Part 6
1 John xv. 13. 2 1 John iii. 16.
3 See also his treatise, De Naturd et Gratia, ch. xxiii.
CHAP. LYII.] PROBATION, EVEN AFTER REMISSION. 127
Chap. 56. The case of David, in illustration.
Some such thought has occurred to us about the patriarch
David, in the Book of Kings. After the prophet was sent to him, and was threatening him with the evils which were to arise from the anger of God on account of the sin which he had committed, he acknowledged his offence, and received pardon for it, for the prophet met his confession with the assurance that the crime and guilt had been remitted to him but yet, for all that, the evils with which God had threatened him followed in due course, so that he was brought low by his son. Now why is not an objection at once raised here ?
If it was on account of his sin that God threatened him, why, when the sin was done away, did He fulfil His threat ? Only, if the cavil had been raised, it would have been a most correct answer to say, that the remission of the sin was given that the man might not be hindered from gaining the life eternal but the threatened evil was still carried into effect, in order that the man's piety might be exercised and approved in the lowly condition to which he was reduced. Thus it came to pass that God both inflicted on that man the death of his body, because of his sin, and, after his sins were forgiven, released him not [from his doom,] in order that he might be exercised in righteousness.
Chap. 57. [xxxv.]
Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without faltering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. " Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the
1 For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by left."
saying that we are without sin ; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one's sins with a. snrfr of im punity, in I lmow not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. " God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,"
2 even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins ; " but
3 they are the ways on the left hand are perverse and crooked,"
1 Prov. iv. 27.
2 Same verse [in the Septuagint ; the clause occurs not in the Hebrew].
3 [See the last note.]
128 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK II.
in friendship with sins. Of snch inflexibility were those youths of twenty years/ who foretokened in figure God's new people ; they entered the land of promise ; they, it is said, turned neither to the right hand nor to the left.
2 Now this age of twenty is not to be compared with the age of children's innocence. If I mistake not, this number is the shadow and echo of a mystery. For the Old Testament has its excellence in the five books of Moses, while the New Testament is most refulgent in the authority of the four Gospels. These numbers, when multiplied together, reach to the number twenty : four times five, or five times four, are twenty. Such a nation (as
I have already said), instructed in the kingdom of heaven by the two Testaments—the Old and the New—turning neither to the right hand, in a proud assumption of righteousness, nor to the left hand, in a reckless delight in sin, shall enter into the land of promise, where we shall have no longer either to pray that sins may be forgiven to us, or to fear that they may be punished in us, having been freed from them all by that Eedeemer, who, not being " sold under sin,"
3 " hath redeemed
4 whether committed in the
Israel out of all his iniquities," actual life, or derived from the original transgression.
Chap. 58. [xxxvi.]
It is no small concession to the authority and truthfulness of the inspired pages which those persons have made, who, although unwilling to admit openly in their writings that remission of sins is necessary for infants, have yet confessed that they need redemption. Nothing that they have said [hereon] differs indeed from another word [known to us all,] even that which is derived from the very instruction of Christ. Whilst by those who faithfully read, faithfully hear, and faithfully hold fast the Holy Scriptures, it cannot be doubted that from that flesh, which first became sinful flesh by man's wilfulness, and which has been subsequently transmitted to all through successive generations, there has been propagated a sinful flesh
[in every instance of birth,] with the single exception of that
5—which likeness, however, there could
" likeness of sinful flesh,"
1 Num. xiv. 29, 31. 2 Josh, xxiii. 6, 8. 3 Rom. vii. 14.
4 Ps. xxv. 22. 6 Rom. viii. 3.
CHAP. LIX.] INTRICATE QUESTIONS ON THE SOUL. 129 not have been, had there not been also the reality of sinful flesh.
Chap. 59.— Whether the soul is propagated; on obscure points, concerning ichich the Scriptures give us no assistance, we must be on our guard against forming hasty judgments and opinions ; the Scriptures are clear enough on those subjects which are necessary to salvation.
Concerning the soul, indeed, the question arises, whether it is propagated by birth in the same way [as the flesh,] and bound by the same guilt and condemnation, which needs remission in its case (for we cannot say that it is only the flesh of thp. infant, and not his soul also, which requires the help of a Saviour and Eedeemer ; or that the latter must not be included in that thanksgiving in the Psalms, where we read and repeat, * Bless the Lord, my soul, and forget not all His benefits ; who forgiveth all thine iniquities ; who healeth all thy diseases ; who redeemeth thy life from de-
1 ) ; or if it be not likewise propagated, whether, by struction" the very fact of its being mingled with and overloaded by the sinful flesh, it still has need of the remission of its own sin, and requires a redemption of its own, leaving it to God to
2 what infants determine, in the height of His foreknowledge,
3 not to be absolved from that guilt and they are that deserve condemnation, even before they are born, and have yet in any instance ever done any actual good or evil. The question also axiseSjhow God (even if He does not create souls by natural propagation) can yet not be the Author of that very sin and guilt, on account of which redemption by the sacrament is necessary to the infant's soul. The subject is a wide and im-
4 and requires another treatise. The discussion, portant one, however, so far as I can judge, ought to be conducted with temper and moderation, so as to deserve the praise of cautious inquiry, rather than the censure of headstrong assertion. For whenever a question arises on an unusually obscure subject, on which no assistance can be rendered by clear and certain proofs of the Holy Scriptures, the presumption of man ought
1 Ps. ciii. 2-4. 2 We follow the reading, per summam praiscientiam. 3 Xon mereantur.
4 He treats it in his Epistle, 166 ; in his work, DeAnimd et ejus Origine ; and in his De Libero Arbitrio, 42.
4 I
130 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK II.
to restrain itself ; nor should it attempt anything definite by leaning to either side. But if I must indeed be ignorant concerning any points of this sort, as to how they can be explained and proved, this much I should still believe, that from this very circumstance the Holy Scriptures would possess a most clear authority, whenever a point arose which no man could be ignorant of, without imperilling the salvation which has been promised him. You have now before you, [my dear Marcellinus,] this treatise, worked out to the best oi my ability. I only wish that its value equalled its length ; for its length I might probably be able to justify, only I should fear that, by adding the justification, I should stretch the prolixity beyond your endurance»
CHAP. I.] INTRODUCTORY. 131
BOOK THIRD,
IN THE SHAPE OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE SAME
MARCELLINUS.
