto existant, cum hoc exemplum utrum uerum sit multi dubitant, multi ne audierint quidem. Hoc opus sic incipit: In aliis libris satis opinor egisse nos. ### English translation (Claude) Now baptized, when I was at Rome and could not bear in silence the boasting of the Manichaeans 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 Morals of the Catholic Church and the other On the Morals of the Manichaeans. In the one On the Morals of the Catholic Church, where I set down the testimony in which we read, “Because for your sake we are afflicted all the day long, we are regarded as sheep,” the faultiness of our copy deceived me, since I had little memory 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 afflicted with death,” which others have said in one word, “we are put to death.” The Greek books show that this is more correct, from which language the translation of the ancient divine Scriptures into Latin was made according to the Seventy translators. And yet I said many things in discussing these words, that is, “for your sake we are afflicted,” which in substance I do not reject as false; yet I certainly did not demonstrate from these words at any rate the agreement of the Old and New Scriptures which I wished to show. I have said how the error crept up on me; but from other testimonies I showed the same agreement sufficiently. And a little later I set down a testimony from the book of Wisdom according to our copy, in which it was written, “For wisdom teaches sobriety and justice and virtue,” and on 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 name of sobriety, and uprightness of action, which I wished to be understood by the two others, justice and virtue? Whereas the more correct copies of the same translation have: “For she teaches sobriety and wisdom and justice and virtue.” For by all these the Latin translator named those four virtues which are commonly on the lips of philosophers, calling temperance sobriety, giving prudence the name of wisdom, expressing fortitude by the word virtue, and translating justice alone by its own name. And much later we found in Greek copies that these four virtues are called by their own names in that same book of Wisdom, as the Greeks name them. Likewise what I set down from the book of Solomon, “Vanity of those who are vain, said Ecclesiastes,” I had indeed read in many copies, but the Greek does not have this; it has rather “vanity of vanities,” which I saw later, and I found that those Latin copies are more correct which have “of vanities,” not “of those who are vain.” Yet whatever I discussed on the occasion of this faulty text is shown by the things themselves to be true. As for what I said, “Let us first love with full charity the very one whom we wish to know, that is, God,” it would have been better said “sincere” than “full,” unless perhaps it is thought that the love of God will not be greater when we see face to face. So let it be taken as though “full” were said of a love than which there can be none greater as long as we walk by faith; for it will be fuller, indeed fullest, but by 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 troubled by any pain of mind, is not to be taken as though I had laid down that there are such wise men in this life; for I did not say “since they are” but “even if they are.” In another place, where I said, “Now when this human love has nourished and strengthened the soul clinging to its breasts, it has become fit for following God; when his majesty has begun to disclose itself as much as suffices for the soul while it is an inhabitant of this earth, such ardor of charity is born and such a fire of divine love rises up that, with all vices burned away, it becomes clear enough in the sanctified and purified man how divinely it was said, ‘I am a consuming fire,’” the Pelagians may think that I said this perfection can be attained in this mortal life. But let them not think so. For the ardor of charity, become 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, so that no vice is in a man, it cannot as a consequence do here, although so great a thing is accomplished by that same ardor of charity where and when it can be accomplished; so that, just as the washing of regeneration cleanses from the guilt of all the sins which human birth has drawn and wickedness has contracted, so that perfection may cleanse from the stain of all the vices without which human weakness cannot exist in this world. So too must be taken what the apostle said: “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, not having spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind.” For here is the washing of water in the word by which the church is cleansed. But since the whole church says, as long as it is here, “Forgive us our debts,” it is certainly not here without spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind; yet from what it receives here it is led to that glory and perfection which is not here. In the other book, whose title is On the Morals of the Manichaeans, what I said, “The goodness of God so orders all things that fall away that they are where they can most fittingly be, until by ordered movements they return to that from which they fell away,” is not to be taken as though all things return to that from which they fell away, as seemed to Origen, but all those things which do return. For those who will be punished in everlasting fire will not return to God, from whom they fell away; although all things that fall away are so ordered that they are where they can most fittingly be, since those who do not return are also most fittingly in punishment. In another place I said: “Hardly anyone doubts that beetles come from the mud which they roll into a ball and bury,” whereas many doubt whether this example is true, and many have not even heard of it. This work begins thus: “In other books I think we have sufficiently dealt…” ### Scripture references - Ps 44:22 (43:22 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Eccl 1:2: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:12: allusion, high confidence - 2 Cor 5:7: allusion, high confidence - Deut 4:24: quotation, high confidence - Heb 12:29: quotation, medium confidence - Eph 5:25: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:26: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:27: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence - Titus 3:5: allusion, high confidence - Matt 25:41: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Wis 8:7 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Ps 44:22 (43:22 LXX/Vulg.); Wis 8:7; Eccl 1:2; 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:7; Deut 4:24 (or Heb 12:29); Eph 5:25–27; Matt 6:12; Matt 25:41 (everlasting fire, allusion); Titus 3:5 (washing of regeneration). - Latin titles: De moribus ecclesiae catholicae and De moribus Manichaeorum. The view rejected is Origen's doctrine of universal restoration (apokatastasis). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.6 (CSEL 36:28–34; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/0-1/#p-1-6). ## Retractations 1.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-7 - Source: CSEL 36:34–36 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Greatness of the Soul, Augustine explains that learning as “remembering” does not imply a previous life of the soul, and clarifies a phrase about being restored to oneself. ### Latin text In eadem urbe scripsi dialogum, in quo de anima multa quaeruntur ac disseruntur, id est unde sit, qualis sit, quanta sit, cur corpori fuerit data, cum ad corpus uenerit qualis efficiatur, qualis cum abscesserit. sed quoniam quanta sit diligentissime ac subtilissime disputatum est, ut eam, si possemus, ostenderemus corporalis quantitatis non esse et tamen magnum aliquid esse, ex hac una inquisitione totus liber nomen accepit, ut appellaretur de animae quantitate. In eo libro illud, quod dixi, omnes artes animam secum adtulisse mihi uideri nec aliud quicquam esse id, quod dicitur discere, quam reminisci et recordari, non sic accipiendum est, quasi ex hoc adprobetur animam uel in alio corpore uel alibi siue in corpore siue extra corpus aliquando uixisse et ea, quae interrogata respondet, cum hic non didicerit, in alia uita ante didicisse. fieri enim potest, sicut iam in hoc opere supra diximus, ut hoc ideo possit, quia natura intellegibilis est, ut conectatur non solum intellegibilibus uerum etiam inmutabilibus rebus, eo ordine facta, ut, cum se ad eas res mouet, quibus conexa est, uel ad se ipsam, in quantum eas uidet, in tantum de his uera respondeat. nec sane omnes artes eo modo secum adtulit ac secum habet; nam de artibus, quae ad sensus corporis pertinent, sicut multa medicinae, sicut astrologiae omnia, nisi quod hic didicerit non potest dicere. ea uero, quae sola intellegentia capit, propter id, quod dixi, cum uel a se ipsa uel ab alio fuerit bene interrogata et recordata, respondet. Alio loco: uellem, inquam, hinc plura dicere ac me ipsum constringere, dum quasi tibi praecipio, ut nihil aliud agerem, quam redderer mihi, cui me maxime debeo. ubi uideor dicere potius debuisse: redderer deo, cui me maxime debeo. sed quoniam prius sibi ipse homo reddendus est, ut illic quasi gradu facto inde surgat atque adtollatur ad deum, sicut filius ille minor prius reuersus est ad semet ipsum et tunc ait: surgam et ibo ad patrem meum, ideo sic sum locutus. denique mox addidi: atque ita fieri amicum mancipium domino. quod ergo dixi: cui me maxime debeo, ad homines rettuli; magis enim mihi me debeo quam hominibus ceteris, quamuis deo magis quam mihi. Hic liber sic incipit: Quoniam uideo te abundare otio. ### English translation (Claude) In the same city I wrote a dialogue in which many questions about the soul are raised and discussed: that is, where it comes from, what it is like, how great it is, why it was given to the body, what it becomes when it has come to the body, and what when it has departed. But since the question how great it is was discussed most carefully and subtly, so that we might show, if we could, that it has no bodily quantity and yet is something great, the whole book took its name from this one inquiry, so as to be called On the Greatness of the Soul. In that book, what I said, that it seems to me that the soul brought all the arts with it, and that what is called learning is nothing other than remembering and recalling, is not to be taken as though it were thereby approved that the soul once lived either in another body or elsewhere, whether in a body or outside a body, and that what it answers when questioned, though it has not learned it here, it learned before in another life. For it can be, as we have already said above in this work, that it can do this because it is an intelligible nature and is connected not only with intelligible but also with unchangeable things, being made in such an order that when it moves itself toward those things with which it is connected, or toward itself, it answers truly about them to the extent that it sees them. Nor indeed did it bring all the arts with it in that way, or have them with it; for of the arts that belong to the senses of the body, such as much of medicine and all of astrology, it can say nothing except what it has learned here. But those things which intelligence alone grasps it answers, for the reason I gave, when it has been well questioned and reminded either by itself or by another. In another place I said: “I would like to say more on this and to bind myself, while as it were instructing you, to do nothing else than to be restored to myself, to whom I am most indebted.” Here it seems that I ought rather to have said “to be restored to God, to whom I am most indebted.” But because a man must first be restored to himself, so that, having made a step there, as it were, he may rise from there and be lifted up to God, as that younger son first came back to himself and then said, “I will arise and go to my father,” therefore I spoke thus. Indeed I soon added, “and so to become a friendly servant to the Lord.” So what I said, “to whom I am most indebted,” I referred to human beings; for I am more indebted to myself than to other people, though more to God than to myself. This book begins thus: “Since I see that you abound in leisure…” ### Scripture references - Luke 15:17: allusion, high confidence - Luke 15:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De animae quantitate. Quotation: Luke 15:17–18 (the prodigal son). The earlier discussion referred to is 1.4 above (on the Soliloquies). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.7 (CSEL 36:34–36; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-7). ## Retractations 1.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-8 - Source: CSEL 36:36–47 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Free Choice, written against the Manichaeans, Augustine answers the Pelagians' use of its statements on the will, arguing that the books already taught that every good, including the good use of free will, is from God and that fallen man rises only by grace. ### Latin text Cum adhuc Romae demoraremur, noluimus disputando quaerere, unde sit malum, et eo modo disputauimus, ut, si possemus, id quod de hac re diuinae auctoritati subditi credebamus etiam ad intellegentiam nostram, quantum disserendo opitulante deo agere possemus, ratio considerata et pertractata perduceret. et quoniam constitit inter nos diligenter ratione discussa malum non exortum nisi ex libero uoluntatis arbitrio, tres libri, quos eadem disputatio peperit, appellati sunt de libero arbitrio. quorum secundum et tertium in Africa iam Hippone Regio presbyter ordinatus, sicut tunc potui, terminaui. In his libris ita multa disserta sunt, ut incidentes nonnullae quaestiones, quas uel enodare non poteram uel longam sermocinationem in praesenti requirebant, ita differrentur, ut ex utraque parte uel ex omnibus earundem quaestionum partibus, in quibus non apparebat, quid potius congrueret ueritati, ad hoc tamen ratiocinatio nostra concluderetur, ut, quodlibet eorum uerum esset, laudandus crederetur uel etiam ostenderetur deus. propter eos quippe disputatio illa suscepta est, qui negant ex libero uoluntatis arbitrio mali originem duci et deum, si ita est, creatorem omnium naturarum culpandum esse contendunt, eo modo uolentes secundum suae inpietatis errorem — Manichei enim sunt — inmutabilem quandam et deo coaeternam introducere naturam mali. de gratia uero dei, qua suos electos sic praedestinauit, ut eorum, qui iam in eis utuntur libero arbitrio, ipse etiam praeparet uoluntates, nihil in his libris disputatum est propter hoc proposita quaestione. ubi autem incidit locus, ut huius gratiae commemoratio fieret, transeunter commemorata est, non, quasi inde ageretur, operosa ratiocinatione defensa. aliud est enim quaerere, unde sit malum, et aliud est quaerere, unde redeatur ad pristinum uel ad maius perueniatur bonum. Quapropter noui heretici Pelagiani, qui liberum sic asserunt uoluntatis arbitrium, ut gratiae dei non relinquant locum, quandoquidem eam secundum merita nostra dari adserunt, non se extollant, quasi eorum egerim causam, quia multa in his libris dixi pro libero arbitrio, quae illius disputationis causa poscebat. dixi quippe in primo libro male facta iustitia dei uindicari et addidi: non enim iuste uindicarentur, nisi fierent uoluntate. item cum ipsam bonam uoluntatem tam magnum bonum esse monstrarem, ut omnibus corporis et extraneis bonis merito anteponeretur, dixi: uides igitur iam, ut existimo, in uoluntate nostra esse constitutum, ut hoc uel fruamur uel careamus tanto et tam uero bono; quid enim tam in uoluntate quam ipsa uoluntas sita est? et alio loco: quid ergo causa est, inquam, cur dubitandum putemus, etiamsi numquam antea sapientes fuimus, uoluntate nos tamen laudabilem et beatam uitam, uoluntate turpem et miseram mereri ac degere? itemque alio loco: ex quo conficitur, inquam, ut quisquis recte honesteque uult uiuere, si id se uelle prae fugacibus rebus uelit, adsequatur tantam rem tanta facilitate, ut nihil aliud ei quam ipsum uelle sit habere, quod uoluit. itemque alibi dixi: hoc enim aeterna lex illa, ad cuius considerationem redire iam tempus est, incommutabili stabilitate firmauit, ut in uoluntate meritum sit, in beatitate autem et miseria praemium atque supplicium. et alio loco: quid, inquam, quisque sectandum et amplectendum eligat, in uoluntate esse positum constitit. et in secundo libro: homo enim ipse, inquam, in quantum homo est, aliquod bonum est, quia recte uiuere, cum uult, potest. et alio loco dixi: recte fieri non posse nisi eodem libero uoluntatis arbitrio. et in libro tertio: quid opus est quaeri, inquam, unde iste motus existat, quo uoluntas auertitur ab incommutabili bono ad commutabile bonum, cum eum non nisi animi et uoluntarium et ob hoc culpabile esse fateamur omnisque de hac re disciplina utilis ad id ualeat, ut eo motu inprobato atque cohibito uoluntatem nostram ad fruendum sempiterno bono a lapsu temporali conuertamus? et in alio loco: obscure, inquam, de te ueritas clamat. non enim posses aliud sentire esse in potestate nostra nisi quod, cum uolumus, facimus. quapropter nihil tam in nostra potestate quam ipsa uoluntas est. ea enim prorsus nullo interuallo mox, ut uolumus, praesto est. item alio loco: si enim tu laudaris, inquam, uidendo, quid facere debeas, cum id non uideas nisi in illo, qui est incommutabilis ueritas, quanto magis ille, qui et uelle praecepit et posse praebuit et non inpune nolle permisit. deinde subiunxi dicens: si enim hoc debet quisque, quod accepit, et sic homo factus est, ut necessario peccet, hoc debet, ut peccet. cum uero peccat, quod debet facit; quod si scelus est dicere, neminem natura sua cogit, ut peccet. et iterum: quae tandem esse poterit, inquam, ante uoluntatem causa uoluntatis? aut enim et ipsa uoluntas est et a radice ista uoluntatis non receditur, aut non est uoluntas et peccatum nullum habet. aut igitur uoluntas est primum causa peccandi aut nullum peccatum est prima causa peccandi, nec est, cui inputetur peccatum nisi peccanti. non ergo est, cui recte inputetur nisi uoluntati. et paulo post: quis, inquam, peccat in eo, quod nullo modo cauere potest? peccatur autem: caueri igitur potest. quo testimonio meo in quodam libro suo Pelagius usus est. cui libro cum respondissem, titulum libri mei esse uolui: de natura et gratia. In his atque huius modi uerbis meis, quia gratia dei commemorata non est, de qua tunc non agebatur, putant Pelagiani uel putare possunt suam nos tenuisse sententiam. sed frustra hoc putant. uoluntas quippe, qua et peccatur et recte uiuitur, quod hic uerbis egimus, uoluntas ergo ista nisi dei gratia liberetur a seruitute, qua facta est serua peccati, et, ut uitia superet, adiuuetur, recte pieque uiui a mortalibus non potest. et hoc diuinum beneficium, quo liberatur, nisi eam praeueniret, iam meritis eius daretur et non esset gratia, quae utique gratis datur. quod in aliis opusculis nostris satis egimus istos inimicos huius gratiae, nouos hereticos, refellentes, quamuis in his libris, qui non contra illos omnino — quippe illi nondum erant — sed contra Manicheos conscripti sunt de libero arbitrio, non omni modo de ista dei gratia reticuimus, quam nefanda inpietate conantur auferre. diximus quippe in secundo libro non solum magna sed etiam minima bona non esse posse nisi ab illo, a quo sunt omnia bona, hoc est deo. et paulo post: uirtutes, inquam, in quibus recte uiuitur, magna bona sunt; species autem quorumlibet corporum, sine quibus recte uiui potest, minima bona sunt; potentiae uero animi, sine quibus recte uiui non potest, media bona sunt. uirtutibus nemo male utitur, ceteris autem bonis, id est mediis et minimis, non solum bene sed etiam male quisque uti potest. et ideo uirtute nemo male utitur, quia opus uirtutis est bonus usus istorum, quibus etiam non bene uti possumus; nemo autem bene utendo male utitur. quare abundantia et magnitudo bonitatis dei non solum magna sed etiam media et minima bona esse praestitit. magis laudanda est bonitas eius in magnis quam in mediis et magis in mediis quam in minimis his bonis, sed magis in omnibus, quam si non omnia tribuisset. et in alio loco: tu tantum, inquam, pietatem inconcussam tene, ut nullum tibi bonum uel sentienti uel intellegenti uel quoquo modo cogitanti occurrat, quod non sit ex deo. itemque alio loco dixi: sed quoniam non, sicut sponte homo cecidit, ita etiam sponte surgere potest, porrectam nobis desuper dexteram dei, id est domini nostri Iesu Christi, firma fide teneamus. Et in libro tertio, cum dixissem illud, quod et Pelagium de meis opusculis usum fuisse commemoraui: quis enim peccat in eo, quod nullo modo cauere potest? peccatur autem: caueri igitur potest, continuo secutus adiunxi: et tamen etiam per ignorantiam facta quaedam inprobantur et corrigenda iudicantur, sicut in diuinis auctoritatibus legimus. ait enim apostolus: misericordiam consecutus sum, quia ignorans feci; ait et propheta: delicta iuuentutis et ignorantiae meae ne memineris. sunt etiam necessitate facta inprobanda, ubi uult homo recte facere et non potest. nam unde sunt illae uoces: non quod uolo facio bonum, sed quod odi malum, hoc ago; et illud: uelle adiacet mihi, perficere autem bonum non; et illud: caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum, spiritus autem aduersus carnem. haec enim inuicem aduersantur, ut non ea, quae uultis, faciatis? sed haec omnia hominum sunt ex illa mortis damnatione uenientium. nam si non est ista poena hominis, sed natura, nulla ista peccata sunt. si enim non receditur ab eo modo, quo naturaliter factus est ita, ut melius esse non possit, ea quae debet facit, cum haec facit. si autem bonus homo esset, aliter esset; nunc autem quia ita est, non est bonus nec habet in potestate, ut bonus sit, siue non uidendo, qualis esse debeat, siue uidendo et non ualendo esse, qualem debere esse se uidet. poenam istam esse quis dubitet? omnis autem poena, si iusta est, peccati poena est et supplicium nominatur. si autem iniusta poena est — quoniam poenam esse nemo ambigit — iniusto aliquo dominante homini inposita est. porro quia de omnipotentia dei et iustitia dubitare dementis est, iusta haec poena est et pro peccato aliquo penditur. non enim quisquam iniustus dominator aut subripere hominem potuit uelut ignoranti deo aut extorquere inuito tamquam inualidiori uel terrendo uel conturbando, ut hominem iniusta poena cruciaret. relinquitur ergo, ut haec poena iusta de damnatione hominis ueniat. et alio loco: adprobare, inquam, falsa pro ueris, ut erret inuitus, et resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis uinculi non posse a libidinosis operibus temperare non est natura instituti hominis, sed poena damnati. cum autem de uoluntate recta faciendi loquimur, de illa scilicet, in qua homo factus est, loquimur. Ecce tam longe, antequam Pelagiana heresis extitisset, sic disputauimus, uelut iam contra illos disputaremus. cum enim bona dicerentur ex deo, id est et magna et media et minima, in mediis quidem bonis inuenitur liberum uoluntatis arbitrium, quia et male illo uti possumus; sed tamen tale est, ut sine illo recte uiuere nequeamus. bonus autem usus eius iam uirtus est, quae in magnis reperitur bonis, quibus male uti nullus potest. et quia omnia bona, sicut dictum est, et magna et media et minima, ex deo sunt, sequitur, ut ex deo sit etiam bonus usus liberae uoluntatis, quae uirtus est et in magnis numeratur bonis. deinde dictum est, ex qua miseria peccantibus iustissime inflicta liberet dei gratia, quia sponte homo, id est libero arbitrio, cadere potuit, non etiam surgere. ad quam miseriam iustae damnationis pertinet ignorantia et difficultas, quam patitur omnis homo ab exordio natiuitatis suae, nec ab isto malo quisquam nisi dei gratia liberatur. quam miseriam Pelagiani nolunt ex iusta damnatione descendere negantes originale peccatum, quamuis, ignorantia et difficultas etiamsi essent hominis primordia naturalia, nec sic culpandus, sed laudandus deus esset, sicut in eodem libro tertio disputauimus. quae disputatio contra Manicheos habenda est, qui non accipiunt scripturas sanctas ueteris instrumenti, in quibus peccatum originale narratur, et quidquid inde in litteris apostolicis legitur, detestabili inpudentia inmissum fuisse contendunt a corruptoribus scripturarum, tamquam non fuerit ab apostolis dictum. contra Pelagianos autem hoc defendendum est, quod utraque scriptura commendat, quam se accipere profitentur. Hoc opus sic incipit: Dic mihi, quaeso te, utrum deus non sit auctor mali. ### English translation (Claude) While we were still staying at Rome, we wished to inquire by discussion where evil comes from; and we discussed it in such a way that, if we could, reason, carefully considered and examined, might bring also to our understanding what we believed about this matter in submission to divine authority, as far as we could manage it by discussion with God's help. And since it was agreed among us, after reason had diligently examined the matter, that evil arose only from the free choice of the will, the three books which this discussion produced were called On Free Choice. Of these I finished the second and third in Africa, after I had already been ordained presbyter at Hippo Regius, as well as I could then. In these books so many things were discussed that some questions which came up, which I either could not unravel or which required a long discourse at the time, were deferred in such a way that, from either side, or from all sides, of those questions where it was not clear what agreed better with the truth, our reasoning nevertheless reached this conclusion: whichever of them was true, God was to be believed, or even shown, to be worthy of praise. For that discussion was undertaken because of those who deny that the origin of evil is derived from the free choice of the will and contend that, if that is so, God, the creator of all natures, is to be blamed; wishing in this way, according to the error of their ungodliness (for they are Manichaeans), to introduce a certain unchangeable nature of evil, coeternal with God. But concerning the grace of God, by which he has so predestined his elect that he himself also prepares the wills of those among them who already use free choice, nothing was discussed in these books, because of the question set before us. Where, however, the occasion arose for this 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 inquire where evil comes from, and another to inquire how one returns to the former good or arrives at a greater good. Therefore let the new heretics, the Pelagians, who assert the free choice of the will in such a way as to 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 in these books I said many things on behalf of free choice which the purpose of that discussion demanded. For in the first book I said that evil deeds are punished by the justice of God, and I added: “For they would not be justly punished unless they were done by the will.” Again, when I was showing that a good will itself is so great a good that it is rightly preferred to all bodily and external goods, I said: “You see, then, I think, that it lies in our will whether we enjoy or lack so great and so true a good; for what is so much in the will as the will itself?” And in another place: “What reason is there, then,” I said, “why we should think it doubtful that, even if we were never wise before, nevertheless by the will we merit and lead a praiseworthy and happy life, and by the will a shameful and miserable one?” And likewise in another place: “From this it follows,” I said, “that whoever wishes to live rightly and honorably, if he wills to will this above 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.” And likewise elsewhere I said: “For that eternal law, to the consideration of which it is now time to return, has established with unchangeable firmness that merit lies in the will, while reward and punishment lie in happiness and misery.” And in another place: “It has been agreed,” I said, “that what each person chooses to pursue and embrace lies in the will.” And in the second book: “For man himself,” I said, “insofar as he is man, is something good, because he can live rightly when he wills.” And in another place I said that “one cannot act rightly except by this same free choice of the will.” And in the third book: “What need is there,” I said, “to inquire where this movement comes from by which the will is turned away from the unchangeable good to a changeable good, since we acknowledge that it is only of the soul, and voluntary, and therefore blameworthy; and all useful teaching on this matter has this value, that, having disapproved and restrained that movement, we may turn our will from its fall into temporal things to the enjoyment of the everlasting good?” And in another place: “Truth cries out to you obscurely,” I said; “for you could not think that anything 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 present at once, with no interval whatever, as soon as we will.” Likewise in another place: “For if you are praised,” I said, “for seeing what you ought to do, though you do not see it except in him who is unchangeable truth, how much more he who commanded you to will, and supplied the power, and did not permit unwillingness to go unpunished.” Then I went on, saying: “For if each one owes what he has received, and man was so made that he necessarily sins, then he owes it to sin. When, therefore, he sins, he does what he ought; but if it is wicked to say this, no one is compelled by his nature to sin.” And again: “What, after all, can be the cause of the will before the will?” I said. “For either it is itself 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, then, the will itself is the first cause of sinning, or no sin is the first cause of sinning. Nor is there anyone to whom sin may be imputed except the one who sins. There is no one, then, to whom it may rightly be imputed except the one who wills.” And a little later: “Who,” I said, “sins in what he can in no way avoid? But sin is committed; therefore it can be avoided.” Pelagius used this testimony of mine in a certain book of his; and when I replied to that book, I chose On Nature and Grace as the title of my book. In these and similar words of mine, because the grace of God was not mentioned, which was not then the subject, the Pelagians think, or can think, that we held their opinion. But they think so in vain. For the will, by which one both sins and lives rightly, which is what we discussed in these words, unless it is set free by the grace of God from the slavery by which it has been made a slave of sin, and is helped to overcome vices, mortals cannot live rightly and devoutly. And this divine benefit by which it is set free, unless it went before the will, would then be given to its merits and would not be grace, which is certainly given freely. We have dealt with this sufficiently in other works of ours, refuting these enemies of this grace, the new heretics; although in these books On Free Choice, which were written not at all against them (for they did not yet exist) but against the Manichaeans, we did not keep altogether silent about this grace of God, which they try with abominable ungodliness to take away. For in the second book we said that not only great but even the least goods can exist only from him from whom are all goods, that is, God. And a little later: “The virtues,” I said, “by which one lives rightly, are great goods; the beauties of any bodies, without which one can live rightly, are the least goods; the powers of the soul, without which one cannot live rightly, are intermediate goods. No one uses the virtues badly; but the other goods, that is, the intermediate and the least, anyone can use not only well but also badly. And no one uses virtue badly because the work of virtue is the good use of those things which we can also use not well; and no one uses badly by using well. Therefore the abundance and greatness of God's goodness has provided not only the great but also the intermediate and least goods. His goodness is more to be praised in the great than in the intermediate, and more in the intermediate than in the least of these goods; but more in all of them than if he had not bestowed them all.” And in another place: “Only hold fast unshaken piety,” I said, “so that no good may occur to you, whether you perceive it by sense or understand it or think of it in any way, which is not from God.” And likewise in another place I said: “But since man cannot rise of his own accord as he fell of his own accord, let us hold with firm faith the right hand of God stretched out to us from above, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ.” And in the third book, after I had said the thing which, as I mentioned, Pelagius also used from my works, “For who sins in what he can in no way avoid? But sin is committed; therefore it can be avoided,” I immediately went on to add: “And yet some things done even through ignorance are disapproved and judged to need correction, as we read in the divine authorities. For the apostle says, ‘I obtained mercy because I acted in ignorance’; and the prophet says, ‘Do not remember the sins of my youth and of my ignorance.’ There are also things done of necessity which are to be disapproved, when a man wishes to act rightly and cannot. For where do these words come from: ‘I do not do the good that I will, but the evil that I hate, this I do’; and this: ‘To will is present with me, but to accomplish the good is not’; and this: ‘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 what you will’? But all these belong to human beings who come from that condemnation of death. For if this is not man's punishment but his nature, none of these things are sins. For if he does not depart from the way in which he was naturally made, such that he cannot be better, he does what he ought when he does these things. But if man were good, he would be otherwise; as it is, because he is so, he is not good and does not have it in his power to be good, either by not seeing what he ought to be, or by seeing it and not being able to be what he sees he ought to be. Who would doubt that this is a punishment? But every punishment, if it is just, is a punishment of sin and is called a penalty. If, however, it is an unjust punishment (since no one doubts that it is a punishment), it has been imposed on man by some unjust ruler. But further, since it is madness to doubt the omnipotence and justice of God, this punishment is just and is paid for some sin. For no unjust ruler could either steal man away, as if from a God unaware, or wrest him from an unwilling God, as if from one weaker, either by terrifying or by confounding him, so as to torment man with an unjust punishment. It remains, therefore, that this just punishment comes from the condemnation of man.” And in another place: “To approve false things as true,” I said, “so that one errs against one's will, and to be unable to refrain from lustful deeds because of the resistance and torment of the pain of the fleshly bond, is not the nature of man as he was established, but the punishment of man as condemned. When, however, we speak of the will to act rightly, we speak of that will, of course, in which man was made.” See how long before the Pelagian heresy appeared we argued as though we were already arguing against them. For since all goods were said to be from God, that is, the great, the intermediate, and the least, the free choice of the will is found among the intermediate goods, because we can also use it badly; but it is nevertheless such that we cannot live rightly without it. Its good use, however, is already virtue, which is found among the great goods, which no one can use badly. And because all goods, as has been said, the great, the intermediate, and the least, are from God, it follows that the good use of free will, which is virtue and is counted among the great goods, is also from God. Then it was said from what misery, most justly inflicted on sinners, the grace of God sets free, because man could fall of his own accord, that is, by free choice, but could not also rise. To this misery of just condemnation belong the ignorance and difficulty which every man suffers from the beginning of his birth, and no one is set free from this evil except by the grace of God. The Pelagians, denying original sin, will not have this misery descend from a just condemnation; although, even if ignorance and difficulty were man's natural beginnings, God would not on that account be blamed but praised, as we argued in that same third book. That discussion is to be held against the Manichaeans, who do not accept the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, in which original sin is narrated, and who contend with detestable impudence that whatever is read about it in the apostolic letters was inserted by corrupters of the Scriptures, as though it had not been said by the apostles. Against the Pelagians, however, what must be defended is what both Scriptures set forth, which they profess to accept. This work begins thus: “Tell me, please, whether God is not the author of evil.” ### Scripture references - 1 Tim 1:13: quotation, high confidence - Ps 25:7 (24:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:18: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence - Rom 6:20: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 11:6: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Pelagius, Nat. (Pelagius, On Nature): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Nat. et grat. (On Nature and Grace): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De libero arbitrio. Augustine quotes his earlier statements on the power of the will and explains them in the light of his later teaching on grace; translated exactly, as he states both. - Pelagius quoted De lib. arb. 3.18.50 in his On Nature, to which Augustine replied in On Nature and Grace. - Quotations: 1 Tim 1:13; Ps 25:7 (24:7 LXX/Vulg.); Rom 7:15, 7:18; Gal 5:17. Allusions: Rom 6:17–20 (slave of sin); Prov 8:35 LXX (“the will is prepared by the Lord”) is behind “prepares the wills”, uncertain; Rom 11:6 (grace given freely). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.8 (CSEL 36:36–47; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-8). ## Retractations 1.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-9 - Source: CSEL 36:47–52 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Genesis against the Manichaeans, Augustine corrects remarks on the will, on whether children would have been born without sin, on Israel's sacrifices, and on nature and original sin, so that the Pelagians cannot claim them. ### Latin text Iam uero in Africa constitutus scripsi duos libros de Genesi contra Manicheos. quamuis enim superioribus libris quidquid disputaui, unde ostenderem deum summe bonum et inmutabilem creatorem esse omnium mutabilium naturarum nec ullam esse naturam malum siue substantiam, in quantum natura est atque substantia, aduersus Manicheos nostra uigilaret intentio, isti tamen duo libri apertissime aduersus eos editi sunt in defensionem ueteris legis, quam uehementi studio uaesani erroris oppugnant, in primo ab eo, quod scriptum est: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram, donec septem peraguntur dies. ubi legitur deus requieuisse in die septimo, in secundo autem ab eo, quod scriptum est: hic liber creaturae caeli et terrae, donec Adam et mulier eius dimissi sunt de paradiso et custodia posita est ligno uitae. deinde in fine libri errori Manicheorum fidem catholicae ueritatis opposui, quid illi dicant et quid dicamus, breuiter aperteque conplectens. Quod uero dixi: illud autem lumen non inrationabilium auium oculos pascit, sed pura corda eorum, qui deo credunt et ab amore uisibilium rerum et temporalium se ad eius praecepta inplenda conuertunt; quod omnes homines possunt, si uelint, non putent noui heretici Pelagiani secundum eos esse dictum. uerum est enim omnino omnes homines hoc posse, si uelint. sed praeparatur uoluntas a domino et tantum augetur munere caritatis, ut possint. quod hic ideo dictum non est, quoniam praesenti necessarium non erat quaestioni. quod uero ibi legitur, benedictionem domini, de qua dictum est: crescite et multiplicamini, in carnalem fecunditatem post peccatum conuersam esse credendam, si non potest alio modo dictum uideri, nisi ut putentur illi homines non habituri fuisse filios homines, nisi peccassent, omnino non adprobo. illud etiam non est consequens, ut ideo intellegatur in allegoria tantummodo esse accipiendum, quod herbae uirides et ligna fructifera omni generi bestiarum et omnibus auibus et omnibus serpentibus in libris Geneseos dantur ad cibum, quia sunt et quadrupedia et uolatilia, quae solis carnibus uiuere uideantur. fieri enim posset, ut alerentur ab hominibus etiam de fructibus terrae, si propter oboedientiam, qua ipsi homines deo sine ulla iniquitate seruirent, mererentur omnes bestias et aues omni modo habere seruientes. item mouere potest, quomodo dixerim de populo Israhel: adhuc corporali circumcisione et sacrificiis tamquam in mari gentium populus ille legi seruiebat, quandoquidem apud gentes sacrificare non poterat, sicut eos et nunc uidemus sine sacrificiis remansisse, nisi forte, quod per pascha immolant ouem, hoc in sacrificio deputetur. In secundo etiam libro illud, quod posui, nomine pabuli significari posse uitam — melioris interpretationis codices non habent pabulum, sed faenum — non satis apte dictum uidetur. non enim congruit faeni nomen significationi uitae quomodo pabuli. item non uideor recte appellasse uerba prophetica, quibus scriptum est: quid superbit terra et cinis? quia non in eo libro legitur, quem certi simus appellandum esse prophetam. nec illud apostoli, ubi adhibet testimonium de Genesi dicens: factus est primus homo Adam in animam uiuentem, sicut ille uoluit exponi, intellexi, cum exponerem, quod scriptum est: insufflauit deus in faciem eius flatum uitae, et factus est homo in animam uiuam uel in animam uiuentem. apostolus enim ad hoc adhibuit illud testimonium, ut probaret esse corpus animale; ego autem hinc putaui esse monstrandum animalem factum prius hominem, non corpus hominis solum. quod autem dixi nulli naturae nocere peccata nisi sua, ideo dixi, quoniam iusto qui nocet, non ei uere nocet, quandoquidem mercedem eius auget in caelis; sibi autem peccando uere nocet, quoniam propter ipsam uoluntatem nocendi recipiet id, quod nocuit. possunt sane Pelagiani ad suum dogma trahere istam sententiam et ideo dicere paruulis aliena non nocuisse peccata, quia dixi nulli naturae nocere peccata nisi sua, non intuentes ideo paruulos, qui utique pertinent ad humanam naturam, trahere originale peccatum, quia in primis hominibus natura humana peccauit, ac per hoc naturae humanae nulla nocuerunt peccata nisi sua. per unum quippe hominem, in quo omnes peccauerunt, peccatum intrauit in mundum; non enim nulli homini, sed nulli naturae dixi peccata nocere nisi sua. item in eo, quod paulo post dixi, nullum esse malum naturale, possunt quaerere similem latebram, nisi hoc dictum ad naturam talem referatur, qualis sine uitio primitus condita est. ipsa enim uere ac proprie natura hominis dicitur, translato autem uerbo utimur, ut naturam dicamus etiam, qualis nascitur homo, secundum quam locutionem dixit apostolus: fuimus enim et nos aliquando natura filii irae sicut et ceteri. Hoc opus sic incipit: Si eligerent Manichei, quos deciperent. ### English translation (Claude) When I had settled in Africa, I wrote two books On Genesis against the Manichaeans. For although in the earlier books, in whatever I argued to show that God, supremely good and unchangeable, is the creator of all changeable natures, and that no nature or substance, insofar as it is a nature and substance, is evil, our attention was watchful against the Manichaeans, these two books were published quite openly against them in defense of the old law, which they attack with the vehement zeal of their insane error. In the first book I went from what is written, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” until the seven days are completed, where we read that God rested on the seventh day; in the second, from what is written, “This is the book of the creation of heaven and earth,” 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 Manichaeans, summarizing briefly and clearly what they say and what we say. As for what I said: “But that light does not feed the eyes of irrational birds, but the pure hearts of those who believe God and turn from love of visible and temporal things to fulfilling his commandments; which all men can do if they will”: let the new heretics, the Pelagians, not think it was said in their sense. For it is altogether true that all men can do this if they will. But the will is prepared by the Lord and is so increased by the gift of charity that they can. This was not said here because it was not necessary for the question at hand. As for what is read there, that the Lord's blessing, of which it was said, “Increase and multiply,” is to be believed to have been turned into fleshly fruitfulness after sin: if it cannot be seen to have been said in any other way than that those first human beings would not have had human children had they not sinned, I do not approve it at all. Nor does it follow that, because in the books of Genesis green plants and fruit-bearing trees are given as food to every kind of beast and to all birds and all serpents, this is to be understood only allegorically, on the ground that there are four-footed creatures and birds which seem to live on flesh alone. For it could have been that they were fed by human beings with the fruits of the earth too, if, because of the obedience by which those human beings would serve God without any wickedness, they had merited to have all beasts and birds serving them in every way. Likewise, one may be troubled by how I said of the people of Israel: “That people still served the law by bodily circumcision and sacrifices, as if in the sea of the nations”; since among the nations it could not sacrifice, just as we now see that they have remained without sacrifices, unless perhaps their sacrificing a sheep at the Passover is counted as a sacrifice. In the second book, too, what I set down, that life can be signified by the name of “fodder” (the copies of the better translation do not have “fodder” but “hay”), does not seem to have been said fittingly enough. For the name “hay” does not suit the signification of life as “fodder” does. Likewise I do not seem to have been right to call prophetic the words in which it is written, “Why are earth and ashes proud?” since it is not read in a book which we are certain should be called a prophet. Nor did I understand that saying of the apostle, where he brings in a testimony from Genesis, saying, “The first man Adam was made a living soul,” as he wished it to be explained, when I explained what is written: “God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man was made a living soul,” or “into a soul living.” For the apostle brought in that testimony in order to prove that there is an animal body; but I thought it should be shown from it that the first man was made animal, not only the man's body. As for my saying that sins harm no nature but their own, I said it because whoever harms a just man does not truly harm him, since he increases his reward in heaven; but by sinning he truly harms himself, since because of the very will to harm he will receive back the harm he did. The Pelagians can certainly draw this statement to their own dogma and say on that account that the sins of others have not harmed little children, because I said that sins harm no nature but their own; not observing that little children, who certainly belong to human nature, contract original sin because human nature sinned in the first human beings, and thus no sins harmed human nature except its own. For “through one man, in whom all sinned, sin entered the world.” For I did not say that sins harm no man but their own, but no nature. Likewise, in what I said a little later, that there is no natural evil, they can look for a similar hiding place, unless this statement is referred to nature such as it was first created 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 also what man is as he is born, according to which way of speaking the apostle said, “For we too were once by nature children of wrath, like the rest.” This work begins thus: “If the Manichaeans chose whom they would deceive…” ### Scripture references - Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence - Gen 2:2: allusion, high confidence - Gen 2:4: quotation, high confidence - Gen 1:28: quotation, high confidence - Gen 1:29: allusion, high confidence - Gen 1:30: allusion, high confidence - Gen 3:24: allusion, high confidence - Prov 8:35: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 15:45: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:44: allusion, high confidence - Gen 2:7: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:12: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 5:12: quotation, high confidence - Eph 2:3: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 10:9 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De Genesi contra Manichaeos. Quotations: Gen 1:1; Gen 2:2; Gen 2:4; Gen 1:22, 28; Gen 1:29–30 (allusion); Gen 3:23–24 (allusion); Sir 10:9 (“Why are earth and ashes proud?”, which Augustine had called prophetic; he now notes that the book is not certainly to be called a prophet); 1 Cor 15:45; Gen 2:7; Rom 5:12 in the Latin form “in whom all sinned”; Eph 2:3. “The will is prepared by the Lord” is Prov 8:35 LXX. - “Fodder” (pabulum) and “hay” (faenum): Latin renderings of Gen 2:5 in different translations; identification of the verse uncertain. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.9 (CSEL 36:47–52; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-9). ## Retractations 1.