IX WHICH AUGUSTINE REFUTES SOME ERRORS OF PELAGIUS ON THE QUESTION OF
THE MERITS OF SINS AND THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS—BEING SUNDRY ARGU-^ MENTS OF HIS WHICH HE HAD INTERSPERSED AMONG HIS EXPOSITIONS OF
SAINT PAUL, IN OPPOSITION TO ORIGINAL SIN.
To his heloved son Marcellinus, Augustine, bishop and servant of
Christ and of the servants of Christ, sendeth greeting in the
Lord.
Chap. 1. [i.] Pelagius, a holy man, held in high esteem ; his expositions on
Saint Paul. THE questions which, you proposed that I should write to you about, in opposition to those persons who say that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned, and that nothing of his sin has passed to his posterity by natural transmission ; and especially on the subject of the baptism of infants, which the universal Church, with most pious and maternal care, maintains by constant celebration ; and whether in this life there are, or have been, or ever will be, children of men without any sin at all—I have already fully discussed in the two preceding books, which, [as I have said,] have extended to a ^reat length. And I venture to think that . if in o o them I have not met all the points which perplex all men's minds on such matters (an achievement which, I apprehend, nay, which I have no doubt,—lies beyond the power either of myself, or of any other person), I have at all events effected something in the shape of a firm ground on which those who defend the faith delivered to us against the novel opinions of its opponents may at any time take their stand, armed for the contest. However, within the last few days I have read some
132 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
writings by Pelagius,—a holy man, as I am told, who has^ made no small progress in the Christian life,—containing some brief expository notes on the epistles of the Apostle Paul and therein I found, on coming to the passage where the apostle says, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men," * an argument which is used by those persons who say that infants are not burdened with original sin. Now I confess that I have not refuted this argument in my lengthy treatise, because it did not indeed once occur to me that anybody was capable of thinking or expressing such sentiments. Being, however, unwilling to increase the bulk of the work, which I had concluded, I have thought it right to insert in this epistle, [as an appendix to my treatise,] both the argument itself in the very words in which I read it, and the answer which it seems to me proper to give to it.
Chap. 2. [n.] Pelagius' objection ; infants reckoned among the number of faithful believers. In these terms, then, stands the argument in question
" They who are opposed to the [opinion of the] propagation of sin endeavour to impugn it thus : If (say they) Adam's sin was injurious even to those who do not sin, therefore Christ's righteousness also profits those who do not believe ; because
[the apostle] says, ' In like manner (nay, much more) are men saved by one, as they had previously perished by one/
Now to this argument, I repeat, I advanced no reply in the two books which I previously addressed to you ; nor, indeed, had I proposed to myself such a task. But in now [calling your attention to the new subject,] I beg you first of all to observe how, when they say, " If Adam's sin is injurious even to those who do not sin, then Christ's righteousness also profits those who do not believe," they judge most absurdly and falsely, [in supposing, first,] that the righteousness of Christ profits those who do not believe, and thence thinking to put together such an argument as this : That even as the first man's sin could possibly do no injury to infants who commit no sin, even so the righteousness of Christ is unable to benefit any who do not believe. Let them therefore tell us what is
1 Horn. v. 12.
CHAP. III.] OUR INTEREST IN THE EIRST AXD SECOND ADAM. 133 the use of Christ's righteousness to baptized infants ; let them by all means tell us what they mean. For of course, since they do not forget that they are Christians themselves, they have no doubt that there is some use and benefit. But whatever be this benefit, it is incapable (as they themselves assert) of benefiting those who do not believe. "Whence they are obliged to class baptized infants in the number of believers, and to assent to the authority of the Holy Catholic Church, which does not account them unworthy of the name of believers to whom the righteousness of Christ could be, according to them, of no use except as believers. As, therefore, by the answer of their sponsors, through whose agency they are born again, the Spirit of holiness infuses into them that faith which, of their own will, they could not yet have attained, so the' sinful flesh of those through whom they are born transfers to them that injury, which they have not yet contracted by any conduct of their own. And even as the Spirit of life regenerates them as believers in Christ, so also the body of death had generated them as sinners in Adam. The one makes them children of the flesh, the other children of the Spirit the one [makes them] children of death, the other children of the resurrection ; the one the children of the world, the other the children of God ; the one children of wrath, the other children of mercy ; and thus the one binds them under original sin, the other liberates them from the bond of every sin.
Chap. 3.
"We are driven at last to yield our assent on divine authority to that which we are unable to investigate with even the clearest intellect. It is well that they remind us themselves that Christ's righteousness is unable to profit any but believers, and that they yet allow that it yields some profit to infants for from this admission it follows (as we have already said) that they must, without any hesitation, find room for baptized infants among the number of believers. Consequently, if they are not baptized, they will have to rank amongst those who do not believe ; and therefore they will not even have life, but " the wrath of God abideth on them," inasmuch as " he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of
134 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
" V and they are under judgment, since
God abideth on him
"" he that believeth not is condemned already ; " 2 and they shall be condemned, since "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 3
Our opponents must already see to it with what justice they can attempt or strive to maintain that human beings who are without sin have nothing to do with eternal life, but appertain to the wrath of God, and incur the divine judgment and condemnation, if [infants]—as they cannot have any actual sin, so also—have within them no original sin.
Chap. 4.
To all the other points which Pelagius makes them urge who argue against original sin, I have, I think, sufficiently and clearly replied in the two former books of my lengthy treatise. Now if my reply should seem to any persons to be brief or obscure, I beg their pardon, and request the favour of their coming to equitable terms with those who perhaps censure my treatise, not for being too brief, but rather as being too long ; whilst any who still fail to understand the points which I cannot help thinking I have explained as clearly as the nature of the subject allowed me, shall certainly hear no blame or reproach from me for indifference, or want of understanding me.
4 I would rather that they should pray God to give them intelligence.
Chap. 5. [in.] Pelagius praised by some; arguments against original sin proposed by Pelagius in his Commentary. But we must not indeed omit to observe that this good and praiseworthy man (as they who know him describe him to be) has not of himself advanced this argument against the natural transmission of sin, but has reproduced what is alleged by those persons who disapprove of the doctrine, and that not merely so far as I have just quoted and confuted the allegation, but also as to those other points on which I have now further undertaken to furnish a reply. Now, after saying, " If, according to them, Adam's sin was injurious even to those who do not sin, therefore Christ's righteousness also profits those
1 John iii. 36. a John iii. 18. 3 Mark xvi. 16.
4 [Or, "because they lack my own faculty of understanding the subject."]
CHAP. VI.] PELAGIUS' EARLY DIFFIDENCE IN ERROR. 135 who do not believe/'—which sentence, you will perceive from what I have said in answer to it, is not only not repugnant to what we hold, but even reminds us what we ought to hold, —he at once goes on to add, " Then they contend, if baptism cleanses away that old sin, those children who are born of two baptized parents must needs be free from this sin, for they could not possibly have transmitted to those who came after them that which they did not possess themselves. Besides," says he, " if the soul is not born by natural propagation, but only the flesh, then only the latter has transmitted sin, and it alone deserves punishment ; for they allege that it would be unfair for the soul, which is only now born, and comes not of the stock of Adam, to have to bear the burden of so old a sin, with which it has nothing to do. They say, likewise," says
Pelagius, " that it cannot by any means be conceded that
God, who remits to a man his own sins, should impute to him the sin of another."
Chap. 6.
Pray, don't you see how Pelagius has inserted the whole of this paragraph in his writings, not in his own person, but in that of others, being so entirely sure of the novelty of this unheard-of doctrine, which is now beginning to raise its voice against the ancient opinion so natural to the Church, that he was actually ashamed or afraid to acknowledge it himself ? And probably he does not really believe that a man is born without sin for whom he confesses that baptism to be necessary by which comes the remission of siDs, or that the man is condemned without sin who must be reckoned, when unbaptized, in the class of non-believers, since the gospel of course cannot deceive us, when it most clearly asserts, "He that believeth not shall be damned
1 or, lastly, that the image of God, when without siD, is not admitted into the kingdom of God, forasmuch as "except a man be born of water and of; 2 and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God so he must either be precipitated into eternal death without sin, or (what is still more absurd) must have eternal life outside the kingdom of God ; for the Lord, when foretelling what He should say to His people at last,—" Come, ye blessed of
1 Hark xvi. 16. 2 John iii. 5.
136 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK lit.
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world," *—also clearly indicated what the kingdom was of which He was speaking ; for He thus concludes : " So these shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal." 2 These opinions, then, and others which spring from the central error, I believe so worthy a man, and so good a Christian, does not at all accept, as being too perverse and repugnant to Christian truth. But it is quite possible that he may, by the very arguments of those who deny the transmission of sin by birth, be still so far distressed as to be anxious to hear or know what can be said in reply to them ; and on this account he was both unwilling to keep silent the tenets propounded by them who deny the natural transmission of sin, in order that he might get the question in due time discussed, and, at the same time, declined to report the opinions in his own person, lest he should be supposed to entertain them himself.
Chap. 7. [iv.] Proof of original sin in infants.
Now, although I may not be able myself to refute the arguments of these men, I yet see how necessary it is to adhere closely to the clear and undoubted statements of the
Scriptures, in order that the obscure passages may be explained by help of these, or, if the mind be as yet unequal to the function of either perceiving them when explained, or investigating them whilst abstruse, that they may be received and believed without misgiving. But what can be plainer than the many weighty testimonies of the inspired Scriptures, which afford to us the clearest proof possible that without union with Christ there is no man who can attain to eternal life and salvation ; and that by the judgment of God no man can unjustly be damned,—that is, separated from that life and salvation ? The inevitable conclusion from which truths is this, that (as nothing else is effected when infants are baptized than their incorporation into the church,—in other words, than their union with the body and members of Christ) unless this benefit [of the sacrament] be bestowed upon them, they are
3 damnation. Damned, however, they
manifestly in danger of
1 Matt. xxv. 34. 2 Matt. xxv. 46. 3 Pertinere ad.
CHAP. VIII.] INFANT BAPTISM PROVES ORIGINAL SIN". 137 coiild not be if they really had no sin. 'Now, since their tender age could not possibly have contracted sin by any act and conduct of their own, it remains for us, even if we are as yet unable to understand [the mystery,] at least to believe that infants inherit original sin.
Chap. 8. Jesus is the Saviour even of infants. And therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the apostle's words when he says, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men;" and if it is possible for them to be drawn aside, and applied to some other sense,—is there anything ambiguous in this statement : " Except a man be born again of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God?"
2 Is this, a^ain, ambiguous : " Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He
3 Is there any doubt
shall save His people from their sins?"
of what this means : " The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick ? " 4—in other words, Jesus is not needed by those who have no sin, but by those who are to be saved from sin. Is there anything, again, uncertain in this : " Except men eat the flesh of the Son of man," that is, become
5 By partakers of His body, " they shall not have life ? " these and similar statements, which I now pass over,—so absolutely clear in the light of God, so absolutely certain by His authority are they,—does not truth proclaim with unfaltering tongue, that unbaptized infants not only cannot enter into the kingdom of God, but cannot have everlasting life, except in the body of Christ, into which, that they may receive incorporation, they are washed in the sacrament of baptism ? Does not truth, without any ambiguity, testify that for no other reason are they carried by pious hands to
Jesus (that is, to Christ, the Saviour and Physician), than that they may be healed of the plague of their sin by the medicine of His sacraments ? Why then do we delay so to understand the apostle's very words, of which we perhaps used to have some doubt, that they may agree with these statements of which we can have no manner of doubt ?
1 Rom. v. 12. 2 John iii. 5. 3 Matt. L 21.
* Matt. ix. 12. 5 See John vi. 53.
138 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
Chap. 9.
To me, however, no doubt presents itself about the whole of this passage, in which the apostle speaks of the condemnation of many through the sin of one, and the justification of many through the righteousness of One, except as to the words, "the figure of the Adam that was to come."
1 For this phrase in reality not only suits the sense which understands that Adam's posterity were to be born of the same form as himself along with sin, but the words are also capable of being drawn out into several distinct meanings. For we have ourselves actually contended for various senses from the words in
2 and very likely we shall propound question at different times, yet another view, which, however, will not be incompatible with the sense here mentioned ; even Pelagius has not always expounded the passage in one way. All the rest, however, of the passage in which these doubtful words occur, if its statements are carefully examined and treated, as I have tried my best to do in the first book of this treatise, will not (in spite of the obscurity of style necessarily engendered by the subject itself) fail to show the incompatibility of any other meaning than that which has secured the adhesion of the Catholic Church from the earliest times—that believing infants have obtained through the baptism of Christ the remission of original sin.
Chap. 10. [v.] He shows that former writers had never entertained a doubt about the original sin of infants.
Accordingly, it is not without reason that the blessed
3 carefully shows how from the very first the Church
Cyprian holds this as a well understood article of faith, even when he was asserting the fitness of infants only just born to receive
Christ's baptism, on a certain occasion when the question was submitted to him—whether this ought to be administered before the eighth day. He endeavoured, as far as he could, to prove these new-born babes perfect, that no one should be
1 " Adam formamfiduri ;" see Rom. v. 14.