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-10 - Source: CSEL 36:52–56 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Music, Augustine clarifies statements on bodily numbers, the resurrection body, and beauty, and says he cannot affirm, as Plato did, that the world is a living being with a soul. ### Latin text Deinde, ut supra commemoraui, sex libros de musica scripsi. quorum ipse sextus maxime innotuit, quoniam res in eo cognitione digna uersatur, quomodo a corporalibus et spiritalibus, sed mutabilibus numeris perueniatur ad inmutabiles numeros, qui iam in ipsa sunt inmutabili ueritate, ac sic inuisibilia dei per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciantur. quod qui non possunt et tamen ex fide Christi uiuunt, ad illa certius atque felicius conspicienda post hanc uitam ueniunt; qui autem possunt, si desit eis fides Christi, qui unus mediator est dei et hominum, cum tota sapientia sua pereunt. In hoc libro illud, quod dixi: corpora enim tanto meliora, quanto numerosiora talibus numeris; anima uero istis, quae per corpus accipit, carendo fit melior, cum sese auertit a carnalibus sensibus et diuinis sapientiae numeris reformatur, non sic accipiendum est, quasi non sint futuri numeri corporales in corporibus incorruptibilibus et spiritalibus, cum speciosiora et decentiora futura sint, aut anima eos sensura non sit, quando erit optima, quemadmodum hic eis carendo fit melior. hic enim opus habet auertere se a carnalibus sensibus ad intellegibilia capienda, quia infirma est et minus idonea utrisque simul adhibere intentionem suam, et in his corporalibus nunc inlecebra cauenda est, quamdiu anima inlici ad delectationem turpem potest. tunc autem firma erit atque perfecta, ut numeris corporalibus non auertatur a contemplatione sapientiae et ita sentiat eos, ut non inliciatur ab eis nec eis carendo fiat melior, sed ita sit bona et recta, ut nec latere possint eam nec occupare. Item quod dixi: haec autem sanitas tunc firmissima erit atque certissima, cum pristinae stabilitati certo suo tempore atque ordine hoc corpus fuerit restitutum, non ita dictum putetur, quasi non sint futura post resurrectionem corpora meliora, quam primorum hominum in paradiso fuerunt, cum illa iam non sint alenda corporalibus alimentis, quibus alebantur ista; sed pristina stabilitas hactenus accipienda est, quatenus aegritudinem ita nullam corpora illa patientur, sicut nec ista pati possent ante peccatum. Alio loco: laboriosior est, inquam, huius mundi amor. quod enim in illo anima quaerit, constantiam scilicet aeternitatemque, non inuenit, quoniam rerum transitu conpletur infima pulchritudo et, quod in illo imitatur constantiam, a summo deo per animam traicitur, quoniam prior est species tantummodo tempore commutabilis quam ea, quae et tempore et locis. haec uerba si eo modo accipi possint, ut non intellegatur infima pulchritudo nisi in corporibus hominum omniumque animalium, cum quibus sensu corporis uiuimus, ratio manifesta defendit. hoc quippe in ea pulchritudine imitatur constantiam, quod in conpage sua manent eadem corpora, in quantum manent, id autem a summo deo in ea per animam traicitur. anima quippe ipsam conpagem tenet, ne dissoluatur et diffluat, quod uidemus in corporibus animalium anima discedente contingere. si autem ipsa pulchritudo in omnibus corporibus intellegatur, cogit ista sententia etiam ipsum mundum animal credere, ut etiam in ipsum, quod in illo imitatur constantiam, a summo deo per animam traiciatur. sed animal esse istum mundum, sicut Plato sensit aliique philosophi plurimi, nec ratione certa indagare potui nec diuinarum scripturarum auctoritate persuaderi posse cognoui. unde, tale aliquid a me dictum quod accipi possit etiam in libro de inmortalitate animae, temere dictum notaui, non quia hoc falsum esse confirmo, sed quia nec uerum esse conprehendo, quod sit animal mundus. hoc sane inconcusse retinendum esse non dubito, deum nobis non esse istum mundum, siue anima eius ulla siue nulla sit, quia si ulla est, ille, qui eam fecit, est deus noster; si autem nulla est, nullorum deus potest esse iste, quanto minus noster. esse tamen spiritalem uitalemque uirtutem, etiamsi non sit animal mundus, quae uirtus in angelis sanctis ad decorandum atque administrandum mundum deo seruit, et a quibus non intellegitur rectissime creditur. angelorum autem sanctorum nomine omnem sanctam creaturam spiritalem in dei secreto atque occulto ministerio constitutam nunc appellauerim. sed spiritus angelicos sancta scriptura nomine animarum significare non solet. proinde in eo, quod circa finem libri huius dixi: rationales et intellectuales numeri beatarum animarum atque sanctarum legem ipsam dei, sine qua folium de arbore non cadit et cui nostri capilli numerati sunt, nulla interposita natura excipientes usque ad terrena et inferna iura transmittunt, non uideo, quemadmodum uocabulum animarum secundum scripturas sanctas forsitan possit ostendi, quandoquidem hic non nisi angelos sanctos intellegi uolui, quos habere animas numquam me legisse in diuinis eloquiis canonicis recolo. Hic liber sic incipit: Satis diu paene. ### English translation (Claude) Then, as I mentioned above, I wrote six books On Music. Of these the sixth has become especially well known, because a subject worth knowing is treated in it: how one arrives from bodily and spiritual, but changeable, numbers at the unchangeable numbers which are already in unchangeable truth itself, and so “the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made.” Those who cannot do this and yet live by the faith of Christ come after this life to behold those things more surely and happily; but those who can, if they lack the faith of Christ, who is the one “mediator between God and men,” perish with all their wisdom. In this book, what I said, “For bodies are the better the more harmonious they are with such numbers; but the soul becomes better by lacking those which it receives through the body, when it turns away from the fleshly senses and is reformed by the divine numbers of wisdom,” is not to be taken as though there will be no bodily numbers in incorruptible and spiritual bodies, since those bodies will be more beautiful and more seemly, or as though the soul will not perceive them when it is at its best, in the way that here it becomes better by lacking them. For here it needs to turn away from the fleshly senses in order to grasp intelligible things, because it is weak and less fit to direct its attention to both at once; and in these bodily things the allurement must now be guarded against as long as the soul can be enticed to shameful delight. Then, however, it will be firm and perfect, so that it is not turned away from the contemplation of wisdom by bodily numbers, and will perceive them in such a way as not to be enticed by them, nor will it become better by lacking them; but it will be so good and upright that they can neither escape it nor take possession of it. Likewise what I said, “But this health will be most firm and most certain when this body has been restored to its former stability in its own fixed time and order,” is not to be thought to have been said as though bodies after the resurrection will not be better than those of the first human beings in paradise were, since those will no longer need to be nourished by bodily food, by which these were nourished; but “former stability” is to be understood only in this sense, that those bodies will suffer no sickness, just as these too could not have suffered any before sin. In another place I said: “The love of this world is more laborious. For what the soul seeks in it, namely constancy and eternity, it does not find, since the lowest beauty is completed by the passing of things, and what in it imitates constancy is conveyed by the supreme God through the soul; since the form that is changeable only in time is prior to that which is changeable in both time and place.” If these words can be taken in such a way that the lowest beauty is understood only in the bodies of human beings and of all animals with which we live by bodily sense, clear reason defends them. For what imitates constancy in that beauty is that the same bodies remain in their structure, as far as they remain; and this is conveyed into them by the supreme God through the soul. For the soul holds the structure together so that it does not dissolve and flow apart, which we see happen in the bodies of animals when the soul departs. If, however, that beauty is understood in all bodies, this statement compels us to believe that the world itself is an animal, so that what in it imitates constancy is conveyed into it too by the supreme God through a soul. But that this world is an animal, as Plato and very many other philosophers thought, I have neither been able to find out by certain reasoning nor known that one can be persuaded of it by the authority of the divine Scriptures. Hence, when I said something of the kind, which can be so taken, in the book On the Immortality of the Soul as well, I noted that it was said rashly; not because I assert that it is false, but because I do not grasp that it is true that the world is an animal. This, however, I do not doubt must be held unshaken: that this world is not God to us, whether it has some soul or none; for if it has some, he who made it is our God; but if it has none, this world can be the god of nothing, how much less ours. Yet it is most rightly believed that there is a spiritual and living power, even if the world is not an animal, which power in the holy angels serves God in adorning and administering the world, even by those who do not understand it. By the name of holy angels I would now mean every holy spiritual creature set in God's secret and hidden service. But holy Scripture is not accustomed to signify angelic spirits by the name of souls. Accordingly, in what I said near the end of this book, “The rational and intellectual numbers of blessed and holy souls, receiving the very law of God, without which a leaf does not fall from a tree and by which our hairs are numbered, with no nature intervening, transmit it down to earthly and infernal jurisdictions,” I do not see how the word “souls” could perhaps be justified according to the holy Scriptures, since here I wished only the holy angels to be understood, whom I do not recall ever having read in the canonical divine oracles to have souls. This book begins thus: “Long enough, almost…” ### Scripture references - Rom 1:20: quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence - Matt 10:30: allusion, medium confidence - Luke 12:7: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Plato, Timaeus (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De musica. Quotations and allusions: Rom 1:20; 1 Tim 2:5; Matt 10:29–30 and Luke 12:7 (sparrows and hairs, freely recalled as “a leaf does not fall”). On the world-soul Augustine says he neither affirms nor denies it. - The earlier review of On the Immortality of the Soul is at 1.5 above. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.10 (CSEL 36:52–56; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-10). ## Retractations 1.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-11 - Source: CSEL 36:56–57 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine briefly describes On the Teacher, which concludes that God alone, Christ, truly teaches. ### Latin text Per idem tempus scripsi librum, cuius est titulus de magistro. in quo disputatur et quaeritur et inuenitur magistrum non esse, qui docet hominem scientiam, nisi deum secundum illud etiam, quod in euangelio scriptum est: unus est magister uester Christus. Hic liber sic incipit: Quid tibi uidemur efficere uelle, cum loquimur? ### English translation (Claude) During the same time I wrote a book whose title is On the Teacher. In it there is discussion and inquiry, and it is found that there is no teacher who teaches man knowledge except God, in accordance also with what is written in the Gospel: “One is your teacher, Christ.” This book begins thus: “What do we seem to you to want to do when we speak?” ### Scripture references - Matt 23:10: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De magistro. Quotation: Matt 23:10 (cf. 23:8). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.11 (CSEL 36:56–57; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-7/#p-1-11). ## Retractations 1.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-12/#p-1-12 - Source: CSEL 36:57–65 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On True Religion, Augustine explains that the true religion existed before it was called Christian, defends the sense in which sin is voluntary, affirms that miracles still occur, and withdraws his view that the first couple would have had no children without sin. ### Latin text Tunc etiam de uera religione librum scripsi, in quo multipliciter et copiosissime disputatur unum uerum deum, id est trinitatem, patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, religione uera colendum, et quanta misericordia eius per temporalem dispensationem concessa sit hominibus Christiana religio, quae uera religio est, et ad eundem cultum dei quemadmodum sit homo quadam suauitate coaptandus. maxime tamen contra duas naturas Manicheorum liber hic loquitur. In hoc libro quodam loco: sit, inquam, tibi manifestum atque perceptum nullum errorem in religione esse potuisse, si anima pro deo suo non coleret animam aut corpus aut fantasmata sua. hic animam pro uniuersa creatura incorporali posui non loquens more scripturarum, quae animam, quando non translato uerbo utuntur, nescio utrum uelint intellegi nisi eam, qua uiuunt animalia mortalia, in quibus et homines sunt, quamdiu mortales sunt. paulo post autem eundem sensum melius sum breuiterque conplexus, ubi dixi: non ergo creaturae potius quam creatori seruiamus nec euanescamus in cogitationibus nostris, et perfecta religio est. creaturam quippe uno nomine utramque, id est spiritalem corporalemque, significaui. restat, quod ibi dixi: aut fantasmata sua, propter quod hic dixi: nec euanescamus in cogitationibus nostris. Item quod dixi: ea est nostris temporibus Christiana religio, quam cognoscere ac sequi securissima et certissima salus est, secundum hoc nomen dictum est, non secundum ipsam rem, cuius hoc nomen est. nam res ipsa, quae nunc Christiana religio nuncupatur, erat et apud antiquos nec defuit ab initio generis humani, quousque Christus ueniret in carne, unde uera religio, quae iam erat, coepit appellari Christiana. cum enim eum post resurrectionem ascensionemque in caelum coepissent apostoli praedicare et plurimi crederent, primum apud Antiochiam, sicut scriptum est, appellati sunt discipuli Christiani. propterea dixi: haec est nostris temporibus Christiana religio, non quia prioribus temporibus non fuit, sed quia posterioribus hoc nomen accepit. Alio loco: intende igitur, inquam, in haec, quae secuntur, diligenter et pie, quantum potes; tales enim adiuuat deus. quod non ita intellegendum est, quasi tantummodo tales adiuuet, cum etiam adiuuet non tales, ut sint tales, id est ut diligenter et pie quaerant; tales autem adiuuat, ut inueniant. itemque alibi: deinde, inquam, iam erit consequens, ut post mortem corporalem, quam debemus primo peccato, tempore suo atque ordine suo hoc corpus restituatur pristinae stabilitati. quod sic accipiendum est, quia etiam pristina stabilitas corporis, quam peccando amisimus, habebat tantam felicitatem, ut in defectum non uergeret senectutis. huic ergo pristinae stabilitati restituetur hoc corpus in resurrectione mortuorum, sed habebit amplius, ut nec alimentis temporalibus sustentetur, sed ad sufficientiam uiuificetur solo spiritu, cum resurrexerit in spiritum uiuificantem, quia iam etiam spiritale erit. illud autem, quod primum fuit quamuis non moriturum, nisi homo peccasset, tamen animale factum est, hoc est in animam uiuentem. Et alibi: usque adeo, inquam, peccatum uoluntarium malum est, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit uoluntarium. potest uideri falsa haec definitio, sed, si diligenter discutiatur, inuenietur esse uerissima. peccatum quippe illud cogitandum est, quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod est etiam poena peccati, sicut superius ostendi, cum quaedam commemorarem ex libro tertio de libero arbitrio, quamuis et illa, quae non inmerito non uoluntaria peccata dicuntur, quia uel a nescientibus uel a coactis perpetrantur, non omni modo possunt sine uoluntate committi, quoniam et ille, qui peccat ignorans, uoluntate utique peccat, quod, cum faciendum non sit, putat esse faciendum, et ille, qui concupiscente aduersus spiritum carne non ea quae uult facit, concupiscit quidem nolens et ideo non facit quod uult, sed, si uincitur, concupiscentiae consentit uolens, et ideo non facit nisi quod uult, liber scilicet iustitiae seruusque peccati. et illud, quod in paruulis dicitur originale peccatum, cum adhuc non utantur arbitrio uoluntatis, non absurde uocatur etiam uoluntarium, quia ex prima hominis mala uoluntate contractum factum est quodam modo hereditarium. non itaque falsum est, quod dixi: usque adeo peccatum uoluntarium malum est, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit uoluntarium. ideo gratia dei non solum reatus omnium praeteritorum soluitur in omnibus, qui baptizantur in Christo, quod fit spiritu regenerationis, uerum etiam in grandibus uoluntas ipsa sanatur et praeparatur a domino, quod fit spiritu fidei et caritatis. Alio loco quod dixi de domino Iesu Christo: nihil egit ui, sed omnia suadendo et monendo, non mihi occurrerat, quod uendentes et ementes flagellando eiecit de templo. sed quid hoc aut quantum est, quamuis et daemones nolentes ab hominibus non sermone suasionis, sed ui potestatis eiecerit? item alio loco: prius, inquam, isti sequendi sunt; qui unum summum et solum colendum esse dicunt; si apud hos ueritas non eluxerit, tunc demum migrandum. quod ita potest uideri dictum, quasi de huius religionis ueritate dubitauerim. dixi autem, sicut ei congruebat, ad quem scribebam. sic enim dixi: si apud hos ueritas non eluxerit, nihil dubitans, quod apud eos elucesceret, quemadmodum ait apostolus: si Christus non resurrexit, non utique dubitans, quod resurrexit. Item quod dixi: nec miracula illa in nostra tempora durare permissa sunt, ne anima semper uisibilia quaereret et eorum consuetudine frigesceret genus humanum, quorum nouitate flagrauit, uerum est quidem; non enim nunc usque, cum manus inponitur baptizatis, sic accipiunt spiritum sanctum, ut loquantur linguis omnium gentium, aut nunc usque per umbram transeuntem praedicatorum Christi sanantur infirmi, et si qua talia tunc facta sunt, quae postea cessasse manifestum est. sed non sic accipiendum est, quod dixi, ut nunc in Christi nomine fieri miracula nulla credantur. nam ego ipse, quando istum ipsum scripsi librum, ad Mediolanensium corpora martyrum in eadem ciuitate caecum inluminatum fuisse iam noueram et alia nonnulla, qualia tam multa etiam istis temporibus fiunt, ut nec omnia cognoscere nec ea, quae cognoscimus, enumerare possimus. Et alio loco illud, quod dixi: sicut ait apostolus: omnis ordo a deo est, non eisdem uerbis hoc dixit apostolus, quamuis eadem uideatur esse sententia. ait quippe ille: quae autem sunt, a deo ordinata sunt. et alibi: prorsus, inquam, nemo nos fallat: quidquid recte uituperatur, in melioris conparatione respuitur. hoc de substantiis atque naturis dictum est; inde enim disputabatur, non de bonis actibus atque peccatis. itemque alibi: sed nec sic quidem, inquam, ab homine homo diligendus est, ut diliguntur carnales fratres uel filii uel coniuges uel quique cognati aut adfines aut ciues; nam et ista dilectio temporalis est. non enim ullas tales necessitudines haberemus, quae nascendo et moriendo contingunt, si natura nostra in praeceptis et imagine dei manens in istam corruptionem non relegaretur. hunc sensum prorsus inprobo, quem iam et superius inprobaui in primo libro de Genesi contra Manicheos. ad hoc enim ducit, ut credantur illi coniuges primi non generaturi posteros homines, nisi peccassent, tamquam necesse fuerit, ut morituri gignerentur, si de concubitu maris et feminae gignerentur. nondum enim uideram fieri potuisse, ut non morituri de non morituris nascerentur, si peccato illo magno non mutaretur in deterius humana natura ac per hoc, si et in parentibus et in filiis felicitas fecunditasque mansisset, usque ad certum sanctorum numerum, quem praedestinauit deus, nascerentur homines non parentibus successuri morientibus, sed cum uiuentibus regnaturi. essent ergo etiam istae cognationes atque adfinitates, si nullus delinqueret nullusque moreretur. Item alio loco: ad unum deum tendentes, inquam, et ei uni religantes animas nostras, unde religio dicta creditur, omni superstitione careamus. in his uerbis meis ratio, quae reddita est, unde sit dicta religio, plus mihi placuit. nam non me fugit aliam nominis huius originem exposuisse latini sermonis auctores, quod inde sit appellata religio, quod religitur: quod uerbum compositum est a legendo, id est eligendo, ut ita latinum uideatur religo sicut eligo. Hic liber sic incipit: Cum omnis uitae bonae ac beatae uia. ### English translation (Claude) At that time I also wrote a book On True Religion, in which it is argued in many ways and most fully that the one true God, that is, the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is to be worshiped by true religion; and with how great mercy the Christian religion, which is the true religion, has been granted to human beings through the temporal dispensation; and how man is to be fitted, by a certain sweetness, to that same worship of God. This book, however, speaks chiefly against the two natures of the Manichaeans. In one place in this book I said: “Let it be clear and understood by you that there could have been no error in religion if the soul did not worship, in place of its God, a soul or a body or its own phantasms.” 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 “soul” to be understood as anything other than that by which mortal living creatures live, among whom are human beings too, as long as they are mortal. A little later, however, I expressed the same sense better and briefly, when I said: “Let us not, then, serve the creature rather than the Creator, nor become vain in our thoughts, and religion is perfect.” For by the one name “creature” I signified both, that is, the spiritual and the bodily. What remains, my saying there “or its own phantasms,” is the reason why I said here, “nor become vain in our thoughts.” Likewise what I said, “That is the Christian religion in our times, which to know and follow is the safest and most certain salvation,” was said with reference to this name, not to the reality itself whose name it is. For the reality itself which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, and was not lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ 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. That is why I said, “This is the Christian religion in our times”: not because it did not exist in earlier times, but because it received this name in later times. In another place I said: “Attend, then, to what follows, diligently and devoutly, as far as you can; for God helps such people.” This is not to be understood as though he helps only such people, since he also helps those who are not such, so that they may become such, that is, so that they may seek diligently and devoutly; but he helps such people so that they may find. And likewise elsewhere I said: “Then it will follow that after bodily death, which we owe to the first sin, this body will be restored in its own time and order to its former stability.” This is to be taken thus: that the former stability of the body too, which we lost by sinning, had so great a happiness that it did not decline into the failing of old age. To this former stability, then, this body will be restored in the resurrection of the dead; but it will have more, so that it is not even sustained by temporal food, but is given life sufficiently by the spirit alone, when it has risen into a life-giving spirit, because it will then be spiritual. That first body, however, although it would not have died if man had not sinned, was nevertheless made animal, that is, into a living soul. And elsewhere I said: “Sin is so much a voluntary evil that it is in no way sin if it is not voluntary.” This definition can seem false; but if it is examined carefully, it will be found to be most true. For that is to be thought of as sin which is only sin, not that which is also the punishment of sin, as I showed above when I recalled certain things from the third book On Free Choice; although even those things which are not undeservedly called involuntary sins, because they are committed either by people who do not know or by people who are compelled, cannot be committed altogether without the will. For he who sins in ignorance certainly sins by the will, since he thinks that what ought not to be done ought to be done; and he who, when the flesh lusts against the spirit, does not do what he wills, lusts indeed unwillingly, and therefore does not do what he wills; but if he is overcome, he consents willingly to the lust, and therefore does only what he wills, free, that is, from justice and a slave of sin. And what is called original sin in little children, since they do not yet use the choice of the will, is not absurdly called voluntary too, because, contracted from the first evil will of man, it has become in a certain way hereditary. It is not false, then, what I said: “Sin is so much a voluntary evil that it is in no way sin if it is not voluntary.” 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 also in grown persons the will itself is healed and prepared by the Lord, which is done by the spirit of faith and charity. As for what I said in another place of the Lord Jesus Christ, “He did nothing by force, but everything by persuading and warning,” it had not occurred to me that he drove the sellers and buyers out of the temple with a whip. But what is this, or how much, although he also cast out demons from human beings against their will, not by the word of persuasion but by the force of power? Likewise in another place I said: “Those are to be followed first who say that the one supreme God alone is to be worshiped; if the truth has not shone out among them, then at last one must move elsewhere.” This can seem to have been said as though I had doubted the truth of this religion. But I said it as suited the person to whom I was writing. For I said, “if the truth has not shone out among them,” in no doubt that it would shine out among them; as the apostle says, “If Christ has not risen,” certainly not doubting that he had risen. Likewise what I said, “Nor have those miracles been permitted to last into our times, lest the soul should always seek visible things, and the human race grow cold through familiarity with the very things whose novelty set it on fire,” is indeed true. For now, when hands are laid on the baptized, they do not receive the Holy Spirit in such a way as to speak in the tongues of all nations; nor now are the sick healed by the passing shadow of the preachers of Christ; and if any such things were done then, it is clear that they ceased afterward. But what I said is not to be taken 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, and some other things; and so many such things happen even in these times that we can neither know them all nor count those we know. And in another place, what I said, “as the apostle says, ‘All order is from God,’” the apostle did not say in those words, although the sense seems to be the same. For he said: “Those that exist have been ordered by God.” And elsewhere I said: “Let no one deceive us at all: whatever is rightly blamed is rejected in comparison with something better.” This was said of substances and natures, for that was the subject of the discussion, not good actions and sins. And likewise elsewhere I said: “But not even so is man to be loved by man as brothers in the flesh, or sons, or spouses, or any kinsfolk or in-laws 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 commandments and image of God, had not been banished into this corruption.” I altogether disapprove this view, which I have already disapproved above in the first book On Genesis against the Manichaeans. For it leads to the belief that those first spouses would not have begotten human descendants if they had not sinned, as though it were necessary that those begotten should die if they were begotten from the union of male and female. For I had not yet seen that it could have come about that those who would not die should be born of those who would not die, if human nature had not been changed for the worse by that great sin; and thus, if happiness and fruitfulness had remained in both parents and children, human beings would have been born, up to the fixed number of saints whom God predestined, not to succeed parents who die but to reign with parents who live. So there would also be these kinships and relations by marriage if no one sinned and no one died. Likewise in another place I said: “Tending toward the one God and binding our souls to him alone, from which religion is believed to be named, let us be free of all superstition.” In these words of mine the reason given for the name “religion” pleased me more. For I am well aware that writers of the Latin language have explained another origin of this name: that religion is so called because it is re-chosen (religitur), a verb compounded from legere, that is, eligere (to choose), so that in Latin religo seems formed like eligo. This book begins thus: “Since the way of every good and happy life…” ### Scripture references - Rom 1:25: quotation, high confidence - Rom 1:21: allusion, high confidence - Acts 11:26: allusion, high confidence - John 2:15: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:14: quotation, high confidence - Acts 8:17: allusion, medium confidence - Acts 2:4: allusion, medium confidence - Acts 5:15: allusion, high confidence - Rom 13:1: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:45: allusion, high confidence - Gal 5:17: allusion, high confidence - Rom 6:20: allusion, high confidence - Prov 8:35: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Conf. 9.7.16 (Confessions): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De uera religione. Quotations: Rom 1:25, 1:21; Acts 11:26; 1 Cor 15:14 (“If Christ has not risen”); Rom 13:1 (Latin “quae autem sunt, a deo ordinata sunt”); 1 Cor 15:45 (life-giving spirit, living soul); Gal 5:17; Rom 6:20 (free from justice, slave of sin); Prov 8:35 LXX (will prepared by the Lord). Allusions: John 2:15 (cleansing of the temple); Acts 8:17 and 2:4 (tongues); Acts 5:15 (Peter's shadow). - The blind man healed at Milan: at the finding of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius in 386 (cf. Confessions 9.7.16; City of God 22.8). - On the first couple and procreation, Augustine corrects his earlier view (also in 1.9 above): he now holds that without sin children would have been born who did not die. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.12 (CSEL 36:57–65; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-12/#p-1-12). ## Retractations 1.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-12/#p-1-13 - Source: CSEL 36:65–71 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Usefulness of Believing, Augustine refines his remarks on the letter that kills, on who is already blessed, on knowing and believing, on wise and foolish, and on miracles today. ### Latin text Iam uero apud Hipponem Regium presbyter scripsi librum de utilitate credendi ad amicum meum, quem deceptum a Manicheis adhuc eo errore noueram detineri et inridere in catholicae fidei disciplina, quod iuberentur homines credere, non autem, quid esset uerum, certissima ratione docerentur. In hoc libro dixi: in quibus tamen legis praeceptis atque mandatis, quibus nunc Christianos uti fas non est, quale uel sabbatum est uel circumcisio uel sacrificia et si quid huius modi est, tanta mysteria continentur, ut omnis pius intellegat nihil esse perniciosius, quam quidquid ibi est accipi ad litteram, id est ad uerbum, nihil autem salubrius quam spiritu reuelari. inde est: littera occidit, spiritus autem uiuificat. sed aliter exposui uerba ista apostoli Pauli et, quantum mihi uidetur uel potius ipsis rebus apparet, multo conuenientius in eo libro, qui scribitur de spiritu et littera, quamuis non sit et iste sensus respuendus. Item dixi: duae sunt enim personae in religione laudabiles, una eorum, qui iam inuenerunt, quos etiam beatissimos iudicari necesse est, alia eorum, qui studiosissime et rectissime inquirunt. primi ergo sunt iam in ipsa possessione, alteri in uia, qua tamen certissime peruenitur. in his uerbis meis, si illi, qui iam inuenerunt, quos in ipsa possessione iam esse diximus, sic accipiantur beatissimi, ut non in hac uita, sed in ea, quam speramus et ad quam per fidei uiam tendimus, sint non habet iste sensus errorem; ipsi enim iudicandi sunt quod quaerendum erat inuenisse, qui iam ibi sunt, quo nos quaerendo et credendo, id est uiam fidei tenendo, cupimus peruenire. si autem in hac uita isti esse putantur uel fuisse, id uerum esse non mihi uidetur, non quia in hac uita nihil uerum omnino inueniri potest, quod mente cernatur, non fide credatur, sed quia tantum est, quidquid est, ut non faciat beatissimos. neque enim quod ait apostolus: uidemus nunc per speculum in aenigmate et: nunc scio ex parte, ex parte non cernitur mente; cernitur plane, sed beatissimos nondum facit. illud enim beatissimos facit, quod ait: tunc autem faciem ad faciem et: tunc cognoscam, sicut et cognitus sum. qui hoc inuenerunt, ipsi dicendi sunt in beatitudinis possessione consistere, ad quam ducit uia fidei, quam tenemus et quo credendo cupimus peruenire. sed quinam sint illi beatissimi, qui iam sunt in ea possessione, quo ducit haec uia, magna quaestio est. et angeli quidem sancti quod ibi sint, nulla quaestio est. sed de sanctis hominibus iam defunctis, utrum ipsi dicendi sint iam in illa possessione consistere, merito quaeritur. iam enim corpore quidem corruptibili, quo anima grauatur, exuti sunt, sed adhuc expectant etiam ipsi redemptionem corporis sui, et caro eorum requiescit in spe, nondum in futura incorruptione clarescit. sed utrum ad contemplandam cordis oculis ueritatem, sicut dictum est: faciem ad faciem, nihil ex hoc minus habeant, non hic locus est disputando requirere. item quod dixi: nam scire magna et honesta uel etiam diuina beatissimum est, ad eandem beatitudinem referre debemus. in hac enim uita, quantumcumque id sciatur, nondum est beatissimum, quoniam inconparabiliter longe est amplius, quod inde nescitur. Et quod dixi: multum interesse, utrum aliquid mentis certa ratione teneatur, quod scire dicimus, an fama uel litteris credendum posteris utiliter commendetur, et paulo post: quod scimus igitur, debemus rationi, quod credimus, auctoritati, non sic accipiendum est, ut in sermone usitatiore uereamur nos dicere scire, quod idoneis testibus credimus. proprie quippe cum loquimur, id solum scire dicimus, quod mentis firma ratione conprehendimus. cum uero loquimur uerbis consuetudini aptioribus, sicut loquitur etiam scriptura diuina, non dubitemus dicere scire nos et quod percipimus nostri corporis sensibus et quod fide dignis credimus testibus, dum tamen inter haec et illud quid distet intellegamus. Item quod dixi: nemini dubium est omnes homines aut stultos esse aut sapientes, potest uideri esse contrarium illi, quod legitur in libro tertio de libero arbitrio: quasi uero natura humana praeter stultam et sapientem nullam mediam recipiat affectionem. sed illud ibi dictum est, ubi de primo homine quaerebatur, utrum sapiens fuerit factus an stultus an neutrum, quoniam nullo modo stultum dicere poteramus, qui sine uitio factus est, cum sit stultitia magnum uitium, et sapientem quomodo diceremus, qui potuit seduci, non satis apparebat. ideoque ad conpendium dicere uolui: quasi uero natura humana praeter stultitiam et sapientiam nullam mediam recipiat affectionem. intuebar quippe etiam paruulos, quos licet confiteamur trahere originale peccatum, tamen nec sapientes nec stultos possumus proprie dicere nondum utentes libero arbitrio seu bene seu male. nunc autem aut sapientes aut stultos esse omnes homines dixi eos uolens intellegi, qui iam ratione utuntur, qua discernuntur a pecoribus, ut homines sint, sicut dicimus beatos esse omnes homines uelle. numquid enim in hac sententia tam uera atque manifesta metuimus ne intellegantur et paruuli, qui hoc adhuc uelle non possunt? Alio loco, cum miracula commemorassem, quae dominus Iesus fecit, cum hic esset in carne, adiunxi dicens: cur, inquies, ista modo non fiunt? atque respondi: quia non mouerent, nisi mira essent; si autem solita essent, mira non essent. hoc autem dixi, quia non tanta nec omnia modo, non quia nulla fiunt etiam modo. In fine autem libri: sed quoniam sermo iste noster, inquam, multo processit longius, quam putabam, hic finem libro faciamus. in quo memineris uolo nondum me Manicheos coepisse refellere et illas nugas nondum inuasisse neque de ipsa catholica magnum aliquid aperuisse, sed uoluisse tantummodo eruere tibi, si possem, etiam opinionem de ueris Christianis malitiose aut inperite nobis insinuatam et erigere ad magna quaedam et diuina discenda. quare hoc uolumen ita sese habeat. placatiore autem animo tuo facto ero fortassis in ceteris promtior. haec non ita dixi, quasi nihil contra Manicheos adhuc scripsissem uel nihil de doctrina catholica mandassem litteris, cum tot superius edita uolumina de utraque re non me tacuisse testantur, sed in hoc libro ad illum scripto nondum Manicheos refellere coeperam et illas nugas nondum inuaseram neque de ipsa catholica magnum aliquid aperueram, quoniam sperabam hoc initio facto ad eum me scripturum fuisse, quae hic non scripseram. Hic liber sic incipit: Si mihi, Honorate, unum atque idem uideretur esse. ### English translation (Claude) When I was already a presbyter at Hippo Regius, I wrote a book On the Usefulness of Believing to a friend of mine who, I knew, had been deceived by the Manichaeans and was still held in that error, and who mocked the discipline of the Catholic faith because people were commanded to believe and were not taught what is true by most certain reasoning. In this book I said: “Yet in those precepts and commands of the law which Christians may not now observe, such as the sabbath or circumcision or sacrifices and anything of the kind, such great mysteries are contained that every devout person understands that nothing is more harmful than to take whatever is there according to the letter, that is, word for word, and nothing more wholesome than that it be revealed by the spirit. Hence it is said: ‘The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.’” But I explained these words of the apostle Paul otherwise, and, as it seems to me, or rather as the matter itself shows, much more fittingly, in the book entitled On the Spirit and the Letter; although this sense too is not to be rejected. Likewise I said: “For there are two kinds of persons praiseworthy in religion: one, those who have already found, whom one must also judge most blessed; the other, those who seek most zealously and most rightly. The first, then, are already in possession itself; the others are on the way, by which, however, one most certainly arrives.” In these words of mine, if those who have already found, whom we said to be already in possession itself, are taken to be most blessed in such a way that they are so not in this life but in the life which we hope for and toward which we tend by the way of faith, this sense contains no error; for those are to be judged to have found what was to be sought who are already there where we desire to arrive by seeking and believing, that is, by holding to the way of faith. But if they are thought to be, or to have been, such in this life, that does not seem to me to be true; not because nothing true at all can be found in this life which is discerned by the mind and not believed by faith, but because whatever it is, it is not so great as to make people most blessed. For what the apostle says, “We see now through a mirror in an enigma,” and, “Now I know in part,” is not something not discerned by the mind; it is plainly discerned, but it does not yet make people most blessed. What makes them most blessed is what he says: “But then face to face,” and, “Then I shall know as I also am known.” 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 where we desire to arrive by believing. But who those most blessed ones are who are already in that possession to which this way leads is a great question. That the holy angels are there is no question. But concerning holy human beings already dead, whether they 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 are still awaiting the redemption of their body, and their flesh rests in hope and does not yet shine in the incorruption to come. But whether they lack anything on that account for contemplating the truth with the eyes of the heart, as it is said, “face to face,” this is not the place to inquire by discussion. Likewise what I said, “For to know great and honorable or even divine things is most blessed,” we must refer to that same blessedness. For in this life, however much it is known, it is not yet most blessed, since what is not known of it is incomparably greater. And what I said, “It makes a great difference whether something is held by the certain reasoning of the mind, which we call knowing, or is usefully commended to posterity by report or by writing to be believed,” and a little later, “What we know, then, we owe to reason; what we believe, to authority,” is not to be taken in such a way that in more ordinary speech we should be afraid to say that we know what we believe on suitable witnesses. Properly speaking, indeed, we say that we know only what we grasp by the firm reasoning of the mind. But when we speak in words more suited to custom, as the divine Scripture also 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 witnesses worthy of faith, provided that we understand the difference between these and the other. Likewise what I said, “No one doubts that all human beings are either fools or wise,” can seem contrary to what is read in the third book On Free Choice: “As if human nature admitted no intermediate condition besides the foolish and the wise.” But that was said there where the question was about the first man, whether he was made wise or foolish or neither; since we could in no way call him foolish who was made without fault, folly being a great fault; and how we could call him wise who could be led astray was not clear enough. And so I wished to say, for brevity: “As if human nature admitted no intermediate condition besides folly and wisdom.” For I was also considering little children, whom, though we confess that they contract original sin, we nevertheless cannot properly call either wise or foolish, since they do not yet use free choice either well or badly. Here, however, I said that all human beings are either wise or foolish, wishing those to be understood who already use reason, by which they are distinguished from beasts so as to be human; just as we say that all human beings wish to be happy. For in so true and clear a statement are we afraid that little children might be understood too, who cannot yet wish this? In another place, when I had recalled the miracles which the Lord Jesus did when he was here in the flesh, I added: “Why, you will say, are these things not done now?” And I answered: “Because they would not move people unless they were wonderful; but if they were usual, they would not be wonderful.” I said this because such great ones are not done now, nor all of them; not because none at all are done even now. At the end of the book I said: “But since this discourse of ours has gone on much longer than I thought, let us end the book here. In it I want you to remember that I have not yet begun to refute the Manichaeans and have not yet attacked those trifles, nor have I disclosed anything great about the Catholic Church itself, but I have only wished to root out of you, if I could, the opinion about true Christians maliciously or ignorantly instilled into you, and to raise you up to learn certain great and divine things. So let this volume stand as it is. When your mind has been made more peaceable, I shall perhaps be readier in the rest.” I did not say this as though I had not yet written anything against the Manichaeans or committed nothing to writing about Catholic teaching, since so many volumes published earlier testify that I had not kept silent on either subject; but in this book written to him I had not yet begun to refute the Manichaeans and had not yet attacked those trifles, nor had I disclosed anything great about the Catholic Church itself, because I hoped that, this beginning having been made, I would write to him what I had not written here. This book begins thus: “If to me, Honoratus, it seemed one and the same…” ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 3:6: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:12: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:23: allusion, high confidence - Ps 16:9 (15:9 LXX): allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Util. cred. (On the Profit of Believing): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Spir. et litt. (On the Spirit and the Letter): allusion, high confidence - Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De utilitate credendi, addressed to Honoratus. Quotations: 2 Cor 3:6; 1 Cor 13:12; Wis 9:15 (the corruptible body weighs down the soul, allusion); Rom 8:23; Ps 16:9 (15:9 LXX/Vulg., “my flesh shall rest in hope”). - The other interpretation of 2 Cor 3:6 is in On the Spirit and the Letter, 4.6–5.8. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.13 (CSEL 36:65–71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-12/#p-1-13). ## Retractations 1.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-12/#p-1-14 - Source: CSEL 36:71–82 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Two Souls, Augustine explains in what sense sin exists only in the will, how infants are guilty by origin from Adam, why he left open the question of souls given to bodily functions, and how even then he prayed for the grace of conversion for his Manichaean friends. ### Latin text Post hunc librum scripsi adhuc presbyter contra Manicheos de duabus animabus, quarum dicunt unam partem dei esse, alteram de gente tenebrarum, quam non condiderit deus et quae sit deo coaeterna, et has ambas animas, unam bonam, alteram malam, in homine uno esse delirant, istam scilicet malam propriam carnis esse dicentes, quam carnem etiam dicunt gentis esse tenebrarum, illam uero bonam ex aduenticia dei parte, quae cum tenebrarum gente conflixerit, atque utrumque misceri, et omnia quidem bona hominis illi bonae animae, omnia uero mala illi malae animae tribuunt. In hoc libro illud, quod dixi, nullam esse qualemcumque uitam, quae non eo ipso, quo uita est et in quantum omnino uita est, ad summum uitae fontem principiumque pertineat, ita dixi, ut tamquam creatura ad creatorem pertinere intellegatur, non autem de illo esse tamquam pars eius existimetur. Item quod dixi: nusquam scilicet nisi in uoluntate esse peccatum, possunt Pelagiani pro se dictum putare propter paruulos, quos ideo negant habere originale peccatum, quod eis in baptismo remittatur, quia nondum arbitrio uoluntatis utuntur. quasi uero peccatum, quod eos ex Adam dicimus originaliter trahere, id est reatu eius inplicatos, et ab hoc poenae obnoxios detineri, umquam esse potuit nisi ex uoluntate, qua uoluntate commissum est, quando diuini praecepti est facta transgressio. potest etiam putari falsa esse ista sententia, qua diximus nusquam nisi in uoluntate esse peccatum, quia dixit apostolus: si autem, quod nolo, hoc facio, iam non ego operor illud, sed quod in me habitat peccatum. hoc enim peccatum usque adeo non est in uoluntate, ut dicat: quod nolo, hoc facio. quomodo ergo nusquam est nisi in uoluntate peccatum? sed hoc peccatum, de quo sic est locutus apostolus, ideo peccatum uocatur, quia peccato factum est et poena peccati est, quandoquidem hoc de concupiscentia carnis dicitur, quod aperit in consequentibus dicens: scio, quia non habitat in me, hoc est in carne mea, bonum; uelle enim adiacet mihi, perficere autem bonum non. perfectio quippe boni est, ut nec ipsa concupiscentia peccati sit in homine, cui quidem, quando bene uiuitur, non consentit uoluntas; uerum tamen non perficit bonum, quia inest adhuc in concupiscentia, cui repugnat uoluntas; cuius concupiscentiae reatus in baptismate soluitur, sed infirmitas manet, cui, donec sanetur, omnis fidelis, qui bene proficit, studiosissime reluctatur. peccatum autem, quod nusquam est nisi in uoluntate, illud praecipue intellegendum est, quod iusta damnatio consecuta est - hoc enim per unum hominem intrauit in mundum - quamquam et hoc peccatum, quo consentitur peccati concupiscentiae, non nisi uoluntate committitur. propter hoc et alio loco dixi: non igitur nisi uoluntate peccatur. Itemque alio loco ipsam uoluntatem definiui dicens: uoluntas est animi motus cogente nullo ad aliquid uel non amittendum uel adipiscendum. quod propterea dictum est, ut hac definitione uolens a nolente discerneretur et sic ad illos referretur intentio, qui primi in paradiso fuerunt humano generi origo mali nullo cogente peccando, hoc est libera uoluntate peccando, quia et scientes contra praeceptum fecerunt, et ille temptator suasit, ut hoc fieret, non coegit. nam et qui nesciens peccauit, non incongruenter nolens peccasse dici potest, quamuis et ipse, quod nesciens fecit, uolens tamen fecit; ita nec ipsius esse potuit sine uoluntate peccatum. quae uoluntas utique, sicut definita est, animae motus fuit cogente nullo ad aliquid uel non amittendum uel adipiscendum. quod enim, si noluisset, non fecisset, non coactus est facere. quia uoluit, ergo fecit, etsi non, quia uoluit, peccauit nesciens peccatum esse, quod fecit. ita nec tale peccatum sine uoluntate esse potuit, sed uoluntate facti, non uoluntate peccati, quod tamen factum peccatum fuit; hoc enim factum est, quod fieri non debuit. qui autem sciens peccat, si potest cogenti ad peccatum sine peccato resistere nec tamen facit, utique uolens peccat, quoniam qui potest resistere, non cogitur cedere. qui uero cogenti cupiditati uoluntate resistere non potest et ideo facit contra praecepta iustitiae, iam hoc ita peccatum est, ut sit etiam poena peccati. quapropter peccatum sine uoluntate esse non posse uerissimum est. Itemque definitio peccati, qua diximus: peccatum est uoluntas retinendi uel consequendi, quod iustitia uetat et unde liberum est abstinere, propterea uerum est, quia id definitum est, quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod etiam poena peccati. nam quando tale est, ut idem sit et poena peccati, quantum est, quod ualet uoluntas sub dominante cupiditate, nisi forte, si pia est, ut oret auxilium? in tantum enim libera est, in quantum liberata est, et in tantum appellatur uoluntas. alioquin tota cupiditas quam uoluntas proprie nuncupanda est, quae non est, sicut Manichei desipiunt, alienae naturae additamentum, sed nostrae uitium, a quo non sanatur nisi gratia saluatoris. quod si quisquam dicit etiam ipsam cupiditatem nihil esse aliud quam uoluntatem, sed uitiosam peccatoque seruientem, non resistendum est nec de uerbis, cum res constet, controuersia facienda. etiam sic enim ostenditur sine uoluntate nullum esse peccatum siue in opere siue in origine. Rursus in eo, quod dixi: iam quaerere coeperam, utrum illud malum genus animarum, antequam bono misceretur, habuisset aliquam uoluntatem. si enim non habebat, sine peccato atque innocens erit et ideo nullo modo malum, cur ergo, inquiunt, peccatum dicitis paruulorum, quorum uoluntatem non tenetis ream? respondetur non eos proprietate uoluntatis, sed origine reos teneri. omnis enim homo terrenus quid est origine nisi Adam? porro autem Adam habebat utique uoluntatem, qua uoluntate cum peccasset, peccatum per eum intrauit in mundum. Itemque in eo, quod dixi: natura esse malae animae nullo modo queunt, si quaeritur, quomodo accipiamus, quod ait apostolus: fuimus et nos natura filii irae sicut et ceteri, respondemus naturam in his uerbis meis me intellegi uoluisse illam, quae proprie natura dicitur, in qua sine uitio creati sumus. nam ista propter originem natura appellatur, quae origo utique habet uitium, quod est contra naturam. et iterum quod dictum est: peccati reum tenere quemquam, quia non fecit quod facere non potuit, summae iniquitatis est et insaniae, cur ergo, inquiunt, paruuli tenentur rei? respondetur, quia eius ex origine tenentur, qui non fecit quod facere potuit, diuinum scilicet seruare mandatum. quod autem dixi: illae animae quidquid faciunt, si natura, non uoluntate faciunt, id est si libero et ad faciendum et ad non faciendum motu animi carent, si denique abstinendi ab opere suo potestas nulla conceditur, peccatum earum tenere non possumus, propterea non perturbat de paruulis quaestio, quia ex illius origine rei tenentur, qui uoluntate peccauit, quando libero et ad faciendum et non faciendum motu animi non carebat eique ab opere malo abstinendi summa potestas erat. quod Manichei de tenebrarum gente non dicunt, quam fabulosissime inducunt, eamque naturam semper malam, numquam bonam fuisse contendunt. Illud autem quaeri potest quomodo dixerim: etiamsi sunt animae, quod interim incertum est, corporeis officiis non peccato, sed natura deditae nosque, quamquam sint inferiores, aliqua tamen interiore uicinitate contingunt, non illas ideo malas haberi oportere, quia nos, cum eas sequimur et corporea diligimus, mali sumus, quandoquidem de illis hoc dixi, de quibus apertius loqui coeperam dicens: quamquam etiamsi eisdem concedatur inferiore alio genere animarum nos inlici ad turpia, non inde conficiunt aut illas naturas malas esse aut istas summum bonum — de his enim disputationem usque ad hunc loculum perduxi, ubi dixi: etiamsi sunt animae, quod interim incertum est, corporeis officiis non peccato, sed natura deditae et cetera - quaeri ergo potest, cur dixerim: quod interim incertum, cum prorsus dubitare non debuerim non esse tales animas. sed hoc ideo dixi, quia expertus sum, qui dicerent diabolum et angelos eius bonos esse in genere suo et in ea natura, in qua eos creauit deus ordine proprio tales, quales sunt, sed nobis malum esse, si inliciamur et seducamur ab eis, si autem caueamus eos atque uincamus, decorum atque gloriosum. et hoc qui dicunt, uidentur sibi, ut id probent, de scripturis adhibere idonea testimonia uel illud, quod scriptum est in libro Iob, cum diabolus describeretur: hoc est initium figmenti domini, quod fecit ad inludendum ab angelis suis, uel illud in Psalmo centesimo tertio: draco hic, quem finxisti ad inludendum ei. quam quaestionem, quae non aduersus Manicheos, qui hoc non sentiunt, sed aduersus alios, qui hoc sentiunt, suscipienda esset atque soluenda, pertractare atque enodare tunc nolui, ne librum multo, quam uellem, facerem longiorem, cum uiderem, etiamsi hoc concederetur, tamen debere Manicheos ac iam posse conuinci introducentes insanissimo errore naturam mali aeterno bono coaeternam. ideo ergo dixi: quod interim incertum est, non quod ego inde dubitarem, sed quod inter me et illos, quos ita sapere inueneram, nondum esset ista quaestio dissoluta. quod tamen in aliis longe posterioribus libris meis de Genesi ad litteram secundum scripturas sanctas quanta potui manifestatione dissolui. Alio