2 Comp. above, Book I. c. 13; Epist. 157; Be Nuptiis, ii. 44; and Contra
Julianum, vi. 8.
3 See Cyprian's Ejiistle, 64 {ad Fidum) ; also Augustine, Epist. 166 ; De Nujh tiis, ii. 49 ; Contra Jidianum, ii. 5 ; Ad Bon'facium, iv. 3 ; Sermons, 294.
CHAP. X.] CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY. 139 led to suppose, from the number of the days (on the ground that infants used formerly to be circumcised on the eighth day), that they so far lacked perfection. However, after bestowing upon them the full support of his argument, he still confessed that they were not free from original sin ; if indeed he had denied this, he would have removed all reason for the very baptism which he was maintaining their fitness to receive. You can, if you wish, read for yourself the epistle of the illustrious martyr On the Baptism of Little Children; for it cannot fail to be within reach at Carthage. But be this as it may, I have deemed it right to transcribe some few statements of it into this letter of mine, so far as applies to the question before us ; and I pray you to mark them carefully. " Now with respect," says he, " to the case of infants, whom you declared it would be improper to baptize if presented within the second and third day after their birth, [contending] that due regard ought to be paid to the old law of circumcision, as if you thought that the infant should not be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after its birth,
[I can only say] that a far different view has been formed of the question in our council. ISTot a man there assented to what you thought ought to be done, but the whole of us rather determined that to no human beingj whatever, as soon as born, ought God's mercy and grace to be denied. For since the Lord in His gospel says, ' The Son of man is not come x so far as in us to destroy men's lives, but to save them,' lies, not a soul ought, if possible, to be lost." You observe how in these words [Cyprian] supposes that it is fraught with ruin and death, not only to the flesh, but also to the soul, for one to depart this life without the sacrament of salvation.
Wherefore, if he said nothing else, it was at least competent to us to conclude from his words that without sin the soul could not perish. See, however, what (when he shortly afterwards maintains the innocence of infants) he at the same time allows concerning them in the plainest terms : " But if," says he,
" anything could hinder men from the attainment of grace, then their heavier sins micrht well hinder those who have reached the stages of adults, and advanced life, and old age.
1 Luke ix. 56.
140 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
Since, however, remission of sins is given even to the greatest sinners after they have believed, however much they have previously sinned against God, and since nobody is forbidden baptism and grace, how much more ought an infant not to be forbidden [these benefits,] who since his recent birth has done nothing amiss, except that from having been born after Adam in the flesh he has contracted from his very birth the contagion of the primeval death ! How, too, does this fact contribute in itself the more easily to their reception of the forgiveness of sins, that the remission which they have is not of their own sins, but those of another
Chap. 11. You see with what confidence this great man expresses himself after the ancient and undoubted rule of faith. In advancing such very certain statements, his object was by help of these firm conclusions to prove the uncertain point which had been submitted to him by his correspondent, and concernin cr which he informs him that a decree of a council had been passed, to the effect that, if an infant were brought [to the font] even before the eighth day after his birth, no one should hesitate to baptize him. Now it was not then determined or affirmed by the council as a novel opinion, or struck out for the occasion by the opposition of any person, that infants were held bound by original sin ; but [this doctrine was declared incidentally] when another controversy was being conducted, and the question was discussed, in reference to the law of the circumcision of the flesh, whether they ought to be baptized before the eighth day. None agreed with the person who held that they ought not to be so baptized, on the ground that it was not an open question admitting of discussion, whether the soul would forfeit eternal salvation if it ended this life without obtaining the sacrament of baptism, for this point was regarded as fixed and unassailable ; but at the same time infants fresh from the womb were held to be affected only by the guilt of original sin. On this account, although remission of sins was easier in their case, because the sins were derived from another, it was nevertheless indispensable. It was on sure grounds like these that the
CHAP. XII.] ST. JEROME'S TESTIMONY. 141 uncertain question Of the, Eighth Day was solved, and the council decided that after a man was born, not a day ought to be lost in rendering him that succour which should prevent his perishing for ever. When also a reason was given for the circumcision of the flesh as being itself a shadow of the circumcision which was to be, its purport was not that we should understand that baptism ought to be administered to an infant on the eighth day after his birth, but rather that we are spiritually circumcised in the resurrection of Christ, who rose from the dead on the third day, indeed, after He suffered, but (reckoning by the days of the weekly cycles as their periods advanced) on the eighth,—in other words, on the first day after the Sabbath [or full week].
Chap. 12. [vi.] The universal consensus respecting original sin. And now, again, with a novel boldness stimulated by an obscure controversy, certain persons are endeavouring to infuse uncertainty in our minds on a point which our forefathers used to bring forward as most certainly fixed, whenever they would solve such questions as seemed to some men to partake of uncertainty. When tins controversy, indeed, first began, I am unable to say ; but one thing I know, that even the holy
Jerome, who is actually in our own day renowned for great industry and learning in ecclesiastical subjects, applies [our doctrine] as incontrovertibly furnishing most certain proof towards the solution of sundry questions treated in his writings. For instance, in his commentary on the prophet Jonah, when he comes to the passage where even infants are men-
" The greatest tioned as afflicted with the fast, he says age comes first, and then all the rest is pervaded down to
2 For there is no man without sin, whether the the least.
span of his age be but that of a single day, or he reckon many years to his life. For if the very stars are unclean in the
3 how much more is a worm and corruption, sight of God, such as are they who are held bound by the sin of the offending Adam ? " If, indeed, we could readily interrogate this most learned man, how many authors who have treated of the
4 and have written on
divine Scriptures in both languages,
1 St. Jerome, on Jonah-iii. 2 Yer. 3. 3 Job xxv. 4. 4 Or "who have treated of both languages of the divine Scriptures."
142 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
Christian controversies, would he mention to us, who have never held any other opinion since the Church of Christ was founded, neither receiving any other from their forefathers, nor handing down any other to their posterity ? My own reading, indeed, has been far more limited, but yet I do not recollect ever having heard of any other doctrine on this point from Christians, who accept the two Testaments, whether living in the Catholic Church, or even if found in any heretical or schismatic body. I do not remember, I say, that I have at any time found any other doctrine in such writers as have contributed anything to literature of this kind, whether they have followed the canonical Scriptures, or have supposed that they have followed them, or had wished to be so supposed. From what quarter this question has suddenly come upon us
I know not. A short time ago,
1 in a random conversation with certain . persons while we were at Carthage, my ears were suddenly offended with such a proposition as this : " That infants are not baptized for the purpose of receiving remission of sin, but that they may be sanctified in Christ." Although I was much disturbed by so novel an opinion, still, as there was no opportunity afforded me for gainsaying it, and as its propounders were not persons whose influence gave me anxiety, I readily let the subject slip into neglect and oblivion.
2 it is now maintained with burning zeal
But, strange to say, against the Church ; it is committed to our permanent notice by writing ; nay, the matter is brought to such a pitch of distracting influence, that we are even consulted on it by our
3 obliged to oppose brethren [in Christ;] and we are actually its progress both by disputation and by writing.
Chap. 13. [vn.] The error of Jovinianns. A few years ago there lived at Eome one Jovinian, who is said to have persuaded nuns of even advanced age to marry, not, indeed, by any prurient attraction, as if he wanted to make any of them his wife, but by contending that virgins
1 "We suppose in the year 411, when a conference was held at Carthage with the Donatists. Augustine says that he then ' saw Pelagius ; see his work, De
Gestis Pelagii, c. 46.
2 Ecce. 3 Ecce.
CHAP. XIII.] JOVINIAN'S TESTIMONY. 143 who dedicated themselves to the ascetic life had no more merit before God than married women who believed. It never entered his mind, however, along with this conceit, to venture to affirm that the children of any persons are born without original sin. If, indeed, he had added such an opinion, the women might have more readily consented to marry, to give birth to the purest offspring. When this man's writings (for he had the courage to become a writer) were by the brethren forwarded to Jerome to refute, he not only discovered no such error in them, but, while looking out his conceits for refutation, he found among other passages this very clear testimony to the doctrine of man's original sin, from which Jerome indeed felt satisfied of the man's belief of that
1 These are his words when treating of it : " He who says that he abides in Christ, ought himself also to walk doctrine.
2 We give our opponent leave to choose which alternative he likes. Does he abide in Christ, or even as He walked.
does he not ? If he does, then, let him walk like Christ.
If, however, it is a rash thing to undertake to resemble the
( excellences of Christ, he abides not in Christ, because he walks not as Christ did. He did no sin, neither was any
3 who, when He was reviled, deceit found in His mouth reviled not again ; and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth
4 to whom the prince of this world came, and found nothing in Him ;
5 whom, though He had done no sin, God made sin for us.
6 We, however, accord-
7 none of ing to the Epistle of James, all commit many sins us is pure from uncleanness, even if his life should be but of
8 For who shall boast that he has
one day [upon the earth].
a clean heart ? Or who shall be confident that he is pure from sins ? We are held guilty according to the likeness of Adam's transgression. Accordingly David also says : ' Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.' " 9
1 See Jerome's work Against Jovinian, ii. near the beginning.
2 John ii. 6. 3 Isa. liii. 9. 4 Isa. liii. 7.
5 John xiv. 30. 6 2 Cor. v. 21. 7 jaSm o.
• Job xiv. 5 (Septuagint). 9 Ps. Ii. 5.
144 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
Chap. 14. The opinions of all controversialists whatever are not, however, canonical authority; original sin, how another's; we were all one man in Adam.
I have not quoted these words as if we might rely upon the opinions of every disputant as on canonical authority ; but
I have done it, that it may he seen how, from the beginning down to the present age, which has given birth to this novel opinion, the doctrine of original sin has been guarded with the utmost constancy as a part of the Church's faith, so that it is usually adduced as most certain ground whereon to refute other opinions when false, instead of being itself exposed to refutation by any one as false. Moreover, in the sacred books of the canon, the authority of this doctrine is vigorously asserted in the clearest and fullest way. The apostle exclaims
" By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
1 Now from these words it cannot certainly be said, that Adam's sin has injured even those who commit no sin, for the Scripture says, " In him all have sinned!' Nor, indeed, are those sins of infancy so said to be another s, as if they did not appertain to the infants at all, inasmuch as all then sinned in Adam, when in his nature, by virtue of that innate power whereby he was able to produce them, they were still all the one Adam ; but they are called the sin of another? because as yet they were not living their own lives ; but the life of the one man contained [in itself as a germ] whatsoever was [developed] in his future offspring.
Chap. 15. [viii.]
" It is," they say, " by no means conceded that the God who remits to a man his own sins should impute to him another's." He remits, indeed, but it is to the regenerate in spirit, not to those who are born of the flesh ; but He imputes to a man no longer the sins of another, but only his own. They were no doubt the sins of another, whilst as yet they were not in existence who bore them when naturally produced ; but now the sins belong to them by carnal generation, to whom they have not yet been remitted by spiritual regeneration.
1 Kom. v. 12. 2 Aliena.
CHAP. XVI.] THE CHILDREN OF BAPTIZED PARENTS. 145
Chap. 16. Origin of errors ; a simile sought from the foreskin of the circumcised, and from the chaff of wheat.
" But surely/' say they, "since baptism cleanses the primeval sin, they who are born of two baptized parents ought to be free from the said sin ; for these could not have transmitted to their children that thing which they did not themselves possess." Now observe whence error usually springs and spreads : it is when persons are sharp in starting subjects which they are not clever enough to understand. For before what audience, and in what words, can I explain how it is that birth in a sinful mortal condition brings no obstacle to those who have made a beginning in another, even immortal, condition of new birth, and at the same time proves an obstacle to those whom those very persons against whom it was not prejudicial have begotten of the self-same sinful condition ? How can a man understand these things, whose dull labouring mind is impeded both by its own prejudiced opinions and by the chain of its own most stolid obstinacy ?
If indeed I had undertaken my cause in opposition to those who either altogether forbid the baptism of infants, or else contend that it is superfluous to baptize them, alleging that as they are born of believing parents, they must needs enjoy the merit of their parents, then it would have been my duty to have roused myself perhaps to greater labour and effort for the purpose of refuting their opinion. In that case, if I encountered a difficulty before obtuse and contentious men in refuting error and inculcating truth, owing to the obscurity which beset the nature of the subject, I should probably resort to such illustrations as were palpable and at hand and I should in my turn ask them some questions,—how, for instance, if they were puzzled to know in what way sin, after being cleansed by baptism, still remained in those who were begotten of baptized parents, they would explain how it is that the foreskin, after being removed by circumcision, should still remain in the sons of the circumcised ? or acmin, how it happens that the chaff which is winnowed off so carefully by human labour still keeps its place in the grain which springs from the winnowed wheat ?
146 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
Chap. 17. [ix.]