loco: propterea, inquam, corporea diligendo peccamus; quia spiritalia diligere et iustitia iubemur et natura possumus, et tunc in nostro genere optimi et beati sumus. ubi quaeri potest, cur natura et non gratia possumus dixerim. sed contra Manicheos de natura quaestio uersabatur, et utique id agit gratia, ut ista natura, quod uitiata non potest, possit per eum, qui uenit quaerere et saluum facere, quod perierat, quam tamen gratiam etiam tunc recolens oraui pro familiarissimis meis, qui mortifero illo adhuc tenebantur errore, et dixi: deus magne, deus omnipotens, deus summae bonitatis, quem inuiolabilem et incorruptibilem credi atque intellegi fas est, trina unitas, quam catholica ecclesia colit, supplex oro expertus in me misericordiam tuam, ne homines, cum quibus mihi a pueritia in hominum uictu fuit summa consensio, in tuo cultu a me dissentire permittas. sic utique orans iam fide retinebam non solum conuersos ad deum gratia eius adiuuari, ut proficiant ac perficiantur — ubi adhuc dici potest pro merito conuersionis illorum istam dari gratiam — uerum etiam ut conuertantur ad deum, ad ipsam dei gratiam pertinere, quem pro eis oraui, qui erant ab illo nimis auersi, atque ad illum conuerterentur oraui. Hic liber sic incipit: Opitulante dei misericordia. ### English translation (Claude) After this book, while still a presbyter, I wrote against the Manichaeans On the Two Souls, of which they say that 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 that the evil one belongs properly to the flesh, which flesh they also say is of the race of darkness, but that the good one is from the part of God that came in from outside and fought with the race of darkness, and that both are mixed together; and they attribute all the good in man to the good soul and all the evil to the evil soul. In this book, what I said, that there is no life of any kind which, by the very fact that it is life and insofar as it is life at all, does not belong to the highest fount and principle of life, I said in such a way that it is to be understood as belonging to him as a creature to its creator, not as being thought to be from him as a part of him. Likewise what I said, that sin is nowhere except in the will, the Pelagians can think was said in their favor, because of little children, whom they deny to have original sin to be remitted to them in baptism, because they do not yet use the choice of the will. As if the sin which we say they contract originally from Adam, that is, being entangled in his guilt and on that account held liable to punishment, could ever have existed except from the will, the will by which it was committed when the transgression of the divine commandment took place. This statement, in which we said that sin is nowhere except in the will, can also be thought false because the apostle said: “But if I do what I do not will, it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that dwells in me.” For this sin is so far from being in the will that he says, “What I do not will, this I do.” How then is sin nowhere except in the will? But this sin of which the apostle spoke in this way is called sin because it was made by sin and is the punishment of sin, since this is said of the lust of the flesh, as he makes plain in what follows, saying: “I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for to will is present with me, but to accomplish the good is not.” For the accomplishment of the good is that even the lust of sin itself should not be in man; to which indeed, when one lives well, the will does not consent; yet he does not accomplish the good, because there is still in him the lust which the will resists. The guilt of this lust is loosed in baptism, but the weakness remains, against which every believer who is making good progress struggles most zealously until it is healed. But the sin which is nowhere except in the will is to be understood especially as that which just condemnation followed; for this “entered the world through one man”; although this sin too, by which one consents to the lust of sin, is not committed except by the will. For this reason I also said in another place: “One does not sin, then, except by the will.” Likewise in another place I defined the will itself, saying: “Will is a movement of the soul, with nothing compelling it, toward either not losing or obtaining something.” This was said so that by this definition the one who wills might be distinguished from the one who does not will, and so that the attention might thus be directed to those who were first in paradise and became the origin of evil for the human race by sinning with nothing compelling them, that is, by sinning with free will; because they both acted knowingly against the commandment, and the tempter persuaded them to do it, he did not compel them. For one who sinned without knowing can also not unfittingly be said to have sinned unwillingly; although he too, what he did without knowing, nevertheless did willingly; thus not even his sin could exist without the will. That will, certainly, as defined, was a movement of the soul, with nothing compelling it, toward either not losing or obtaining something. For what he would not have done if he had not willed, he was not compelled to do. Because he willed, therefore, he did it, even if he did not sin because he willed, not knowing that what he did was a sin. So not even such a sin could exist without the will, but by the will of the deed, not by the will of the sin; which deed was nevertheless a sin, for what was done was what ought not to have been done. He, however, who sins knowingly, if he can resist without sin what compels him to sin and yet does not do so, certainly sins willingly, since he who can resist is not compelled to yield. But he who cannot resist compelling desire with his will, and therefore acts against the precepts of justice, this is then sin in such a way that it is also the punishment of sin. Therefore it is most true that sin cannot exist without the will. Likewise the definition of sin in which we said, “Sin is the will to retain or obtain what justice forbids and from which one is free to abstain,” is true for this reason: that what was defined is what is only sin, not what is also the punishment of sin. For when it is such that the same thing is also the punishment of sin, how much can the will do under the domination of desire, except perhaps, if it is devout, to pray for help? For it is free to the extent that it has been set free, and to that extent it is called will. Otherwise the whole of it is properly to be called desire rather than will; which is not, as the Manichaeans foolishly say, an addition from an alien nature, but a fault of our own, from which it is healed only by the grace of the Savior. And if anyone says that desire itself is nothing other than will, but will that is faulty and enslaved to sin, there is no need to resist or to dispute about words when the matter is settled. For even so it is shown that there is no sin without the will, whether in act or in origin. Again, in what I said, I had already begun to ask whether that evil kind of souls had any will before it was mixed with the good. “For if it had none, it will be without sin and innocent, and therefore in no way evil.” Why then, they say, do you speak of the sin of little children, whose will you do not hold guilty? The answer is that they are held guilty not by any will of their own but by their origin. For what is every earthly man by origin but Adam? And Adam certainly had a will, and when he sinned by that will, sin entered the world through him. Likewise in what I said, “Souls can in no way be evil by nature,” if it is asked how we take what the apostle says, “We too were by nature children of wrath, like the rest,” we answer that in these words of mine I meant to be understood the nature which is properly called nature, in which we were created without fault. For that other is called nature because of origin, which origin certainly has a fault, which is contrary to nature. And again, as for what was said, “To hold anyone guilty of sin because he did not do what he could not do is the height of injustice and madness”: why then, they say, are little children held guilty? The answer is that they are held guilty by their origin from him who did not do what he could have done, namely, keep the divine commandment. As for what I said, “Whatever those souls do, if they do it by nature and not by will, that is, if they lack a free movement of the soul both for doing and for not doing, if, finally, no power is granted them to abstain from their work, we cannot hold them guilty of sin”: the question about little children does not trouble this, because they are held guilty by their origin from him who sinned by his will, when he did not lack a free movement of the soul both for doing and for not doing, and had the fullest power to abstain from the evil work. This the Manichaeans do not say of the race of darkness, which they bring in most fabulously, and which they contend was a nature always evil, never good. It can be asked, however, how I said: “Even if there are souls (which for the moment is uncertain) given over to bodily functions not by sin but by nature, and which, although they are inferior, touch us by a certain inner proximity, they should not therefore be held evil because we are evil when we follow them and love bodily things.” For I said this of those of whom I had begun to speak more openly, saying: “Although, even if it is granted to them that we are enticed to shameful things by another, inferior kind of souls, they do not conclude from this either that those natures are evil or that these are the highest good.” For I carried the discussion of these as far as this point, where I said: “Even if there are souls (which for the moment is uncertain) given over to bodily functions not by sin but by nature,” and so on. It can be asked, then, why I said, “which for the moment is uncertain,” when I ought not to have doubted at all that there are no such souls. But I said it because I had come across people who said that the devil and his angels are good in their own kind and in the nature in which God created them, in their own order, such as they are; but that it is evil for us if we are enticed and led astray by them, while if we beware of them and overcome them, it is honorable and glorious. And those who say this think that they bring suitable testimonies from the Scriptures to prove it: either what is written in the book of Job, when the devil is being described, “This is the beginning of the Lord's fashioning, which he made to be mocked by his angels,” or that in the hundred and third Psalm: “This dragon, which you formed to mock him.” This question, which would have to be taken up and solved not against the Manichaeans, who do not hold this, but against others who do, I did not wish to treat and unravel at that time, lest I should make the book much longer than I wished, since I saw that, even if this were granted, the Manichaeans could and should already be refuted, who in their most insane error bring in a nature of evil coeternal with the eternal good. So I said “which for the moment is uncertain,” not because I had any doubt about it, but because the question had not yet been settled between me and those whom I had found to think so. This, however, I settled with as much clarity as I could in other, much later books of mine, On Genesis according to the Letter according to the holy Scriptures. In another place I said: “We sin, therefore, by loving bodily things, because we are commanded by justice and are able by nature to love spiritual things, and then we are best and happy in our own kind.” Here it can be asked why I said “we are able by nature” and not “by grace.” But the question against the Manichaeans was about nature; and grace certainly accomplishes this: that this nature can do, through him who came to seek and to save what was lost, what it cannot do as vitiated. Yet remembering this grace even then, I prayed for my closest friends, who were still held in that deadly error, and said: “Great God, almighty God, God of supreme goodness, whom it is right to believe and understand to be inviolable and incorruptible, threefold unity, whom the Catholic Church worships, I humbly pray, having experienced your mercy in myself, that you do not allow those men with whom I have had the closest agreement in human life since boyhood to disagree with me in your worship.” Praying thus, I already held by faith not only that those converted to God are helped by his grace to make progress and be perfected (where it can still be said that this grace is given for the merit of their conversion) but also that their being converted to God belongs to the very grace of God; for I prayed to him for those who were far turned away from him, and prayed that they might be converted to him. This book begins thus: “With the help of God's mercy…” ### Scripture references - Rom 7:20: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:15: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:18: quotation, high confidence - Rom 5:12: quotation, high confidence - Eph 2:3: quotation, high confidence - Job 40:19 (40:14 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Ps 104:26 (103:26 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Luke 19:10: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Duab. an. (On Two Souls): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De duabus animabus. Quotations: Rom 7:20, 7:15, 7:18; Rom 5:12; Eph 2:3; Job 40:19 (40:14 LXX/Vulg.; Latin wording following the Greek); Ps 104:26 (103:26 LXX/Vulg.); Luke 19:10. - The later treatment of the devil's nature: On Genesis according to the Letter, Book 11 (not yet on this site). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.14 (CSEL 36:71–82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-12/#p-1-14). ## Retractations 1.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-15 - Source: CSEL 36:82–84 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his recorded debate with the Manichaean Fortunatus at Hippo and clarifies three statements in it. ### Latin text Eodem tempore presbyterii mei contra Fortunatum quendam, Manicheorum presbyterum, disputaui, qui plurimum temporis apud Hipponem uixerat seduxeratque tam multos, ut per eos ibi eum delectaret habitare. quae disputatio nobis altercantibus excepta est a notariis, ueluti gesta conficerentur; nam et diem habent et consulem. hanc in librum memoriae mandandum conferre curaui. uersatur ibi quaestio, unde sit malum, me asserente exortum fuisse hominis malum ex libero uoluntatis arbitrio, illo autem naturam mali deo coaeternam suadere moliente. sed consequenti die tandem confessus est nihil se aduersus nos inuenire, quod diceret, nec sane catholicus factus, sed tamen ab Hippone discessit. In hoc libro illud, quod dixi: animam dico esse factam a deo, ut cetera omnia, quae a deo facta sunt, et inter illa, quae deus omnipotens fecit, principalem locum datum esse animae, ita dixi, ut hoc generaliter de uniuersa creatura rationali accipi uellem, quamuis in scripturis sanctis animas dictas esse angelorum aut omnino aut non possit facile reperiri, sicut supra iam diximus. item alio loco: ego dico, inquam, peccatum non esse, si non propria uoluntate peccatur. ubi peccatum illud intellegi uolui, quod non est etiam poena peccati; nam de tali poena dixi alibi in eadem disputatione, quod dicendum fuit. itemque dixi: ut postea eadem ipsa caro, quae nos poenis torsit in peccato manentes, subiciatur nobis in resurrectione et nulla aduersitate nos quatiat, quominus legem et diuina praecepta seruemus. quod non est ita accipiendum, tamquam et in illo dei regno, ubi incorruptibile atque inmortale corpus habebimus, de scripturis diuinis lex et praecepta sumenda sunt, sed quia perfectissime ibi lex aeterna seruabitur et illa duo praecepta de diligendo deo et proximo non in lectione, sed in ipsa perfecta et sempiterna dilectione tenebimus. Hoc opus sic incipit: V. KAL. SEPTEMBRIS ARCADIO AVGVSTO BIS ET RVFINO VV. CC. CONSS. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time of my presbyterate I held a disputation against a certain Fortunatus, a presbyter of the Manichaeans, who had lived a very long time at Hippo and had led so many astray that because of them he was glad to live there. This disputation, as we argued, was taken down by stenographers as though official proceedings were being drawn up; for it has both the day and the consul. I took care to put it into a book to be preserved. The question treated there is where evil comes from: I asserted that man's evil arose from the free choice of the will, while he strove to argue that the nature of evil is coeternal with God. But on the following day he at last confessed that he could find nothing to say against us; he did not indeed become a Catholic, but he did leave Hippo. In this book, what I said, “I say that the soul was made by God, like all the other things made by God, and that among the things which almighty God made, the chief place was given to the soul,” I said in such a way that I wished it to be understood generally of the whole rational creation; although in the holy Scriptures the angels may not be found to be called souls either at all or easily, as we have already said above. Likewise in another place I said: “I say that there is no sin if one does not sin by one's own will.” There I wished to be understood that sin which is not also the punishment of sin; for of such punishment I said what had to be said elsewhere in the same disputation. And likewise I said: “so that afterward that same flesh which tormented us with punishments while we remained in sin may be made subject to us in the resurrection and may not shake us with any adversity to keep us from observing the law and the divine commandments.” This is not to be taken as though in that kingdom of God, where we shall have an incorruptible and immortal body, the law and commandments are to be taken from the divine Scriptures; but because there the eternal law will be kept most perfectly, and we shall hold those two commandments of loving God and neighbor not in reading but in that perfect and everlasting love itself. This work begins thus: “On the fifth day before the Kalends of September, in the second consulship of Arcadius Augustus and Rufinus, men of senatorial rank, consuls.” ### Scripture references - Matt 22:37: allusion, high confidence - Matt 22:39: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Fort. (Acts of the Debate with Fortunatus the Manichaean): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The record is Against Fortunatus (Acta contra Fortunatum Manichaeum), dated 28 August 392. Allusion: Matt 22:37–40 (the two commandments). “As we have already said above”: 1.10. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.15 (CSEL 36:82–84; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-15). ## Retractations 1.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-16 - Source: CSEL 36:84–86 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Faith and the Creed, given before the African bishops at Hippo, Augustine corrects his statement that the risen body will no longer be flesh and blood. ### Latin text Per idem tempus coram episcopis hoc mihi iubentibus, qui plenarium totius Africae concilium Hippone Regio habebant, de fide ac symbolo disputaui. quam disputationem nonnullis eorum, qui nos familiarius diligebant, studiosissime instantibus in librum contuli. in quo de rebus ipsis ita disseritur, ut tamen non fiat uerborum illa contextio, quae tenenda memoriter conpetentibus traditur. In hoc libro cum de resurrectione carnis ageretur: resurget, inquam, corpus secundum Christianam fidem, quae falli non potest. quod cui uidetur incredibile, qualis sit nunc caro adtendit, qualis autem futura sit non considerat, quia illo tempore inmutationis angelicae non iam caro erit et sanguis, sed tantum corpus et cetera, quae ibi de corporum terrestrium in corpora caelestia mutatione disserui, quoniam dixit apostolus, cum inde loqueretur: caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebit. sed quisquis ea sic accipit, ut existimet ita corpus terrenum, quale nunc habemus, in corpus caeleste resurrectione mutari, ut nec membra ista nec carnis sit futura substantia, procul dubio corripiendus est commonitus de corpore domini, qui post resurrectionem in eisdem membris non solum conspiciendus oculis uerum etiam manibus tractandus apparuit carnemque se habere etiam sermone firmauit dicens: palpate et uidete, quia spiritus ossa et carnem non habet, sicut me uidetis habere. unde constat apostolum non carnis substantiam negasse in dei regno futuram, sed aut qui secundum carnem uiuunt carnis et sanguinis nomine nuncupasse aut ipsam carnis corruptionem, quae tunc utique nulla erit. nam cum dixisset: caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt - bene intellegitur tamquam exponendo, quid dixerit — continuo subdidit: neque corruptio incorruptionem possidebit. de qua re ad suadendum infidelibus difficili diligenter, quantum potui, me disseruisse reperiet, quisquis de ciuitate dei librum nouissimum legerit. Hic liber sic incipit: Quoniam scriptum est. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time, before the bishops who ordered me to do so and who were holding a plenary council of all Africa at Hippo Regius, I gave a discourse On Faith and the Creed. At the most earnest urging of some of them who loved me more intimately, I put this discourse into a book. In it the matters themselves are discussed, but without that arrangement of words which is handed over to the competentes to be held in memory. In this book, when the resurrection of the flesh was being treated, I said: “The body will rise, according to the Christian faith, which cannot be deceived. To anyone to whom this seems incredible, he looks at what the flesh is like now but does not consider what it will be like; because at that time of angelic change it will no longer be flesh and blood but only body,” and the rest which I discussed there about the change of earthly bodies into heavenly bodies, since the apostle, when he spoke of this, said, “Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God.” But whoever takes these words in such a way as to think that the earthly body, such as we now have, is changed by the resurrection into a heavenly body in such a way that there will be neither these members nor the substance of flesh, must without doubt be corrected, being reminded of the Lord's body, which after the resurrection appeared in the same members, not only to be seen with the eyes but also to be handled with the hands, and which confirmed even by word that it had flesh, saying, “Handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh as you see me have.” Hence it is clear that the apostle did not deny that the substance of the flesh will be in the kingdom of God, but called by the name of flesh and blood either those who live according to the flesh or the corruption of the flesh itself, which then will certainly not exist. For after he had said, “Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God,” he immediately added, as is rightly understood, by way of explaining what he had said: “Nor will corruption possess incorruption.” On this matter, difficult to persuade unbelievers of, whoever reads the last book of The City of God will find that I have discussed it carefully, as far as I could. This book begins thus: “Since it is written…” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:50: quotation, high confidence - Luke 24:39: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Fid. symb. (On Faith and the Creed): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Civ. 22 (City of God): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De fide et symbolo (Council of Hippo, 393). Competentes: candidates for baptism, to whom the Creed was handed over to be memorized. Quotations: 1 Cor 15:50; Luke 24:39. On the resurrection body: City of God 22. - Augustine's correction concerns the resurrection of the flesh: he now insists the risen body keeps the substance and members of flesh. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.16 (CSEL 36:84–86; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-16). ## Retractations 1.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-17 - Source: CSEL 36:86–88 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he left his first literal commentary on Genesis unfinished, kept it as a record of his beginnings, and refers readers to his later twelve books On Genesis according to the Letter. ### Latin text Cum de Genesi duos libros contra Manicheos condidissem, quoniam secundum allegoricam significationem scripturae uerba tractaueram non ausus naturalium rerum tanta secreta ad litteram exponere, hoc est quemadmodum possent secundum historicam proprietatem, quae ibi dicta sunt, accipi, uolui experiri in hoc quoque negotiosissimo ac difficillimo opere, quid ualerem. sed in scripturis exponendis tirocinium meum sub tantae sarcinae mole succubuit, et nondum perfecto uno libro ab eo, quem sustinere non poteram, labore conquieui. sed in hoc opere cum mea opuscula retractarem, iste ipse, ut erat inperfectus, uenit in manus, quem neque edideram et abolere decreueram, quoniam scripsi postea duodecim libros, quorum titulus est: de Genesi ad litteram. in quibus quamuis multa quaesita potius quam inuenta uideantur, tamen eis iste nullo modo est conparandus. uerum et hunc posteaquam retractaui, manere uolui, ut esset index, quantum existimo, non inutilis rudimentorum meorum in enucleandis atque scrutandis diuinis eloquiis, eiusque titulum esse uolui: de Genesi ad litteram inperfectus. inueni quippe eum usque ad haec uerba dictatum: pater tamen pater est, nec filius aliud est quam filius, quia et cum dicitur similitudo patris, quamquam ostendat nullam interuenire dissimilitudinem, non tamen solus est pater, si habet similitudinem. post haec repetiui uerba scripturae rursus consideranda atque tractanda: et dixit deus: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. huc usque dictatum librum inperfectum reliqueram. quod autem ibi sequitur, addendum putaui, cum eum retractarem, nec sic tamen perfeci, sed hoc quoque addito inperfectum reliqui. si enim perfecissem, saltem de omnibus operibus et uerbis dei, quae ad sextum diem pertinent, disputassem. in hoc libro eadem notare, quae mihi displicent, uel defendere, quae aliis non bene intellecta displicere possunt, superfluum mihi uisum est. breuiter enim potius admoneo, ut illi duodecim libri legantur, quos longe postea feci. ex ipsis de isto iudicetur. Hic ergo sic incipit: De obscuris naturalium rerum, quae omnipotente deo artifice facta sentimus, non adfirmando, sed quaerendo tractandum est. ### English translation (Claude) After I had composed two books On Genesis against the Manichaeans, since I had treated the words of Scripture according to their allegorical meaning, not daring to explain such great secrets of natural things according to the letter, that is, how what is said there could be taken according to its proper historical sense, I wished to test what I could do in this most laborious and difficult work as well. But in explaining the Scriptures my apprenticeship collapsed under the weight of so great a burden, and before I had finished even one book I rested from a labor I could not sustain. But in this work, while I was reviewing my small works, that very book, unfinished as it was, came into my hands; which I had not published and had decided to destroy, since I later wrote twelve books whose title is On Genesis according to the Letter. Although in them many things seem to have been sought rather than found, still this book is in no way to be compared with them. Yet after I had reviewed this one too, I wished it to remain, so that it might be an indication, not useless, I think, of my first beginnings in unfolding and searching the divine oracles; and I wished its title to be On Genesis according to the Letter, an Unfinished Book. For I found that it had been dictated up to these words: “Yet the Father is Father, and the Son is nothing other than Son; for even when he is called the likeness of the Father, although this shows that no unlikeness intervenes, still the Father is not alone if he has a likeness.” After this I repeated the words of Scripture to be considered and treated again: “And God said, Let us make man in our image and likeness.” Up to this point I had dictated the book and left it unfinished. What follows there I thought should be added when I reviewed it; but even so I did not finish it, but left it unfinished even with this addition. For if I had finished it, I would at least have discussed all the works and words of God that belong to the sixth day. In this book it seemed to me superfluous to note the same things that displease me, or to defend what may displease others because they are not well understood. Rather, I briefly advise that those twelve books which I made long afterward be read, and that this one be judged by them. This one, then, begins thus: “About the obscure things of nature, which we perceive to have been made by God, the almighty craftsman, one must treat not by asserting but by inquiring.” ### Scripture references - Gen 1:26: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Gen. litt. imp. (Unfinished Literal Commentary on Genesis): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber. Quotation: Gen 1:26. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.17 (CSEL 36:86–88; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-17). ## Retractations 1.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-18 - Source: CSEL 36:88–96 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Augustine qualifies statements on perfection in this life, the law, anger, hating relatives, the Lordly man, and daily food, and leaves open what kind of fornication permits putting away a wife. ### Latin text Per idem tempus de sermone domini in monte secundum Matheum duo uolumina scripsi. In quorum primo propter id, quod scriptum est: beati pacifici, quoniam ipsi filii dei uocabuntur: sapientia, inquam, congruit pacificis, in quibus iam ordinata sunt omnia nullusque motus aduersus rationem rebellis est, sed cuncta obtemperant spiritui hominis, cum et ipse obtemperat deo. quod merito mouet, quomodo dixerim. non enim cuiquam prouenire in hac uita potest, ut lex repugnans legi mentis omnino non sit in membris, quandoquidem etiamsi ei sic resisteret spiritus hominis, ut in nullum eius laberetur adsensum, non ideo tamen non repugnaret. hoc ergo, quod dictum est, nullum esse motum aduersus rationem rebellem, recte accipi potest id nunc agentibus pacificis domando concupiscentias carnis, ut ad istam pacem plenissimam quandoque ueniatur. Proinde quod alio loco, cum eandem sententiam euangelicam repetens dixissem: beati pacifici, quoniam ipsi filii dei uocabuntur, adiunxi dicens: et ista quidem in hac uita conpleri possunt, sicut conpleta esse in apostolis credimus, sic accipiendum est, non ut in apostolis hic uiuentibus nullum carnis motum arbitremur spiritui repugnasse, sed hactenus hic ista posse conpleri, quatenus in apostolis credimus esse conpleta, ea mensura scilicet perfectionis humanae, quanta in hac uita potest esse perfectio. non enim dictum est: ista in hac uita conpleri possunt; nam conpleta esse in apostolis credimus, sed dictum est: sicut conpleta esse in apostolis credimus, ut ita conpleantur, sicut in illis conpleta sunt, id est quadam perfectione, cuius capax est ista uita, non sicut conplenda sunt illa, quam speramus, pace plenissima, quando dicetur: ubi est, mors, contentio tua? Alio loco quod interposui testimonium: non enim ad mensuram dat deus spiritum, nondum intellexeram de Christo proprie uerius accipi. aliis quippe hominibus nisi ad mensuram daretur spiritus, non duplum peteret Heliseus, quam fuerit in Helia. item quod scriptum est: iota unum et unus apex non transiet a lege, donec omnia fiant, cum exponerem, dixi nil aliud posse intellegi nisi uehementem perfectionis expressionem. ubi merito quaeritur, utrum ista perfectio sic possit intellegi, ut tamen uerum sit neminem iam utentem uoluntatis arbitrio hic uiuere sine peccato. a quo enim usque ad unum apicem lex perfici potest, nisi a quo fiunt uniuersa diuina mandata? sed in eisdem mandatis est etiam, quod iubemur dicere: dimitte debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, quam orationem usque in finem saeculi tota dicit ecclesia. omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur, quando quidquid non fit ignoscitur. Sane quod ait dominus: quicumque enim soluerit unum de mandatis istis minimis et docuerit sic et cetera usque ad eum locum, ubi ait: nisi abundauerit iustitia uestra plus quam scribarum et Farisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum, multo melius et conuenientius exposui in aliis posterioribus sermonibus meis, quod etiam hic retexere longum est. ad hoc autem iste ibi perducitur sensus, ut eorum sit iustitia maior quam scribarum et Farisaeorum, qui dicunt et faciunt. de scribis quippe et Farisaeis alio loco ipse dominus ait: dicunt enim et non faciunt. illud etiam melius intelleximus postea, quod scriptum est: qui irascitur fratri suo. codices enim graeci non habent: sine causa, sicut hic positum est, quamuis idem ipse sit sensus. illud enim diximus intuendum, quid sit irasci fratri suo, quoniam non fratri irascitur, qui peccato fratris irascitur. qui ergo fratri, non peccato irascitur, sine causa irascitur. Item quod dixi: hoc et de patre et de matre et de ceteris uinculis sanguinis intellegendum est, ut in eis oderimus, quod genus humanum nascendo et moriendo sortitum est, ita sonat, quasi non essent futurae istae necessitudines, si nullo naturae humanae praecedente peccato nemo moreretur, quem sensum iam superius inprobaui. essent enim profecto cognationes et affinitates, etiamsi originali nullo existente peccato sine morte cresceret et multiplicaretur genus humanum. ac per hoc aliter soluenda quaestio est, cur dominus praeceperit diligendos inimicos, cum alio loco praecipiat odio habendos et parentes et filios, non sicut hic soluta est, sed sicut eam posterius saepe soluimus. id est ut diligamus inimicos lucrandos regno dei et oderimus in propinquis, si inpediunt regno dei. Item de praecepto, quo prohibetur uxor dimitti nisi propter fornicationem, hic quidem scrupulosissime disputaui, sed quam uelit dominus intellegi fornicationem, propter quam liceat dimittere uxorem, utrum eam, quae damnatur in stupris, an illam, de qua dicitur: perdidisti omnem, qui fornicatur abs te, in qua utique et ista est — neque enim non fornicatur a domino, qui tollens membra Christi facit ea membra meretricis — etiam atque etiam cogitandum est atque requirendum, nec uolo in re tanta tamque ad digerendum difficili putare lectorem istam sibi nostram disputationem debere sufficere, sed legat et ea siue nostra, quae postea scripta sunt, siue aliorum melius considerata atque tractata, uel ipse, si potest, ea, quae hic merito mouere possunt, uigilantiore atque intellegentiore mente discutiat, non quia omne peccatum fornicatio est — neque enim omnem peccantem deus perdit, qui cotidie sanctos suos exaudit dicentes: dimitte nobis debita nostra, quum perdat omnem, qui fornicatur ab eo — sed quatenus intellegenda atque limitanda est haec fornicatio et utrum etiam propter hanc liceat dimittere uxorem, latebrosissima quaestio est. licere tamen propter istam, quae in stupris committitur, nulla quaestio est. et ubi dixi hoc permissum esse, non iussum, non adtendi aliam scripturam dicentem: qui tenet adulteram, stultus et inpius est. nec sane dixerim adulteram fuisse deputandam illam mulierem, etiam posteaquam audiuit a domino: nec ego te damnabo; uade, deinceps iam noli peccare, si hoc oboedienter audiuit. Alio loco peccatum fratris ad mortem, de quo dicit Iohannes apostolus: non pro illo dico ut roget, ita definiui, ut dicerem: peccatum fratris ad mortem puto esse, cum post agnitionem dei per gratiam domini nostri Iesu Christi quisque obpugnat fraternitatem et aduersus ipsam gratiam, qua reconciliatus est deo, inuidentiae facibus agitatur. quod quidem non confirmaui, quoniam hoc putare me dixi, sed tamen addendum fuit: si in hac tam scelerata mentis peruersitate finierit hanc uitam, quoniam de quocumque pessimo in hac uita constituto non est utique desperandum nec pro illo inpatienter oratur, de quo non desperatur. In secundo item libro: nulli, inquam, licebit ignorare dei regnum, quum eius unigenitus non solum intellegibiliter sed etiam uisibiliter in homine dominico de caelo uenerit iudicaturus uiuos et mortuos. sed non uideo, utrum recte dicatur homo dominicus, qui est mediator dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus [cum sit utique dominus]: dominicus autem homo quis in eius sancta familia non potest dici? et hoc quidem ut dicerem, apud quosdam legi tractatores catholicos diuinorum eloquiorum. sed ubicumque hoc dixi, dixisse me nollem. postea quippe uidi non esse dicendum, quamuis nonnulla possit ratione defendi. item quod dixi: nullius enim fere conscientia deum potest odisse, non uideo fuisse dicendum. multi enim sunt, de quibus dictum est: superbia eorum, qui oderunt te. Alio loco in eo, quod dixi: ob hoc dixisse dominum: sufficit diei malitia sua, quia cibos sumere urgebat ipsa necessitas, quam propterea malitiam nominatam arbitror, quia poenalis est nobis; pertinet enim ad hanc fragilitatem, quam peccando meruimus, non adtendi etiam primis hominibus data fuisse in paradiso corporis alimenta, antequam istam mortis poenam peccando meruissent. sic enim erant inmortales in corpore nondum spiritali, sed animali, ut tamen in huius modi inmortalitate alimentis corporalibus uterentur. item quod dixi: quam sibi elegit deus gloriosam ecclesiam non habentem maculam neque rugam, non ideo dixi, quia nunc ex omni parte iam talis est, quamuis ad hoc electa non dubitetur, ut talis sit, quando Christus apparuerit, uita eius; tunc enim et ipsa cum illo apparebit in gloria; propter quam gloriam dicta est ecclesia gloriosa. item quod dominus ait: petite et accipietis, quaerite et inuenietis, pulsate et aperietur uobis, operose quidem, tria ista quid inter se differant, exponendum putaui; sed longe melius ad instantissimam petitionem omnia referentur. hoc quippe ostendit, ubi eodem uerbo cuncta conclusit dicens: quanto magis pater uester, qui in caelis est, dabit bona petentibus se; non enim dixit: petentibus, quaerentibus et pulsantibus. Hoc opus sic incipit: Sermonem, quem locutus est dominus. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time I wrote two volumes On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew. In the first of them, because of what is written, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God,” I said: “Wisdom befits the peacemakers, in whom all things are already set in order and no movement is rebellious against reason, but all things obey the spirit of man, since he himself also obeys God.” It rightly troubles one how I said this. For it cannot happen to anyone in this life that the law warring against the law of the mind should be altogether absent from his members; since even if the spirit of man resisted it in such a way as not to slip into any consent to it, it would not on that account cease to war against it. This, then, which was said, that no movement is rebellious against reason, can rightly be taken to mean that the peacemakers are now doing this by taming the lusts of the flesh, so that at some time they may come to that fullest peace. Accordingly, what I added in another place, when, repeating the same saying of the Gospel, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God,” I said, “And these things can indeed be fulfilled in this life, as we believe they were fulfilled in the apostles,” is to be taken thus: not that we should think that in the apostles, while living here, no movement of the flesh warred against the spirit, but that these things can be fulfilled here to the extent that we believe they were fulfilled in the apostles, that is, in the measure of human perfection, as much perfection as there can be 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 are fulfilled as they were fulfilled in them, that is, with a certain perfection of which this life is capable, not as they are to be fulfilled in that fullest peace which we hope for, when it will be said, “Where, O death, is your strife?” As for the testimony which I inserted in another place, “For God does not give the Spirit by measure,” I had not yet understood that it is more truly taken as said properly of Christ. For if the Spirit were not given to other human beings by measure, Elisha would not have asked for double what there had been in Elijah. Likewise, when I was explaining what is written, “One iota and one stroke will not pass from the law until all things come to pass,” I said that nothing else can be understood than a forceful expression of perfection. Here it is rightly asked whether this perfection can be understood in such a way that it is nevertheless 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 a single stroke, except by one by whom all the divine commandments are done? But among those same commandments is also what we are commanded to say, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors,” a prayer which the whole church says until the end of the world. All the commandments, then, are counted as done when whatever is not done is pardoned. Indeed, what the Lord says, “For whoever breaks one of these least commandments and teaches so,” and so on, up to the place where he says, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven,” I have explained much better and more fittingly in other, later sermons of mine; it would take too long to go over it here. But the sense there comes to this: that their righteousness is greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees who say and do. For of the scribes and Pharisees the Lord himself says in another place: “For they say and do not do.” We also understood better afterward what is written: “Whoever is angry with his brother.” For the Greek copies do not have “without cause,” as it is set down here, although the sense is the same. For we said that one must consider what it is to be angry with one's brother, since he is not angry with his brother who is angry with his brother's sin. Whoever, then, is angry with his brother and not with the sin is angry without cause. Likewise what I said, “This is to be understood also of father and mother and the other bonds of blood, that in them we should hate what the human race has received as its lot by being born and dying,” sounds as though these relationships would not have existed if no one had died, had no sin of human nature gone before; a view I have already disapproved above. For there would certainly have been kinships and relations by marriage even if, with no original sin existing, the human race had increased and multiplied without death. And therefore the question why the Lord commanded us to love our enemies, while in another place he commands us to hate both parents and children, is to be solved otherwise, not as it was solved here, but as we have often solved it since: namely, that we should love our enemies so as to win them for the kingdom of God, and hate in our relatives whatever hinders them from the kingdom of God. Likewise concerning the commandment by which it is forbidden to put away a wife except for sexual immorality, I did indeed discuss it here most scrupulously. But what sexual immorality the Lord wishes to be understood, on account of which it is permitted to put away a wife, whether that which is condemned in illicit intercourse, or that of which it is said, “You have destroyed everyone who commits fornication away from you,” which certainly includes the former too (for he does not fail to commit fornication away from the Lord who takes the members of Christ and makes them members of a prostitute), must be thought over and inquired into again and again. Nor in so great a matter, and one so difficult to sort out, do I want the reader to think that this discussion of ours ought to suffice him; but let him also read the things written later, whether our own or those of others better considered and treated, or let him himself, if he can, examine with a more watchful and intelligent mind the things here which can rightly trouble him. Not that every sin is fornication, for God does not destroy every sinner, since he daily hears his saints saying, “Forgive us our debts,” whereas he destroys everyone who commits fornication away from him; but how far this fornication is to be understood and limited, and whether it is permitted to put away a wife on account of it too, is a most obscure question. That it is permitted, however, on account of that which is committed in illicit intercourse, is no question at all. And where I said that this was permitted, not commanded, I did not attend to another Scripture which says: “He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.” Nor indeed would I say that that woman was to be counted an adulteress even after she heard from the Lord, “Neither will I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more,” if she heard this obediently. In another place I defined the sin of a brother unto death, of which the apostle John says, “I do not say that one should pray for that,” in this way: “I think that the sin of a brother unto death is when, after coming to know God through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, anyone assails the brotherhood and is driven by the firebrands of envy against the very grace by which he was reconciled to God.” I did not indeed assert this, since I said that I thought it; but I should have added, “if he ends this life in such a wicked perversity of mind,” since one must certainly not despair of anyone, however wicked, who is still in this life; nor is it imprudent to pray for one of whom one does not despair. Likewise in the second book I said: “No one will be allowed to be ignorant of the kingdom of God when his Only-begotten comes from heaven, not only intelligibly but also visibly, in the Lordly man, to judge the living and the dead.” But I do not see whether he who is “the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” is rightly called the Lordly man; for who in his holy household cannot be called a Lordly man? And indeed I read this, so as to say it, in some Catholic commentators on the divine oracles. But wherever I have said it, I wish I had not said it. For I saw afterward that it should not be said, although it can be defended with some reason. Likewise what I said, “For hardly anyone's conscience can hate God,” I do not see should have been said. For there are many of whom it was said: “the pride of those who hate you.” In another place, in what I said, that the Lord said, “Sufficient for the day is its own evil,” because necessity itself compelled us to take food, which I think was called evil because it is penal for us (for it belongs to this frailty which we merited by sinning), I did not consider that bodily food was given to the first human beings too in paradise, before they had merited this punishment of death by sinning. For they were immortal in a body not yet spiritual but animal in such a way that in that kind of immortality they nevertheless used bodily food. Likewise what I said, “the glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, which God chose for himself,” I did not say because it is already such in every respect now, although there is no doubt that it was chosen for this, that it may be such when Christ, its life, appears; for then it too will appear with him in glory, and because of that glory the church has been called glorious. Likewise what the Lord says, “Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you,” I thought should be explained laboriously as to how these three differ from one another; but it is far better to refer them all to most urgent asking. For he shows this where he concluded them all with one word, saying, “How much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him”; for he did not say, “to those who ask, seek, and knock.” This work begins thus: “The sermon which the Lord spoke…” ### Scripture references - Matt 5:9: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:23: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:55: quotation, high confidence - John 3:34: quotation, high confidence - 2 Kgs 2:9: allusion, high confidence - Matt 5:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:19: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:20: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence - Matt 23:3: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:22: quotation, high confidence - Luke 14:26: allusion, high confidence - Matt 5:44: allusion, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence - Ps 73:27 (72:27 LXX): quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:15: allusion, high confidence - Prov 18:22: quotation, medium confidence - John 8:11: quotation, high confidence - 1 John 5:16: quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence - Ps 74:23 (73:23 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:34: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:27: quotation, high confidence - Col 3:4: allusion, high confidence - Matt 7:7: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:11: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De sermone domini in monte. Quotations: Matt 5:9; Rom 7:23; 1 Cor 15:55; John 3:34; 2 Kgs 2:9 (Elisha's request, allusion); Matt 5:18, 5:19–20; Matt 6:12; Matt 23:3; Matt 5:22; Luke 14:26 (hating parents, allusion); Ps 73:27 (72:27 LXX/Vulg., “You have destroyed everyone who commits fornication away from you”); 1 Cor 6:15; Prov 18:22 (LXX/Vulg. addition, “He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly”; not in the Hebrew); John 8:11; 1 John 5:16; 1 Tim 2:5; Ps 74:23 (73:23 LXX/Vulg.); Matt 6:34; Eph 5:27; Col 3:4; Matt 7:7, 7:11. - Divorce: Augustine says it is beyond question that a wife may be put away for fornication committed in illicit intercourse (stuprum), and leaves open whether spiritual fornication (unfaithfulness to God) is also grounds; he refers the reader to later writings (e.g. On Adulterous Marriages). He also withdraws his statement that putting away was permitted rather than commanded, citing the Old Latin of Prov 18:22. Translated exactly; no further comment. - “Lordly man” (homo dominicus): Augustine withdraws the expression for Christ's humanity. - The words “since he is certainly Lord” (cum sit utique dominus) are bracketed by the editor as an interpolation and are left out. - “Nor is it imprudent to pray”: the digital text reads inpatienter (“impatiently”); the sense requires something like inprudenter, which is translated; uncertain. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.18 (CSEL 36:88–96; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-18). ## Retractations 1.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-19 - Source: CSEL 36:96–97 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his abecedarian Psalm against the Party of Donatus, written in unmetrical verse so that ordinary people could sing and remember it. ### Latin text Volens etiam causam Donatistarum ad ipsius humillimi uulgi et omnino inperitorum atque idiotarum notitiam peruenire et eorum, quantum fieri per nos posset, inhaerere memoriae, psalmum, qui eis cantaretur, per latinas litteras feci, sed usque ad V litteram, quales abecedarias appellant. tres uero ultimas omisi, sed pro eis nouissimum quasi epilogum adiunxi, tamquam eos mater adloqueretur ecclesia. ypopsalma etiam, quod respondetur, et prooemium causae, quod uoluimus ut cantaretur, non sunt in ordine litterarum; earum quippe ordo incipit post prooemium. ideo autem non aliquo carminis genere id fieri uolui, ne me necessitas metrica ad aliqua uerba, quae uulgo minus sunt usitata, conpelleret. Iste psalmus sic incipit: Omnes, qui gaudetis de pace, modo uerum iudicate, quod eius ypopsalma est. ### English translation (Claude) Wishing also that the case of the Donatists should come to the knowledge of the humblest common people and of the altogether unskilled and unlettered, and should stick in their memory as far as we could bring it about, I made a psalm for them to sing, arranged by the Latin letters, but only as far as the letter V; such psalms they call abecedarian. I left out the last three, but in their place I added a final section, as a kind of epilogue, as though Mother Church were addressing them. The refrain too, which is sung in response, and the prologue of the case, which we also wished to be sung, are not in the order of the letters; for their order begins after the prologue. I did not want it done in any kind of verse, lest metrical necessity should force me to use words less familiar to ordinary people. This psalm begins thus: “All you who rejoice in peace, now judge what is true”; which is its refrain. ### Translation notes - Latin title: Psalmus contra partem Donati. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.19 (CSEL 36:96–97; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-19). ## Retractations 1.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-20 - Source: CSEL 36:97–100 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his lost Against the Letter of Donatus, Augustine leaves the reader to choose between two interpretations of the rock in Matt 16:18 and corrects several historical statements about Donatus. ### Latin text Librum etiam contra epistulam Donati, qui partis Donati secundus post Maiorinum episcopus apud Carthaginem fuit, eodem presbyterii mei tempore scripsi; in qua epistula ille agit, ut non nisi in eius communione baptisma Christi esse credatur. cui nos contradicimus in hoc libro. In quo dixi quodam loco de apostolo Petro, quod in illo tamquam in petra fundata sit ecclesia. qui sensus etiam cantatur ore multorum in uersibus beatissimi Ambrosi, ubi de gallo gallinacio ait: hoc ipse, petra ecclesiae, canente culpam diluit. sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse, quod a domino dictum est: tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, ut super hunc intellegeretur, quem confessus est Petrus dicens: tu es Christus, filius dei uiui, ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram aedificatur et accepit claues regni caelorum. non enim dictum illi est: tu es petra, sed: tu es Petrus. petra autem erat Christus, quem confessus Simon, sicut et tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. harum duarum autem sententiarum quae sit probabilior, eligat lector. Alio loco dixi: nullius mortem deus quaerit. quod sic accipiendum est, quia homo sibi adquisiuit mortem deserens deum et adquirit, qui non redit ad deum, secundum quod scriptum est: deus mortem non fecit. sed etiam illud non minus uerum est: uita et mors a domino deo est, uita scilicet a donante, mors a uindicante. Item quod dixi Donatum, cuius epistulam refellebam, rogasse, ut imperator inter ipsum et Caecilianum transmarinos episcopos iudices daret, non ipsum, sed alium Donatum, eiusdem tamen scismatis, hoc fecisse probabilius inuenitur. ille autem non erat Carthaginiensis Donatistarum episcopus, sed a Casis Nigris, qui tamen primus apud Carthaginem ipsum nefarium scisma conmisit. nec sane Donatus Carthaginiensis, ut Christiani rebaptizarentur, instituit — quod ego eum instituisse credideram, quando eius epistulae respondebam — nec de libro Sapientiae ipse abstulit de media sententia uerba ad rem necessaria, ubi, cum scriptum sit: qui baptizatur a mortuo et iterum tangit illum, quid proficit lauatio eius? iste sic posuit, tamquam scriptum esset: qui baptizatur a mortuo, quid proficit lauatio eius? nos autem et antequam esset pars Donati, sic habuisse codices plurimos, uerum tamen Afros, ut non esset in medio: et iterum tangit illum, post addidicimus. quod si iam scirem, non in istum tamquam in furem diuini eloquii uel uiolatorem tanta dixissem. Hic liber sic incipit: Abs te ipso praesente audieram. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time of my presbyterate I also wrote a book Against the Letter of Donatus, who was the second bishop of the party of Donatus at Carthage after Maiorinus. In that letter he argues that the baptism of Christ is to be believed to exist only in his communion. We contradict him in this book. In it I said in one place of the apostle Peter that the church was founded on him as on a rock. This sense is also sung by the mouths of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, where he says of the cock: “At its crowing he, the rock of the church, washed away his fault.” But I know that afterward I very often explained what was said by the Lord, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” in such a way that it should be understood as upon him whom Peter confessed when he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”; and thus Peter, named from this rock, would represent the person of the church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him, “You are the rock,” but, “You are Peter.” But the rock was Christ; and Simon, having confessed him, as the whole church confesses him, was called Peter. Of these two opinions, let the reader choose which is the more probable. In another place I said: “God seeks no one's death.” This is to be taken thus: that man brought death on himself by deserting God, and brings it on himself who does not return to God, according to what is written, “God did not make death.” But this too is no less true: “Life and death are from the Lord God”: life, that is, from him as giver, death from him as avenger. Likewise, as for what I said, that Donatus, whose letter I was refuting, had asked the emperor to give bishops from overseas as judges between himself and Caecilianus, it is found more probable that not he but another Donatus, though of the same schism, did this. He, however, was not the Donatist bishop of Carthage but the one from Casae Nigrae, who nevertheless was the first to commit that wicked schism at Carthage. Nor indeed did Donatus of Carthage establish that Christians should be rebaptized, which I had believed he established when I was replying to his letter; nor did he himself remove from the middle of a sentence of the book of Wisdom words necessary to the matter, where, though it is written, “He who is baptized from a dead body and touches it again, what does his washing profit?” he set it down as though it were written, “He who is baptized from a dead body, what does his washing profit?” For we learned afterward that very many copies, though African ones, had it so, without “and touches it again” in the middle, even before the party of Donatus existed. Had I known this already, I would not have said so much against him as a thief or violator of the divine oracle. This book begins thus: “I had heard from you yourself in person…” ### Scripture references - Matt 16:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 16:16: quotation, high confidence - Matt 16:19: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:4: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Ambrose of Milan, Ambrose, Hymn. Aeterne rerum conditor (Ambrose of Milan, Ambrose, Hymns): quotation, high confidence - Wis 1:13 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence - Sir 11:14 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence - Sir 34:25 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra epistulam Donati (lost). Quotations: Ambrose, hymn Aeterne rerum conditor (“hoc ipse, petra ecclesiae, canente culpam diluit”); Matt 16:18, 16:16, 16:19; 1 Cor 10:4; Wis 1:13; Sir 11:14; Sir 34:25 (34:30 in some numberings), which Augustine counts among the books of Wisdom. - On Peter and the rock Augustine gives both readings (the church founded on Peter; or on Christ whom Peter confessed) and leaves the choice to the reader; translated exactly. - The Donatus of Casae Nigrae was the founder of the schism; Donatus of Carthage (Donatus the Great) was the bishop whose letter Augustine had answered. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.20 (CSEL 36:97–100; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-20). ## Retractations 1.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-21 - Source: CSEL 36:100–104 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing Against Adimantus, Augustine says he should have written that “almost” nothing in the New Testament is lacking in the Old, corrects his list of the senses of “son,” and explains that the power to change one's will is given by God. ### Latin text Eodem tempore uenerunt ad manus meas quaedam disputationes Adimanti, qui fuerit discipulus Manichei, quas conscripsit aduersus legem et prophetas, uelut contraria eis euangelica et apostolica scripta demonstrare conatus. huic ego respondi uerba eius ponens eisque reddens responsionem meam. quod hic uno uolumine inclusi et in eo quibusdam quaestionibus non semel, sed iterum respondi, quoniam quod pro me responderam perierat et tunc inuentum est, cum iam iterum respondissem. aliquas sane earundem quaestionum popularibus ecclesiasticis sermonibus solui; adhuc etiam quibusdam non respondi; aliquae remanserunt, quae rebus aliis magis urgentibus praetermissae sunt cumulo quoque obliuionis adiuncto. In hoc dixi: certis enim quibusdam umbris et figuris rerum ante domini aduentum secundum mirabilem atque ordinatissimam distributionem temporum populus ille tenebatur, qui testamentum uetus accepit; tamen in eo tanta praedicatio et praenuntiatio noui testamenti est, ut nulla in euangelio atque apostolica doctrina reperiantur quamuis ardua et diuina praecepta et promissa, quae illis etiam libris ueteribus desint. sed addendum erat paene atque dicendum: ut paene nulla in euangelio atque apostolica doctrina reperiantur quamuis ardua et diuina praecepta et promissa, quae illis etiam libris ueteribus desint. quid est enim, quod in sermone euangelico in monte dominus dicit: audistis, quia dictum est antiquis hoc; ego autem dico uobis hoc, si nil ipse amplius praecepit, quam praeceptum est in illis ueteribus libris? deinde regnum caelorum illi populo fuisse promissum non legimus in his, quae promissa sunt lege data per Moysen in monte Sina, quod proprie uetus dicitur testamentum, quod praefiguratum dicit apostolus per ancillam Sarrae et filium eius; sed et ibi figuratum est et nouum per ipsam Sarram et filium eius. proinde si figurae discutiantur, omnia ibi prophetata reperiuntur, quae sunt praesentata uel expectantur praesentanda per Christum. uerum tamen propter quaedam praecepta non figurata, sed propria, quae non in uetere, sed in nouo inueniuntur, cautius et modestius diceretur paene nulla quam nulla hic esse, quae non sint et illic, quamuis illic sint duo illa praecepta de dilectione dei et proximi, quo rectissime omnia et legitima et prophetica et euangelica et apostolica referuntur. Item quod dixi: tribus modis in scripturis filiorum nomen accipitur, minus considerate dictum est. et alios enim quosdam modos sine dubio praetermisimus, sicut dicitur filius gehennae uel filius adoptiuus, quae utique nec secundum naturam nec secundum doctrinam nec secundum imitationem dicuntur. quorum trium modorum, tamquam sola sint, exempla reddidimus: secundum naturam, sicut Iudaei filii Abrahae, secundum doctrinam, sicut filios suos quos euangelium docuit apostolus uocat, secundum imitationem, sicut filii Abrahae nos sumus, cuius imitamur fidem. quod autem dixi: cum induerit incorruptionem et inmortalitatem, iam non caro et sanguis erit, secundum corruptionem carnalem dictum est carnem non futuram, non secundum substantiam, secundum quam et domini corpus post resurrectionem caro appellata est. Alio loco: nisi quisque, inquam, uoluntatem mutauerit, bonum operari non potest. quod in nostra potestate esse positum alio loco docet, ubi ait: aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum, aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum. quod non est contra gratiam dei, quam praedicamus. in potestate est quippe hominis mutare in melius uoluntatem; sed ea potestas nulla est, nisi a deo detur, de quo dictum est: dedit eis potestatem filios dei fieri. cum enim hoc sit in potestate, quod, cum uolumus, facimus, nihil tam in potestate quam ipsa uoluntas est. sed praeparatur uoluntas a domino. eo modo ergo dat potestatem. sic intellegendum est et quod dixi postea: in nostra potestate esse, ut uel inseri bonitate dei uel excidi eius seueritate mereamur, quia in potestate nostra non est, nisi quod nostra assequimur uoluntate, quae cum fortis et potens praeparatur a domino, facile fit opus pietatis, etiam quod difficile atque inpossibile fuit. Hic liber sic incipit: De eo, quod scriptum: in principio deus fecit caelum et terram. ### English translation (Claude) At the same time there came into my hands certain disputations of Adimantus, who had been a disciple of Mani, which he wrote against the Law and the Prophets, trying to show that the writings of the Gospels and the apostles are contrary to them. I answered him, setting down his words and giving my reply to them. This I contained in one volume, and in it I answered certain questions not once but twice, because what I had answered had been lost, and was found when I had already answered again. Some of these same questions I solved in popular sermons in church; some I have still not answered; some remained which were passed over because of other, more pressing matters, forgetfulness also being added to the pile. In this book I said: “For that people which received the Old Testament was held under certain shadows and figures of things before the coming of the Lord, according to a wonderful and most orderly distribution of times; yet in it there is so great a proclamation and foretelling of the New Testament that no precepts and promises, however lofty and divine, are found in the Gospel and the apostolic teaching which are lacking in those old books too.” But I should have added “almost,” and said: “so that almost no precepts and promises, however lofty and divine, are found in the Gospel and the apostolic teaching which are lacking in those old books too.” For what is it that the Lord says in the Gospel sermon on the mount, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, this; but I say to you, this,” if he himself commanded nothing more than was commanded in those old books? Then, we do not read that the kingdom of heaven was promised to that people among the things which were promised in the law given through Moses on Mount Sinai, which is properly called the Old Testament, and which the apostle says was prefigured by Sarah's slave woman and her son; but there the New was also prefigured, 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. Yet because of certain precepts which are not figurative but literal, which are found not in the Old but in the New, it would be said more cautiously and modestly that almost none, rather than none, are here which are not also there; although there are there those two commandments concerning the love of God and of neighbor, to which all things, the legal, the prophetic, the evangelical, and the apostolic, are most rightly referred. Likewise what I said, “The name of sons is taken in three ways in the Scriptures,” was said without enough consideration. For without doubt we passed over some other ways, as one is called a son of Gehenna, or an adoptive son, 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; according to teaching, as the apostle calls sons those whom he taught the Gospel; according to imitation, as we are sons of Abraham, whose faith we imitate. As for what I said, “When it has put on incorruption and immortality, it will no longer be flesh and blood,” it was said that there will be no flesh in the sense of fleshly corruption, not in the sense of substance, according to which the Lord's body too was called flesh after the resurrection. In another place I said: “Unless one changes his will, he cannot do good.” That this is placed in our power he teaches in another place, where he says: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad.” This is not against the grace of God which we preach. For it is in man's power to change his will for the better; but that power is nothing unless it is given by God, of whom it is said, “He gave them power to become sons of God.” 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. In this way, then, he gives the power. So too must be understood what I said afterward, that it is in our power to merit either to be grafted in by the goodness of God or to be cut off by his severity; because nothing is in our power except what we attain by our will; and when that will is prepared by the Lord as strong and powerful, the work of piety becomes easy, even what was difficult and impossible. This book begins thus: “Concerning what is written: In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” ### Scripture references - Matt 5:21: allusion, high confidence - Gal 4:24: allusion, high confidence - Matt 22:37: allusion, high confidence - Matt 23:15: allusion, high confidence - Gal 3:7: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 4:15: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:53: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:50: allusion, high confidence - Matt 12:33: quotation, high confidence - John 1:12: quotation, high confidence - Prov 8:35: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 11:22: allusion, high confidence - Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Adim. (Against Adimantus, a Disciple of Mani): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Adimantum. Quotations and allusions: Matt 5:21–22 (“You have heard…”); Gal 4:22–26 (Sarah and the slave woman); Matt 22:37–40; Matt 23:15 (son of Gehenna); Gal 3:7 (sons of Abraham by faith); 1 Cor 4:15; 1 Cor 15:50, 53–54; Luke 24:39 (allusion); Matt 12:33; John 1:12; Prov 8:35 LXX; Rom 11:22–23 (grafting, severity and goodness); Gen 1:1. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.21 (CSEL 36:100–104; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-15/#p-1-21). ## Retractations 1.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-22 - Source: CSEL 36:104–111 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his Exposition of Some Propositions from Romans, Augustine says Rom 7 can also describe the apostle himself under grace, and withdraws his statement that God chose people for their foreseen faith, since faith itself is God's gift. ### Latin text Cum presbyter adhuc essem, contigit, ut Carthagine inter nos, qui simul eramus, ad Romanos apostoli epistula legeretur, et quaedam interrogatus a fratribus quibusdam cum sicut poteram responderem, uoluerunt scribi potius, quae dicebam, quam sine litteris fundi. ubi cum eis obtemperarem, liber unus accessit superioribus opusculis meis. In quo libro: quod autem ait, inquam, scimus, quia lex spiritalis est; ego autem carnalis sum, satis ostendit non posse inpleri legem nisi ab spiritalibus, quales facit gratia dei. quod utique non ex persona apostoli accipi uolui, qui iam spiritalis erat, sed hominis sub lege positi, nondum sub gratia. sic enim prius haec uerba sapiebam, quae postea lectis quibusdam diuinorum tractatoribus eloquiorum, quorum me moueret auctoritas, consideraui diligentius et uidi etiam de ipso apostolo posse intellegi, quod ait: scimus, quia lex spiritalis est; ego autem carnalis sum, quod in eis libris, quos contra Pelagianos nuper scripsi, quantum potui, diligenter ostendi. in isto ergo libro et hoc, quod dictum est: ego autem carnalis sum et deinde cetera usque ad eum locum, ubi dixit: miser ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? gratia dei per Iesum Christum, dominum nostrum, dixi hominem describi adhuc sub lege, nondum sub gratia constitutum, bene facere uolentem, sed uictum concupiscentia carnis male facientem. a cuius concupiscentiae dominatu non liberat nisi gratia dei per Iesum Christum, dominum nostrum dono spiritus sancti, per quem diffusa caritas in cordibus nostris uincit carnis concupiscentias, ne consentiamus eis ad male faciendum, sed potius bona faciamus. unde quidem iam euertitur heresis Pelagiana, quae uult non ex deo nobis, sed ex nobis esse caritatem, qua bene ac pie uiuimus. sed in illis libris, quos aduersus eos edidimus, etiam spiritalis hominis iamque sub gratia constituti melius intellegi uerba ista monstrauimus propter corpus carnis, quod spiritale nondum est, erit autem in resurrectione mortuorum, et propter ipsam carnis concupiscentiam, cum qua ita confligunt sancti non ei consentientes ad malum, ut tamen eis motibus, quibus repugnantibus resistunt, non careant in hac uita. non eos autem habebunt in illa, ubi absorbebitur mors in uictoriam. propter hanc itaque concupiscentiam motusque ipsius, quibus ita resistitur, ut tamen sint in nobis, potest quisque sanctus iam sub gratia positus dicere ista omnia, quae esse dixi uerba hominis nondum sub gratia positi, sed sub lege. quod hic ostendere longum est et ubi id ostendi dictum est. Item quod disputans, quid elegerit deus in nondum nato, cui dixit seruiturum esse maiorem, et quid in eodem maiore similiter nondum nato reprobauerit, de quibus propter hoc commemoratur quamuis longe postea prolatum propheticum testimonium: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui, ad hoc perduxi ratiocinationem, ut dicerem: non ergo elegit deus opera cuiusquam in praescientia, quae ipse daturus est, sed fidem elegit in praescientia, ut, quem sibi crediturum praesciuit, ipsum elegerit, cui spiritum sanctum daret, ut bona operando etiam aeternam uitam consequeretur, nondum diligentius quaesiueram nec adhuc inueneram, qualis sit electio gratiae, de qua idem dicit apostolus: reliquiae per electionem gratiae factae sunt; quae utique non est gratia, si eam merita ulla praecedunt, ne iam quod datur non secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum reddatur potius meritis quam donetur. proinde quod continuo dixi: dicit enim idem apostolus: idem deus, qui operatur omnia in omnibus; nusquam autem dictum est: deus credit omnia in omnibus, ac deinde subiunxi: quod ergo credimus, nostrum est, quod autem bene operamur, illius est, qui credentibus dat spiritum, profecto dicere non deberem, si iam scirem etiam ipsam fidem inter dei munera reperiri, quae dantur in eodem spiritu. utrumque ergo nostrum est propter arbitrium uoluntatis et utrumque tamen datum est propter spiritum fidei et caritatis. neque enim sola caritas, sed, sicut scriptum est, caritas cum fide a deo patre et domino nostro Iesu Christo. Et quod paulo post dixi: nostrum est enim credere et uelle, illius autem dare credentibus et uolentibus facultatem bene operandi per spiritum sanctum, per quem caritas diffunditur in cordibus nostris, uerum est quidem, sed ea regula et utrumque ipsius est, quia ipse praeparat uoluntatem, et utrumque nostrum, quia non fit nisi uolentibus nobis. ac per hoc, quod etiam postea dixi: quia neque uelle possumus, nisi uocemur, et cum post uocationem uoluerimus, non sufficit uoluntas nostra et cursus noster, nisi deus et uires currentibus praebeat et perducat, quo uocat, ac deinde subiunxi: manifestum est ergo non uolentis neque currentis, sed miserentis dei esse, quod bene operamur, omnino uerissimum est. sed parum de ipsa uocatione disserui, quae fit secundum propositum dei; non enim omnium, qui uocantur, talis est, sed tantum electorum. itaque quod paulo post dixi: sicut enim in his, quos elegit deus, [non opera, sed] fides incoat meritum, ut per munus dei bene operentur, sic in his, quos damnat, infidelitas et inpietas incoat poenae meritum, ut per ipsam poenam etiam male operentur, uerissime dixi, sed fidei meritum etiam ipsum esse donum dei nec putaui quaerendum esse nec dixi. Et alio loco: cuius enim miseretur, inquam, facit eum bene operari, et quem obdurat, relinquit eum, ut male operetur. sed et illa misericordia praecedenti merito fidei tribuitur et ista obduratio praecedenti inpietati. quod quidem uerum est, sed adhuc quaerendum erat, utrum et meritum fidei de misericordia dei ueniat, id est utrum ista misericordia ideo tantummodo fiat in homine, quia fidelis est, an etiam facta fuerit, ut fidelis esset. legimus enim dicente apostolo: misericordiam consecutus, ut fidelis essem, non ait: quia fidelis eram. fideli ergo datur quidem, sed data est etiam, ut esset fidelis. rectissime itaque alio loco in eodem libro dixi: quoniam si non ex operibus, sed misericordia dei et uocamur, ut credamus, et credentibus praestatur, ut bene operemur, non est gentibus ista inuidenda misericordia, quamuis minus ibi diligenter de illa, quae per dei propositum fit, uocatione tractauerim. Hic liber sic incipit: Sensus hi sunt in epistula Pauli ad Romanos. ### English translation (Claude) While I was still a presbyter, it happened that at Carthage the apostle's letter to the Romans was read among us who were together, and when I was asked certain things by some brothers and answered as I could, they wanted what I was saying to be written down rather than poured out without writing. When I complied with them, one book was added to my earlier small works. In this book I said: “But what he says, ‘We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal,’ shows clearly enough that the law cannot be fulfilled except by spiritual people, such as the grace of God makes.” I certainly wished this to be taken not as spoken in the person of the apostle, who was already spiritual, but of a man placed under the law, not yet under grace. For so I first understood these words, which afterward, having read certain commentators on the divine oracles whose authority moved me, I considered more carefully, and I saw that what he says, “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal,” can be understood of the apostle himself too; which I have shown as carefully as I could in those books which I recently wrote against the Pelagians. In this book, then, I said that both this which is said, “But I am carnal,” and then the rest up to the place where he said, “Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” describe a man still placed under the law, not yet under grace, wishing to do good but, overcome by the lust of the flesh, doing evil. From the domination of this lust nothing sets him free but the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord by the gift of the Holy Spirit, through whom the love poured out in our hearts overcomes the lusts of the flesh, so that we do not consent to them to do evil but rather do good. By this indeed the Pelagian heresy is already overturned, which holds that the love by which we live well and devoutly is not from God for us but from ourselves. But in those books which we published against them we have shown that these words are better understood also of a spiritual man, already placed under grace, because of the body of flesh, which is not yet spiritual but will be in the resurrection of the dead, and because of the very lust of the flesh, with which the saints so contend, not consenting to it for evil, that nevertheless in this life they are not without those movements which they resist as they fight against them. They will not have them, however, in that life where death will be swallowed up in victory. Because of this lust, then, and its movements, which are resisted in such a way that they are still in us, any saint already placed under grace can say all those things which I said were the words of a man not yet placed under grace but under the law. To show this here would take long, and where I showed it has been said. Likewise, when I was discussing what God chose in the one not yet born, to whom he said that the elder would serve him, and what he rejected in that same elder, likewise not yet born (concerning whom, for this reason, the prophetic testimony is recalled, although uttered much later, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated”), I carried the reasoning to the point of saying: “God did not, then, choose anyone's works in foreknowledge, which he himself is going to give; but he chose faith in foreknowledge, so that the one whom he foreknew would believe in him, him he chose, to give him the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might also attain eternal life.” I had not yet inquired diligently enough nor yet found what the election of grace is, of which the same apostle says, “A remnant has come into being through the election of grace”; which certainly is not grace if any merits precede it, lest what is given be rendered to merits according to debt rather than given according to grace. Accordingly, what I said immediately afterward, “For the same apostle says, ‘The same God who works all things in all’; but nowhere is it said, ‘God believes all things in all’,” and then went on, “What we believe, therefore, is ours; but what good we do is his who gives the Spirit to those who believe,” I certainly ought not to have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among the gifts of God which are given in the same Spirit. Both, then, are ours because of the choice of the will, and yet both are given because of the spirit of faith and charity. For not charity alone but, as it is written, “charity with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 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 do good through the Holy Spirit, through whom charity is poured out in our hearts,” is indeed true; but by the same rule both are also his, because he prepares the will, and both are ours, because they do not happen unless we will. And thus what I also said afterward, “Because we cannot even will unless we are called; and when after the calling we have willed, our will and our running are not enough unless God both supplies strength to those who run and leads them where he calls”; and then added, “It is clear, therefore, that it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy, that we do good,” is altogether most true. But I discussed too little the calling itself, which takes place according to God's purpose; for such is not the calling of all who are called, but only of the elect. And so what I said a little later, “For just as in those whom God has chosen faith begins merit, so that by the gift of God they do good, so in those whom he condemns unbelief and ungodliness begin the merit of punishment, so that through that punishment they also do evil,” I said most truly; but that the merit of faith itself is also a gift of God I neither thought needed inquiring into nor said. And in another place I said: “For the one on whom he has mercy he makes to do good, and the one whom he hardens he leaves to do evil. But that mercy is granted to the preceding merit of faith, and this hardening to preceding ungodliness.” This is indeed true; but it still remained to be asked whether the merit of faith also comes from God's mercy, that is, whether that mercy is shown in a man only because he is a believer, or whether it was also shown so that he might be a believer. For we read the apostle saying, “I obtained mercy so that I might be faithful”; he does not say, “because I was faithful.” To the believer, then, it is indeed given, but it was also given so that he might be a believer. Most rightly, therefore, I said in another place in the same book: “Since, if not from works but by the mercy of God we are both called so that we may believe, and it is granted to believers that we may do good, this mercy is not to be begrudged to the Gentiles”; although there I treated too little of that calling which takes place by God's purpose. This book begins thus: “These are the thoughts in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans…” ### Scripture references - Rom 7:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:24: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:25: quotation, high confidence - Rom 5:5: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:54: allusion, high confidence - Gen 25:23: allusion, high confidence - Rom 9:12: allusion, high confidence - Mal 1:2: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 11:5: quotation, high confidence - Rom 11:6: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 12:6: quotation, high confidence - Eph 6:23: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:16: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:28: allusion, high confidence - Rom 9:18: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:25: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, C. duas ep. Pelag. 1.8.13 (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Expositio quarundam propositionum ex epistula ad Romanos. Quotations: Rom 7:14, 7:24–25; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 15:54; Gen 25:23 and Rom 9:12; Mal 1:2–3 and Rom 9:13; Rom 11:5–6; 1 Cor 12:6; Eph 6:23; Rom 9:16; Rom 8:28 (calling according to purpose); Rom 9:18; 1 Cor 7:25. - Augustine's reversal: he had taught that God elected those whose faith he foresaw; he now holds that faith itself is a gift of God and that election is of grace. On Rom 7 he refers to Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.8.13–11.24. Translated exactly. - Two words bracketed by the editor, “not works, but” (non opera, sed), are left out as an interpolation. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.22 (CSEL 36:104–111; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-22). ## Retractations 1.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-23 - Source: CSEL 36:111–114 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his Exposition of Galatians, Augustine explains “wholly God” of the risen Christ, refines his punctuation of Gal 3:19, and applies Gal 5:17 also to those under grace. ### Latin text Post hunc librum exposui eiusdem apostoli epistulam ad Galatas non carptim, id est aliqua praetermittens, sed continuanter et totam; hanc autem expositionem uno uolumine conprehendi. In quo illud, quod dictum est: priores ergo apostoli ueraces, qui non ab hominibus, sed a deo per hominem missi sunt, per Iesum Christum scilicet adhuc mortalem; uerax etiam nouissimus apostolus, qui per Iesum Christum totum iam deum post resurrectionem eius missus est, propter inmortalitatem dictum est: totum iam deum, quam post resurrectionem habere coepit, non propter diuinitatem semper inmortalem, a qua numquam recessit, in qua totus deus erat, et cum moriturus adhuc erat. hunc autem sensum sequentia manifestant. adiunxi enim dicens: priores sunt ceteri apostoli per Christum adhuc ex parte hominem, id est mortalem; nouissimus est apostolus Paulus per Iesum Christum iam totum deum, id est omni ex parte inmortalem. hoc enim dixi, quod ait apostolus: non ab hominibus neque per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum et deum patrem, quasi iam Iesus Christus non sit homo. sequitur enim: qui suscitauit illum a mortuis, ut hinc appareret, cur dixerit: neque per hominem. proinde propter inmortalitatem iam nunc non homo Christus deus, propter substantiam uero humanae naturae, in qua ascendit in caelum, etiam nunc mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus, quoniam sic ueniet, quomodo eum uiderunt, qui uiderunt euntem in caelum. Item quod dixi: gratia dei est, qua nobis donantur peccata, ut reconciliemur deo; pax autem, qua reconciliamur deo, sic accipiendum est, ut tamen sciamus etiam utrumque ad generalem dei gratiam pertinere, quomodo in populo dei aliud specialiter Israhel, aliud Iudas, et tamen utrumque generaliter Israhel. item cum exponerem: quid ergo? lex transgressionis gratia proposita est, ita distinguendum putaui, ut interrogatio esset: quid ergo? ac deinde responsio: lex transgressionis gratia proposita est. quod quidem non abhorret a uero; sed melior mihi uidetur ista distinctio, ut interrogatio sit: quid ergo lex? et inferatur responsio: transgressionis gratia proposita est. quod autem dixi: ordinatissime itaque subiungit: quod si spiritu ducimini, non adhuc estis sub lege, ut intellegamus eos esse sub lege, quorum spiritus ita concupiscit aduersus carnem, ut non ea, quae uolunt, faciant, id est, non se teneant inuictos in caritate iustitiae, sed a concupiscente aduersus se carne uincantur, hoc ex illo sensu est, quo sentiebam id, quod dictum est: caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum, spiritus aduersus carnem; haec enim inuicem aduersantur, ut non ea, quae uultis, faciatis, ad eos pertinere, qui sub lege sunt, nondum sub gratia. adhuc enim non intellexeram haec uerba et illis, qui sub gratia sunt, non sub lege, propterea conuenire, quia et ipsi concupiscentias carnis, contra quas spiritu concupiscunt, quamuis eis non consentiant, nollent tamen illas habere, si possent. non ideo, non quaecumque uolunt faciunt, quia uolunt eis carere nec possunt. tunc enim eas non habebunt, quando nec corruptibilem carnem. Hic liber sic incipit: Causa, propter quam scribit apostolus ad Galatas, haec est. ### English translation (Claude) After this book I explained the same apostle's letter to the Galatians, not piecemeal, that is, leaving some things out, but continuously and the whole of it; and I contained this exposition in one volume. In it, what was said, “The earlier apostles, then, are truthful, who were sent not from men but from God through a man, that is, through Jesus Christ while still mortal; truthful also is the last apostle, who was sent through Jesus Christ, now wholly God after his resurrection,” was said “now wholly God” because of the immortality which he began to have after the resurrection, not because of the divinity, always immortal, from which he never departed, in which he was wholly God even when he was still going to die. What follows makes this sense plain. For I went on to say: “The others are the earlier apostles, through Christ still partly man, that is, mortal; the last is the apostle Paul, through Jesus Christ now wholly God, that is, immortal in every respect.” For I said this in explaining what the apostle says, “not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,” as though Jesus Christ were no longer a man. For there follows, “who raised him from the dead,” so that it might appear from this why he said “nor through a man.” Accordingly, because of immortality, Christ God is now no longer man; but because of the substance of human nature, in which he ascended into heaven, he is even now “the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” since he will come in the same way as those saw him who saw him going into heaven. Likewise what I said, “It is the grace of God by which sins are forgiven us, so that we may be reconciled to God; but peace, by which we are reconciled to God,” is to be taken in such a way that we nevertheless know that both belong to the general grace of God; just as among the people of God Israel in the specific sense is one thing and Judah another, and yet both in the general sense are Israel. Likewise, when I was explaining, “What then? The law was set forth because of transgression,” I thought it should be punctuated so that the question was “What then?” and then the answer, “The law was set forth because of transgression.” This indeed is not far from the truth; but this punctuation seems better to me: that the question is “What then is the law?” and the answer follows, “It was set forth because of transgression.” As for what I said, “And so he adds most fittingly, ‘But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not still under the law,’ so that we may understand that those are under the law whose spirit so lusts against the flesh that they do not do what they will, that is, they do not keep themselves unconquered in the love of righteousness but are overcome by the flesh lusting against them,” this comes from that view by which I thought that what is 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 what you will,” belongs to those who are under the law, not yet under grace. For I had not yet understood that these words fit those too who are under grace, not under the law, for this reason: that they too, although they do not consent to the lusts of the flesh against which they lust with the spirit, would nevertheless prefer not to have them if they could. Not therefore do they not do whatever they will, but because they will to be without them and cannot. For they will not have them then, when they no longer have corruptible flesh either. This book begins thus: “The reason why the apostle writes to the Galatians is this…” ### Scripture references - Gal 1:1: quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence - Acts 1:11: allusion, high confidence - Gal 3:19: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:18: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Expositio epistulae ad Galatas. Quotations: Gal 1:1; 1 Tim 2:5; Acts 1:11 (allusion); Gal 3:19; Gal 5:18; Gal 5:17. - Augustine clarifies that “now wholly God” refers to Christ's risen immortality, while he remains man in the substance of his human nature. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.23 (CSEL 36:111–114; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-23). ## Retractations 1.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-24 - Source: CSEL 36:114–115 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains why his exposition of Romans stopped after the greeting and clarifies the relation of grace and peace. ### Latin text Epistulae quoque ad Romanos sicut ad Galatas expositionem susceperam. sed huius operis, si perficeretur, plures libri erant futuri, quorum unum in sola disputatione ipsius salutationis absolui, ab initio scilicet usque ad illud, ubi ait: gratia uobis et pax a deo patre nostro et domino Iesu Christo. factum est quippe, ut immoraremur, cum uellemus soluere incurrentem sermoni nostro difficillimam quaestionem de peccato in spiritum sanctum, quod non remittitur neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. sed deinde cessaui alia uolumina adiungere exponendo epistulam totam, ipsius autem operis magnitudine ac labore deterritus et in alia faciliora delapsus sum. ita factum est, ut librum, quem feceram primum, relinquerem solum, cuius esse titulum uolui: epistulae ad Romanos incoata expositio. Vbi quod dixi, gratiam esse in dimissione peccatorum, pacem uero in reconciliatione dei, ubicumque hoc dixi, non sic accipiendum est, ac si pax ipsa et reconciliatio non pertineat ad gratiam generalem, sed specialiter gratiae nomine remissionem significauerit peccatorum, sicut legem et specialiter dicimus, secundum quod dictum est: lex et prophetae, et generaliter, ut in ea sint et prophetae. Hic liber sic incipit: In epistula, quam apostolus Paulus scripsit ad Romanos. ### English translation (Claude) I had also undertaken an exposition of the letter to the Romans, as of that to the Galatians. But this work, if it were completed, would have run to several books, of which I finished one on the discussion of the greeting alone, that is, from the beginning up to where he says, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” For it happened that we lingered when we wished to solve the very difficult question that came up in our discourse about the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is not forgiven either in this age or in the age to come. But then I ceased adding other volumes to explain the whole letter, deterred by the size and labor of the work itself, and slipped away into other, easier works. So it came about that I left alone the book I had made first, whose title I chose to be An Unfinished Exposition of the Letter to the Romans. In it, what I said, that grace is in the forgiveness of sins and peace in reconciliation with God, wherever I said this, is not to be taken as though peace itself and reconciliation do not belong to grace in general, but that by the name of grace in the specific sense he signified the remission of sins; just as we speak of the law in the specific sense, according to what is said, “the law and the prophets,” and in the general sense, so that the prophets too are included in it. This book begins thus: “In the letter which the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans…” ### Scripture references - Rom 1:7: quotation, high confidence - Matt 12:32: allusion, high confidence - Matt 22:40: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Epistulae ad Romanos inchoata expositio. Quotations: Rom 1:7; Matt 12:32 (sin against the Holy Spirit); Matt 7:12 or 22:40 (“the law and the prophets”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.24 (CSEL 36:114–115; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-24). ## Retractations 1.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-25 - Source: CSEL 36:115–129 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine lists the titles of his Eighty-Three Different Questions, noting which are not his own, and corrects several statements, among them on the image of God, the thief on the cross, and the mercy that precedes the will. ### Latin text Est etiam inter illa, quae scripsimus, quoddam prolixum opus, qui tamen unus deputatur liber, cuius est titulus: de diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus. cum autem dispersae fuissent per cartulas multas, quoniam ab ipso primo tempore conuersionis meae, posteaquam in Africam uenimus, sicut interrogabar a fratribus, quando me uacantem uidebant, nulla seruata ordinatione dictatae sunt, iussi eas iam episcopus colligi et unum ex eis librum fieri adhibitis numeris, ut quod quisque legere uoluerit facile inueniat. Harum quaestionum prima est: utrum anima a se ipsa sit; secunda de libero arbitrio; tertia: utrum deo auctore sit homo deterior; quarta: quae sit causa, ut sit homo deterior; quinta: utrum animal inrationale beatum esse possit; sexta de malo; septima: quae proprie in animante anima dicatur; octaua: utrum per se ipsam moueatur; nona: utrum corporis sensibus percipi ueritas possit. in qua illud, quod dixi: omne, quod corporeus sensus adtingit, quod et sensibile dicitur, sine ulla intermissione temporis commutatur, sine dubio uerum quidem non est in corporibus resurrectionis incorruptibilibus, sed nunc ea nullus nostri corporis sensus adtingit, nisi forte diuinitus tale aliquid reueletur. decima est: utrum corpus a deo sit; undecima: quare Christus de femina natus sit. duodecima loco, ubi titulus est: sententia cuiusdam sapientis, non est mea, sed quia per me innotuit quibusdam fratribus, qui tunc casu ista diligentissime consulebant, et placuit eis, inter nostra eam scribere uoluerunt. est autem cuiusdam Fontei Carthaginiensis: de mente mundanda ad uidendum deum, quod paganus quidem scripsit, sed Christianus baptizatus est mortuus. tertia decima est: quo documento constet homines bestiis excellere; quarta decima: non fuisse corpus domini nostri Iesu Christi phantasma; quinta decima de intellectu; sexta decima de filio; septima decima de scientia dei; octaua decima de trinitate; nona decima de deo et creatura; uicensima de loco dei; uicensima prima: utrum deus mali auctor non sit. ubi uidendum est, ne male intellegatur, quod dixi: mali auctor non est, quia omnium, quae sunt, auctor est, quia in quantum sunt, in tantum bona sunt, et ne hinc putetur non ab illo esse poena malorum, quae utique malum est his, qui puniuntur. sed hoc ita dixi, quemadmodum dictum est: deus mortem non fecit, cum alibi scriptum sit: mors et uita a domino deo est. malorum ergo poena, quae a deo est, malum est quidem malis, sed in bonis dei operibus est, quoniam iustum est, ut mali puniantur, et utique bonum est omne, quod iustum est. uicensima secunda est: deum non pati necessitatem. uicensima tertia est: de patre et filio. ubi dixi, quod cum ipse genuerit, de qua sapiens dicitur, sapientiam; sed melius istam quaestionem in libro postea de trinitate tractaui. uicensima quarta est: utrum et peccatum et recte factum in libero sit uoluntatis arbitrio. quod ita esse omnino uerissimum est, sed ut ad recte faciendum liberum sit, dei gratia liberatur. uicensima quinta de cruce Christi; uicensima sexta de differentia peccatorum; uicensima septima de prouidentia; uicensima octaua: quare deus mundum facere uoluerit; uicensima nona: utrum aliquid sit sursum aut deorsum uniuerso; tricensima: utrum omnia in utilitatem hominis creata sint. tricensima prima nec ipsa mea est, sed Ciceronis, uerum quia et haec per me innotuit fratribus, inter ista, quae colligebant, scripserunt eam uolentes nosse, quemadmodum uirtutes animi ab illo diuisae atque definitae sint. tricensima secunda est: utrum rem illam alius alio magis intellegat atque ita eiusdem rei per infinitum eat intellegentia. tricensima tertia est de metu; tricensima quarta: utrum non aliud amandum sit quam metu carere; tricensima quinta: quid amandum sit. in qua illud, quod dixi: id esse amandum, quod nihil est aliud habere quam nosse, non satis adprobo. neque enim deum non habebant, de quibus dictum est: nescitis, quia templum dei estis et spiritus dei habitat in uobis? nec tamen eum nouerant uel non, sicut noscendus est, nouerant. item quod dixi: nemo igitur beatam uitam nouit et miser est, nouit dixi, quomodo noscenda est. nam quis eam penitus nescit eorum dumtaxat, qui iam ratione utuntur, quandoquidem beatos se esse uelle nouerunt? tricensima sexta de nutrienda caritate. ubi dixi: deus igitur et animus cum amantur, ita proprie dicitur, purgatissima et consummata, si nihil aliud amatur. quod si uerum est, quomodo apostolus ait: nemo umquam carnem suam odio habuit, et ex hoc admonet, ut diligantur uxores? sed ideo dictum est: proprie dicitur, quoniam caro diligitur quidem, nec tamen proprie, sed propter animam, cui sufficit ad usum. nam etsi propter se ipsam uidetur diligi, cum eam nolumus esse deformem, ad aliud referendum est decus eius, ad illud scilicet, a quo decora sunt omnia. tricensima septima de semper nato; tricensima octaua de conformatione animae; tricensima nona de alimentis; quadragensima: cum animarum natura una sit, unde hominum diuersae uoluntates; quadragensima prima: cum omnia deus fecerit, quare non aequaliter fecit; quadragensima secunda: quemadmodum dei sapientia, dominus Iesus Christus, et in utero matris fuerit et in caelis; quadragensima tertia: quare filius dei in homine apparuit et spiritus sanctus in columba; quadragensima quarta: quare tanto post uenerit dominus Iesus Christus. ubi, cum generis humani tamquam unius hominis aetates commemorarem, dixi: nec oportuit uenire diuinitus magistrum, cuius imitatione in mores optimos formaretur, nisi tempore iuuentutis, et adiunxi ad hoc ualere, quod apostolus dicit: sub lege tamquam sub paedagogo paruulos custodiens. sed potest mouere, cur alibi dixerimus Christum in generis humani sexta aetate tamquam in senectute uenisse. hoc ergo, quod de iuuentute dictum est, ad uigorem feruoremque fidei refertur, quae per dilectionem operatur, illud autem de senectute ad temporum numerum. potest enim intellegi utrumque in uniuersitate hominum, quod potest in aetatibus singulorum, sicut in corpore non potest simul et iuuentus esse et senectus, in animo autem potest, illa propter alacritatem, ista propter grauitatem. quadragensima quinta est aduersus mathematicos. quadragensima sexta est de ideis. quadragensima septima: utrum aliquando cogitationes nostras uidere possumus. ubi quod dixi: angelica corpora, qualia nos speramus habituros, lucidissima atque aetheria esse credendum est, si hoc sine membris, quae nunc habemus, et sine substantia quamuis incorruptibilis, tamen carnis accipiatur, erratur. multo autem melius in opere de ciuitate dei quaestio ista tractata est de uidendis cogitationibus nostris. quadragensima octaua de credibilibus; quadragensima nona: quare filii Israhel sacrificabant uisibiliter pecorum uictimas; quinquagensima de aequalitate filii; quinquagensima prima de homine facto ad imaginem et similitudinem dei. ubi quid est, quod dixi: homo scilicet uita non recte appellatur, cum dicatur homo etiam cadauer hominis? ergo saltem dicere debui: non proprie dicitur, ubi dixi: non recte dicitur. item dixi: neque inscite distinguitur, quod aliud sit imago et similitudo dei, aliud ad imaginem et similitudinem dei, sicut ad imaginem factum accepimus. quod non ita est intellegendum, quasi homo non dicatur imago dei, cum dicat apostolus: uir quidem non debet uelare caput, cum sit imago et gloria dei; sed dicitur etiam ad imaginem dei, quod unigenitus non dicitur, qui tantummodo imago est, non ad imaginem. quinquagensima secunda est de eo, quod dictum est: paenitet me hominem fecisse; quinquagensima tertia de auro et argento, quod ab Aegyptiis Israhelitae acceperunt; quinquagensima quarta de eo, quod scriptum est: mihi adhaerere deo bonum est. ubi quod dixi: quod autem est omni anima melius, id deum dicimus, magis dici debuit: omni creato spiritu melius. quinquagensima quinta de eo, quod scriptum est: sexaginta sunt reginae et octoginta concubinae et adulescentulae, quarum non est numerus; quinquagensima sexta de annis quadraginta sex aedificati templi; quinquagensima septima de centum quinquaginta tribus piscibus; quinquagensima octaua de Iohanne baptista; quinquagensima nona de decem uirginibus; sexagensima: de die autem et hora nemo scit, neque angeli caelorum neque filius hominis, nisi pater solus; sexagensima prima de eo, quod scriptum est in euangelio, turbas dominum in monte pauisse de panibus quinque. ubi quod dixi: duos pisces duas illas significare personas, regiam scilicet et sacerdotalem, ad quas etiam sacrosancta illa unctio pertinebat, dicendum potius fuit: maxime pertinebat, quoniam unctos aliquando legimus et prophetas. item dixi: Lucas, qui tamquam ascendentem post abolitionem peccatorum sacerdotem Christum insinuauit, per Nathan ascendit ad Dauid, quia Nathan propheta missus erat, cuius correptione Dauid ipsius peccati abolitionem paenitendo inpetrauit. non sic accipiendum est, tamquam ipse fuerit Nathan propheta, qui filius Dauid, quia nec hic dictum est, quia ipse propheta missus erat, sed dictum: quia Nathan propheta missus erat, ut mysterium non in eodem homine, sed in eodem nomine intellegatur. sexagensima secunda est ad id, quod scriptum est in euangelio, quod baptizabat Iesus plures quam Iohannes, quamuis ipse non baptizaret, sed discipuli eius. ubi quod dixi: latro ille, cui dictum est: amen dico tibi, hodie mecum eris in paradiso, qui nec ipsum baptismum acceperat, hoc quidem et alios ante nos rectores sanctae ecclesiae posuisse in suis litteris inuenimus, sed quibus documentis possit ostendi, quod non fuerit ille latro baptizatus, ignoro. de qua re in posterioribus quibusdam opusculis nostris diligentius disputatum est, maxime in eo, quod ad Vincentium Victorem de animae origine scripsimus. sexagensima tertia est de uerbo; sexagensima quarta de muliere Samaritana; sexagensima quinta de resurrectione Lazari; sexagensima sexta de eo, quod scriptum est: an ignoratis, fratres — scientibus enim legem loquor — quia lex dominatur homini, in quantum tempus uiuit? usque ad eum locum, in quo scriptum est uiuificabit et mortalia corpora uestra per inhabitantem spiritum eius in uobis. ubi illud, quod ait apostolus: scimus autem, quia lex spiritalis est; ego autem carnalis sum, exponere uolens dixi: id est carni consentio nondum a spiritali gratia liberatus; quod non sic accipiendum est, quasi spiritalis homo iam sub gratia constitutus etiam de ipso non possit hoc dicere et cetera usque ad eum locum, ubi dictum est: miser ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? quod postea didici, sicut sum iam ante confessus. rursus exponens, quod ait apostolus: corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, mortuum, inquam, corpus dicit, quamdiu tale est, ut indigentia rerum temporalium molestet animum. sed isto melius mihi postea uisum est ideo mortuum corpus dictum, quod habeat iam moriendi necessitatem, quam non habuit ante peccatum. sexagensima septima est de eo, quod scriptum est: existimo enim, quod indignae sint passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae reuelabitur in nobis, usque ad id, quod dictum est: spe enim salui facti sumus. ubi cum exponerem, quod scriptum est: et ipsa creatura liberabitur a seruitute interitus, dixi: et ipsa creatura, id est ipse homo, cum iam signaculo imaginis propter peccatum amisso remansit tantummodo creatura. quod non ita est accipiendum, quasi totum amiserit homo, quod habebat imaginis dei. nam si omnino non amisisset, non esset, propter quod diceretur: reformamini in nouitate mentis uestrae, et: in eandem imaginem transformamur; sed rursus, si totum amisisset, nihil maneret, unde diceretur: quamquam in imagine ambulat homo, tamen uane conturbatur. item quod dixi spiritaliter summos angelos uiuere, infimos uero animaliter, audacius dictum est de infimis, quam ut possit uel scripturis sanctis uel ipsis rebus ostendi, quia, etsi forsitan potest, difficillime potest. sexagensima octaua est de eo, quod scriptum est: o homo, tu quis es, qui respondeas deo? ubi dixi: quia etiamsi leuioribus quisque peccatis aut certe quamuis grauioribus et multis, tamen multo gemitu, et dolore paenitendi misericordia dei dignus fuerit, non ipsius erit — qui si relinqueretur, interiret — sed miserentis dei, qui eius precibus dolorique subuenit. parum est enim uelle, nisi deus misereatur; sed deus non miseretur, qui ad pacem uocat, nisi uoluntas praecesserit ad pacem. hoc dictum est post paenitentiam. nam est misericordia dei etiam ipsam praeueniens uoluntatem, quae si non esset, non praepararetur uoluntas a domino. ad eam misericordiam pertinet et ipsa uocatio, quae etiam fidem praeuenit. de qua paulo post cum agerem, dixi: haec autem uocatio, quae siue in singulis hominibus siue in populis atque in ipso genere humano per temporum oportunitates operatur, altae et profundae ordinationis erit. quo pertinet etiam illud: in utero sanctificaui te, et: cum esses in renibus patris tui, uidi te, et: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui, et cetera, quamuis testimonium illud: cum esses in renibus patris tui, uidi te, unde mihi, tamquam scriptum sit, occurrerit nescio. sexagensima nona de eo, quod scriptum est: tunc et ipse filius subiectus erit ei, qui illi subiecit omnia; septuagensima de eo, quod apostolus dicit: absorta est mors in uictoriam. ubi est, mors, contentio tua? ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? aculeus autem mortis peccatum, uirtus uero peccati lex; septuagensima prima de eo, quod scriptum est: inuicem onera uestra portate, et sic inplebitis legem Christi; septuagensima secunda de temporibus aeternis; septuagensima tertia de eo, quod scriptum est: et habitu inuentus ut homo; septuagensima quarta de eo, quod scriptum est in epistula Pauli ad Colosenses: in quo habemus redemptionem in remissionem peccatorum, qui est imago dei inuisibilis; septuagensima quinta de hereditate dei; septuagensima sexta de eo, quod Iacobus apostolus dicit: uis autem scire o homo inanis, quia fides sine operibus otiosa est? septuagensima septima de timore, utrum peccatum sit; septuagensima octaua de pulchritudine simulacrorum; septuagensima nona: quare magi Pharaonis fecerunt miracula sicut Moyses, famulus dei; octogensima aduersus Apollinaristas; octogensima prima de quadragensima et quinquagensima; octogensima secunda de eo, quod scriptum est: quem enim diligit dominus, corripit, flagellat autem omnem filium, quem recipit; octogensima tertia de coniugio. Hoc opus sic incipit: Vtrum anima a se ipsa sit. ### English translation (Claude) There is also among the things we have written a certain long work, which is nevertheless counted as one book, whose title is On Eighty-Three Different Questions. These had been scattered over many sheets, since from the very first time of my conversion, after we came to Africa, they were dictated without any order kept, as I was asked by the brothers when they saw me at leisure; and when I was already a bishop I ordered them to be collected and made into one book, with numbers added, so that whoever wishes may easily find what he wants to read. The first of these questions is: Whether the soul exists of itself. The second: On free choice. The third: Whether man becomes worse by God's agency. The fourth: What is the cause of man's becoming 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 it is moved by itself. The ninth: Whether truth can be perceived by the senses of the body. In it, what I said, “Everything which the bodily sense touches, which is also called sensible, changes without any interval of time,” is without doubt certainly not true of 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. In the twelfth place, where the title is “The opinion of a certain wise man,” it is not mine; but because it became known through me to certain brothers who at that time happened to be consulting these matters most diligently, and it pleased them, they wished to write it among ours. It is by a certain Fonteius of Carthage, On Purifying the Mind to See God; he wrote it while a pagan, but died a baptized Christian. The thirteenth: By what proof it is established that men excel beasts. The fourteenth: That the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not a phantom. The fifteenth: On the intellect. The sixteenth: On the Son. The seventeenth: On God's knowledge. 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 one must see that what I said is not misunderstood: “He is not the author of evil, because he is the author of all things that exist, since insofar as they exist they are good”; and that it should not be thought from this that the punishment of the wicked is not from him, which is certainly an evil to those who are punished. But I said this in the way in which it was said, “God did not make death,” whereas elsewhere it is written, “Death and life are from the Lord God.” The punishment of the wicked, then, which is from God, is indeed an evil to the wicked, but it is among the good works of God, since it is just that the wicked be punished, and certainly everything that is just is good. The twenty-second: That God is not subject to necessity. The twenty-third: On the Father and the Son. There I said that he begot wisdom, from which he is called wise; but I treated this question better afterward in the book On the Trinity. The twenty-fourth: Whether both sin and right action lie in the free choice of the will. That this is so is altogether most true; but in order that it may be free for acting rightly, it is set free by the grace of God. The twenty-fifth: 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 above or below 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; but because this too became known to the brothers through me, they wrote it among those which they were collecting, wishing to know how the virtues of the soul were divided and defined by him. The thirty-second: Whether one person understands a thing more than another, and so the understanding of the same thing goes on to infinity. The thirty-third: On fear. The thirty-fourth: Whether nothing else is to be loved than to be free from fear. The thirty-fifth: What is to be loved. In it, what I said, that what is to be loved is that which to have is nothing else than to know, I do not sufficiently approve. For those did not lack God of whom it was said, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you?” and yet they did not know him, or did not know him as he is to be known. Likewise what I said, “No one, then, knows the happy life and is miserable,” I said “knows” in the way it is to be known. For who of those, at least, who already use reason, is wholly ignorant of it, since they know that they want to be happy? The thirty-sixth: On nourishing charity. There I said: “When God and the soul are loved, it is properly called charity, most purified and perfected, if nothing else is loved.” If this is true, how does the apostle say, “No one ever hated his own flesh,” and from this admonish that wives be loved? But it was said “is properly called” for this reason, that the flesh is indeed loved, yet not properly, but for the sake of the soul, for whose use it suffices. For even if it seems to be loved for its own sake, when we do not wish it to be misshapen, its beauty must be referred to something else, namely to him from whom all things are beautiful. The thirty-seventh: On the one always born. The thirty-eighth: On the conformation of the soul. The thirty-ninth: On food. The fortieth: Since the nature of souls is one, whence the different wills of human beings? 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. The forty-fourth: Why the Lord Jesus Christ came so long afterward. There, when I recalled the ages of the human race as of one man, I said: “Nor was it fitting that the teacher from God, by imitation of whom it would be formed in the best morals, should come except in the time of its youth”; and I added that what the apostle says applies to this: “under the law as under a tutor, guarding little ones.” But one may be troubled why we said elsewhere that Christ came in the sixth age of the human race, as in its old age. This, then, which was said of youth refers to the vigor and fervor of faith, which works through love; that about old age, to the number of the times. For both can be understood in the whole of humanity, as they can in the ages of individuals; just as in the body youth and old age cannot be at the same time, but in the soul they can, the one because of its eagerness, the other because of its gravity. The forty-fifth is against the astrologers. The forty-sixth is on the Ideas. The forty-seventh: Whether we can at some time see our thoughts. There, as for what I said, “Angelic bodies, such as we hope to have, must be believed to be most luminous and ethereal,” if this is taken as without the members which we now have and without the substance of flesh, although incorruptible, it is an error. This question of seeing our thoughts, however, has been treated much better in the work On the City of God. The forty-eighth: On things to be believed. The forty-ninth: Why the children of Israel offered visible sacrifices of animal victims. The fiftieth: On the equality of the Son. The fifty-first: On man made in the image and likeness of God. There, what is it that I said, “Man, namely, is not rightly called life, since even a man's corpse is called man”? 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 ‘in the image and likeness of God’ another, as we have received that man was made in the image.” 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”; but he is also said to be made in the image of God, which is not said of the Only-begotten, who is only the image, not in the image. The fifty-second: On what was said, “I repent that I made man.” The fifty-third: On the gold and silver which the Israelites received from the Egyptians. The fifty-fourth: On what is written, “It is good for me to cling to God.” There, what I said, “But what is better than every soul, that we call God,” ought rather to have been said, “better than every created spirit.” The fifty-fifth: On what is written, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and young maidens without number.” The fifty-sixth: On the forty-six years of the building of the temple. The fifty-seventh: On the hundred and fifty-three fish. The fifty-eighth: On John the Baptist. The fifty-ninth: On the ten virgins. The sixtieth: “But of the day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son of Man, but the Father alone.” The sixty-first: On what is written in the Gospel, that the Lord fed the crowds on the mountain with five loaves. There, what I said, “The two fish signify those two persons, the royal and the priestly, to which that sacred anointing also belonged,” should rather have been said “belonged especially,” since we read that prophets too were sometimes anointed. Likewise I said: “Luke, who presented Christ as a priest ascending after the abolition of sins, ascends to David through Nathan, because the prophet Nathan had been sent, by whose rebuke David obtained the abolition of that sin by repenting.” This is not to be taken as though the Nathan who was David's son was himself the prophet; for it was not said here, “because he himself had been sent as a prophet,” but “because the prophet Nathan had been sent,” so that the mystery is to be understood not in the same man but in the same name. The sixty-second is on what is written in the Gospel, that Jesus baptized more than John, although he himself did not baptize, but his disciples. There, as for what I said, “that thief to whom it was said, ‘Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise,’ who had not received baptism itself,” we find indeed that other rulers of the holy church before us have set this down in their writings too; but by what proofs it can be shown that that thief was not baptized, I do not know. This matter has been discussed more carefully in certain later works of ours, especially in what we wrote to Vincentius Victor on the origin of the soul. The sixty-third: On the Word. The sixty-fourth: On the Samaritan woman. The sixty-fifth: On the raising of Lazarus. The sixty-sixth: On what is written, “Or do you not know, brothers (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?” up to the place where it is written, “He will give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit dwelling in you.” There, wishing to explain what the apostle says, “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal,” I said: “That is, I consent to the flesh, not yet set free by spiritual grace.” This is not to be taken as though a spiritual man already placed under grace could not say this too of himself, and the rest up to the place where it is said, “Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death?” This I learned afterward, as I have already confessed above. Again, explaining what the apostle says, “The body indeed is dead because of sin,” I said, “He calls the body dead as long as it is such that the need of temporal things troubles the soul.” But afterward it seemed better to me that the body was called dead for this reason, that it already has the necessity of dying, which it did not have before sin. The sixty-seventh is on what is written, “For I consider that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, which will be revealed in us,” up to what is said, “For in hope we have been saved.” There, when I was explaining what is written, “And the creature itself will be set free from the slavery of corruption,” I said: “And the creature itself, that is, man himself, when, having lost the seal of the image because of sin, he remained only a creature.” This is not to be taken as though man lost entirely what he had of the image of God. For if he had not lost it at all, there would be no reason to say, “Be reformed in the newness of your mind,” and, “We are transformed into the same image”; but again, if he had lost it entirely, nothing would remain from which it could be said, “Although man walks in the image, yet he is disquieted in vain.” Likewise what I said, that the highest angels live spiritually but the lowest animally, was said more boldly about the lowest than can be shown either by the holy Scriptures or by the facts themselves; for even if perhaps it can be, it can only with the greatest difficulty. The sixty-eighth is on what is written, “O man, who are you to answer back to God?” There I said: “Because even if anyone, with lighter sins, or certainly with graver and many, has become worthy of God's mercy through much groaning and the pain of repentance, it will not be his own doing (for if he were left alone he would perish) but that of God who has mercy, who comes to the aid of his prayers and pain. For it is little to will unless God has mercy; but God, who calls to peace, does not have mercy unless the will has gone before toward peace.” This was said of what follows repentance. For there is also a mercy of God which goes before the will itself; if it did not exist, the will would not be prepared by the Lord. To that mercy belongs also the calling itself, which goes before even faith. When I treated of it a little later, I said: “But this calling, which works through suitable times either in individual human beings or in peoples and in the human race itself, will belong to a lofty and deep ordering. To this belongs also: ‘In the womb I sanctified you,’ and, ‘When you were in your father's loins I saw you,’ and, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated,’” and so on; although I do not know from where that testimony, “When you were in your father's loins I saw you,” came to my mind as though it were written. The sixty-ninth is on what is written, “Then the Son himself also will be subject to him who subjected all things to him.” The seventieth, on what the apostle says, “Death is swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your strife? Where, O death, is your sting? But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” The seventy-first, on what is written, “Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.” The seventy-second, on eternal times. The seventy-third, on what is written, “And found in appearance as a man.” The seventy-fourth, on what is written in Paul's letter to the Colossians, “In whom we have redemption in the remission of sins, who is the image of the invisible God.” The seventy-fifth, on the inheritance of God. The seventy-sixth, on what the apostle James says, “Do you want to know, O empty man, that faith without works is idle?” The seventy-seventh, on fear, whether it is a sin. The seventy-eighth, on the beauty of images. The seventy-ninth: Why Pharaoh's magicians did miracles as Moses, the servant of God, did. The eightieth, against the Apollinarians. The eighty-first, on the forty and the fifty. The eighty-second, on what is written, “For whom the Lord loves he corrects, and he scourges every son whom he receives.” The eighty-third, on marriage. This work begins thus: “Whether the soul exists of itself.” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 3:16: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:29: quotation, high confidence - Gal 3:24: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:6: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 11:7: quotation, high confidence - Gen 6:7: quotation, high confidence - Exod 12:35: allusion, high confidence - Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Song 6:8: quotation, high confidence - John 2:20: allusion, high confidence - John 21:11: allusion, high confidence - Matt 25:1: allusion, high confidence - Mark 13:32: quotation, high confidence - Matt 24:36: quotation, high confidence - John 6:9: allusion, high confidence - Luke 3:31: allusion, high confidence - 2 Sam 12:1: allusion, high confidence - John 4:1: allusion, high confidence - John 4:2: allusion, high confidence - Luke 23:43: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:1: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:11: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:24: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:10: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:18: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:24: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:21: quotation, high confidence - Rom 12:2: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 3:18: quotation, high confidence - Ps 39:6 (38:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:20: quotation, high confidence - Jer 1:5: quotation, high confidence - Mal 1:2: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:28: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:54: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:55: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:56: quotation, high confidence - Gal 6:2: quotation, high confidence - Phil 2:7: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:14: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:15: quotation, high confidence - Jas 2:20: quotation, high confidence - Exod 7:11: allusion, high confidence - Heb 12:6: quotation, high confidence - John 11:43: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Wis 1:13 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence - Sir 11:14 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence - Cicero, De inventione 2.53 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Civ. 22.29 (City of God): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Nat. orig. 3 (On the Soul and Its Origin): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus. Question 12 is by Fonteius of Carthage; question 31 is from Cicero (On Invention 2.53–54). The better treatment of seeing thoughts is City of God 22.29. The work to Vincentius Victor is On the Soul and Its Origin (book 3 of that work on this site). - Quotations: Wis 1:13; Sir 11:14; 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 5:29; Gal 3:24 and 4:2 (tutor); Gal 5:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 6:7; Exod 12:35 (allusion); Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX/Vulg.); Song 6:8; John 2:20; John 21:11; Matt 25:1–13; Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36; John 6:5–13 (allusion); 2 Sam 12 (Nathan's rebuke) and Luke 3:31; John 4:1–2; Luke 23:43; Rom 7:1–8:11, 7:14, 7:24; Rom 8:10; Rom 8:18–24, 8:21; Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18; Ps 39:6 (38:7 LXX/Vulg.); Rom 9:20; Jer 1:5; Mal 1:2–3; 1 Cor 15:28; 1 Cor 15:54–56; Gal 6:2; Phil 2:7; Col 1:14–15; Jas 2:20; Exod 7:11–12 (allusion); Heb 12:6. The saying “When you were in your father's loins I saw you” Augustine himself could not locate; unidentified. - On the thief: Augustine withdraws his statement that the penitent thief was unbaptized as unprovable. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.25 (CSEL 36:115–129; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-25). ## Retractations 1.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-26 - Source: CSEL 36:129–131 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains why he kept his book On Lying, though he had meant to suppress it after writing Against Lying. ### Latin text Item de mendacio scripsi librum, qui etsi cum aliquo labore intellegitur, habet tamen non inutilem ingenii et mentis administrationem magisque moribus ad ueriloquium diligendum proficit. hunc quoque auferre statueram de opusculis meis, quia et obscurus et anfractuosus et omnino molestus mihi uidebatur, propter quod eum nec edideram. deinde, cum postea scripsissem alterum, cuius titulus est: contra mendacium, multo magis istum non esse decreueram et iusseram, sed non est factum. itaque in ista retractatione opusculorum meorum cum eum incolumem repperissem, etiam ipsum retractatum manere praecepi, maxime quia in eo nonnulla sunt necessaria, quae in illo altero non sunt. propterea uero illius inscriptio est: contra mendacium, istius autem: de mendacio. quoniam per illum totum oppugnatio est aperta mendacii, istius autem magna pars in inquisitionis disputatione uersatur; ad eundem tamen finem uterque dirigitur. Hic liber sic incipit: Magna quaestio est de mendacio. ### English translation (Claude) Likewise I wrote a book On Lying, which, although it is understood with some labor, nevertheless offers a not unprofitable exercise of intelligence and mind, and helps morals still more toward loving truthful speech. I had decided to remove this too from my small works, because it seemed to me obscure and intricate and altogether troublesome, for which reason I had not even published it. Then, when I later wrote another, whose title is Against Lying, I had all the more decided and ordered that this one should not exist; but it was not done. And so in this review of my small works, when I found it intact, I directed that it too, having been reviewed, should remain, especially because there are some necessary things in it which are not in the other. The title of that one is Against Lying, and of this one On Lying, for this reason: that through the whole of that one there is an open attack on lying, while a great part of this one is taken up with discussion and inquiry; yet both are directed to the same end. This book begins thus: “There is a great question about lying.” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Mend. (On Lying): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, C. mend. (Against Lying): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin titles: De mendacio and Contra mendacium. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 1.26 (CSEL 36:129–131; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/1-22/#p-1-26). ## Retractations 2.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-1 - Source: CSEL 36:131–134 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his two books to Simplicianus, Augustine says that in explaining Rom 9 he labored for free choice “but the grace of God conquered,” and notes that he now reads Rom 7 as possibly describing a spiritual man. ### Latin text Librorum, quos episcopus elaboraui, primi duo sunt ad Simplicianum, ecclesiae Mediolanensis antestitem, qui beatissimo successit Ambrosio, de diuersis quaestionibus, quarum duas ex epistula Pauli apostoli ad Romanos in primum librum contuli. Harum prior est de eo, quod scriptum est: quid ergo dicemus? lex peccatum est? absit, usque ad illud, ubi ait: quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? gratia dei per Iesum Christum, dominum nostrum. in qua illa apostoli uerba: lex spiritalis est, ego autem carnalis sum et cetera, quibus caro contra spiritum confligere ostenditur, eo modo exposui, tamquam homo describitur adhuc sub lege, nondum sub gratia constitutus; longe enim postea etiam spiritalis hominis — et hoc probabilius - esse posse illa uerba cognoui. posterior in hoc libro quaestio est ab eo loco, ubi ait: non solum autem, sed et Rebecca ex uno concubitu habens Isaac patris nostri, usque ad illud, ubi ait: nisi dominus Sabaoth reliquisset nobis semen, sicut Sodoma facti essemus et sicut Gomorra similes fuissemus. in cuius quaestionis solutione laboratum est quidem pro libero arbitrio uoluntatis humanae, sed uicit dei gratia, nec nisi ad illud potuit perueniri, ut liquidissima ueritate dixisse intellegatur apostolus: quis enim te discernit? quid autem habes, quod non accepisti? si autem accepisti, quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis? quod uolens etiam martyr Cyprianus ostendere hoc totum ipso titulo definiuit dicens: in nullo gloriandum, quando nostrum nihil sit. In secundo libro tractantur ceterae quaestiones et pro nostra quantulacumque facultate soluuntur, quae sunt omnes de scriptura, quae Regnorum appellatur. harum prima est de eo, quod scriptum est: et insiliuit spiritus domini in Saul, cum alibi dicatur: et spiritus domini malus in Saul. quam cum exponerem, dixi: quamuis sit in cuiusque potestate, quid uelit, non est tamen in cuiusquam potestate, quid possit. quod ideo dictum est, quia non dicimus esse in potestate nostra, nisi quod, cum uolumus, fit; ubi prius et maxime est ipsum uelle. sine ullo quippe interuallo temporis praesto est uoluntas ipsa, cum uolumus; sed hanc quoque ad bene uiuendum desuper accipimus potestatem, cum praeparatur uoluntas a domino. secunda quaestio est: quomodo dictum sit: paenitet me, quod constituerim regem Saul; tertia: utrum spiritus inmundus, qui erat in pythonissa, potuerit agere, ut Samuhel a Saule uideretur et loqueretur cum eo; quarta de eo, quod scriptum est: intrauit rex Dauid et sedit ante dominum; quinta de eo, quod dixit Helias: o domine, testis huius uiduae, cum qua ego inhabito apud ipsam, tu male fecisti occidere filium eius. Hoc opus sic incipit: Gratissimam sane atque suauissimam. ### English translation (Claude) Of the books which I produced as a bishop, the first two are to Simplicianus, prelate of the church of Milan, who succeeded the most blessed Ambrose, On Various Questions; two of these, from the letter of the apostle Paul to the Romans, I put into the first book. The first of them is on what is written, “What then shall we say? Is the law sin? By no means,” up to where he says, “Who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” In it I explained those words of the apostle, “The law is spiritual, but I am carnal,” and the rest, by which the flesh is shown to fight against the spirit, as though a man were being described who is still under the law, not yet placed under grace. For long afterward I recognized that those words can also be those of a spiritual man, and this more probably. The later question in this book runs from the place where he says, “And not only so, but also Rebecca, having conceived from one act of intercourse with Isaac our father,” up to where he says, “Unless the Lord of hosts had left us seed, we would have become like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.” In solving this question I labored indeed on behalf of the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God conquered; and I could arrive only at this, that the apostle is understood to have said with the clearest truth: “For who distinguishes you? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” The martyr Cyprian too, wishing to show this, defined the whole of it in his very heading, saying: “That we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.” In the second book the other questions are treated and solved according to our slender ability; they are all about the Scripture which is called Kingdoms. The first of them is on what is written, “And the Spirit of the Lord leapt upon Saul,” whereas elsewhere it is said, “And an evil spirit of the Lord was upon Saul.” In explaining this I said: “Although what one wills is in each one's power, what one can do is not in anyone's power.” This was said because we do not say that anything is in our power except what happens when we will; where first and foremost is the willing itself. For the will itself is present without any interval of time when we will; but this power too for living well we receive from above, when the will is prepared by the Lord. The second question is how it was said, “I repent that I appointed Saul king.” The third: Whether the unclean spirit that was in the woman with a divining spirit could bring it about that Samuel was seen by Saul and spoke with him. The fourth, on what is written, “King David went in and sat before the Lord.” The fifth, on what Elijah said, “O Lord, witness of this widow with whom I dwell in her house, you have done evil in killing her son.” This work begins thus: “Most welcome indeed and most pleasant…” ### Scripture references - Rom 7:7: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:24: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:25: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:10: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:29: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 4:7: quotation, high confidence - 1 Sam 10:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Sam 16:14: quotation, high confidence - Prov 8:35: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Sam 15:11: quotation, high confidence - 1 Sam 28:11: allusion, high confidence - 2 Sam 7:18: quotation, high confidence - 1 Kgs 17:20: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Test. 3.4 (To Quirinus: Three Books of Testimonies): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Ad Simplicianum de diuersis quaestionibus. Quotations: Rom 7:7, 7:24–25, 7:14; Rom 9:10, 9:29; 1 Cor 4:7; Cyprian, Testimonies 3.4 (heading); 1 Sam 10:10 and 16:14 (“Kingdoms” = 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings); Prov 8:35 LXX; 1 Sam 15:11; 1 Sam 28 (the medium of Endor, allusion); 2 Sam 7:18; 1 Kgs 17:20. - Augustine's turning point on grace and free choice (“sed uicit dei gratia”) is translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.1 (CSEL 36:131–134; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-1). ## Retractations 2.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-2 - Source: CSEL 36:134 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that his book against Mani's Letter of the Foundation refutes only its opening, with notes on the rest. ### Latin text Liber contra epistulam Manichei, quam uocant fundamenti, principia eius sola redarguit, sed in ceteris illius partibus adnotationes, ubi uidebatur, adfixae sunt, quibus tota subuertitur et quibus admonerer, si quando contra totam scribere uacuisset. Hic liber sic incipit: Vnum uerum deum omnipotentem. ### English translation (Claude) The book Against the Letter of Mani which They Call the Foundation refutes only its beginning; but notes were attached at other parts of it, where it seemed fit, by which the whole letter is overturned and by which I might be reminded if I ever had leisure to write against the whole of it. This book begins thus: “The one true almighty God…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Ep. fund. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra epistulam Manichaei quam uocant fundamenti. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.2 (CSEL 36:134; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-2). ## Retractations 2.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-3 - Source: CSEL 36:134–135 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Christian Combat, Augustine explains that “flesh and blood” will not inherit the kingdom means corruption or fleshly works, not the substance of flesh. ### Latin text Liber de agone Christiano fratribus in eloquio latino ineruditis humili sermone conscriptus est fidei regulam continens et praecepta uiuendi. In quo illud, quod positum est: nec eos audiamus, qui carnis resurrectionem futuram negant et commemorant, quod ait Paulus apostolus: caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt, non intellegentes, quod ipse dicit apostolus: oportet corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem et mortale hoc induere inmortalitatem; cum enim hoc factum fuerit, iam non erit caro et sanguis, sed caeleste corpus, non sic accipiendum est, quasi carnis non sit futura substantia, sed carnis et sanguinis nomine ipsam corruptionem carnis et sanguinis intellegendus est apostolus nuncupasse, quae utique in regno illo non erit, ubi caro incorruptibilis erit, quamuis et aliter possit intellegi, ut carnem et sanguinem opera carnis et sanguinis dixisse accipiamus apostolum, et eos dei regnum non possessuros, qui perseueranter ista dilexerint. Hic liber sic incipit: Corona uictoriae. ### English translation (Claude) The book On the Christian Combat was written in a humble style for brothers unskilled in the Latin language, containing the rule of faith and precepts for living. In it, what is set down, “Nor let us listen to those who deny that there will be a resurrection of the flesh and recall what the apostle Paul says, ‘Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God,’ not understanding what the same apostle says, ‘This corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality’; for when this has been done, it will no longer be flesh and blood but a heavenly body,” is not to be taken as though there will be no substance of flesh; but the apostle is to be understood to have called by the name of flesh and blood the very corruption of flesh and blood, which certainly will not exist in that kingdom, where the flesh will be incorruptible. Yet it can also be understood otherwise, so that we take the apostle to have called the works of flesh and blood “flesh and blood,” and those who persistently love these as not going to possess the kingdom of God. This book begins thus: “The crown of victory…” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:50: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:53: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Agon. (On the Christian Struggle): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De agone christiano. Quotations: 1 Cor 15:50, 15:53. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.3 (CSEL 36:134–135; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-3). ## Retractations 2.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-4 - Source: CSEL 36:135–137 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he completed On Christian Teaching, withdraws his attribution of the Wisdom of Solomon to Jesus Sirach, and corrects remarks on the Old Testament and on Ambrose. ### Latin text Libros de doctrina Christiana cum inperfectos conperissem, perficere malui quam eis sic relictis ad alia retractanda transire. conpleui ergo tertium, qui scriptus fuerat usque ad eum locum, ubi commemoratum est ex euangelio testimonium de muliere, quae fermentum abscondit in tribus mensuris farinae, donec totum fermentaretur. addidi etiam nouissimum librum et quattuor libris opus illud inpleui, quorum primi tres adiuuant, ut scripturae intellegantur, quartus autem, quomodo quae intellegimus proferenda sint. In secundo sane libro de auctore libri, quem plures uocant Sapientiam Salomonis, quod etiam ipsum sicut Ecclesiasticum Iesus Sirach scripserit, non ita constare, ut a me dictum est, postea didici et omnino probabilius conperi non esse hunc eius auctorem. ubi autem dixi: his quadraginta quattuor libris testamenti ueteris terminatur auctoritas, ex consuetudine, qua iam loquitur ecclesia, uetus testamentum appellaui; apostolus autem non uidetur appellare testamentum uetus, nisi quod datum est in monte Sina. et in eo, quod dixi: de temporum historia sanctum Ambrosium soluisse quaestionem, tamquam coaetanei fuerint Plato et Hieremias, me fefellit memoria. nam quid ille de hac re episcopus dixerit, in libro eius legitur, quem de sacramentis siue de philosophia scripsit. Hoc opus sic incipit: Sunt praecepta quaedam. ### English translation (Claude) When I found that the books On Christian Teaching were unfinished, I preferred to finish them rather than pass on to reviewing other things while leaving them so. I therefore completed the third, which had been written up to the place where the testimony from the Gospel is recalled about the woman who hid leaven in three measures of flour until the whole was leavened. I also added the last book and completed that work in four books, of which the first three help toward understanding the Scriptures, while the fourth helps toward how what we understand is to be set forth. In the second book, indeed, concerning the author of the book which many call the Wisdom of Solomon, that Jesus Sirach also wrote it, as he wrote Ecclesiasticus, I learned afterward that this is not as certain as I said, and I found it altogether more probable that he is not its author. Where I said, “With these forty-four books the authority of the Old Testament is concluded,” I called it the Old Testament according to the custom by which the church now speaks; but the apostle does not seem to call anything the Old Testament except what was given on Mount Sinai. And in what I said, that in matters of chronology Saint Ambrose had solved the question, as though Plato and Jeremiah had been contemporaries, my memory deceived me. For what that bishop said on this matter is read in his book which he wrote On the Sacraments, or On Philosophy. This work begins thus: “There are certain precepts…” ### Scripture references - Matt 13:33: allusion, high confidence - Gal 4:24: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Wis (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, high confidence - Sir (Sirach): allusion, high confidence - Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De doctrina christiana. Allusion: Matt 13:33 (the leaven); Gal 4:24 (the covenant from Mount Sinai). The list of “forty-four books” of the Old Testament is in On Christian Teaching 2.8.13, a list that includes books outside the Protestant canon (here treated as extrabiblical); Augustine's remark concerns only the term “Old Testament.” - Ambrose's lost work De sacramento regenerationis siue de philosophia. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.4 (CSEL 36:135–137; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-4). ## Retractations 2.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-5 - Source: CSEL 36:137 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine reports that he once opposed using secular power to compel the Donatists, a view he later changed after experience. ### Latin text Sunt duo libri mei, quorum titulus est: contra partem Donati. Quorum in libro primo dixi non mihi placere ullius saecularis potestatis inpetu scismaticos ad communionem uehementer artari. et uere mihi tunc non placebat, quoniam nondum expertus eram, uel quantum mali eorum auderet inpunitas uel quantum eis in melius mutandis conferre posset diligentia disciplinae. Hoc opus sic incipit: Quoniam Donatistae nobis. ### English translation (Claude) There are two books of mine whose title is Against the Party of Donatus. In the first of these books I said that I was not pleased that schismatics should be forcibly constrained to communion by the pressure of any secular power. And truly at that time it did not please me, since I had not yet learned by experience either how much evil their impunity would dare or how much the diligence of discipline could contribute to changing them for the better. This work begins thus: “Since the Donatists to us…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra partem Donati (lost). Augustine's change of view on coercion of the Donatists is translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.5 (CSEL 36:137; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-5). ## Retractations 2.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-6 - Source: CSEL 36:137–138 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes the purpose of the Confessions and corrects a rhetorical phrase in Book 4 and a statement on the firmament in Book 13. ### Latin text Confessionum mearum libri tredecim et de malis et de bonis meis deum laudant iustum et bonum atque in eum excitant humanum intellectum et affectum; interim, quod ad me adtinet, hoc in me egerunt, cum scriberentur, et agunt, cum leguntur. quid de illis alii sentiant, ipsi uiderint; multis tamen fratribus eos multum placuisse et placere scio. a primo usque ad decimum de me scripti sunt, in tribus ceteris de scripturis sanctis ab eo, quod scriptum est: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram, usque ad sabbati requiem. In quarto libro, cum de amici morte animi mei miseriam confiterer dicens, quod anima nostra una quodam modo facta fuerat ex duabus: et ideo, inquam, forte mori metuebam, ne totus ille moreretur, quem multum amaueram; quae mihi quasi declamatio leuis quam grauis confessio uidetur, quamuis utcumque temperata sit haec ineptia in eo, quod additum est: forte. et in libro tertio decimo quod dixi: firmamentum factum inter spiritales aquas superiores et corporales inferiores, non satis considerate dictum est; res autem in abdito est ualde. Hoc opus sic incipit: Magnus es, domine. ### English translation (Claude) The thirteen books of my Confessions praise the just and good God for both my evil and my good deeds, and stir up the human mind and heart toward him. At least as far as I am concerned, they did this in me when they were being written, and they do it when they are read. What others think of them is for them to see; but I know that they have pleased and still please many brothers greatly. From the first to the tenth they were written about me; in the other three, about the holy Scriptures, from what is written, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” up to the rest of the sabbath. In the fourth book, when I was confessing the misery of my soul at the death of a friend, saying that our soul had in some way been made one from two, I said: “And therefore perhaps I was afraid to die, lest he whom I had loved so much should wholly die.” This seems to me a kind of light declamation rather than a serious confession, although this ineptness is somewhat tempered by the addition of “perhaps.” And in the thirteenth book, what I said, that the firmament was made between the upper spiritual waters and the lower bodily waters, was said without enough consideration; but the matter is very hidden. This work begins thus: “Great are you, Lord.” ### Scripture references - Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence - Gen 2:2: allusion, high confidence - Gen 1:7: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Conf. 4.6.11 (Confessions): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Conf. 13.32.47 (Confessions): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Confessiones. Quotations and allusions: Gen 1:1; Gen 2:2 (the sabbath rest); Gen 1:6–7 (the firmament between the waters). The passages reviewed are Confessions 4.6.11 and 13.32.47. - Correction: the digital text reads “declamatio lenis” (“gentle”); leuis (“light, trivial”), the contrast with grauis, is read. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.6 (CSEL 36:137–138; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-6). ## Retractations 2.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-7 - Source: CSEL 36:138–141 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing Against Faustus, Augustine explains Joseph's two fathers by levirate adoption as reported by Africanus, and corrects remarks on Ham, the sun and moon, and the shame of the genital members. ### Latin text Contra Faustum Manicheum blasphemantem legem et prophetas et eorum dominum et incarnationem Christi, scripturas autem noui testamenti, quibus conuincitur, falsatas esse dicentem, scripsi grande opus uerbis eius propositis reddens responsiones meas. triginta et tres disputationes sunt, quos etiam libros cur non dixerim? nam etsi sunt in eis aliqui breues, tamen libri sunt. unus uero eorum, ubi a nobis aduersus eius criminationes patriarcharum uita defenditur, tantae prolixitatis est, quantae nullus fere librorum meorum. In libro ergo tertio cum soluerem quaestionem, quomodo potuerit duos patres habere Ioseph, dixi quidem, quod ex alio natus, ab alio fuerit adoptatus, sed genus quoque adoptionis dicere debui; sic enim sonat, quod dixi, tamquam eum uiuus adoptauerit alius pater. lex autem filios etiam mortuis adoptabat iubens, ut fratris sine filiis mortui duceret frater uxorem et fratri defuncto semen ex eadem suscitaret. quae profecto de duobus unius hominis patribus expeditior ibi redditur ratio. uterini autem fratres fuerunt, in quibus hoc contigit, ut unius defuncti, qui uocabatur Heli, duceret alter uxorem, id est Iacob, a quo Matheus narrat genitum esse Ioseph; sed uterino fratri suo eum genuit, cuius filium Lucas dicit fuisse Ioseph, non utique genitum, sed ex lege adoptiuum. hoc in eorum litteris inuentum est, qui recenti memoria post ascensionem domini de hac re scripserunt. nam etiam nomen eiusdem mulieris, quae peperit Iacob, patrem Ioseph, de priore marito Mathan, qui fuit pater Iacob, auus Ioseph, secundum Matheum, et de marito posteriore Melchi peperit Heli, cuius erat adoptiuus Ioseph, non tacuit Africanus. quod quidem, cum Fausto responderem, nondum legeram, sed tamen per adoptionem potuisse contingere, ut unus duos haberet patres, dubitare non poteram. In duodecimo et in tertio decimo de filio Noe secundo, qui est appellatus Cham, ita disputatum est, tamquam non in filio suo Canaan, sicut scriptura demonstrat, sed in se ipso fuerit a patre maledictus. in quarto decimo de sole et luna talia dicta sunt, tamquam sentiant et ideo tolerent uanos adoratores suos, quamuis uerba ibi accipi possint ab animali ad inanimale translata modo locutionis, qui uocatur graece metafora, sicut de mari scriptum est, quod fremat in utero matris suae uolens progredi, cum utique non habeat uoluntatem. in undetricensimo: absit, inquam, ut sit in membris sanctorum etiam genitalibus aliqua turpitudo. dicuntur quidem inhonesta, quia non habent eam speciem decoris quam membra, quae in promptu locata sunt, sed probabilior in aliis postea scriptis nostris reddita ratio est, cur ea dixerit etiam apostolus inhonesta, propter legem scilicet in membris repugnantem legi mentis, quae de peccato accidit, non de prima nostrae institutione naturae. Hoc opus sic incipit: Faustus quidam fuit. ### English translation (Claude) Against Faustus the Manichaean, 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 refuted, had been falsified, I wrote a great work, setting out his words and giving my replies. There are thirty-three disputations; and why should I not call them books too? For although some of them are short, still they are books. One of them, however, in which we defend the life of the patriarchs against his accusations, is of such length as hardly any of my books. In the third book, then, when I was solving the question how Joseph could have had two fathers, I said indeed that he was born of one and adopted by the other; but I ought also to have stated the kind of adoption. For what I said sounds as though the other father adopted him while living. But the law adopted sons even for the dead, commanding that the brother of a man who died without sons should marry his wife and raise up offspring from her for his dead brother. This indeed gives a readier explanation there of the two fathers of one man. Now the brothers in whose case this happened were uterine brothers, so that when one of them, called Heli, died, the other, that is, Jacob, of whom Matthew tells that Joseph was begotten, married his wife; but he begot him for his uterine brother, whose son Luke says Joseph was, not of course by begetting but adopted according to the law. This is found in the writings of those who wrote on this matter while the memory of it was fresh after the Lord's ascension. For Africanus did not keep silent even the name of that woman who bore Jacob, the father of Joseph, by her first husband Matthan, who was the father of Jacob and the grandfather of Joseph according to Matthew, and who by her later husband Melchi bore Heli, whose adopted son Joseph was. This, indeed, I had not yet read when I was answering Faustus; but I could not doubt that it could happen through adoption that one man had two fathers. In the twelfth and thirteenth books Noah's second son, who was called Ham, was discussed as though he had been cursed by his father in himself, and not in his son Canaan, as Scripture shows. In the fourteenth, things were said of the sun and the moon as though they had feeling and therefore tolerated their vain worshipers; although the words there can be taken as transferred from the animate to the inanimate by the figure of speech which in Greek is called metaphor, as it is written of the sea that it roars in its mother's womb wishing to come forth, though it certainly has no will. In the twenty-ninth I said: “Far be it that there should be any shamefulness in the members of the saints, even the genital ones. They are indeed called unseemly, because they do not have that appearance of beauty which the members placed in view have.” But in other writings of ours afterward a more probable reason was given why the apostle too called them unseemly, namely because of the law in the members warring against the law of the mind, which came about from sin, not from the first establishment of our nature. This work begins thus: “There was a certain Faustus…” ### Scripture references - Deut 25:5: allusion, high confidence - Matt 1:16: allusion, high confidence - Luke 3:23: allusion, high confidence - Gen 9:25: allusion, high confidence - Job 38:8: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 12:23: allusion, high confidence - Rom 7:23: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Julius Africanus, Letter to Aristides (Julius Africanus (fragments)): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Faustum Manichaeum. Allusions: Deut 25:5–6 (levirate law); Matt 1:15–16; Luke 3:23–24; Gen 9:25 (curse on Canaan); Job 38:8 (the sea bursting from the womb); 1 Cor 12:23; Rom 7:23. - Julius Africanus, Letter to Aristides (preserved in Eusebius, Church History 1.7), gives the levirate explanation of Joseph's genealogy. The later explanation of the members' shame is in City of God 14.17–23 and other anti-Pelagian works. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.7 (CSEL 36:138–141; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-7). ## Retractations 2.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-8 - Source: CSEL 36:141–142 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his two-day public debate with the Manichaean Felix at Hippo, which dealt with free choice but not at length with grace. ### Latin text Contra Manicheum quendam nomine Felicem praesente populo in ecclesia biduo disputaui. Hipponem quippe uenerat eundem seminaturus errorem; unus enim erat ex doctoribus eorum, quamuis ineruditus liberalibus litteris, sed tamen uersutior Fortunato. gesta sunt ecclesiastica, sed inter meos libros conputantur. duo ergo libri sunt, in quorum secundo disputatum est de libero arbitrio uoluntatis siue ad male operandum siue ad bonum. sed de gratia, qua uere liberi fiunt, de quibus scriptum est: si uos filius liberauerit, tunc uere liberi eritis, diligentius disputare, quoniam talis erat, cum quo agebamus, nulla sumus necessitate conpulsi. Hoc opus sic incipit: HONORIO AVGVSTO SEXTVM CONS. SEPTIMO IDVS DECEMBRIS. ### English translation (Claude) Against a certain Manichaean named Felix I held a disputation in church, with the people present, over two days. For he had come to Hippo to sow the same error; he was one of their teachers, though unskilled in liberal letters, yet more cunning than Fortunatus. These are church proceedings, but they are counted among my books. There are, then, two books, in the second of which the free choice of the will was discussed, whether for doing evil or good. But we were not compelled by any necessity to discuss more carefully the grace by which those become truly free of whom it is written, “If the Son sets you free, then you will be truly free,” since such was the man with whom we were dealing. This work begins thus: “In the sixth consulship of Honorius Augustus, on the seventh day before the Ides of December.” ### Scripture references - John 8:36: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Fel. (Against Felix the Manichaean): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Felicem Manichaeum (7 December 404). Quotation: John 8:36. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.8 (CSEL 36:141–142; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-8). ## Retractations 2.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-9 - Source: CSEL 36:142–143 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine summarizes On the Nature of the Good, written against the Manichaeans. ### Latin text Liber de natura boni aduersus Manicheos est. ubi ostenditur naturam incommutabilem deum esse ac summum bonum, atque ab illo esse ceteras naturas siue spiritales siue corporales atque omnes, in quantum naturae sunt, bonas esse, et quid uel unde sit malum et quanta mala Manichei ponant in natura boni et quanta bona in natura mali, quas naturas finxit error ipsorum. Hic liber sic incipit: Summum bonum, quo superius non est, deus est. ### English translation (Claude) The book On the Nature of the Good is against the Manichaeans. In it is shown that God is an unchangeable nature and the highest good, and that from him are the other natures, whether spiritual or bodily, and that all of them, insofar as they are natures, are good; and what evil is and where it comes from; and how many evils the Manichaeans place in the nature of the good, and how many goods in the nature of evil, natures which their error has invented. This book begins thus: “The highest good, than which there is nothing higher, is God.” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Nat. bon. (On the Nature of the Good): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De natura boni. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.9 (CSEL 36:142–143; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-9). ## Retractations 2.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-10 - Source: CSEL 36:143–144 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his reply to the Manichaean hearer Secundinus, which he judges the best of his anti-Manichaean writings. ### Latin text Secundinus quidam, non ex eis, quos Manichei electos, sed ex eis, quos auditores uocant, quem ne facie quidem noueram, scripsit ad me uelut amicus honorifice obiurgans, quod oppugnarem litteris illam heresem, et admonens, ne facerem, atque ad eam sectandam potius exhortans cum eius defensione et fidei reprehensione catholicae. huic respondi; sed quia in eiusdem opusculi capite non posui, quis cui scriberet, non in epistulis meis, sed in libris habeatur. illic ab exordio conscripta est etiam eius epistula. huius autem mei uoluminis titulus est: contra Secundinum Manicheum. quod mea sententia omnibus, quae aduersus illam pestem scribere potui, praepono. Hic liber sic incipit: Beniuolentia in me, quae apparet litteris tuis. ### English translation (Claude) A certain Secundinus, not one of those whom the Manichaeans call the elect but one of those they call hearers, whom I did not know even by sight, wrote to me as if a friend, respectfully reproaching me for attacking that heresy in writing, and warning me not to do so, and rather urging me to follow it, with a defense of it and a censure of the Catholic faith. I answered him; but since I did not put at the head of that work who was writing to whom, it is to be counted not among my letters but among my books. His letter too is written out there at the beginning. The title of this volume of mine is Against Secundinus the Manichaean. In my judgment I place it above all that I have been able to write against that plague. This book begins thus: “The goodwill toward me which appears in your letter…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Sec. (Against Secundinus the Manichaean): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Secundinum Manichaeum. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.10 (CSEL 36:143–144; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-10). ## Retractations 2.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-11 - Source: CSEL 36:144 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his lost reply to Hilarus, who objected to singing psalms at the altar during the offering and communion. ### Latin text Inter haec Hilarus quidam, uir tribunicius, laicus catholicus, nescio unde aduersus dei ministros, ut fieri assolet, irritatus morem, qui tunc esse apud Carthaginem coeperat, ut hymni ad altare dicerentur de Psalmorum libro siue ante oblationem, siue cum distribueretur populo, quod fuisset oblatum, maledica reprehensione, ubicumque poterat, lacerabat asserens fieri non oportere. huic respondi iubentibus fratribus, et uocatur liber: contra Hilarum. Hic liber sic incipit: Qui dicunt mentionem ueteris testamenti. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile a certain Hilarus, a man of tribunician rank, a Catholic layman, angered for some reason against the ministers of God, as often happens, was tearing apart with abusive criticism, wherever he could, the custom which had then begun at Carthage of saying hymns from the book of Psalms at the altar, either before the offering or while what had been offered was being distributed to the people, asserting that it ought not to be done. At the bidding of the brothers I answered him, and the book is called Against Hilarus. This book begins thus: “Those who say that mention of the Old Testament…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Hilarum (lost). The custom concerns singing psalms at the Eucharist, at the offering and at the distribution of communion. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.11 (CSEL 36:144; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-11). ## Retractations 2.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-12 - Source: CSEL 36:144–145 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his Questions on the Gospels, Augustine corrects a misreading caused by a faulty copy and his objection to the levirate explanation of Joseph's two fathers. ### Latin text Sunt quaedam expositiones quorundam locorum ex euangelio secundum Matheum et aliae similiter secundum Lucam; in unum librum illae, in alterum istae redactae sunt. titulus operis huius est: quaestiones euangeliorum. sed quare illa sola de supra dictis euangelistis exposita fuerint, quae his libris meis continentur, et quae ista sint, prologus meus adiunctis atque adnumeratis eisdem quaestionibus ita, ut quisque legere quod uoluerit numeros secutus inueniat, satis indicat. In primo ergo libro in eo, quod positum est, dominum seorsum duobus discipulis suam rettulisse passionem, mendositas codicis nos fefellit; nam duodecim scriptum est, non duobus. in secundo nolens exponere, quomodo duos patres potuerit habere Ioseph, cuius coniux dicta est uirgo Maria, illud, quod perhibetur fratrem duxisse defuncti fratris uxorem, ut ei semen secundum legem suscitaret, ideo dixi esse infirmum, quoniam qui nasceretur nomen defuncti lex eum iubebat accipere. non est uerum; nomen enim defuncti, quod dictum est, ad hoc lex ualere praecepit, ut eius filius diceretur, non ut hoc quod ille uocaretur. Hoc opus sic incipit: Hoc opus non ita scriptum est. ### English translation (Claude) There are certain explanations of some passages from the Gospel according to Matthew, and others likewise according to Luke; the former have been gathered into one book, the latter into another. The title of this work is Questions on the Gospels. But why only those passages of the aforesaid evangelists were explained which are contained in these books of mine, and what they are, my prologue indicates clearly enough, with the questions themselves attached and numbered, so that whoever wishes may find what he wants to read by following the numbers. In the first book, then, in what is set down, that the Lord told of his passion privately to two disciples, a faulty copy deceived us; for “twelve” is written, not “two.” In the second, not wishing to explain how Joseph, whose wife the Virgin Mary was called, could have had two fathers, I said that the explanation commonly given, that a brother married the wife of his dead brother to raise up offspring for him according to the law, was weak, because the law commanded that the one born should take the name of the dead man. This is not true; for the law directed that the dead man's name, as it was said, should avail to this end, that he should be called his son, not that he should be called by what the dead man was called. This work begins thus: “This work has not been written in such a way…” ### Scripture references - Matt 20:17: allusion, high confidence - Deut 25:6: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Quaestiones euangeliorum. Allusions: Matt 20:17 (the Twelve); Deut 25:5–6 (levirate law, the dead man's name). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.12 (CSEL 36:144–145; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-12). ## Retractations 2.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-13 - Source: CSEL 36:145–146 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine doubts whether the Notes on Job, compiled by others from his marginal notes, should be counted as his. ### Latin text Liber, cuius est titulus: adnotationes in Iob, utrum meus habendus sit an potius eorum, qui eas, sicut potuerunt uel uoluerunt, redegerunt in unum corpus descriptas de frontibus codicis, non facile dixerim. suaues enim paucissimis intellegentibus sunt, qui tamen necesse est offendantur multa non intellegentes, quia nec ipsa uerba, quae exponuntur, ita sunt descripta in multis locis, ut appareat, quid exponatur; deinde breuitatem sententiarum tanta secuta est obscuritas, ut eam lector ferre uix possit, quem necesse est plurima non intellecta transire; postremo etiam mendosum conperi opus ipsum in codicibus nostris, ut emendare non possem nec editum a me dici uellem, nisi quia scio fratres id habere, quod studio non potuit denegari. Hic liber sic incipit: Et opera magna erant ei super terram. ### English translation (Claude) Whether the book whose title is Notes on Job should be counted as mine, or rather as belonging to those who gathered them into one body, as they could or would, copied from the margins of the manuscript, I could not easily say. For they are pleasant to the very few who understand them, who nevertheless must be put off by not understanding many things, since in many places not even the words being explained have been copied in such a way that it is clear what is being explained; then, so much obscurity has followed the brevity of the sentences that the reader can hardly bear it, and must 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 said to have been published by me, except that I know the brothers have it, which could not be denied to their zeal. This book begins thus: “And his works were great upon the earth.” ### Scripture references - Job 1:3: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Adnotationes in Iob. The opening words echo Job 1:3 in an Old Latin form. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.13 (CSEL 36:145–146; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-13). ## Retractations 2.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-14 - Source: CSEL 36:146–147 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Catechizing the Uninstructed, Augustine says he should have written “spirits” rather than “souls” of the fallen angels. ### Latin text Est etiam liber unus de catechizandis rudibus hoc ipso titulo praenotatus. in quo libro, ubi dixi: nec angelus, qui cum spiritibus aliis satellitibus suis superbiendo deseruit oboedientiam dei et diabolus factus est, aliquid nocuit deo, sed sibi; nouit enim deus ordinare deserentes se animas, conuenientius diceretur: deserentes se spiritus, quoniam de angelis agebatur. Hic liber sic incipit: Petisti me, frater Deogratias. ### English translation (Claude) There is also one book, On Catechizing the Uninstructed, marked with this very title. In this book, where I said, “Nor did the angel who, with the other spirits his attendants, abandoned obedience to God through pride and became the devil, do any harm to God, but to himself; for God knows how to set in order souls that abandon him,” it would more fittingly be said “spirits that abandon him,” since the subject was angels. This book begins thus: “You asked me, brother Deogratias…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: De catechizandis rudibus. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.14 (CSEL 36:146–147; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-14). ## Retractations 2.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-15 - Source: CSEL 36:147–149 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine tells how his books On the Trinity were taken before they were finished, how he completed and published them, and corrects remarks in Books 11 and 12. ### Latin text Libros de trinitate, quae deus est, quindecim scripsi per aliquot annos. sed cum eorum duodecim non perfecissem et eos diutius tenerem, quam possent sustinere, qui uehementer eos habere cupiebant, subtracti sunt mihi minus emendati, quam deberent ac possent, quando eos edere uoluissem. quod posteaquam conperi, quia et alia eorum apud nos exemplaria remanserant, statueram eos iam ipse non edere, sed sic habere, ut alio aliquo opusculo meo, quid mihi de his euenerit, dicerem. urguentibus tamen fratribus — quia resistere non eis ualui — emendaui eos, quantum emendandos putaui, et conpleui et edidi adiungens eis a capite epistulam, quam scripsi ad uenerabilem Aurelium, episcopum Carthaginiensis ecclesiae, quo tamquam prologo exposui et quid accidisset et quid facere mea cogitatione uoluissem et quid fratrum conpellente caritate fecissem. In quorum libro undecimo, cum de corpore uisibili agerem, dixi: quocirca id amare alienari est. quod secundum eum amorem dictum est, quo aliquid sic amatur, ut eo fruendo existimet beatum se esse, qui hoc amat; nam non est alienari in laudem creatoris amare speciem corporalem, ut ipso creatore fruens quisque uere beatus sit. itemque in eodem ubi dixi: nec auem quadrupedem memini, quia non uidi, sed phantasiam tamen facillime intueor, dum alicui formae uolatili, qualem uidi, adiungo alios duos pedes, quales itidem uidi, haec dicens non potui recolere uolatilia quadrupedia, quae lex commemorat. neque enim conputat in pedibus duo posteriora crura, quibus locustae saliunt, quas dicit mundas, et ideo discernit ab inmundis talibus uolatilibus, quae non saliunt illis cruribus, sicut sunt scarabei. omnia quippe huius modi uolatilia quadrupedia uocantur in lege. In duodecimo uelut expositio uerborum apostoli, ubi ait: omne peccatum, quodcumque fecerit homo, extra corpus est, non mihi satisfacit, nec sic puto intellegendum, quod dictum est: qui autem fornicatur, in corpus proprium peccat, tamquam ille hoc faciat, qui propter adipiscenda ea, quae per corpus sentiuntur, ut in his finem boni sui ponat, aliquid agit. hoc enim longe plura peccata conplectitur quam illa fornicatio, quae concubitu perpetratur inlicito, de qua locutum, cum hoc diceret, apostolum apparet. Hoc opus excepta epistula, quae postmodum ad eius caput adiuncta est, sic incipit: Lecturus haec, quae de trinitate disserimus. ### English translation (Claude) I wrote fifteen books On the Trinity, which God is, over a number of years. But when I had not yet finished twelve of them and was keeping them longer than those who greatly desired to have them could bear, they were taken from me less corrected than they should and could have been when I would have wished to publish them. After I learned this, since other copies of them had remained with us, I had decided not to publish them myself any more, but to keep them so, and to tell in some other work of mine what had happened to me concerning them. However, at the urging of the brothers, since I could not resist them, I corrected them as far as I thought they should be corrected, completed them, and published them, adding at the head of them a letter which I wrote to the venerable Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage, in which, as in a prologue, I set out what had happened, what I had wished to do by my own intention, and what I had done under the compulsion of the brothers' charity. In the eleventh of these books, when I was treating of the visible body, I said: “Therefore to love it is to be estranged.” This was said with reference to that love by which something is so loved that the one who loves it thinks himself happy in enjoying it. For it is not to be estranged to love bodily beauty for the praise of the creator, so that each one, enjoying the creator himself, may be truly happy. And likewise in the same book, where I said, “Nor do I remember a four-footed bird, because I have not seen one; but I very easily behold the image of one, when to some winged form such as I have seen I add two other feet such as I have likewise seen,” in saying this I could not recall the four-footed flying creatures which the law mentions. For it does not count among the feet the two hind legs with which locusts leap, which it calls clean, and so distinguishes them from unclean flying creatures of the kind that do not leap with those legs, such as beetles. For all flying creatures of this kind are called four-footed in the law. In the twelfth book, the explanation, as it were, of the apostle's words, where he says, “Every sin that a man commits is outside the body,” does not satisfy me; nor do I think that what was said, “But he who commits fornication sins against his own body,” is to be understood as though he does this who does something in order to obtain the things which are perceived through the body, so as to place in them the end of his good. For this embraces far more sins than that fornication which is committed by illicit intercourse, of which the apostle clearly was speaking when he said this. This work, apart from the letter which was afterward added at its head, begins thus: “The one who is going to read what we discuss about the Trinity…” ### Scripture references - Lev 11:21: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De trinitate (not yet on this site). The prefatory letter to Aurelius is Letter 174. Allusions: Lev 11:20–23 (four-footed flying creatures, locusts); 1 Cor 6:18. - On 1 Cor 6:18 Augustine restricts “fornication” to that committed by illicit intercourse (concubitus inlicitus). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.15 (CSEL 36:147–149; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-15). ## Retractations 2.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-16 - Source: CSEL 36:149–151 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Agreement of the Evangelists, Augustine corrects his derivation of “Hebrews,” his phrase on Joseph's adoption, and his identification of Nathan. ### Latin text Per eosdem annos, quibus paulatim libros de trinitate dictabam, scripsi et alios labore continuo interponens eos illorum temporibus, in quibus sunt libri quattuor de consensu euangelistarum propter eos, qui tamquam dissentientibus calumniantur. quorum primus liber aduersus illos conscriptus est, qui tamquam maxime sapientem Christum uel honorant uel honorare se fingunt et ideo nolunt euangelio credere, quia non ab illo illa conscripta sunt, sed ab eius discipulis, quos existimant ei diuinitatem, qua crederetur deus, errore tribuisse. In quo libro ex Abraham coepisse gentem Hebreorum est quidem et hoc credibile, ut Hebrei uelut Abrahei dicti esse uideantur, sed ex illo uerius intelleguntur appellati, qui uocabatur Heber, tamquam Heberei, de qua re in libro sexto decimo de ciuitate dei satis disserui. in secundo, cum agerem de duobus patribus Ioseph, ab altero dixi genitum, ab altero adoptatum; sed dicendum fuit: alteri adoptatum. defuncto enim, quod magis credendum est, secundum legem fuerat adoptatus, quoniam qui eum genuit eius matrem, fratris defuncti coniugem, duxerat. item ubi dixi: Lucas uero ad ipsum Dauid per Nathan ascendit, per quem prophetam deus peccatum ipsius expiauit, per cuius nominis prophetam dicere debui, ne putaretur idem fuisse homo, cum alter fuerit, quamuis et ipse hoc uocaretur. Hoc opus sic incipit: Inter omnes diuinas auctoritates. ### English translation (Claude) During the same years in which I was dictating the books On the Trinity little by little, I also wrote others with continuous labor, inserting them into the intervals of those; among them are four books On the Agreement of the Evangelists, because of those who slander them as disagreeing. The first of these books was written against those who either honor Christ as supremely wise, or pretend to honor him, and therefore will not believe the Gospel, because it was not written by him but by his disciples, who they think attributed divinity to him in error, so that he would be believed to be God. In this book, that the nation of the Hebrews began from Abraham is indeed credible, so that the Hebrews might seem to have been called as it were Abrahei; but they are more truly understood to have been named from him who was called Heber, as it were Heberei; on this matter I have discussed enough in the sixteenth book of The City of God. In the second book, when I was treating of the two fathers of Joseph, I said that he was begotten by one and adopted by the other; but I should have said “adopted for the other.” For he had been adopted according to the law, as is more to be believed, for the dead man, since the one who begot him had married his mother, the wife of his dead brother. Likewise where I said, “But Luke ascends to David himself through Nathan, through which prophet God expiated his sin,” I should have said “through a prophet of which name,” lest it be thought that the same man was meant, whereas it was another, although he too was called so. This work begins thus: “Among all the divine authorities…” ### Scripture references - Gen 10:21: allusion, medium confidence - Luke 3:31: allusion, high confidence - 2 Sam 12:13: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Civ. 16.11 (City of God): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De consensu euangelistarum. On Heber: City of God 16.3 and 16.11. Allusions: Gen 10:21–25 (Heber/Eber); Luke 3:31 (Nathan son of David); 2 Sam 12 (Nathan the prophet). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.16 (CSEL 36:149–151; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-16). ## Retractations 2.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-17 - Source: CSEL 36:151–152 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing Against the Letter of Parmenian, Augustine corrects his reading of 1 Cor 5:13 as referring to removing the evil person by church discipline. ### Latin text In quibusdam libris contra epistulam Parmeniani, Donatistarum Carthaginiensis episcopi successorisque Donati, quaestio noua uersatur et soluitur, utrum in unitate eorundem communione sacramentorum mali contaminent bonos et quemadmodum non contaminent disputatur propter ecclesiam toto orbe diffusam, cui calumniando scisma fecerunt. In quorum libro tertio, cum dissereretur, quomodo sit accipiendum, quod ait apostolus: auferte malum ex uobis ipsis, illud, quod dixi: ut ex se ipso quisque auferat malum, non sic esse intellegendum, sed sic potius, ut homo malus auferatur ex hominibus bonis, quod fit per ecclesiasticam disciplinam, sicut graeca lingua indicat, ubi sine ambiguitate scriptum est, ut intellegatur: hominem malum, non: hoc malum, quamuis et secundum istum intellectum responderim Parmeniano. Hoc opus sic incipit: Multa quidem alias aduersus Donatistas. ### English translation (Claude) In certain books Against the Letter of Parmenian, bishop of the Donatists at Carthage and successor of Donatus, a new question is treated and solved: whether in unity, through communion in the same sacraments, the wicked contaminate the good; and it is argued how they do not contaminate them, for the sake of the church spread throughout the whole world, against which they made a schism by slandering it. In the third of these books, when it was being discussed how what the apostle says is to be taken, “Remove the evil from among yourselves,” what I said, that each should remove the evil from himself, is not to be so understood, but rather so: that the evil man is to be removed from among good men, which is done by church discipline, as the Greek language shows, where it is written without ambiguity, so that “the evil man” is understood, not “this evil”; although I replied to Parmenian according to that other understanding as well. This work begins thus: “Many things indeed elsewhere against the Donatists…” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 5:13: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra epistulam Parmeniani. Quotation: 1 Cor 5:13 (Greek τὸν πονηρόν, “the evil man”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.17 (CSEL 36:151–152; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-17). ## Retractations 2.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-18 - Source: CSEL 36:152–154 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Baptism against the Donatists, Augustine clarifies the church “without spot or wrinkle,” doubts the example of the thief, and prefers Tyconius's reading of the vessels in a great house. ### Latin text Contra Donatistas auctoritate beatissimi episcopi et martyris Cypriani se defendere molientes septem libros de baptismo scripsi, in quibus docui nihil sic ualere ad refellendos Donatistas et ad eorum prorsus ora claudenda, ne aduersus catholicam suum scisma defendant, quomodo litteras factumque Cypriani. Vbicumque autem in his libris commemoraui ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam, non sic accipiendum est, quasi iam sit, sed quae praeparatur, ut sit, quando apparebit etiam gloriosa. nunc enim propter quasdam ignorantias et infirmitates membrorum suorum habet, unde cottidie tota dicat: dimitte nobis debita nostra. in quarto libro, cum dicerem uicem baptismi posse habere passionem, non satis idoneum posui illius latronis exemplum, quia utrum non fuerit baptizatus incertum est. in libro septimo de uasis aureis et argenteis in domo magna constitutis sensum Cypriani secutus sum, qui haec accepit in bonis, in malis autem lignea et fictilia, ad illa referens quod dictum est: alia quidem in honorem, ad haec autem quod dictum est: alia uero in contumeliam. sed magis approbo, quod apud Tyconium postea repperi uel aduerti, in utrisque intellegendum quaedam in honore, non sola scilicet aurea et argentea, et rursus in utrisque quaedam in contumelia, non utique lignea et fictilia. Hoc opus sic incipit: In eis libris, quos aduersus epistulam Parmeniani. ### English translation (Claude) Against the Donatists, who try to defend themselves by the authority of the most blessed bishop and martyr Cyprian, I wrote seven books On Baptism, in which I taught that nothing is so effective for refuting the Donatists, and for altogether shutting their mouths so that they may not defend their schism against the Catholic Church, as the letters and the conduct of Cyprian. But wherever in these books I mentioned the church not having spot or wrinkle, it is not to be taken as though it already is so, but as being prepared to be so, when it too will appear glorious. For now, because of certain ignorances and weaknesses of its members, it has reason for the whole of it to say daily, “Forgive us our debts.” In the fourth book, when I said that suffering can take the place of baptism, I set down the example of that thief as not suitable enough, because it is uncertain whether he was not baptized. In the seventh book, concerning the vessels of gold and silver placed in a great house, I followed the sense of Cyprian, who took these as among the good, and the wooden and earthen ones among the wicked, referring to the former what is said, “some indeed for honor,” and to the latter what is said, “but some for dishonor.” But I approve rather what I afterward found or noticed in Tyconius: that in both kinds some are to be understood as for honor, not of course only the golden and silver ones, and again in both kinds some as for dishonor, not of course the wooden and earthen ones only. This work begins thus: “In those books which against the letter of Parmenian…” ### Scripture references - Eph 5:27: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence - Luke 23:43: allusion, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:20: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De baptismo. Quotations and allusions: Eph 5:27; Col 3:4; Matt 6:12; Luke 23:43 (the thief); 2 Tim 2:20. - Tyconius, the Donatist exegete, author of the Book of Rules. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.18 (CSEL 36:152–154; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-18). ## Retractations 2.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-19 - Source: CSEL 36:154 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his brief reply to testimonies brought by Centurius from the Donatists. ### Latin text Cum aduersus partem Donati multa crebris disputationibus ageremus, adtulit ad ecclesiam quidam laicus tunc eorum nonnulla contra nos dicta uel scripta in paucis uelut testimoniis, quae suae causae suffragari putant. breuissime respondi. huius libelli titulus est: contra quod adtulit Centurius a Donatistis, et incipit sic: Dicis eo, quod scriptum est in Salomone: ab aqua aliena abstinere. ### English translation (Claude) When we were dealing with the party of Donatus in many and frequent disputations, a certain layman, then one of them, brought to the church some things said or written against us in a few would-be testimonies which they think support their cause. I replied very briefly. The title of this little book is Against What Centurius Brought from the Donatists, and it begins thus: “You say that, because it is written in Solomon, ‘Abstain from strange water…’” ### Scripture references - Prov 9:18: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Lost work. The quotation alludes to Prov 9:18 in the Old Latin (LXX addition), “abstain from strange water.” ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.19 (CSEL 36:154; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-19). ## Retractations 2.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-20 - Source: CSEL 36:154–155 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his answers to Januarius on church customs, Augustine notes that his statement about the taste of the manna rests only on the book of Wisdom, which the Jews do not accept as canonical. ### Latin text Libri duo, quorum est titulus: ad inquisitiones Ianuari, multa de sacramentis continent disputata, siue quae uniuersaliter siue partiliter, id est non peraeque in omnibus locis, seruat ecclesia, nec tamen commemorari omnia potuerunt, sed satis ad inquisita responsum est. quorum librorum prior epistula est — habet quippe in capite, quis ad quem scribat - sed ideo inter libros adnumeratur hoc opus, quoniam sequens, qui nomina nostra non habet, multo est prolixior et in eo multo plura tractantur. In primo ergo, quod de manna dixi: quia unicuique secundum propriam uoluntatem in ore sapiebat, non mihi occurrit, unde possit probari, nisi ex libro Sapientiae, quem Iudaei non recipiunt in auctoritatem canonicam. quod tamen fidelibus potuit prouenire, non illis aduersus deum murmuratoribus, qui profecto alias escas non desiderarent, si hoc eis saperet manna, quod uellent. Hoc opus sic incipit: Ad ea, quae me interrogasti. ### English translation (Claude) Two books whose title is To the Inquiries of Januarius contain many discussions about sacraments, whether those which the church observes universally or partially, that is, not equally in all places; yet not all could be mentioned, but the inquiries were answered sufficiently. The first of these books is a letter, for it has at its head who is writing to whom; but this work is counted among the books because the following one, which does not have our names, is much longer and many more things are treated in it. In the first, then, what I said of the manna, that it tasted in the mouth to each according to his own will, does not occur to me how it can be proved, except from the book of Wisdom, which the Jews do not receive into canonical authority. This, however, could have happened to the faithful, not to those who murmured against God, who certainly would not have desired other food if the manna had tasted to them as they wished. This work begins thus: “To what you asked me…” ### Scripture references - Num 11:4: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Wis 16:20 (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The two books are Letters 54 and 55. Allusions: Wis 16:20–21; Num 11:4–6 (the murmuring for other food). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.20 (CSEL 36:154–155; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-20). ## Retractations 2.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-21 - Source: CSEL 36:155–156 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he wrote On the Work of Monks at Aurelius's order, because some monks at Carthage refused manual work and wore long hair. ### Latin text Vt de opere monachorum librum scriberem, illa necessitas conpulit, quod cum apud Carthaginem monasteria esse coepissent, alii se suis manibus transigebant optemperantes apostolo, alii uero ita ex oblationibus religiosorum uiuere uolebant, ut nihil operantes, unde necessaria uel haberent uel supplerent, se potius implere praeceptum apostolicum existimarent atque iactarent, ubi dominus ait: respicite uolatilia caeli et lilia agri. unde etiam iam inter laicos inferioris propositi, sed tamen studio feruentes existere coeperant tumultuosa certamina, quibus ecclesia turbaretur, aliis hoc, aliis aliud defendentibus. huc accedebat, quod criniti erant quidam eorum, qui operandum non esse dicebant. unde contentiones hinc rixantium, inde quasi pugnantium pro partium studiis augebantur. propter haec uenerabilis senex Aurelius, ecclesiae ipsius ciuitatis episcopus, ut hinc aliquid scriberem iussit, et feci. Hic liber sic incipit: Iussioni tuae, sancte frater Aureli. ### English translation (Claude) What compelled me to write a book On the Work of Monks was this necessity: when monasteries had begun to exist at Carthage, some supported themselves with their own hands, obeying the apostle; but others wished to live on the offerings of the devout in such a way that, doing no work from which they might either have or supply what they needed, they thought and boasted that they were rather fulfilling the precept of the Gospel where the Lord says, “Look at the birds of the air and the lilies of the field.” Hence even among laypeople of a lower way of life, but fervent in zeal, tumultuous disputes had begun to arise by which the church was disturbed, some defending one view, some another. Added to this was the fact that some of those who said that one should not work wore their hair long. Hence the contentions of those quarreling on one side and of those fighting, as it were, on the other increased with partisan zeal. Because of this the venerable old man Aurelius, bishop of the church of that same city, ordered me to write something on this, and I did. This book begins thus: “To your command, holy brother Aurelius…” ### Scripture references - 2 Thess 3:10: allusion, high confidence - Matt 6:26: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:28: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Op. mon. (On the Work of Monks): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De opere monachorum. Allusions: 1 Thess 4:11 and 2 Thess 3:10 (the apostle on working); Matt 6:26, 28; 1 Cor 11:14 (long hair, implied). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.21 (CSEL 36:155–156; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-21). ## Retractations 2.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-22 - Source: CSEL 36:156–159 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he wrote On the Good of Marriage against Jovinian, who equated virginity with marriage, and clarifies his statements on carnal pleasure and on Abraham. ### Latin text Iouiniani heresis sacrarum uirginum meritum aequando pudicitiae coniugali tantum ualuit in urbe Romana, ut nonnullas etiam sanctimoniales, de quarum inpudicitia suspicio nulla praecesserat, deiecisse in nuptias diceretur hoc maxime argumento, cum eas urgeret dicens: tu ergo melior quam Sarra, melior quam Susanna siue Anna? et ceteras commemorando testimonio sanctae scripturae commendatissimas feminas, quibus se illae meliores uel etiam pares cogitare non possent. hoc modo etiam uirorum sanctorum sanctum caelibatum commemoratione patrum coniugatorum et conparatione frangebat. huic monstro sancta ecclesia, quae ibi est, fidelissime ac fortissime restitit. remanserant autem istae disputationes eius in quorundam sermunculis ac susurris, quas palam suadere nullus audebat. sed etiam occulte uenenis repentibus facultate, quam donabat dominus, occurrendum fuit, maxime quoniam iactabatur Iouiniano responderi non potuisse cum laude, sed cum uituperatione nuptiarum. propter hoc librum edidi, cuius inscriptio est: de bono coniugali. ubi de propagine filiorum, priusquam homines mortem peccando mererentur, quoniam concubitus mortalium corporum res uidetur, quaestio magna dilata est, sed in aliis postea litteris nostris satis, quantum arbitror, explicatur. Dixi etiam quodam loco: quod enim est cibus ad salutem corporis, hoc est concubitus ad salutem generis, et utrumque non est sine delectatione carnali, quae tamen modificata et temperantia refrenante in usum naturalem redacta libido esse non potest. quod ideo dictum est, quoniam libido non est bonus et rectus usus libidinis. sicut enim malum est male uti bonis, ita bonum bene uti malis, de qua re alias, maxime contra nouos hereticos Pelagianos diligentius disputaui. de Abraham quod dixi: ex hac oboedientia pater ille Abraham, qui sine uxore non fuit, esse sine unico filio et a se occiso paratus fuit, non satis approbo. magis enim filius si esset occisus, resuscitatione sibi mox fuisse reddendum credidisse credendus est, sicut in epistula legitur, quae est ad Hebreos. Hic liber sic incipit: Quoniam unusquisque homo humani generis pars est. ### English translation (Claude) The heresy of Jovinian, by making the merit of consecrated virgins equal to conjugal chastity, had such force in the city of Rome that it was said to have cast down into marriage even some nuns, about whose chastity no suspicion had arisen before, chiefly by this argument, when he pressed them, saying: “Are you then better than Sarah, better than Susanna or Anna?” and by recalling the other women most highly commended by the testimony of holy Scripture, than whom they could not think themselves better or even equal. In this way he also broke down the holy celibacy of holy men by recalling and comparing the married fathers. The holy church that is there resisted this monstrosity most faithfully and most strongly. But these arguments of his had remained in the little talks and whisperings of certain people, which no one dared to urge openly. Yet it was necessary to meet even poisons creeping in secret with the ability which the Lord gave, especially since 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 On the Good of Marriage. In it the great question about the propagation of children before human beings merited death by sinning, since intercourse seems to be a matter of mortal bodies, was put off; but in other writings of ours afterward it is explained sufficiently, I think. I also said in one place: “For what food is to the health of the body, intercourse is to the health of the race, and neither is without carnal pleasure; which, however, when moderated and restrained by temperance and brought to natural use, cannot be lust.” This was said because lust is not the good and right use of lust. For just as it is evil to use good things badly, so it is good to use evil things well; I have discussed this matter more carefully elsewhere, especially against the new heretics, the Pelagians. What I said of Abraham, “By this obedience that father Abraham, who was not without a wife, was prepared to be without his only son, and that killed by himself,” I do not sufficiently approve. For it is rather to be believed that he believed that his son, if he had been killed, would soon be restored to him by being raised up, as is read in the letter to the Hebrews. This book begins thus: “Since each human being is a part of the human race…” ### Scripture references - Gen 22:10: allusion, high confidence - Heb 11:19: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Bon. conjug. (On the Good of Marriage): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Nupt. conc. (On Marriage and Concupiscence): allusion, medium confidence - Sus (Susanna): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De bono coniugali. Jovinian (condemned at Rome ca. 393) held that virginity was of no greater merit than marriage. Allusions: Gen 22 (Abraham's sacrifice); Heb 11:17–19. Women named: Sarah, Susanna (of the Additions to Daniel, extrabiblical), Anna (Luke 2:36) or Hannah (1 Sam 1). - On marriage and lust Augustine distinguishes pleasure restrained and brought to natural use from libido; the later treatment is in On Marriage and Concupiscence and other anti-Pelagian works. Translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.22 (CSEL 36:156–159; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-22). ## Retractations 2.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-23 - Source: CSEL 36:159 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that he wrote On Holy Virginity right after On the Good of Marriage. ### Latin text Posteaquam scripsi de bono coniugali, expectabatur, ut scriberem de sancta uirginitate, nec distuli atque id dei munus et quam magnum et quanta humilitate custodiendum esset uno, sicut potui, uolumine ostendi. Hic liber sic incipit: Librum de bono coniugali nuper edidimus. ### English translation (Claude) After I wrote On the Good of Marriage, it was expected that I would write On Holy Virginity; nor did I delay, and I showed in one volume, as well as I could, how great a gift of God it is and with how great humility it must be guarded. This book begins thus: “We recently published a book On the Good of Marriage.” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Virginit. (On Holy Virginity): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De sancta uirginitate. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.23 (CSEL 36:159; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-23). ## Retractations 2.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-24 - Source: CSEL 36:159–161 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On Genesis according to the Letter, Augustine admits that more was sought than found, and corrects his reading of Gal 3:19, his statement that Adam lost the image of God, and his treatment of the underworld. ### Latin text Per idem tempus de Genesi libros duodecim scripsi ab exordio, donec de paradiso dimissus est Adam et flammea rumphea posita est custodire uiam ligni uitae. cum autem ad hoc usque undecim libri peracti essent, duodecimum addidi, in quo diligentius de paradiso disputatum est. titulus horum librorum inscribitur: de Genesi ad litteram, id est non secundum allegoricas significationes, sed secundum rerum gestarum proprietatem. in quo opere multa quaesita quam inuenta sunt et eorum, quae inuenta sunt, pauciora firmata, cetera uero ita posita, uelut adhuc requirenda sint. hos sane libros posterius coepi, sed prius terminaui quam de trinitate; ideo eos nunc ordine, quo coepi, recolui. In quinto libro et ubicumque in eis libris posui de semine, cui repromissum est, quod dispositum sit per angelos in manu mediatoris, non sic habet apostolus, sicut ueriores codices post inspexi, maxime graecos. de lege enim dictum est, quod tamquam de semine dictum multi latini codices habent per interpretantis errorem. in sexto libro quod dixi: Adam imaginem dei, secundum quam factus est, perdidit peccato, non sic accipiendum est, tamquam in eo nulla remanserit, sed quod tam deformis, ut reformatione opus haberet. in duodecimo de inferis magis mihi uideor docere debuisse, quod sub terris sunt, quam rationem reddere, cur sub terra, terra cum esse credantur siue dicantur, quasi non ita sit. Hoc opus sic incipit: Omnis diuina scriptura bipertita est. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time I wrote twelve books on Genesis, from the beginning until Adam was sent out of paradise and a flaming sword was set to guard the way to the tree of life. When eleven books had been completed up to this point, I added a twelfth, in which paradise was discussed more carefully. The title of these books is On Genesis according to the Letter, that is, not according to allegorical meanings but according to the proper sense of events that happened. 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 still to be inquired into. These books I indeed began later than those On the Trinity but finished earlier; therefore I have now gone over them in the order in which I began them. In the fifth book, and wherever in those books I set down concerning the seed to which the promise was made that it was ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator, the apostle does not have it so, as I afterward saw in more correct copies, especially Greek ones. For it was said of the law, which many Latin copies have as though said of the seed, through the translator's error. In the sixth book, what I said, that Adam lost by sin the image of God according to which he was made, is not to be taken as though none remained in him, but that it was so deformed that it needed reforming. In the twelfth, concerning the underworld, I think I ought rather to have taught that it is under the earth than to have given a reason why it is believed or said to be under the earth, as though it were not so. This work begins thus: “All divine Scripture is twofold…” ### Scripture references - Gen 3:24: allusion, high confidence - Gal 3:19: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De Genesi ad litteram (not yet on this site). Allusions: Gen 3:24; Gal 3:19 (in the Greek “it was ordained through angels” refers to the law, not the seed). - The clause on the underworld is somewhat garbled in the digital text (“cur sub terra, terra cum esse credantur”); translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.24 (CSEL 36:159–161; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-1/#p-2-24). ## Retractations 2.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-25 - Source: CSEL 36:161–162 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes the three books of his reply to the Donatist bishop Petilian. ### Latin text Antequam finirem libros de trinitate et libros de Genesi ad litteram, inruit causa respondendi litteris Petiliani Donatistae, quas aduersus catholicam scripsit, quam differre non potui, et scripsi in hanc rem tria uolumina, quorum primo primae parti epistulae ipsius, quam scripsit ad suos, quia non tota in nostras manus uenerat, sed prior parua pars eius, quanta potui celeritate et ueritate respondi. etiam ipsa epistula est ad nostros, sed ideo inter libros habetur, quia ceteri duo in eadem causa libri sunt. postea quippe inuenimus totam eique tanta diligentia respondi, quanta Fausto Manicheo, uerba scilicet eius sub eius nomine prius ponens particulatim et sub meo per singula responsionem meam. sed prius, quod scripseram, antequam totam reperiremus, peruenit ad Petilianum, et iratus respondere conatus est in me potius dicens quidquid eum libuit, in causa uero omnino deficiens. quod cum possit conlatis utriusque nostrum scriptis facillime aduerti, tamen propter tardiores hoc ipse respondendo demonstrare curaui. sic est additus eidem operi nostro liber tertius. Hoc opus in primo libro sic incipit: Nostis nos saepe uoluisse; in secundo autem sic: Primis partibus epistulae Petiliani; in tertio autem sic: Legi, Petiliane, litteras tuas. ### English translation (Claude) Before I finished the books On the Trinity and the books On Genesis according to the Letter, there burst upon me the task of answering the letter of Petilian the Donatist which he wrote against the Catholic Church, a task I could not put off; and I wrote three volumes on this matter. In the first of them I replied, with as much speed and truth as I could, to the first part of his letter, which he wrote to his own people, because not all of it had come into our hands but only a small first part of it. This too is a letter, addressed to our people; but it is counted among the books because the other two on the same case are books. For afterward we found the whole letter, and I replied to it with as much care as to Faustus the Manichaean, setting down his words first, piece by piece, under his name, and my reply to each under mine. But what I had written first, before we found the whole, reached Petilian, and in anger he tried to reply, saying against me rather whatever he pleased, but failing altogether in the case. Although this can be noticed very easily by comparing the writings of us both, I nevertheless took care to show it myself by replying, for the sake of the slower. Thus a third book was added to this work of ours. This work begins in the first book thus: “You know that we have often wished…”; in the second thus: “To the first parts of the letter of Petilian…”; and in the third thus: “I have read, Petilian, your letter…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra litteras Petiliani. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.25 (CSEL 36:161–162; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-25). ## Retractations 2.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-26 - Source: CSEL 36:162–163 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his four books against the Donatist grammarian Cresconius, the fourth built on the case of the Maximianists. ### Latin text Grammaticus etiam quidam Donatista Cresconius cum inuenisset epistulam meam, qua primas partes, quae in manus nostras tunc uenerant, epistulae Petiliani redargui, putauit mihi esse respondendum et hoc ipsum scripsit ad me. cui operi eius libris quattuor respondi, ita sane, ut tribus peragerem, quod uniuersa responsio flagitabat. sed cum uiderem de sola Maximianensium causa, quos suos scismaticos damnauerunt et eorum aliquos rursus in suis honoribus receperunt baptismumque ab eis extra suam communionem datum non repetiuerunt, responderi posse ad cuncta, quae scripsit, etiam quartum librum addidi, in quo id ipsum, quantum potui, diligenter atque euidenter ostendi. hos autem quattuor libros quando scripsi, iam contra Donatistas dederat leges Honorius imperator. Hoc opus sic incipit: Quando ad te, Cresconi, mea scripta peruenire possent, ignorans. ### English translation (Claude) A certain Donatist grammarian, Cresconius, having found my letter in which I refuted the first parts of Petilian's letter that had then come into our hands, thought that he should reply to me, and wrote this very thing to me. I answered this work of his in four books, in such a way indeed that I accomplished in three what the whole reply required. But when I saw that everything he wrote could be answered from the single case of the Maximianists, whom they condemned as their own schismatics, and some of whom they received back in their offices, without repeating the baptism given by them outside their communion, I added a fourth book too, in which I showed this very thing as carefully and clearly as I could. When I wrote these four books, the emperor Honorius had already given laws against the Donatists. This work begins thus: “Not knowing when my writings could reach you, Cresconius…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Cresconium. The Maximianists were a schism within the Donatist party (393); Honorius's laws against the Donatists date from 405. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.26 (CSEL 36:162–163; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-26). ## Retractations 2.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-27 - Source: CSEL 36:163–165 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his lost book of proofs against the Donatists, posted on a basilica wall, and corrects the date of Felix's acquittal and his use of Jude 19 and 1 Cor 2:14. ### Latin text Post haec, ut ad Donatistas peruenirent, contra eorum errorem et pro catholica ueritate necessaria documenta curaui siue de ecclesiasticis siue de publicis gestis siue de scripturis canonicis et primo ad illos eadem promissa direxi, ut ipsi, si fieri posset, exposcerent. quae cum uenissent in eorum quorundam manus, nescio quis extitit, qui suo nomine tacito contra haec scriberet, ita se confitens Donatistam, tamquam hoc uocaretur. cui ego respondens alium librum scripsi. illa uero documenta, quae promiseram, eidem libello, quo eadem promiseram, iunxi et ex utroque unum esse uolui eumque sic edidi, ut in parietibus basilicae, quae Donatistarum fuerat, prius propositus legeretur. cuius titulus est: probationum et testimoniorum contra Donatistas. In quo libro absolutionem Felicis Abtugnensis, ordinatoris Caeciliani, non ordine posuimus, quo postea nobis claruit consulibus diligenter inspectis, sed tamquam post Caecilianum fuerit absolutus, cum ante sit factum. illud etiam, quod commemorato Iudae apostoli testimonio, ubi ait: hi sunt, qui segregant semet ipsos, animales, spiritum non habentes, adiunxi etiam dicens: de quibus et Paulus apostolus dicit: animalis autem homo non percipit, quae sunt spiritus dei, non sunt isti illis coaequandi, quos omnino ab ecclesia scisma praecidit. istos quippe idem apostolus Paulus paruulos dicit esse in Christo, quos nondum escam ualentes capere lacte nutrit tamen, illi autem non in filiis paruulis, sed in mortuis et perditis conputandi sunt, ut, si quis eorum correctus ecclesiae fuerit copulatus, recte de illo dici possit: mortuus erat et reuixit, perierat et inuentus est. Hic liber sic incipit: Qui timetis consentire ecclesiae catholicae. ### English translation (Claude) After this, so that they might reach the Donatists, I provided necessary documents against their error and for the Catholic truth, whether from church proceedings or public records or the canonical Scriptures; and first I sent to them the promise of these, so that they themselves might ask for them, if that could be. When this came into the hands of some of them, someone or other appeared who wrote against it without giving his name, calling himself a Donatist as though that were his name. Replying to him, I wrote another book. Those documents which I had promised I joined to the same little book in which I had promised them, and I wished one book to be made out of both; and I published it so that it was first posted and read on the walls of a basilica which had belonged to the Donatists. Its title is Of Proofs and Testimonies against the Donatists. In this book we did not set the acquittal of Felix of Abthugni, the consecrator of Caecilianus, in the order which afterward became clear to us when the consuls had been carefully examined, but as though he had been acquitted after Caecilianus, whereas it happened before. Also, as for what I added after recalling the testimony of the apostle Jude, where he says, “These are those who separate themselves, animal men, not having the Spirit,” saying, “Of whom the apostle Paul also says, ‘But the animal man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God’”: those are not to be equated with these whom schism has cut off altogether from the church. For the same apostle Paul says that these are little ones in Christ, whom, not yet able to take solid food, he nevertheless 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 is corrected and joined to the church, it can rightly be said of him: “He was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.” This book begins thus: “You who fear to consent to the Catholic Church…” ### Scripture references - Jude 1:19: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 2:14: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 3:1: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 3:2: allusion, high confidence - Luke 15:32: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Probationum et testimoniorum contra Donatistas (lost). Quotations: Jude 19; 1 Cor 2:14; 1 Cor 3:1–2 (allusion); Luke 15:32. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.27 (CSEL 36:163–165; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-27). ## Retractations 2.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-28 - Source: CSEL 36:165–166 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine corrects his lost book Against a Certain Donatist: the tares are not only heresies outside the church but also wicked people within it, as Cyprian said. ### Latin text Alterius libri, quem superius commemoraui, titulum esse uolui: contra nescio quem Donatistam. ubi similiter de absolutione ordinatoris Caeciliani uerus ordo temporis non est. illud etiam, quod dixi: ad multitudinem zizaniorum, ubi intelleguntur omnes hereses, minus habet unam necessariam coniunctionem; dicendum enim fuit: ubi intelleguntur et omnes hereses [aut: ubi intelleguntur etiam omnes hereses]. nunc uero ita dictum est, quasi praeter ecclesiam tantummodo sint zizania, non etiam in ecclesia, cum ipsa sit regnum Christi, de quo conlecturi sunt angeli eius messis tempore omnia scandala. unde et Cyprianus martyr: etsi uidentur, inquit, in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen inpediri debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut, quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia cernimus, ipsi de ecclesia recedamus. quem sensum etiam nos alias et maxime aduersus eosdem praesentes Donatistas in conlatione defendimus. Hic liber sic incipit: Probationes rerum necessariarum quodam breuiculo collectas promisimus. ### English translation (Claude) The title of the other book, which I mentioned above, I wished to be Against a Certain Donatist. In it, likewise, the true order of time concerning the acquittal of Caecilianus's consecrator is not given. Also, what I said, “to the multitude of tares, by which all heresies are understood,” lacks one necessary conjunction; for I should have said, “by which all heresies are also understood.” As it is, it is said as though tares were only outside the church and not also in the church, although the church itself is the kingdom of Christ, from which his angels will gather all causes of stumbling at the time of the harvest. Hence the martyr Cyprian too says: “Even if there seem to be tares in the church, neither our faith nor our charity ought to be hindered, so that, because we see that there are tares in the church, we ourselves should withdraw from the church.” This sense we have defended elsewhere too, and especially against these same Donatists when they were present at the conference. This book begins thus: “We promised proofs of necessary matters collected in a certain short summary…” ### Scripture references - Matt 13:30: allusion, high confidence - Matt 13:41: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Ep. 54.3 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Lost work. Allusions: Matt 13:24–30, 41 (the tares; angels gathering all causes of stumbling out of the kingdom). Quotation: Cyprian, Letter 54.3. The conference: the Conference of Carthage, 411. - The editor brackets an alternative wording (“or: by which all heresies are even understood”) as a later addition; it is left out. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.28 (CSEL 36:165–166; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-28). ## Retractations 2.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-29 - Source: CSEL 36:166–167 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes a short, lost tract warning the Donatists by the case of the Maximianists. ### Latin text Cum uiderem multos legendi labore inpediri a discendo, quam nihil rationis atque ueritatis habeat pars Donati, libellum breuissimum feci, quo eos de solis Maximianistis admonendos putaui, ut posset facilitate describendi in manus plurium peruenire et ipsa sui breuitate facilius commendari memoriae, cui titulum inposui: admonitio Donatistarum de Maximianistis. Hic liber sic incipit: Quicumque calumniis hominum et criminationibus mouemini. ### English translation (Claude) When I saw that many were hindered by the labor of reading from learning how the party of Donatus has nothing of reason or truth, I made a very short little book, in which I thought they should be warned only about the Maximianists, so that it might reach the hands of more people by being easy to copy and might more easily be committed to memory by its very brevity. I gave it the title A Warning to the Donatists about the Maximianists. This book begins thus: “Whoever of you are moved by the slanders and accusations of men…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Admonitio Donatistarum de Maximianistis (lost). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.29 (CSEL 36:166–167; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-29). ## Retractations 2.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-30 - Source: CSEL 36:167–168 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the Divination of Demons, Augustine says he spoke too boldly about how demons learn human thoughts. ### Latin text Per idem tempus accidit mihi in quadam disputatione necessitas, ut de diuinatione daemonum libellum scriberem, cuius titulus iste ipse est. In eius autem quodam loco, ubi dixi: daemones aliquando et hominum dispositiones non solum uoce prolatas uerum etiam cogitatione conceptas, cum signa quaedam ex animo exprimuntur in corpore, tota facilitate perdiscere, rem dixi occultissimam audaciore asseueratione, quam debui; nam peruenire ista ad notitiam daemonum per nonnulla etiam experimenta conpertum est. sed utrum signa quaedam dentur ex corpore cogitantium illis sensibilia, nos autem latentia, an alia ui et ea spiritali ista cognoscant, aut difficillime potest ab hominibus aut omnino non potest inueniri. Hic liber sic incipit: Quodam die in diebus sanctis octauarum. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time it became necessary for me, in a certain discussion, to write a little book on the divination of demons, whose title is just that. In one place in it, where I said that “demons sometimes learn with complete ease even the dispositions of human beings, not only when uttered by voice but also when conceived in thought, when certain signs from the mind are expressed in the body,” I spoke about a most hidden matter with bolder assertion than I should have. For that these things come to the knowledge of demons has been found out even by a number of experiences. But whether certain signs are given from the body of those who are thinking, perceptible to them but hidden from us, or whether they know these things by another power, and that a spiritual one, either can be discovered by human beings only with the greatest difficulty or cannot be discovered at all. This book begins thus: “One day, in the holy days of the octave…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Div. daem. (On the Divination of Demons): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De diuinatione daemonum. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.30 (CSEL 36:167–168; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-30). ## Retractations 2.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-31 - Source: CSEL 36:168–169 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his answers to six questions against the pagans and explains that being “worthy” of salvation depends on God's calling, not one's own merits. ### Latin text Inter haec missae sunt mihi Carthagine quaestiones sex, quas proposuit amicus quidam, quem cupiebam fieri Christianum, ut contra paganos soluerentur, praesertim quia nonnullas earum a Porfyrio philosopho propositas dixit. sed non esse arbitror Porfyrium Siculum, cuius celeberrima est fama. harum quaestionum disputationes in unum librum contuli non prolixum, cuius est titulus: sex quaestiones contra paganos expositae. earum autem prima est de resurrectione, secunda de tempore Christianae religionis, tertia de sacrificiorum distinctione, quarta de eo, quod scriptum est: in qua mensura mensi fueritis, remetietur uobis, quinta de filio dei secundum Salomonem, sexta de Iona propheta. In quarum secunda quod dixi: salus religionis huius, per quam solam ueram salus uera ueraciterque promittitur, nulli umquam defuit, qui dignus fuit, et cui defuit, dignus non fuit, non ita dixi, tamquam ex meritis suis quisque dignus fuerit, sed quemadmodum ait apostolus non ex operibus, sed ex uocante dictum esse: maior seruiet minori, quam uocationem ad dei propositum asserit pertinere. unde dicit: non secundum opera nostra, sed secundum suum propositum et gratiam; unde item dicit: scimus, quia diligentibus deum omnia cooperantur in bonum his, qui secundum propositum uocati sunt. de qua uocatione ait: ut dignos uos habeat uocatione sua sancta. Hic liber post epistulam, quae postmodum a capite addita est, sic incipit: Mouet quosdam, et requirunt. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile six questions were sent to me from Carthage, which a certain friend, whom I desired to become a Christian, put forward to be solved against the pagans, especially since he said that some of them had been put forward by the philosopher Porphyry. But I do not think it is the Sicilian Porphyry, whose fame is very great. I gathered the discussions of these questions into one book, not long, whose title is Six Questions against the Pagans Explained. 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 with which you measure it will be measured back to you”; 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 promised, was never lacking to anyone who was worthy of it, and he to whom it was lacking was not worthy,” I did not say as though anyone was worthy by his own merits, but in the way in which the apostle says that it was said not from works but from him who calls, “The elder will serve the younger,” a calling which he asserts belongs to God's purpose. Hence he says, “not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace”; and hence again he says, “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” Of this calling he says, “that he may count you worthy of his holy calling.” This book, after the letter which was afterward added at its head, begins thus: “It troubles some, and they ask…” ### Scripture references - Matt 7:2: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:12: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 1:9: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:28: quotation, high confidence - 2 Thess 1:11: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Porphyry, Porphyry, Chr. (Porphyry, Against the Christians (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The work is Letter 102. Augustine doubts that the author of the questions is the famous philosopher Porphyry, whom he calls Sicilian (Porphyry lived for a time in Sicily). Quotations: Matt 7:2; Rom 9:12; 2 Tim 1:9; Rom 8:28; 2 Thess 1:11. Allusions: Jonah; the Son of God “according to Solomon” (Prov 30:4, uncertain). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.31 (CSEL 36:168–169; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-31). ## Retractations 2.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-32 - Source: CSEL 36:169–170 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes that his exposition of James consists of marginal notes collected by the brothers, made from a poor Latin translation. ### Latin text Inter opuscula mea repperi expositionem epistulae Iacobi, quam retractans aduerti annotationes potius expositorum quorundam eius locorum in librum redactas fratrum diligentia, qui eas in frontibus codicis esse noluerunt. adiuuant ergo aliquid, nisi quod ipsam epistulam, quam legebamus, quando ista dictaui, non diligenter ex graeco habebamus interpretatam. Hic liber sic incipit: Duodecim tribubus, quae sunt in dispersione, salutem. ### English translation (Claude) Among my small works I found an exposition of the letter of James, which, in reviewing it, I noticed was rather notes of my explanations of certain passages of it, gathered into a book by the diligence of the brothers, who did not want them to remain in the margins of the manuscript. They help somewhat, then, except that we did not have the letter itself, which we were reading when I dictated these things, carefully translated from the Greek. This book begins thus: “To the twelve tribes which are in the dispersion, greeting.” ### Scripture references - Jas 1:1: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Expositio epistulae Iacobi (lost). Quotation: Jas 1:1. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.32 (CSEL 36:169–170; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-32). ## Retractations 2.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-33 - Source: CSEL 36:170–172 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains how the Pelagian controversy led him to write On the Merits and Remission of Sins, on infant baptism and original sin, and why he at first spared Pelagius by name. ### Latin text Venit etiam necessitas, quae me cogeret aduersus Pelagianam heresem scribere, contra quam, cum opus erat, non scriptis, sed sermonibus et conlocutionibus agebamus, ut quisque nostrum poterat aut debebat. missis ergo mihi a Carthagine quaestionibus eorum, quas rescribendo dissoluerem, scripsi primum tres libros, quorum titulus est: de peccatorum meritis et remissione. Vbi maxime disputatur de baptismate paruulorum propter originale peccatum, et de gratia, qua iustificamur, hoc est iusti efficimur, quamuis in hac uita nemo ita seruat mandata iustitiae, ut non sit ei necessarium pro suis peccatis orando dicere: dimitte nobis debita nostra. contra quae omnia sentientes illi nouam heresem condiderunt. in his autem libris tangenda adhuc arbitratus sum nomina eorum sic eos facilius posse corrigi sperans, immo etiam in tertio libro, quae est epistula, sed in libris habita propter duos, quibus eam conectendam putaui, Pelagi ipsius nomen non sine aliqua laude posui, quia uita eius a multis praedicabatur, et eius illa redargui, quae in suis scriptis non ex persona sua posuit, sed quid ab aliis diceretur exposuit, quae tamen postea iam hereticus pertinacissima animositate defendit. Caelestius uero discipulus eius iam propter tales assertiones apud Carthaginem in episcopali iudicio, ubi ego non interfui, excommunicationem meruerat. In secundo libro quodam loco: hoc quibusdam, inquam, etiam in fine largietur, ut mortem repentina commutatione non sentiant, seruans locum diligentiori de hac re inquisitioni. aut enim non morientur aut de ista uita in mortem et de morte in aeternam uitam celerrima commutatione tamquam in ictu oculi transeundo mortem non sentient. Hoc opus sic incipit: Quamuis in mediis et magnis curarum aestibus. ### English translation (Claude) There came also a necessity which compelled me to write against the Pelagian heresy, against which, when it was needed, we had been acting not by writings but by sermons and conferences, as each of us could or should. When, therefore, their questions were sent to me from Carthage for me to resolve by writing back, I first wrote three books whose title is On the Merits and Remission of Sins. There is discussed chiefly the baptism of little children because of original sin, and the grace by which we are justified, that is, made just; although in this life no one keeps the commandments of righteousness in such a way that it is not necessary for him to say in prayer for his sins, “Forgive us our debts.” Holding views against all these things, they founded a new heresy. In these books, however, I thought their names should still be passed over, hoping that they could more easily be corrected so; indeed, in the third book, which is a letter but is counted among the books because of the two to which I thought it should be joined, I set down the name of Pelagius himself not without some praise, because his life was praised by many; and I refuted those things of his which he set down in his writings not in his own person but as an exposition of what was said by others, which, however, afterward, when he was already a heretic, he defended with most obstinate animosity. Caelestius, however, his disciple, had already incurred excommunication for such assertions at Carthage, in an episcopal court at which I was not present. In the second book, in one place, I said: “This will be granted to some even at the end, that they will not feel death because of a sudden change,” leaving room for a more careful inquiry on this matter. 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, they will not feel death. This work begins thus: “Although in the midst of great and fierce heats of cares…” ### Scripture references - Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:52: allusion, high confidence - 1 Thess 4:17: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Pecc. mer. (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De peccatorum meritis et remissione. Quotations and allusions: Matt 6:12; 1 Cor 15:51–52 (the twinkling of an eye); 1 Thess 4:17. Caelestius was condemned at Carthage in 411. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.33 (CSEL 36:170–172; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-33). ## Retractations 2.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-34 - Source: CSEL 36:172–173 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing On the One Baptism against Petilian, Augustine corrects the order of events in Constantine's hearings of Felix and Caecilianus. ### Latin text Eo tempore librum de unico baptismo amicus quidam meus a nescio quo Donatista presbytero accepit indicante, quod Petilianus episcopus eorum Constantiniensis eum scripserit. hunc ad me ille adtulit ac uehementer, ut ei responderem, rogauit. librum autem etiam meum, in quo respondi, eundem titulum habere uolui, hoc est de unico baptismo. In quo libro illud, quod dixi: Constantinum imperatorem Donatistis criminantibus ordinatorem Caeciliani Felicem Aptugnensem non negasse accusationis locum, quamuis eos in Caecilianum fictis criminibus calumniosos fuisset expertus, in ordine temporum postea consideratum aliter inuentum est. nam prius memoratus imperator causam Felicis fecit audiri a proconsule, ubi legitur absolutus, et postea ipse Caecilianum cum accusatoribus eius auditum comperit innocentem, ubi eos expertus est in eius criminibus calumniosos. qui ordo temporum per consules declaratus multo uehementius in ea causa calumnias Donatistarum conuincit penitusque subuertit, quod alibi ostendimus. Hic liber sic incipit: Respondere aduersa sentientibus. ### English translation (Claude) At that time a certain friend of mine received a book On the One Baptism from some Donatist presbyter, who indicated that Petilian, their bishop of Constantina, had written it. My friend brought it to me and earnestly asked me to answer it. 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 did not deny the Donatists an opportunity for accusation when they charged Felix of Abthugni, the consecrator of Caecilianus, although he had found them slanderers in the fictitious charges against Caecilianus, was found otherwise when the order of times was considered later. For the aforesaid emperor first had the case of Felix heard by the proconsul, where we read that he was acquitted; and afterward he himself heard Caecilianus with his accusers and found him innocent, where he found them slanderers in their charges against him. This order of times, made clear by the consuls, refutes the slanders of the Donatists in that case much more forcefully and overturns them completely, as we have shown elsewhere. This book begins thus: “To reply to those who hold opposite views…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: De unico baptismo. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.34 (CSEL 36:172–173; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-34). ## Retractations 2.35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-35 - Source: CSEL 36:173–174 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes a longer, lost work arguing against the Donatists from the case of the Maximianists. ### Latin text Scripsi etiam librum inter cetera contra Donatistas non breuissimum, sicut antea, sed grandem multo diligentius; in quo apparet, quemadmodum eorum aduersus ecclesiam catholicam inpium ac superbissimum errorem sola funditus Maximianistarum causa subuertat, quod scisma factum est ex ipsa parte Donati. Hic liber sic incipit: Multa iam diximus, multa iam scripsimus. ### English translation (Claude) Among other things against the Donatists I also wrote a book, not very short as before, but large and much more careful, in which it appears how the case of the Maximianists alone, which was a schism made from the party of Donatus itself, overturns completely their ungodly and most arrogant error against the Catholic Church. This book begins thus: “We have already said much, we have already written much.” ### Translation notes - Latin title: De Maximianistis contra Donatistas (lost). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.35 (CSEL 36:173–174; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-35). ## Retractations 2.36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-36 - Source: CSEL 36:174–175 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his work On the Grace of the New Testament, in which he answered five questions while arguing against the Pelagians. ### Latin text Eo ipso tempore, quo contra Donatistas uehementer exercebamur et contra Pelagianos exerceri iam coeperamus, amicus quidam misit mihi quinque a Carthagine quaestiones et rogauit, ut eas illi scribendo exponerem. quae sunt: quid sibi uelit uox illa: deus, deus meus, ut quid me dereliquisti? et quid sit, quod ait apostolus: ut in caritate radicati et fundati praeualeatis conprehendere cum omnibus sanctis, quae sit latitudo et longitudo et altitudo et profundum; et quae sint quinque uirgines stultae quaeue sapientes; et quae sint tenebrae exteriores; et quomodo intellegendum sit: uerbum caro factum est. ego autem intuens supra dictam heresem, nouam inimicam gratiae dei, sextam mihi proposui quaestionem de gratia testamenti noui, de qua disputans interposita expositione Psalmi uicensimi primi, in cuius capite scriptum est, quod dominus exclamauit in cruce, quod ille amicus in primis mihi proposuit exponendum, omnia illa quinque dissolui non hoc ordine, quo erant proposita, sed sicut mihi disserenti de gratia noui testamenti tamquam suis locis congruenter occurrere potuerunt. Hic liber sic incipit: Quinque mihi proposuisti tractandas quaestiones. ### English translation (Claude) At the very time when we were vigorously engaged against the Donatists and had already begun to be engaged against the Pelagians, a certain friend sent me five questions from Carthage and asked me to explain them to him in writing. They are: what that cry means, “God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”; and what it is that the apostle says, “that, rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth”; and who the five foolish virgins are, and who the wise; and what the outer darkness is; and how “The Word became flesh” is to be understood. But I, considering the aforesaid heresy, new and hostile to the grace of God, set myself a sixth question, on the grace of the New Testament. In discussing it, with an exposition of the twenty-first Psalm inserted (at whose head is written what the Lord cried out on the cross, which that friend had put to me first to be explained), I solved all those five, not in the order in which they had been put, but as they could fittingly come up in their places, as it were, while I was discussing the grace of the New Testament. This book begins thus: “You have put five questions to me to be treated…” ### Scripture references - Ps 22:1 (21:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Matt 27:46: quotation, high confidence - Eph 3:17: quotation, high confidence - Eph 3:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 25:2: allusion, high confidence - Matt 8:12: allusion, high confidence - John 1:14: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The work is Letter 140. Quotations: Ps 22:1 (21:2 LXX/Vulg.) and Matt 27:46; Eph 3:17–18; Matt 25:1–13; Matt 8:12; John 1:14. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.36 (CSEL 36:174–175; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-36). ## Retractations 2.37 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-37 - Source: CSEL 36:175–177 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that On the Spirit and the Letter answered Marcellinus's question how sinlessness could be possible if no example exists, and comments on the word “ceremonies.” ### Latin text Ad quem scripseram tres libros, quorum titulus est: de peccatorum meritis et remissione, ubi diligenter disputatur etiam de baptismo paruulorum, rescripsit mihi se fuisse permotum, quod dixerim fieri posse, ut sit homo sine peccato, si uoluntas eius non desit ope adiuuante diuina, quamuis nemo tam perfectae iustitiae in hac uita uel fuerit uel sit uel futurus sit. quaesiuit enim, quomodo dixerim posse fieri, cuius rei desit exemplum. propter hanc eius inquisitionem scripsi librum, cuius est titulus: de spiritu et littera, pertractans apostolicam sententiam, ubi ait: littera occidit, spiritus autem uiuificat. In quo libro, quantum deus adiuuit, atrociter disputaui contra inimicos gratiae dei, qua iustificatur inpius. cum autem agerem de obseruationibus Iudaeorum a quibusdam escis secundum ueterem legem abstinentium, dixi: quarundam escarum ceremoniae. quod nomen non est in usu sanctarum litterarum, ideo tamen mihi congruens uisum est, quod a carendo appellatas ceremonias quasi carimonias memoria tenebam eo, quod obseruantes careant his rebus, a quibus se abstinent. quod si est origo huius nominis, quae abhorret a uera religione, secundum hanc ego non sum locutus, sed secundum istam, quam supra memoraui. Hic liber sic incipit: Lectis opusculis, quae ad te nuper elaboraui, fili carissime Marcelline. ### English translation (Claude) He to whom I had written the three books whose title is On the Merits and Remission of Sins, in which the baptism of little children is also carefully discussed, wrote back to me that he had been troubled because I had said that it could happen that a man is without sin, if his will is not lacking, with divine aid helping, although no one in this life either has been or is or will be of such perfect righteousness. For he asked how I could say that something could happen of which there is no example. Because of this inquiry of his I wrote a book whose title is On the Spirit and the Letter, treating thoroughly the apostle's statement where he says, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” In this book, as far as God helped, I argued fiercely against the enemies of the grace of God by which the ungodly is justified. But when I was treating the observances of the Jews who abstain from certain foods according to the old law, I said “the ceremonies of certain foods.” This word is not in use in the holy writings; yet it seemed fitting to me because I remembered that ceremonies (caerimoniae) are named from lacking (carere), as if carimoniae, because those who observe them lack the things from which they abstain. If there is an origin of this word which is foreign to true religion, I did not speak according to it, but according to the one I mentioned above. This book begins thus: “Having read the small works which I recently produced for you, my dearest son Marcellinus…” ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 3:6: quotation, high confidence - Rom 4:5: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Spir. et litt. (On the Spirit and the Letter): allusion, high confidence - Augustine, Pecc. mer. (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De spiritu et littera, to Marcellinus. Quotations: 2 Cor 3:6; Rom 4:5 (the ungodly justified, allusion). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.37 (CSEL 36:175–177; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-37). ## Retractations 2.38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-38 - Source: CSEL 36:177 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes On Faith and Works, written against the view that faith without good works suffices for eternal life. ### Latin text Interea missa sunt mihi a quibusdam fratribus laicis quidem, sed diuinorum eloquiorum studiosis scripta nonnulla, quae ita distinguerent a bonis operibus Christianam fidem, ut sine hac non posse, sine illis autem posse perueniri suaderetur ad aeternam uitam. quibus respondens librum scripsi, cuius nomen est: de fide et operibus. in quo disputaui non solum quemadmodum uiuere debeant gratia Christi regenerati uerum etiam quales ad lauacrum regenerationis admitti. Hic liber sic incipit: Quibusdam uidetur. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile some writings were sent to me by certain brothers, laymen indeed but zealous for the divine oracles, which so separated Christian faith from good works as to urge that one cannot arrive at eternal life without the former, but can without the latter. Replying to them, I wrote a book whose name is On Faith and Works. In it I discussed not only how those reborn by the grace of Christ ought to live but also what sort of people should be admitted to the washing of regeneration. This book begins thus: “It seems to some…” ### Scripture references - Titus 3:5: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Fid. op. (On Faith and Works): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De fide et operibus. Allusion: Titus 3:5 (washing of regeneration). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.38 (CSEL 36:177; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-38). ## Retractations 2.39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-39 - Source: CSEL 36:177–178 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his summary of the three-day Conference of Carthage with the Donatists. ### Latin text Posteaquam facta est cum Donatistis nostra conlatio, breuiter commemoraui, quae gesta sint, litterisque conprehendi secundum tres dies, quibus cum eis contulimus, idque opus utile existimaui, quo quisque commonitus uel sciat sine labore, quid actum sit, uel consultis numeris, quos rebus singulis annotaui, legat in eisdem gestis ad locum, quodcumque uoluerit, quoniam fatigant illa nimia prolixitate lectorem. huius autem operis titulus est: breuiculus conlationis. Hoc opus sic incipit: Cum catholici episcopi et partis Donati. ### English translation (Claude) After our conference with the Donatists had taken place, I briefly recorded what was done and set it down in writing according to the three days on which we conferred with them; and I thought this work useful, so that anyone, being reminded, might either know without labor what was done or, by consulting the numbers which I noted against each matter, read in the proceedings themselves at the place whatever he wished, since they 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…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Breuiculus conlationis cum Donatistis (Conference of Carthage, 411). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.39 (CSEL 36:177–178; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-39). ## Retractations 2.40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-40 - Source: CSEL 36:178–179 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his book to the Donatists after the conference, and a shorter synodal letter of the council of Zerta. ### Latin text Librum etiam scripsi grandem satis, quantum existimo, diligenter ad ipsos Donatistas post conlationem, quam cum episcopis eorum habuimus, ne ab eis seducerentur ulterius. ubi respondi etiam quibusdam uanitatibus eorum, quae ad nos peruenire potuerunt, quas uicti, ubi poterant et quomodo poterant, iactabant, praeter illa, quae dixi de gestis conlationis, unde, quid actum sit, breuiter nosceretur. multo autem breuius id egi in quadam ad eosdem rursus epistula, sed quia in concilio Numidiae omnibus, qui ibi eramus, hoc fieri placuit, non est in epistulis meis. sic quippe incipit: Siluanus senex, Valentinus, Innocentius, Maximinus, Optatus, Augustinus, Donatus et ceteri episcopi e concilio Zertensi ad Donatistas. Hic liber sic incipit: Quid adhuc, Donatistae, seducimini? ### English translation (Claude) I also wrote a fairly large book, carefully, I think, to the Donatists themselves after the conference which we held with their bishops, so that they might no longer be led astray by them. In it I also replied to certain empty claims of theirs which were able to reach us, which, though defeated, they were boasting of wherever and however they could; besides the things I said about the proceedings of the conference, from which what was done might be briefly known. I did this much more briefly in a certain letter to the same people again; but because it pleased all of us who were there at the council of Numidia that this be done, it is not among my letters. For it begins thus: “Silvanus the senior, Valentinus, Innocentius, Maximinus, Optatus, Augustine, Donatus, and the other bishops from the council of Zerta to the Donatists.” This book begins thus: “Why are you still led astray, Donatists?” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Ad Donatistas post conlationem. The synodal letter is Letter 141 (council of Zerta, 412). “Senior” renders senex, the title of the senior bishop of Numidia. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.40 (CSEL 36:178–179; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-40). ## Retractations 2.41 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-41 - Source: CSEL 36:179–180 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his book On Seeing God and a related memorandum to Fortunatianus, referring the question of seeing God in the resurrection body to City of God 22. ### Latin text De uidendo deo librum scripsi, ubi de spiritali corpore, quod erit in resurrectione sanctorum, inquisitionem diligentiorem distuli, utrum uel quomodo deus, qui spiritus est, per corpus tale uideatur; sed eam postea quaestionem sane difficillimam in nouissimo, id est in uicensimo et secundo libro de ciuitate dei, satis, quantum arbitror, explicaui. inueni etiam in quodam nostro codice, in quo et iste liber est, quoddam commonitorium a me factum de hac re ad episcopum Siccensem Fortunatianum, quod in opusculorum meorum indiculo nec inter libros nec inter epistulas est notatum. Hic liber sic incipit: Memor debiti, illud autem: Sicut praesens rogaui et nunc commoneo. ### English translation (Claude) I wrote a book On Seeing God, in which I put off a more careful inquiry about the spiritual body that will exist in the resurrection of the saints: whether, or how, God, who is spirit, is seen through such a body. But that question, a very difficult one indeed, I afterward explained sufficiently, I think, in the last book, that is, the twenty-second, of The City of God. I also found in a certain manuscript of ours, in which this book also is, a memorandum I made on this matter to Fortunatianus, bishop of Sicca, which is not noted in the list of my small works either among the books or among the letters. This book begins thus: “Mindful of my debt…”; and the other thus: “As I asked you in person, so now I remind you…” ### Scripture references - John 4:24: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Civ. 22.29 (City of God): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The book is Letter 147; the memorandum is Letter 148. Allusion: John 4:24 (God is spirit). The fuller treatment is City of God 22.29. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.41 (CSEL 36:179–180; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-41). ## Retractations 2.42 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-42 - Source: CSEL 36:180 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes On Nature and Grace, his reply to Pelagius's On Nature, and corrects his attribution of certain sayings to the martyr-bishop Xystus rather than to the philosopher Sextus. ### Latin text Venit etiam tunc in manus meas quidam liber Pelagi, ubi hominis naturam contra dei gratiam, qua iustificatur inpius et qua Christiani sumus, quanta potuit argumentatione defendit. librum ergo, quo huic respondi defendens gratiam non contra naturam, sed per quam natura liberatur et regitur, de natura et gratia nuncupaui. in quo uerba quaedam, quae uelut Xysti Romani episcopi et martyris Pelagius posuit, ita defendi, tamquam re uera eiusdem Xysti essent; id enim putaueram. sed postea legi Sexti philosophi esse, non Xysti Christiani. Hic liber sic incipit: Librum, quem misistis. ### English translation (Claude) There also came into my hands at that time a certain book of Pelagius, in which he defended, with all the argument he could, the nature of man against the grace of God, by which the ungodly is justified and by which we are Christians. The book in which I answered him, defending grace not as against nature but as that by which nature is set free and governed, I named On Nature and Grace. In it I defended certain words, which Pelagius set down as being those of Xystus, bishop of Rome and martyr, as though they really were that Xystus's; for so I had thought. But afterward I read that they belong to Sextus the philosopher, not to Xystus the Christian. This book begins thus: “The book which you sent…” ### Scripture references - Rom 4:5: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Nat. et grat. (On Nature and Grace): allusion, high confidence - Pelagius, Nat. (Pelagius, On Nature): allusion, high confidence - Sent. Sextus (Sentences of Sextus): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De natura et gratia. Pelagius's book is On Nature. The sayings are from the Sentences of Sextus. Allusion: Rom 4:5. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.42 (CSEL 36:180; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-42). ## Retractations 2.43 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-43 - Source: CSEL 36:180–183 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he wrote The City of God after the sack of Rome by Alaric, outlines the plan of its twenty-two books, and corrects remarks on Abraham's sacrifice and Samuel's descent. ### Latin text Interea Roma Gotthorum inruptione agentium sub rege Allaricho atque impetu magnae cladis euersa est. cuius euersionem deorum falsorum multorumque cultores, quos usitato nomine paganos uocamus, in Christianam religionem referre conantes solito acerbius et amarius deum uerum blasphemare coeperunt. unde ego exardescens zelo domus dei aduersus eorum blasphemias uel errores libros de ciuitate dei scribere institui. quod opus per aliquot annos me tenuit eo, quod alia multa intercurrebant, quae differri non oporteret et me prius ad soluendum occupabant. hoc autem de ciuitate dei grande opus tandem uiginti duobus libris determinatum. quorum quinque primi eos refellunt, qui res humanas ita prosperari uolunt, ut ad hoc multorum deorum cultum, quos pagani colere consuerunt, necessarium esse arbitrentur et, quia prohibentur, mala ista exoriri atque abundare contendunt. sequentes autem quinque aduersus eos loquuntur, qui fatentur haec mala nec defuisse umquam nec defutura mortalibus et ea, nunc magna nunc parua, locis, temporibus personisque uariari, sed deorum multorum cultum, quo eis sacrificatur, propter uitam post mortem futuram esse utilem disputant. his ergo decem libris duae istae uanae opiniones Christianae religioni aduersariae refelluntur. Sed ne quisquam nos aliena tantum redarguisse, non autem nostra asseruisse reprehenderet, id agit pars altera operis huius, quae libris duodecim continetur, quamquam, ubi opus est, et in prioribus decem, quae nostra sunt, asseramus et in duodecim posterioribus redarguamus aduersa. duodecim ergo librorum sequentium primi quattuor continent exortum duarum ciuitatum, quarum est una dei, altera huius mundi, secundi quattuor excursum earum siue procursum, tertii uero, qui et postremi, debitos fines. ita omnes uiginti duo libri cum sint de utraque ciuitate conscripti, titulum tamen a meliore acceperunt, ut de ciuitate dei potius uocarentur. In quorum decimo libro non debuit pro miraculo poni in Abrahae sacrificio flammam caelitus factam inter diuisas uictimas cucurrisse, quoniam hoc illi in uisione monstratum est. in septimo decimo, quod dictum est de Samuhel: non erat de filiis Aaron, dicendum potius fuit: non erat filius sacerdotis. filios quippe sacerdotum defunctis sacerdotibus succedere magis legitimi moris fuit; nam in filiis Aaron reperitur pater Samuhelis, sed sacerdos non fuit nec ita in filiis, ut eum ipse genuerit Aaron, sed sicut omnes illius populi dicuntur filii Israhel. Hoc opus sic incipit: Gloriosissimam ciuitatem dei. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile Rome was overthrown by the invasion of the Goths acting under King Alaric and by the onslaught of a great disaster. The worshipers of the many false gods, whom we call by the customary name of pagans, trying to blame its overthrow on the Christian religion, began to blaspheme the true God more sharply and bitterly than usual. Hence I, burning with zeal for the house of God, decided to write the books On the City of God against their blasphemies or errors. This work occupied me for several years, because many other things kept coming in which ought not to be put off and which occupied me first to resolve. This great work On the City of God was at last completed in twenty-two books. The first five of these refute those who want human affairs to prosper in such a way that they think the worship of the many gods whom the pagans were accustomed to worship is necessary for this, and who contend that these evils arise and abound because it is forbidden. The next five speak against those who admit that these evils have never been lacking and will never be lacking to mortals, and that they vary, now great, now small, by places, times, and persons, but who argue that the worship of many gods, in which sacrifice is offered to them, is useful because of the life that will come after death. In these ten books, then, these two empty opinions, opposed to the Christian religion, are refuted. But lest anyone should reproach us for having only refuted the views of others and not asserted our own, the second part of this work, which is contained in twelve books, does this; although, where it is needed, we both assert our own views in the first ten and refute opposing views in the last twelve. Of the following twelve books, then, the first four contain the origin of the two cities, one of which is of God, the other of this world; the second four their course or progress; the third four, which are also the last, their due ends. So, although all twenty-two books were written about both cities, they nevertheless took their title from the better, so as to be called rather On the City of God. In the tenth of these books, the flame from heaven which ran between the divided victims in Abraham's sacrifice ought not to have been set down as a miracle, 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,” should rather have been said, “He was not the son of a priest.” For it was more the lawful custom that sons of priests should succeed priests when they died; for Samuel's father is found among the sons of Aaron, but he was not a priest; nor was he among the sons in the sense that Aaron himself begot him, but as all of that people are called sons of Israel. This work begins thus: “The most glorious city of God…” ### Scripture references - Ps 69:9 (68:10 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Gen 15:17: allusion, high confidence - 1 Sam 1:1: allusion, high confidence - 1 Chr 6:33: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Civ. (City of God): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De ciuitate dei. Allusions: Ps 69:9 (68:10 LXX/Vulg., zeal for the house of God); Gen 15:17 (the fire between the pieces); 1 Sam 1:1 and 1 Chr 6:33–38 (Samuel's descent). The passages corrected are City of God 10.8 and 17.5. The sack of Rome: AD 410. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.43 (CSEL 36:180–183; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-43). ## Retractations 2.44 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-44 - Source: CSEL 36:183–184 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his reply to Orosius on the Priscillianists and Origen's rejected opinions. ### Latin text Inter haec Orosi cuiusdam Hispani presbyteri consultationi de Priscilianistis et de quibusdam Origenis sensibus, quos catholica fides inprobat, quanta potui breuitate ac perspicuitate respondi. cuius opusculi titulus est: ad Orosium contra Priscilianistas et Origenistas. et ipsa enim consultatio responsioni meae a capite adiuncta est. Hic liber sic incipit: Respondere tibi quaerenti, dilectissime fili Orosi. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile I answered, with as much brevity and clarity as I could, the inquiry of a certain Orosius, a Spanish presbyter, about the Priscillianists and about certain opinions of Origen which the Catholic faith rejects. The title of this small work is To Orosius against the Priscillianists and Origenists; and his inquiry itself is attached at the head of my reply. This book begins thus: “To reply to you as you ask, dearest son Orosius…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.44 (CSEL 36:183–184; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-44). ## Retractations 2.45 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-45 - Source: CSEL 36:184–185 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains why he published, after Jerome's death, his two inquiries to Jerome on the origin of the soul and on Jas 2:10. ### Latin text Scripsi etiam duos libros ad presbyterum Hieronymum sedentem in Bethlem, unum de origine animae hominis, alterum de sententia apostoli Iacobi, ubi ait: quicumque totam legem seruauerit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus, de utroque consulens eum. sed in illo priore quaestionem, quam exposui, ipse non solui; in posteriore autem, quid mihi de illa soluenda uideretur, ipse non tacui, sed utrum hoc annueret etiam ille consului. rescripsit autem laudans eandem consultationem meam, sibi tamen ad id respondendum non esse respondit. ego uero, quousque esset in corpore, hos libros edere nolui, ne forte responderet aliquando et cum ipsa responsione eius potius ederentur, illo autem defuncto ad hoc edidi priorem, ut, qui legit, admoneatur aut non quaerere omnino, quomodo detur anima nascentibus, aut certe de re obscurissima eam solutionem quaestionis huius admittere, quae contraria non sit apertissimis rebus, quamuis de originali peccato fides catholica nouit in paruulis, nisi regenerentur in Christo, sine dubitatione damnatis, posteriorem uero ad hoc, ut quaestionis, de qua ibi agitur, etiam quae nobis uisa est solutio ipsa noscatur. Hoc opus sic incipit: Deum nostrum, qui nos uocauit. ### English translation (Claude) I also wrote two books to the presbyter Jerome, living in Bethlehem: one on the origin of the human soul, the other on the statement of the apostle James where he says, “Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles in one point has become guilty of all,” consulting him about both. But in the first I myself did not solve the question I set out; in the second, however, I did not keep silent about what seemed to me the way to solve it, but I consulted him whether he too agreed with it. He wrote back praising my inquiry, but replied that he was not going to answer it. I, however, did not wish to publish these books as long as he was in the body, lest perhaps he should answer at some time and they should rather be published together with his answer. But after his death I published the first, so that whoever reads it may be warned 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 as is not contrary to things that are most clear, although concerning original sin the Catholic faith knows that little children, unless they are reborn in Christ, are without doubt condemned; and the second for this purpose, that the solution which seemed right to us of the question treated there may also be known. This work begins thus: “Our God, who has called us…” ### Scripture references - Jas 2:10: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 131 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The two books are Letters 166 and 167 (in Jerome's collection, Letters 131 and 132). Quotation: Jas 2:10. - Augustine states the Catholic faith that infants who die without being reborn in Christ are condemned because of original sin; translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.45 (CSEL 36:184–185; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-45). ## Retractations 2.46 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-46 - Source: CSEL 36:185 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes a lost book to the Donatist bishop Emeritus after the conference of 411. ### Latin text Ad Emeritum, Donatistarum episcopum, qui in conlatione nostra, quam cum illis habuimus, eorum causam maxime agere uidebatur, aliquanto post eandem conlationem scripsi librum satis utilem, quoniam res, quibus uincantur uel uicti esse monstrantur, commoda breuitate conplectitur. Hic liber sic incipit: Si uel nunc, frater Emerite. ### English translation (Claude) To Emeritus, bishop of the Donatists, who at our conference which we held with them seemed to plead their cause most of all, I wrote some time after that conference a quite useful book, since it gathers with convenient brevity the facts by which they are defeated or are shown to have been defeated. This book begins thus: “If even now, brother Emeritus…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Ad Emeritum episcopum Donatistarum post conlationem (lost). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.46 (CSEL 36:185; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-46). ## Retractations 2.47 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-47 - Source: CSEL 36:185–186 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he wrote On the Proceedings of Pelagius to show that the synod of Diospolis acquitted Pelagius only because he condemned the dogmas charged against him. ### Latin text Per idem tempus in oriente, hoc est in Syria Palaestina, Pelagius a quibusdam catholicis fratribus ad episcopalia gesta perductus eisque absentibus, qui de illo libellum dederant, quoniam ad diem synodi non potuerunt occurrere, ab episcopis quattuordecim auditus est, ubi eum dogmata ipsa damnantem, quae inimica gratiae Christi aduersus eum de libello legebantur, catholicum pronuntiarunt. sed cum in manus nostras eadem gesta uenissent, scripsi de his librum, ne illo uelut absoluto eadem quoque dogmata putarentur iudices adprobasse, quae ille nisi damnasset, nullo modo ab eis nisi damnatus exisset. Hic liber sic incipit: Posteaquam in manus nostras. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time, in the East, that is, in Syria Palestine, Pelagius was brought before an episcopal court by certain Catholic brothers; and in the absence of those who had submitted a document against him, since they could not come on the day of the synod, he was heard by fourteen bishops, who pronounced him Catholic when he condemned the very dogmas hostile to the grace of Christ which were read against him from the document. But when those same proceedings came into our hands, I wrote a book about them, lest, with him being as it were acquitted, the judges should be thought to have approved those same dogmas too; for unless he had condemned them, he would in no way have left them except condemned. This book begins thus: “After there came into our hands…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Gest. Pelag. (On the Proceedings of Pelagius): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De gestis Pelagii (synod of Diospolis, 415). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.47 (CSEL 36:185–186; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-47). ## Retractations 2.48 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-48 - Source: CSEL 36:186 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his book defending the use of imperial laws to correct the Donatists. ### Latin text Eodem tempore scripsi etiam librum de correctione Donatistarum propter eos, qui nolebant illos legibus imperialibus corrigi. Hic liber sic incipit: Laudo et gratulor et admiror. ### English translation (Claude) At the same time I also wrote a book On the Correction of the Donatists, because of those who did not want them to be corrected by the imperial laws. This book begins thus: “I praise and congratulate and admire…” ### Translation notes - The book is Letter 185, to Boniface. Augustine's defense of imperial coercion is translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.48 (CSEL 36:186; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-48). ## Retractations 2.49 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-49 - Source: CSEL 36:186–187 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his book On the Presence of God, to Dardanus. ### Latin text De praesentia dei scripsi librum, ubi nostra intentio contra heresem Pelagianam maxime uigilat non expresse nominatam. sed in eo etiam de praesentia naturae, quem deum et summum et uerum dicimus, et de templo eius operose ac subtiliter disputatur. Hic liber sic incipit: Fateor, frater dilectissime Dardane. ### English translation (Claude) I wrote a book On the Presence of God, in which our attention is chiefly on guard against the Pelagian heresy, though it is not expressly named. But in it there is also a laborious and subtle discussion of the presence of the nature which we call the supreme and true God, and of his temple. This book begins thus: “I confess, dearest brother Dardanus…” ### Translation notes - The book is Letter 187. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.49 (CSEL 36:186–187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-49). ## Retractations 2.50 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-50 - Source: CSEL 36:187 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his two books On the Grace of Christ and On Original Sin, written after the condemnation of Pelagianism by Popes Innocent and Zosimus. ### Latin text Posteaquam Pelagiana heresis cum suis auctoribus ab episcopis ecclesiae Romanae, prius Innocentio, deinde Zosimo, cooperantibus conciliorum Africanorum litteris conuicta atque damnata est, scripsi duos libros aduersus eos, unum de gratia Christi, alterum de peccato originali. Hoc opus sic incipit: Quantum, de uestra corporali et maxime spiritali salute gaudemus. ### English translation (Claude) After the Pelagian heresy with its authors had been refuted and condemned by the bishops of the Roman church, first Innocent and then Zosimus, with the cooperation of letters of African councils, I wrote two books against them, one On the Grace of Christ, the other On Original Sin. This work begins thus: “How much we rejoice at your bodily and especially spiritual health…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Grat. Chr. (On the Grace of Christ and On Original Sin): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De gratia Christi et de peccato originali (418). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.50 (CSEL 36:187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-50). ## Retractations 2.51 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-51 - Source: CSEL 36:187–188 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes the proceedings of his meeting with the Donatist Emeritus at Caesarea in Mauretania, where Emeritus made no reply. ### Latin text Aliquanto post conlationem, quam cum hereticis Donatistis habuimus, orta est nobis necessitas pergendi in Mauritaniam Caesariensem. ibi apud ipsam Caesaream Emeritum, Donatistarum episcopum, uidimus, unum scilicet eorum septem, quos pro suae causae defensione delegerant, et qui in eadem causa maxime laborauerat. quae cum illo egerimus praesentibus episcopis eiusdem prouinciae et plebe Caesariensis ecclesiae, in qua ciuitate et ciuis et memoratorum hereticorum episcopus fuit, ecclesiastica gesta testantur, quae in meis habentur opusculis. ubi non inueniens, quid responderet, totum sermonem meum, quem de solis Maximianistis in auribus eius et omnium, qui aderant, explicaui, tamquam mutus audiuit. Hic liber uel haec gesta sic incipiunt: GLORIOSISSIMO HONORIO AVGVSTO XII ET CONSTANTIO ITERVM VV. CC. CONSVLIBVS XI KALENDAS OCTOBRIS CAESAREA IN ECCLESIA MAIORE. ### English translation (Claude) Some time after the conference which we held with the heretical Donatists, the necessity arose for us to go to Mauretania Caesariensis. There, at Caesarea itself, we saw Emeritus, bishop of the Donatists, one, that is, of the seven whom they had chosen to defend their cause, and who had labored most in that cause. What we did with him, in the presence of the bishops of that province and of the people of the church of Caesarea, in which city he was both a citizen and bishop of the aforesaid heretics, the church proceedings attest, which are counted among my small works. There, finding nothing to reply, he listened as though mute to my whole discourse, which I set out in his hearing and that of all who were present about the Maximianists alone. This book, or these proceedings, begin thus: “In the twelfth consulship of the most glorious Honorius Augustus and the second of Constantius, men of senatorial rank, consuls, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of October, at Caesarea, in the greater church.” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Gesta cum Emerito Donatistarum episcopo (20 September 418). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.51 (CSEL 36:187–188; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-51). ## Retractations 2.52 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-52 - Source: CSEL 36:188–189 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his point-by-point reply to an anonymous Arian sermon. ### Latin text Inter haec uenit in manus meas quidam sermo Arrianorum sine nomine auctoris sui. huic petente atque instante, qui eum mihi miserat, quanta potui etiam breuitate et celeritate respondi adiuncto eodem sermone a capite responsionis meae et adhibitis ad singula numeris, quibus inspectis quid cui loco responderimus facile possit aduerti. Hic liber post eorum sermonem, qui a capite adiunctus est, sic incipit: Eorum praecedenti disputationi hac disputatione respondeo. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile there came into my hands a certain sermon of the Arians without the name of its author. At the request and urging of the one who had sent it to me, I replied to it with as much brevity and speed as I could, attaching that sermon at the head of my reply and adding numbers to each point, by looking at which one can easily notice what we answered to which place. This book, after their sermon, which is attached at the head, begins thus: “To their preceding discussion I reply with this discussion.” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra sermonem Arrianorum. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.52 (CSEL 36:188–189; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-52). ## Retractations 2.53 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-53 - Source: CSEL 36:189–190 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he wrote On Marriage and Concupiscence to defend the goodness of marriage against the Pelagian charge that teaching original sin condemns marriage. ### Latin text Scripsi duos libros ad inlustrem uirum, comitem Valerium, cum audissem Pelagianos ei nescio quid scripsisse de nobis, quod scilicet nuptias damnaremus asserendo originale peccatum. quorum librorum titulus est: de nuptiis et concupiscentia. bonitatem quippe defendimus nuptiarum, ne putaretur earum esse uitium concupiscentia carnis et lex in membris repugnans legi mentis, quo malo libidinis bene utitur ad filios procreandos pudicitia coniugalis. ut autem duo libri essent, primus uenit in Iuliani Pelagiani manus, et scripsit aduersus eum libros quattuor, ex quibus quidam nonnulla descripsit et comiti Valerio misit, ille uero ad nos. quae cum accepissem, alio libro ad eadem ipsa respondi. Huius operis primus liber sic incipit: Heretici noui, dilectissime fili Valeri, secundus autem sic: Inter militiae tuae curas. ### English translation (Claude) I wrote two books to the illustrious man, Count Valerius, when I had heard that the Pelagians had written something or other to him about us, namely that we condemned marriage by asserting original sin. The title of these books is On Marriage and Concupiscence. For we defended the goodness of marriage, lest the concupiscence of the flesh and the law in the members warring against the law of the mind should be thought to be a fault of marriage; an evil of lust which conjugal chastity uses well for procreating children. That there came to be two books, however, was because the first came into the hands of Julian the Pelagian, and he wrote four books against it; from these someone copied some passages and sent them to Count Valerius, and he to us. When I had received them, I replied to these very things in another book. The first book of this work begins thus: “The new heretics, dearest son Valerius…”; and the second thus: “Amid the cares of your military service…” ### Scripture references - Rom 7:23: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Nupt. conc. (On Marriage and Concupiscence): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De nuptiis et concupiscentia. Allusion: Rom 7:23. Julian of Eclanum's four books To Turbantius. - On marriage: Augustine holds that marriage is good and that conjugal chastity uses the evil of lust well for procreation; translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.53 (CSEL 36:189–190; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-53). ## Retractations 2.54 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-54 - Source: CSEL 36:190–191 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his Expressions in the Heptateuch, a study of unusual idioms in Genesis through Judges, and corrects one comparison. ### Latin text Septem libros de septem libris diuinarum scripturarum, id est Moysi quinque et uno Iesu Naue et altero Iudicum, feci notatis locutionibus singulorum, quae minus usitatae sunt linguae nostrae, quas parum aduertendo sensum quaerunt, qui legunt, diuinorum eloquiorum, cum sit locutionis genus, et nonnumquam exculpunt aliquid, quod a ueritate quidem non abhorreat, non tamen id sensisse auctor, a quo id scriptum est, inuenitur, sed genere locutionis hoc dixisse credibilius apparet. multa autem in scripturis sanctis obscura cognito locutionis genere dilucescunt. propter quod cognoscenda sunt eadem genera locutionum, ubi sententiae patent, ut etiam, ubi latent, cognitio ipsa succurrat easque intentioni praesentes aperiat. huius operis titulus est: locutiones de Genesi, atque ita de singulis libris. Quod autem in primo libro posui scriptum esse: et fecit Noe omnia uerba, quae praecepit illi dominus, sic fecit, eamque locutionem dixi esse similem ei, quod in condicione creaturae, posteaquam dicitur: et sic est factum, additur: et fecit deus, non omni modo simile hoc eidem mihi uidetur. denique ibi etiam sensus latet, hic sola locutio est. Hoc opus sic incipit: Locutiones scripturarum. ### English translation (Claude) I made seven books on seven books of the divine Scriptures, that is, the five of Moses, one of Joshua son of Nun, and another of Judges, noting the expressions of each that are less usual in our language. Those who read the divine oracles, paying too little attention to these, look for a meaning when it is only a manner of expression, and sometimes dig out something which is not indeed foreign to the truth, yet the author who wrote it is not found to have meant it; rather it appears more credible that he said it by a manner of expression. Many obscure things in the holy Scriptures become clear once the manner of expression is known. For this reason the same manners of expression are to be learned where the sense is plain, so that where it is hidden, this knowledge may come to the rescue and open the meaning to the attentive reader. The title of this work is Expressions in Genesis, and likewise for each book. As for what I set down in the first book as written, “And Noah did all the words which the Lord commanded him; so he did,” and said that this expression is similar to that in the account of the creation where, after it is said, “And so it was done,” there is added, “And God made”: this does not seem to me altogether similar to that. Indeed, there a meaning is hidden too; here it is only an expression. This work begins thus: “Expressions of the Scriptures…” ### Scripture references - Gen 6:22: quotation, high confidence - Gen 1:7: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Locutiones in Heptateuchum. Quotations: Gen 6:22; Gen 1:6–7 (“And so it was done … And God made”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.54 (CSEL 36:190–191; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-25/#p-2-54). ## Retractations 2.55 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-55 - Source: CSEL 36:191–195 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reviewing his Questions on the Heptateuch, Augustine corrects his treatment of Jacob's rods, of the high priest's ritual purity and succession, of the thief on the cross, and of the women in the genealogies. ### Latin text Eodem tempore scripsi etiam libros quaestionum de libris eisdem diuinis septem, quos ideo appellare sic uolui, quia, quae ibi disputantur, magis quaerenda proposui quam quaesita dissolui, quamuis multo plura in eis mihi uideantur ita pertractata, ut possint etiam soluta et exposita non inmerito iudicari. Regnorum quoque libros eodem modo iam considerare coeperamus, sed non multum progressi in alia, quae magis urguebant, animum intendimus. In primo autem libro, ubi agitur de uirgis uariatis, quas ponebat Iacob in aqua, ut in conceptu positae oues eas uiderent, cum biberent, et uarios fetus parerent, non bene a nobis exposita est causa, cur iterum concipientibus non ponebat, id est cum alios fetus conciperent, sed in priore conceptu. nam quaestionis alterius expositio, ubi quaeritur, cur dixerit socero suo Iacob: decepisti mercedem meam decem agnabus, satis ueraciter enodata demonstrat istam, sicut solui debuit, non solutam. In tertio quoque libro, ubi de summo agitur sacerdote, quomodo creabat filios, cum haberet necessitatem bis die ingredi in sancta sanctorum, ubi erat altare incensi, ad offerendum incensum mane et uespera, quo non posset, sicut lex dicit, inmundus intrare, et eadem lex dicat inmundum fieri hominem etiam ex concubitu coniugali, quem iubet quidem lauari aqua, sed et lotum dicit inmundum esse usque ad uesperam - unde dixi consequens fuisse, ut aut continens esset, aut diebus aliquibus intermitteretur incensum - non uidi non fuisse consequens. potest enim sic intellegi, quod scriptum est: inmundus erit usque ad uesperam, ut per ipsam uesperam iam non esset inmundus, sed usque ad ipsam, ut uespertino iam tempore incensum mundus offerret, cum propter creandos filios post matutinum incensum mixtus esset uxori. itemque ubi quaesitum est, quomodo prohibitus esset super funus patris summus sacerdos intrare, cum eum fieri sacerdotem, quando unus erat, nisi post mortem sacerdotis patris non oporteret, dixi propter hoc necesse fuisse nondum sepulto patre statim post eius mortem filium eius constitui, qui succederet patri, propter etiam continuationis incensum, quod bis in die necesse erat offerri, qui sacerdos super mortem nondum sepulti patris prohibetur intrare. sed parum adtendi potuisse hoc praecipi magis propter illos, qui futuri fuerant summi sacerdotes non patribus summis sacerdotibus succedentes, sed tamen ex filiis, id est ex posteris Aaron, si forte summus sacerdos aut filios non haberet aut ita reprobos haberet, ut nullus eorum patri deberet succedere, sicut Samuhel summo sacerdoti Heli successit, cum sacerdotis filius ipse non esset, sed tamen ex filiis, hoc est ex posteris esset Aaron. De latrone etiam, cui dictum est: hodie mecum eris in paradiso, quod non fuerit uisibiliter baptizatus, quasi certum posui, cum sit incertum magisque illum baptizatum fuisse credendum sit, sicut ego quoque alibi postea disputaui. item quod in quinto libro dixi, ubi commemorantur matres in generationibus euangelicis, non eas positas nisi cum patribus, uerum est quidem, sed ad rem, de qua agebatur, non pertinet. agebatur autem de his, qui ducebant fratrum uel propinquorum coniuges eorum, qui sine filiis defuncti essent, propter duos patres Ioseph, quorum alterum Matheus commemorat, alterum Lucas. de qua quaestione diligenter in hoc opere disserui, cum retractaremus opus nostrum contra Faustum Manicheum. Hoc opus sic incipit: Cum scripturas sanctas, quae appellantur canonicae. ### English translation (Claude) At the same time I also wrote books of Questions on the same seven divine books, which I chose to call so because I set forth the things discussed there as matters to be inquired into rather than resolved after inquiry; although very many more things in them seem to me to have been so thoroughly treated that they may not undeservedly be judged resolved and explained as well. We had also begun to consider the books of Kingdoms in the same way, but, having not progressed far, we turned our mind to other things that were more pressing. In the first book, where the subject is the variegated rods which Jacob placed in the water so that the sheep, when they were conceiving, might see them as they drank and bear variegated offspring, the reason why he did not place them for those conceiving a second time, that is, when they conceived other offspring, but only at the first conception, was not well explained by us. For the explanation of the other question, where it is asked why Jacob said to his father-in-law, “You have cheated me of my wages by ten lambs,” untangled truthfully enough, shows that this one was not solved as it should have been. In the third book too, where the subject is the high priest, how he begot children when he was obliged to enter the holy of holies twice a day, where the altar of incense was, to offer incense morning and evening, where, as the law says, one who was unclean could not enter, and the same law says that a man becomes unclean even from conjugal intercourse, whom it commands indeed to be washed with water but says that even when washed he is unclean until evening (from which I said it followed that he either had to be continent or the incense had to be interrupted on some days): I did not see that it did not follow. For what is written, “He will be unclean until evening,” can be understood thus: that through the evening itself he would no longer be unclean, but only up to it, so that at the evening time he would offer incense clean, having joined with his wife after the morning incense for the begetting of children. And likewise, where it was asked how the high priest was forbidden to go in to his father's dead body, when, since there was only one high priest, he ought not to be made high priest except after the death of the priest his father, I said that therefore it was necessary that, before the father was buried, his son should be appointed immediately after his death to succeed his father, also because of the continuity of the incense, which had to be offered twice a day; and this priest is forbidden to go in to the dead body of his father not yet buried. But I paid too little attention to the fact that this could have been commanded rather because of those who were going to be high priests not succeeding fathers who were high priests, but yet being from the sons, that is, from the descendants, of Aaron, if perhaps a high priest either had no sons or had such reprobate ones that none of them ought to succeed his father; as Samuel succeeded the high priest Eli, though he himself was not a priest's son, but was yet of the sons, that is, the descendants, of Aaron. Also, concerning the thief to whom it was said, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” I set down as certain that he was not visibly baptized, whereas it is uncertain, and it is rather to be believed that he was baptized, as I too have argued elsewhere afterward. Likewise, what I said in the fifth book, where the mothers in the Gospel genealogies are mentioned, that they are set down only together with the fathers, is indeed true, but it does not bear on the matter being discussed. The discussion was about those who married the wives of their brothers or kinsmen who had died without sons, because of the two fathers of Joseph, one of whom Matthew mentions and the other Luke. This question I discussed carefully in this work when reviewing our work Against Faustus the Manichaean. This work begins thus: “When the holy Scriptures, which are called canonical…” ### Scripture references - Gen 30:37: allusion, high confidence - Gen 31:41: quotation, high confidence - Exod 30:7: allusion, high confidence - Lev 15:18: quotation, high confidence - Lev 21:11: allusion, high confidence - 1 Sam 3:1: allusion, medium confidence - Luke 23:43: quotation, high confidence - Matt 1:3: allusion, medium confidence - Deut 25:5: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. Allusions and quotations: Gen 30:37–42; Gen 31:41 (Old Latin “ten lambs”); Exod 30:7–8 (incense morning and evening); Lev 15:16–18 (uncleanness after intercourse, “until evening”); Lev 21:10–11 (the high priest and a dead body); 1 Sam 1–3 (Samuel and Eli); Luke 23:43; Matt 1:3–6 (the women in the genealogy); Deut 25:5–6. The earlier review is 2.7 above. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.55 (CSEL 36:191–195; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-55). ## Retractations 2.56 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-56 - Source: CSEL 36:195–196 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his four books On the Soul and Its Origin, written against Vincentius Victor, in which he defended his uncertainty about the soul's origin. ### Latin text Eodem tempore quidam Vincentius Victor in Mauritania Caesariensi inuenit apud Hispanum quendam presbyterum Petrum nonnullum opusculum meum, ubi quodam loco de origine animae hominum singulorum, utrum ex illa primi hominis ac deinde ex parentibus propagentur an sicut illi uni sine ulla propagatione singulae singulis dentur, me nescire confessus sum, uerum tamen scire animam non corpus esse, sed spiritum, et contra ista mea ad eundem Petrum scripsit ille duos libros, quos mihi de Caesarea Renatus monachus misit. quibus ego lectis responsione mea quattuor reddidi, unum ad Renatum monachum, alterum ad presbyterum Petrum et duos ad eundem Victorem. sed ad Petrum quamuis habeat libri prolixitatem, tamen epistula est, quam nolui a tribus ceteris separare. in his autem omnibus, in quibus multa necessaria disseruntur, defendi de origine animarum, quae singulis hominibus dantur, cunctationem meam et multos errores atque prauitates praesumptionis eius ostendi. quem tamen iuuenem non praepropere detestandum, sed adhuc docendum quanta potui lenitate tractaui et ab eo scripta correctionis eius accepi. Huius operis liber ad Renatum sic incipit: Sinceritatem tuam erga nos; ad Petrum autem sic: Domino dilectissimo patri et conpresbytero Petro; duorum uero nouissimorum ad Vincentium Victorem primus sic incipit: Quod mihi ad te scribendum putaui. ### English translation (Claude) At the same time a certain Vincentius Victor, in Mauretania Caesariensis, found at the house of a certain Spanish presbyter, Peter, a small work of mine in which, in one place, concerning the origin of the soul of each human being, whether souls are propagated from that soul of the first man and then from parents, or whether, as to that one man, individual souls are given to individuals without any propagation, I confessed that I did not know, though I knew that the soul is not body but spirit; and against these statements of mine he wrote two books to the same Peter, which Renatus the monk sent me from Caesarea. Having read them, I gave four in reply: one to Renatus the monk, another to the presbyter Peter, and two to Victor himself. The one to Peter, although it has the length of a book, is nevertheless a letter, which I did not wish to separate from the other three. In all these, in which many necessary things are discussed, I defended my hesitation concerning the origin of the souls given to individual human beings, and I showed his many errors and the perversities of his presumption. Yet I treated him, as a young man not to be hastily abhorred but still to be taught, with as much gentleness as I could, and I received writings from him of his correction. The book of this work to Renatus begins thus: “Your sincerity toward us…”; and that to Peter thus: “To my most beloved lord, father, and fellow presbyter Peter…”; and of the last two, to Vincentius Victor, the first begins thus: “What I thought should be written to you…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Nat. orig. (On the Soul and Its Origin): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De anima et eius origine. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.56 (CSEL 36:195–196; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-56). ## Retractations 2.57 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-57 - Source: CSEL 36:196–197 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine says that in his two books On Adulterous Marriages he did not fully resolve the very difficult question of divorce and remarriage, though he opened many of its recesses. ### Latin text Scripsi duos libros de coniugiis adulterinis, quantum potui, secundum scripturas cupiens soluere difficillimam quaestionem. quod utrum enodatissime fecerim, nescio; immo uero non me peruenisse ad huius rei perfectionem sentio, quamuis multos sinus eius aperuerim, quod iudicare poterit, quisquis intellegenter legit. Huius operis primus liber sic incipit: Prima quaestio est, frater dilectissime Pollenti, secundus autem sic: Ad ea, quae mihi scripseras. ### English translation (Claude) I wrote two books On Adulterous Marriages, wishing to solve, as far as I could according to the Scriptures, a most difficult question. Whether I did so with complete clarity I do not know; indeed I feel that I have not reached perfection in this matter, although I have opened many of its recesses; whoever reads intelligently will be able to judge this. The first book of this work begins thus: “The first question, dearest brother Pollentius…”; and the second thus: “To what you had written to me…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Adult. conjug. (On Adulterous Marriages): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De adulterinis coniugiis, addressed to Pollentius, on whether remarriage after separation for adultery is permitted. Augustine's own judgment on the work is translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.57 (CSEL 36:196–197; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-57). ## Retractations 2.58 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-58 - Source: CSEL 36:197–198 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his two books against an anonymous Marcionite-type tract that denied that the God of the Law and Prophets is the true God. ### Latin text Interea liber quidam cuiusdam heretici siue Marcionistae siue cuiuslibet eorum, quorum error opinatur, quod istum mundum non deus fecerit nec deus legis, quae data est per Moysen, et prophetarum ad eandem legem pertinentium uerus sit deus, sed pessimus daemon, cum apud Carthaginem multis confluentibus et attentissime audientibus in platea maritima legeretur, peruenerunt ad eum fratres studiosissime Christiani eumque mihi redarguendum sine ulla dilatione miserunt multum rogantes, ut nec ego respondere differrem. refelli eum libris duobus, quos ideo praenotaui: contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum, quia codex ipse, qui missus est, nomen non habebat auctoris. Hoc opus sic incipit: Libro, quem misistis, fratres dilectissimi. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile a certain book of some heretic, either a Marcionite or one of those whose error holds that God did not make this world and that the God of the law given through Moses and of the prophets belonging to that law is not the true God but a most wicked demon, was being read at Carthage in the seaside square, with many flocking together and listening most attentively. Brothers who were most zealous Christians got hold of it and sent it to me without any delay to refute, earnestly asking that I too should not put off replying. I refuted it in two books, which I headed Against an Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, because the manuscript itself which was sent did not have the author's name. This work begins thus: “The book which you sent, dearest brothers…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra aduersarium legis et prophetarum. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.58 (CSEL 36:197–198; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-58). ## Retractations 2.59 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-59 - Source: CSEL 36:198–199 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his two books against Gaudentius, the Donatist bishop of Thamugadi, who threatened to burn himself and his people in his church rather than submit. ### Latin text Per idem tempus Dulcitius tribunus et notarius hic erat in Africa executor imperialium iussionum contra Donatistas datarum. qui cum dedisset litteras ad Gaudentium Tamugadensem, Donatistarum episcopum, unum illorum septem, quos in nostram conlationem auctores suae defensionis elegerant, exhortans eum ad unitatem catholicam et dissuadens incendium, quo se ac suos cum ipsa in qua erat ecclesia consumere minabatur, addens etiam, ut, si se iustos putarent, fugerent potius secundum praeceptum domini Christi quam nefandis se ignibus concremarent, rescripsit epistulas duas, unam breuem festinante, ut asseruit, perlatore, aliam prolixam quasi plenius diligentiusque respondens. has mihi supra memoratus tribunus existimauit esse mittendas, ut eas potius ipse refellerem. quas ambas uno libro redargui. qui cum in eiusdem Gaudenti peruenisset manus, rescripsit, quod ei uisum est, ad me ipsum, nulla ratione respondens, sed magis se nec respondere nec tacuisse declarans. quod cum satis possit intellegenter legentibus et nostra atque ipsius dicta conferentibus apparere, nolui tamen sine rescripto relinquere, quidquid illud fuit. hinc factum est, ut hi nostri ad illum duo libri essent. Hoc opus sic incipit: Gaudentius, Donatistarum Tamugadensis episcopus. ### English translation (Claude) During the same time Dulcitius, tribune and notary, was here in Africa as executor of the imperial orders given against the Donatists. He had written a letter to Gaudentius of Thamugadi, bishop of the Donatists, one of those seven whom they had chosen at our conference as advocates of their defense, urging him to Catholic unity and dissuading him from the burning by which he was threatening to consume himself and his people together with the church in which he was, adding also that, if they thought themselves righteous, they should rather flee according to the command of the Lord Christ than burn themselves in abominable fires. Gaudentius wrote back two letters, one short, because, as he asserted, the bearer was in a hurry, the other long, as if replying more fully and carefully. The aforementioned tribune thought these should be sent to me, so that I myself might rather refute them. I refuted both in one book. When this reached the hands of the same Gaudentius, he wrote back to me himself what he saw fit, answering with no reason, but rather showing that he could neither answer nor keep silent. Although this can be clear enough to those who read intelligently and compare what we and he said, I did not wish to leave it, whatever it was, without a reply. Hence it came about that these books of ours to him were two. This work begins thus: “Gaudentius, bishop of the Donatists at Thamugadi…” ### Scripture references - Matt 10:23: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Gaudentium. Allusion: Matt 10:23 (flee from one town to another). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.59 (CSEL 36:198–199; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-59). ## Retractations 2.60 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-60 - Source: CSEL 36:199–200 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he wrote Against Lying to forbid Catholics from pretending to be Priscillianists in order to expose them. ### Latin text Tunc et contra mendacium scripsi librum. cuius operis ea causa extitit, quod ad Priscilianistas hereticos uestigandos, qui heresem suam non solum negando uerum etiam mentiendo existimant occultandam, uisum est quibusdam catholicis Priscilianistas se debere simulare, ut eorum latebras penetrarent. quod ego fieri prohibens hunc librum condidi. Hic liber sic incipit: Multa mihi legenda misisti. ### English translation (Claude) Then I also wrote a book Against Lying. The occasion of this work was that, in order to track down the Priscillianist heretics, who think that their heresy should be concealed not only by denying but also by lying, it seemed to certain Catholics that they ought to pretend to be Priscillianists so as to penetrate their hiding places. Forbidding this to be done, I composed this book. This book begins thus: “You have sent me much to read…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, C. mend. (Against Lying): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra mendacium, to Consentius. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.60 (CSEL 36:199–200; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-60). ## Retractations 2.61 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-61 - Source: CSEL 36:200 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his four books Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, addressed to Pope Boniface. ### Latin text Secuntur libri quattuor, quos contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum ad episcopum Romanae ecclesiae Bonifatium scripsi, quia, cum in manus eius uenissent, ipse mihi eas miserat inueniens in illis calumniose interpositum nomen meum. Hoc opus sic incipit: Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante. ### English translation (Claude) There follow four books which I wrote against two letters of the Pelagians to Boniface, bishop of the Roman church; for when the letters came into his hands, he himself sent them to me, finding my name slanderously brought into them. This work begins thus: “I knew you indeed by your most celebrated reputation…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, C. duas ep. Pelag. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.61 (CSEL 36:200; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-61). ## Retractations 2.62 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-62 - Source: CSEL 36:200–202 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine describes his six books Against Julian, which answer Julian's charge of Manichaeism with patristic testimony, and corrects a name he gave from faulty memory. ### Latin text Interea libri quattuor Iuliani Pelagiani, quos supra commemoraui, uenerunt etiam in manus nostras, in quibus comperi illa, quae ex eis decerpserat, qui ea comiti Valerio miserat, non omnia eo modo, quo a Iuliano dicta sunt, ad eundem comitem scripta, sed nonnulla eorum aliquantum inmutata. scripsi ergo sex libros aduersus illos quattuor, sed meorum duo primi testimoniis sanctorum, qui fidem catholicam post apostolos defenderunt, Iuliani inpudentiam redarguunt, qui tamquam Manicheorum dogma nobis obiciendum putauit, quia ex Adam trahi dicimus originale peccatum, quod per lauacrum regenerationis non solum in maioribus uerum etiam in paruulis soluitur. quantum autem ipse Iulianus quibusdam sententiis suis adiuuet Manicheos, in primi libri mei parte posteriore monstraui. ceteri autem nostri quattuor redduntur illis singulis singuli. uerum in huius tanti tamque elaborati operis quinto uolumine, ubi commemoraui deformem maritum coniugi suae, ne deformes pareret, proponere in concubitu formonsam solere picturam, nomen hominis, qui hoc facere solebat, quasi certum posui, cum sit incertum, quia memoria me fefellit. hoc autem Soranus, auctor medicinae, scripsit regem Cyprium facere solere, sed nomen eius proprium non posuit. Hoc opus sic incipit: Contumelias tuas et uerba maledica, Iuliane. ### English translation (Claude) Meanwhile the four books of Julian the Pelagian, which I mentioned above, also came into our hands, in which I found that the things which the one who had sent them to Count Valerius had excerpted from them had not all been written to that count in the way in which Julian had said them, but some of them had been somewhat changed. I wrote, therefore, six books against those four; but the first two of mine refute Julian's impudence by the testimonies of the saints who defended the Catholic faith after the apostles, since he thought that the dogma of the Manichaeans should be thrown at us because we say that original sin is derived from Adam, which is loosed through the washing of regeneration not only in adults but also in little children. How much Julian himself helps the Manichaeans by some of his opinions I showed in the latter part of my first book. The other four of ours answer those four of his, one to one. But in the fifth volume of this so great and so elaborate work, where I mentioned that an ugly husband used to set a beautiful picture before his wife during intercourse, so that she would not bear ugly children, I set down the man's name as though certain, whereas it is uncertain, because my memory deceived me. Soranus, the medical writer, wrote that a king of Cyprus used to do this, but did not give his proper name. This work begins thus: “Your insults and abusive words, Julian…” ### Scripture references - Titus 3:5: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: Contra Iulianum. Allusion: Titus 3:5. Soranus of Ephesus, Gynecology; no extrabiblical entry on this site. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.62 (CSEL 36:200–202; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-62). ## Retractations 2.63 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-63 - Source: CSEL 36:202 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his Enchiridion On Faith, Hope, and Charity, written for Laurentius. ### Latin text Scripsi etiam librum de fide, spe, caritate, cum a me, ad quem scriptus est, postulasset, ut aliquod opusculum haberet meum de suis manibus non recessurum, quod genus Graeci ἐγχερίδιον uocant. ubi satis diligenter mihi uideor esse conplexus, quomodo sit colendus deus, quam sapientiam esse hominis utique ueram diuina scriptura definit. Hic liber sic incipit: Dici non potest, dilectissime fili Laurenti, quantum tua eruditione delecter. ### English translation (Claude) I also wrote a book On Faith, Hope, and Charity, when the one to whom it is written had asked me that he might have some small work of mine that would never leave his hands, the kind the Greeks call an enchiridion (handbook). In it I seem to myself to have covered quite carefully how God is to be worshiped, which divine Scripture defines as the truly genuine wisdom of man. This book begins thus: “I cannot say, dearest son Laurentius, how much I delight in your learning…” ### Scripture references - Job 28:28: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De fide, spe, caritate (Enchiridion). Allusion: Job 28:28 (the fear of the Lord is wisdom; LXX “piety”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.63 (CSEL 36:202; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-63). ## Retractations 2.64 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-64 - Source: CSEL 36:202–203 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his book On the Care to Be Taken for the Dead, written for Paulinus of Nola. ### Latin text Librum de cura pro mortuis gerenda scripsi, cum interrogatus litteris fuissem, utrum prosit cuique post mortem, quod corpus eius apud sancti alicuius memoriam sepelitur. Hic liber sic incipit: Sanctitati tuae, coepiscope uenerande Pauline. ### English translation (Claude) I wrote a book On 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 at the shrine of some saint. This book begins thus: “To your holiness, venerable fellow bishop Paulinus…” ### Extrabiblical texts - Augustine, Cura mort. (On Care for the Dead): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Latin title: De cura pro mortuis gerenda. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.64 (CSEL 36:202–203; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-64). ## Retractations 2.65 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-65 - Source: CSEL 36:203 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains why he counts his answers to Dulcitius's eight questions among his books. ### Latin text Liber, quem praenotaui de octo Dulciti quaestionibus, non esset in hoc opere commemorandus inter libros meos, cum sit confectus ex his, quae a me in aliis antea conscripta sunt, nisi et disputationis aliquid a nobis interpositum reperiretur in eo, et uni earum quaestionum non ex opusculo aliquo meo responsionem, sed tunc quae potuit occurrere reddidi. Hic liber sic incipit: Quantum mihi uideatur, dilectissime fili Dulciti. ### English translation (Claude) The book which I headed On the Eight Questions of Dulcitius would not have to be mentioned in this work among my books, since it is made up of things which I had written earlier in other works, except that some discussion inserted by us is found in it, and to one of those questions I gave an answer not from any small work of mine but what could occur to me at the time. This book begins thus: “As far as it seems to me, dearest son Dulcitius…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: De octo Dulcitii quaestionibus. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.65 (CSEL 36:203; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-65). ## Retractations 2.66 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-66 - Source: CSEL 36:203–204 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes his book On Grace and Free Choice, written for the monks of Hadrumetum. ### Latin text Propter eos, qui, cum defenditur dei gratia, putantes negari liberum arbitrium sic ipsi defendunt liberum arbitrium, ut negent dei gratiam asserentes eam secundum merita nostra dari, scripsi librum, cuius est titulus: de gratia et libero arbitrio. ad eos autem scripsi monachos Adrumetinos, in quorum monasterio de hac re coeperat esse contentio, ita ut me consulere eorum aliqui cogerentur. Hic liber sic incipit: Propter eos, qui hominis liberum arbitrium ### English translation (Claude) Because of those who, when the grace of God is defended, think that free choice is denied, and who therefore defend free choice in such a way as to deny the grace of God, asserting that it is given according to our merits, I wrote a book whose title is On Grace and Free Choice. I wrote it to the monks of Hadrumetum, in whose monastery a dispute had begun about this matter, so that some of them were compelled to consult me. This book begins thus: “Because of those who … man's free choice…” ### Translation notes - Latin title: De gratia et libero arbitrio. The incipit breaks off in the digital text. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.66 (CSEL 36:203–204; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-66). ## Retractations 2.67 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-67 - Source: CSEL 36:204–206 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine notes On Rebuke and Grace and concludes that he has reviewed ninety-three works in two hundred and thirty-two books, before turning to his letters and sermons. ### Latin text Rursus ad eosdem scripsi alterum librum, quem de correptione et gratia praenotaui, cum mihi nuntiatum esset dixisse ibi quendam neminem corripiendum, si dei praecepta non facit, sed pro illo, ut faciat, tantummodo orandum. Hic liber sic incipit: Lectis litteris uestris, Valentine frater dilectissime. Haec opera nonaginta et tria in libris ducentis triginta et duobus me dictasse recolui, quando haec retractaui, utrum adhuc essem aliquos dictaturus ignorans, atque ipsam eorum retractationem in libris duobus edidi urgentibus fratribus, antequam epistulas et sermones in populum, alias dictatas alios a me dictos, retractare coepissem. ### English translation (Claude) Again to the same monks I wrote another book, which I headed On 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 God's commandments, but only prayed for, that he may do them. This book begins thus: “Having read your letter, Valentinus, dearest brother…” These ninety-three works in two hundred and thirty-two books I recalled having dictated when I reviewed them, not knowing whether I would yet dictate any more; and I published the review of them in two books at the urging of the brothers, before I had begun to review the letters and the sermons to the people, some dictated, others spoken by me. ### Translation notes - Latin title: De correptione et gratia. The planned review of the letters and sermons was never written. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Retract. 2.67 (CSEL 36:204–206; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-retractationes/2-55/#p-2-67).