With these, and probably such as these, palpable arguments, should I endeavour, as I best could, to persuade those persons who believed that sacraments of cleansing were uselessly applied to the children of the cleansed, how proper is the purpose of baptizing the infants of baptized parents, and how it may happen that to a man who has within him the twofold seed—of death in the flesh, and of immortality in the spirit —that may prove no obstacle, regenerated as he is by the
Spirit, which is prejudicial to his son, who is generated by the flesh ; and that that may be cleansed in the one by remission, which in the other still requires cleansing by like remission, just as in the case supposed of circumcision, and as in the case of the winnowing and thrashing. But now, when we are contending with those who allow that the children of the baptized ought to be themselves baptized, how much more conveniently do we conduct our discussion, when we can say : You who assert that the children of such persons as have been cleansed from the pollution of sin ought to have been born without sin, why do you not perceive that by the same rule you might just as well say that the children of
Christian parents ought to have been born Christians ? Why, indeed, do you maintain that they ought to become Christians ? Was there not in their parents a Christian body, to whom it is said, " Know ye not that your bodies are the members of
1 Perhaps you suppose that a Christian body may
Christ V' be born of Christian parents, without having received a
Christian soul ? Well, this would render the case much more wonderful still. For you would think of the soul one of two things as you pleased,—because, of course, you hold with the apostle, that before birth it had done nothing good or evil,—that it was either derived by natural propagation [to the body,] and that just as the body of Christians is Christian, so should also their soul be Christian ; or else that it was created by Christ, either in the Christian body, or for the use of the Christian body, and that it ought therefore to have beencreated or transmitted in a Christian condition. Unless perchance you shall pretend that, although Christian parents
1 1 Cor. vi. 15.
CHAP. XVIII. ] ALL INFANTS REQUIRE THE SECOND BIRTH. 147 had it in their power to beget a Christian body, yet Christ
Himself was not able to create a Christian soul. Yield then to the truth, and see that, as it has been possible (as you yourselves admit) for one who is not a Christian to be born of Christian parents, for one who is not a member of Christ to be born of members of Christ, and (that we may meet the views of all, who, however falsely, are yet in some sense possessed with a sense of religion) for a man who is not consecrated to be born of parents who are ; so also it is quite possible for one who is not cleansed and sanctified to be born of parents who are in such a state. Now what answer will you give us, [explaining] why of Christian parents is born one who is not a Christian, unless it be that Christians are made not by natural birth, but by regeneration ? Eesolve therefore your own question with a like reason, that no one is cleansed from his sins by being born, but all are purified by the second birth. And thus of parents wrho are cleansed, because born again, any child who is born must himself be born again, in order that he too may be cleansed. For it was quite possible for parents to transmit to their children that which they possessed not themselves,—thus resembling not only the wheat which yielded the chaff, and the circumcised the foreskin, but also the instance which you yourselves adduce, even that of believers who transmit unbelief to their posterity. Now this circumstance does not accrue to the faithful as regenerated by the Spirit, but it is owing to the fact that they have been born of the flesh,—it is, in short, the fault of their mortal seed. For in respect of the infants whom you judge it necessary to make believers by the sacrament of the faithful, you do not deny that they were born in unbelief, although of believing parents.
Chap. 18. [x.] Is the soul derived by natural propagation? Pelagius ; sin is proved by punishment. Well, but " if the soul is not propagated, but only the flesh, then the latter alone is the propagator of sin, and it only deserves punishment." This is what they think ; and they say " that it is unjust that the soul which is only recently produced, and that not out of Adam's
' substance, should bear the sin of another committed so loner a<K>." Now observe,
148 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
I pray you, how the cautious Pelagius felt the question about the soul to be a very difficult one, and acted accordingly (for the words which I have just quoted are copied from a book of his). He does not say absolutely, " Because the soul is not propagated," but hypothetically, If the soul is not propagated, rightly determining on so obscure a subject (on which we can find in Holy Scriptures no certain and obvious testimonies, or with very great difficulty discover any) to speak with hesitation rather than with confidence. Wherefore I too, on my side, answer with no hasty assertion this proposition : " If the soul is not propagated, where is the justice in that, which has been but recently created and is quite free from the contagion of sin, being compelled in infants to endure the passions and other torments of the flesh, and, what is more terrible still, even the attacks of evil spirits ? For never does the flesh experience any sufferings of this kind without the indwelling and sympathizing soul also incurring the misery to even a greater degree." If this, indeed, is shown to be just, it may be shown, on the same terms, with what justice original sin comes to exist in our sinful flesh, to be subsequently cleansed by the sacrament of baptism and God's gracious mercy. If the former point cannot be shown, I imagine that the latter point is equally incapable of demonstration. We must therefore either bear with both positions in silence, and remember that we are human, or else we must prepare, at some other time, another work " On the Soul" if it shall appear necessary, discussing the whole question with caution and sobriety.
Chap. 19. [xi.] We must, however, for the present accept what the apostle says : " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in that all have
1 and in such a way, indeed, that we seem not rashly sinned;" and foolishly to oppose the many great passages of Holy
Scripture, which teach us that no man can obtain eternal life without that union with Christ which is effected in Him and with Him, when we are imbued with His sacraments and incorporated with the members of His body. Now this state-
1 Rom. v. 12.
CHAP. XX.] OUR RELATIONS TO ADAM AND CHRIST CONTRASTED. 149 merit which the apostle addresses to the Romans, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned," tallies in sense with his words to the Corinthians : " Since by man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
1 For nobody doubts that the subject here referred to alive."
is the death of the body, because the apostle was with much earnestness dwelling on the resurrection of the body. If he says nothing in this latter passage about sin, it evidently is because the question was not about righteousness. Both points are mentioned in the Epistle to the Eomans, and both points are, at very great length, insisted on by the apostle,—sin in Adam, righteousness in Christ; also death in Adam, life in
Christ. However, as I have observed already, I have thoroughly examined and opened, in the first book of this treatise, all these words of the apostle's argument, as far as I was able, and as much as seemed necessary.
Chap. 20. The sting of death, what? But even in the passage to the Corinthians, where he had been treating fully of the resurrection, the apostle concludes his statement in such a way as not to permit us to doubt that the death of the body is the result of sin. For after he had said, "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality : so when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then," he added, *' shall be brought to pass the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
death, where is thy sting ? grave, where is thy victory ?"
and at last he subjoined these words : " The sting ,of death is
2 Now, because sin; and the strength of sin is the law."
(as the apostle's words most plainly declare) death shall then be swallowed up in victory when this corruptible and mortal body shall have put on incorruption and immortality,—that is, when "Christ shall quicken our mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in us,"—it manifestly follows that the sting of the body of this death, which is the contrary of the resurrection of the body, is sin. It is the sting, however, by which death
1 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. a 1 Cor. xv. 53-56.
150 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III was made, and not which made death, since it is by sin that we die, and not by death that we sin. It is therefore called "the sting of death" on the principle which originated the phrase " the tree of life,"—not because the life of man produced it, but because by it the life of man was made. In like manner " the tree of knowledge" was that whereby man's knowledge was made, not that whichman made by his knowledge. So also " the sting of death" is that by which death was produced, not that which death made. We similarly use the expression " the cup of death," [or " deadly cup,"] when one dies of it, or might die of it,—not meaning, of course, a cup made by a dying or dead man. The sting of death is therefore sin, because by its puncture the human race has been affected with death. Why further ask, of whose death,—the death of the soul, or the death of the body ? Is it the first death which we are all of us now dying, or that second death which the wicked shall then endure ? There is no occasion for plying the question so curiously ; there is no room for subterfuge. The words in which the apostle expresses the case are used by him to answer his own questions : " When this mortal," says he, " shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." [Then come his questions :] " death, where is thy sting ? grave, where is thy victory ?" [And here is the answer :] " The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." He was treating of the resurrection of the body, wherein death shall be swallowed up in victory, when this mortal shall have put on immortality. Then over death itself shall be raised the shout of triumph, when at the resurrection of the body it shall be swallowed up in victory ; then shall be said to it, " grave, where is thy victory ? death, where is thy sting?" To the death of the body shall this challenge be addressed. For it is immortality which shall absorb the victory, when this mortal body shall clothe itself in immortality.
I repeat it, to the death of the body shall it be said, "Where is thy victory?"—that victory in which thou didst conquer all, so that even the Son of God engaged with thee in conflict ; and by not shrinking but grappling with thee He overcame. Over the dying thou hast triumphed ; but thou art thyself conquered in
CHAP. XXL] WHAT MEANS "THE STING OF DEATH?" 151 the children of the resurrection. Thy victory was but temporary, in which thou didst absorb the bodies of them that die. Our victory will last for evermore, in which thou art absorbed in the bodies of them that rise again. u "Where is thy sting?"—that is, the sin wherewithal we are punctured and poisoned, so that thou clidst fix thyself in our very bodies, and for so long a time didst hold them in possession. " The stingy of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." We all sinned in one, so that we all die in one ; we received the law, not by amendment according to its precepts to put an end to sin, but by transgression to increase it. For
" the law entered that sin might abound ;"* and " the Scripture
2 but "thanks be to God, who hath concluded all under sin;" hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ," in order that " where sin abounded, grace might much more abound;"
4 and "that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe ;" 5 and that we might overcome death by a deathless resurrection, and sin, "the sting" thereof, by a free and gracious justification.
Chap. 21. [xn.] The precept about touching the mcnstruous woman not to be figuratively understood ; the necessity of the sacraments. Let no one, then, on this subject be either deceived or a deceiver. The manifest bearing of Holy Scripture which we have considered, removes all subterfuge. Even as death is in this our mortal body derived from the beginning, so from the first has sin been drawn into this sinful flesh of ours, for the cure of which, both as it is derived by natural descent and augmented by wilful transgression, as well as for the quickening of our flesh itself, our Physician came in the likeness of sinful flesh, who is not needed by the sound, but only by the sick,—who came not to call the righteous, but only sinners.
Therefore the saying of the apostle, when advising believers not to separate themselves from unbelieving partners : " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your
7 must be either so children unclean ; but now are they holy,"
1 Rom. v. 20. 2 Gal ijj 22. 3 1 Cor. xv. 57. 4 Rom. v. 20. 5 Gai. iii^ 22. « Mark ii. 17.
7 1 Cor. vii. 14.
152 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
understood as both we ourselves elsewhere/ and as Pelagius in his notes on this same Epistle to the Corinthians/ has expounded it, according to the purport of » the examples mentioned in the preceding verses, that sometimes wives gained husbands to Christ, and sometimes husbands converted wives, whilst the Christian will of even one of the parents prevailed towards making their children Christians ; or else, if (as the apostle's words seem rather to indicate, and to a certain degree persuade us) some particular sanctification is to be here understood, which used to sanctify an unbelieving husband or wife by the believing partner, and through which the children of the believing parents were sanctified,—whether it was that the husband or the wife, during the woman's menstruation, abstained from cohabiting together, having learned that duty in the law (for Ezekiel classes this amongst the precepts which were not to be taken in a metaphorical sense
3 ), or on account of some other voluntary sanctification which is not there expressly prescribed,—a sprinkling of holiness arising out of the close ties of married life and children ;—yet whatever be the sanctification meant, this point must be steadily kept in view, that there is no other valid means of making
Christians and remitting sins, if men do not become believers through the sacraments according to the institution of Christ and the Church. For neither are unbelieving husbands and wives, notwithstanding their intimate union with holy and righteous spouses, cleansed of the sin which separates men from the kingdom of God and drives them into condemnation, nor are the children who are born of parents, however just and holy, absolved from the guilt of original sin, unless they have been baptized into Christ, in behalf of whom our plea should be the more earnest, the less able they are to urge one themselves.
Chap. 22. [xiii.]— We ought to be anxious to secure the baptism of infants.
For this is the point aimed at by the controversy, against
1 See Augustine's work On the Sermon on the Mount, i. 16.
2 See the Commentaries on St. Paul in Jerome's works, vol. viii. , the work of either Pelagius or one of his followers.
3 Ezek. xviii. 6.
CHAP. XXIII.] THERE AEE NONE WITHOUT SIN. 153 the novelty of which we have to struggle by the aid of ancient truth, that it is clearly altogether superfluous for infants to he baptized. JS"ot that this opinion is avowed in so many words, lest so firmly established a custom of the Church should prove too much for its assailants. If we are taught to render help to orphans, how much more ought we to labour in behalf of those children who, though under the protection of parents, will still be left more destitute and wretched than orphans, should that grace of Christ be denied them, which they are all unable to demand for themselves ?
Chap. 23.
As for what they say, that some men, by the use of their reason, have lived, and do live, in this world without sin, it-
Te should strive to make it is to be wished it were true. \\ true, and pray that it become a fact ; but, at the same time, we must confess that the fact has not yet been realized. For to those who wish and strive and worthily pray for this result, whatever sins remain in them are daily remitted by means of that supplication which we sincerely offer up, " Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." * Whosoever shall deny that this prayer is in this life necessary for every righteous man who knows and does the will of God, except the one Holy [King] of saints, greatly errs, and is utterly incapable of pleasing even Him whom he praises. Moreover, if he supposes himself to be such a character, " he deceives himself, and the truth is not in him,"
2—for no other reason than that his thoughts are false. That Physician, then, who is not needed by the sound, but by the sick, knows how to heal us, and by healing to perfect us unto eternal life ; nor does He in this world actually take away death, although inflicted because of sin, from those whose sins He remits, that they may enter on their conflict, having to overcome the fear of death with full sincerity of faith. In some cases, too, He declines to help even His righteous servants, so long as they are capable of still higher elevation, to the attainment of a perfect righteousness, in order that (while in His sight no man living is justified
3 ) we may always feel it to be our i Matt. vi. 12. 2 1 John i. 8. 3 Ps. cxliii. 2.
154 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND BAPTISM. [BOOK III.
duty to give Him thanks for mercifully bearing with us, and so, by holy humility, be healed of that first cause of all our failings, even the swellings of pride. This letter, as my intention first sketched it, was to have been a short one ; it has grown into a lengthy book. Would that it were as perfect as it has at last become complete !
EXTKACT FROM
AUGUSTINE'S "RETRACTATIONS,"
Book II. Chap. 37,
OX THE FOLLOWING TREATISE,
"DE SPIEITU ET LITTEKA."
1 to whom I had addressed the three books en-
The person titled Dc Pcccatorum Mentis et Rcmissione, in which I carefully discussed also the baptism of infants, informed me, when acknowledging my communication, that he was much disturbed because I declared it to be possible that a man might be without sin, if he wanted not the will, by the help of God, even though in this life no man either had lived, was living, or would live, so perfect in righteousness. He asked how
I could say that was possible of which no example could be adduced. Owing to such an inquiry on the part of this person, I wrote the treatise entitled Dc Spirit u et Littera.
In handling tins subject, I largely considered the apostle's
1 [The Tribune Marcellinus, with whose name are connected many other treatises of Augustine. In this work the author informs us that the occasion of its composition was furnished by this person, who mooted an inquiry touching a statement in the preceding books Concerning the Merits and the Remission of
Sins. Those books, as we have already indicated, were published a.d. 412.
in the Retractations there is placed after these very books the present work Concerning the Spirit and the Letter,—not, indeed, immediately next, but in the fourth place after,—so that it was written, no doubt, about the end of the same year, a.d. 412, some time previous to the death of Marcellinus, who was killed in the month of September of the following year, 413. This present work is also mentioned in the book On Faith and Works, c. 1-1 ; and in that On
Christian Doctrine, iii. 33.] Ed. Bened.
156 EXTRACT FROM AUGUSTINE'S " RETRACTATIONS."
statement, " The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
In this work, so far as God enabled me, I earnestly discussed the point with those who oppose that grace of God which justifies the ungodly. While treating, however, of the observances of the Jews, who abstain from sundry meats and drinks in accordance with their ancient law, I mentioned " the ceremonies of certain meats" [Quarumdam escarum cerimonise] a phrase which, though not used in Holy Scripture, seemed to me very convenient, because I remembered that aerimoniw is tantamount to carimonice [as if from carcre, to be without], and expresses the abstinence of the worshippers from certain things. If, however, there is any other derivation of the word, which is inconsistent with the true religion, I meant no reference whatever to it ; I confined my use to the sense above indicated. This work of mine begins thus : " After perusing the short treatises which I lately drew up for you, my beloved son Marcellinus," etc.
1 2 Cor. iii. 6. 2 See chap. 36. [xxl]
A TREATISE ON THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER,
IN ONE BOOK,
ADDEESSED TO MAECELLINUS, A.D. 412.
MARCELLINUS, IN A LETTER TO AUGUSTINE, HAD EXPRESSED SOME SURPRISE
AT HAVING READ, IN THE PRECEDING WORK, OF THE POSSIBILITY BEING ALLOWED OF A MAN CONTINUING, IF HE WILLED IT, WITHOUT SIN IN THE PRESENT LIFE, ALTHOUGH THERE EXISTS NOT A SINGLE HUMAN EXAMPLE ANYWHERE OF SUCH PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS. AUGUSTINE TAKES THE OPPORTUNITY OF DISCUSSING, IN OPPOSITION TO THE PELAGIANS, THE SUBJECT OF GOD'S ASSISTING GRACE ; AND HE SHOWS THAT THE DIVINE HELP TO THE WORKING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BY US DOES NOT LIE IN THE FACT OF GOD'S HAVING GIVEN US A LAW WHICH IS FULL OF GOOD AND HOLY PRECEPTS ; BUT IN THE FACT THAT OUR VERY WILL, WITHOUT WHICH WE CAN DO NOTHING GOOD, IS ASSISTED AND ELEVATED BY THE SPIRIT OF GRACE BEING IMPARTED TO US, WITHOUT THE AID OF WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW IS "THE LETTER THAT KILLETH," BECAUSE INSTEAD OF JUSTIFYING THE UNGODLY, IT RATHER CORROBORATES THEIR GUILT. HE BEGINS TO TREAT OF THE QUESTION PROPOSED TO HIM AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK, AND RETURNS TO IT TOWARDS ITS CONCLUSION ; HE SHOWS THAT, AS ALL ALLOW, MANY THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD'S HELP, OF WHICH THERE OCCURS INDEED NO EXAMPLE ; AND THEN CONCLUDES THAT, ALTHOUGH A PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS IS UNEXAMPLED AMONG MEN, IT IS FOR ALL THAT NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
Chap. 1. [i.] The occasion of this work being written; a thing may be capable q£ being realized, and yet may never reach reality. AETER perusing the short treatises which I lately drew up for you, my beloved son Marcellinus, touching the baptism of infants, and the perfection of man's righteousness, —how that no one in this life seems either to have attained or to be likely to attain to it, except only the Mediator, who experienced our human condition in the likeness of sinful flesh, without any sin whatever,—you wrote me in answer that you were embarrassed by the point which I advanced in the first book, that it was possible for a man to be without sin, if he
158 ON THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER. [CHAP. II.
wanted not the will, and was assisted by the grace of God and yet that no one, except Him in whom " all shall be made
1 has ever lived or will live by whom this perfection alive," has been attained whilst living here. It appeared to you absurd to say that anything was possible of which no example ever occurred,—although I suppose you would not hesitate to admit that no camel ever passed through a needle's eye,