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, know- ing so well the novelty of this unheard-of doc- trine, which is now beginning to raise its voice against the ancient ingrafted opinion of the Church, that he was ashamed or afraid to acknowledge it himself? And perhaps he does not himself think that a man is born without sin for whom he confesses that baptism to be neces- sary by which comes the remission of sins; 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 can- not deceive us, when it most clearly asserts, " He that believeth not shall be damned; " ' or, lastly, that the image of God, when without sin, is not admitted into the kingdom of God, forasmuch as " except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," 2 — and so 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 my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the w-orld,"3 — also clearly indicated what the kingdom was of which He was speaking, by concluding thus: " So these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." •* 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 repug- nant to Christian truth. But it is quite possible that he may, by the very arguments of those who deny the transmission of sin, be still so far dis- tressed 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 trans- mission 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- est 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 either perceiving them when explained, or inves- tigating them whilst abstruse, let them be be- lieved without misgiving. But what can be plainer than the many weighty testimonies of the divine declarations, 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 no man can unjustly be damned, — that is, separated from that life and salvation, — by the judgment of God? The inevitable conclusion from these truths is this, that, as nothing else is effected when infants are baptized except that they are incorporated into the church, in other words, that they are united with the body and members of Christ, unless this benefit has been bestowed upon them, they are manifestly in danger of 5 damnation. Damned, however, they could not be if they really had no sin. Now, since their tender age could not possibly have contracted sin in its own life, it remains for us, even if w-e are as yet unable to understand, at least to believe that infants inherit original sin.
CHAP. 8.
■JESUS IS THE SAMOUR EVEN OF INFANTS.
' Mark xvi. i6. ^ John iii. 5. 3 Matt. XXV. 34. * Matt. XXV. 46.
And therefore, if there is an ambiguity in the apostle's words when he says, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it 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? " ^ Is this, again, ambig- uous: " Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins?"' Is there any doubt of what this means: " The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick?" ^ — that is, Jesus is not needed by those who have no sin, but by those who are to be saved from sin. Is there anything, again, ambig- uous in this: " Except men eat the flesh of the Son of man," that is, become partakers of His body, "they shall not have life? "9 By these and similar statements, which I now pass over, — absolutely clear in the light of God, and absolutely certain by His authority, — does not truth proclaim without ambiguity, that unbap- tized infants not only cannot enter into the king- dom of God, but cannot have everlasting life, except in the body of Christ, in order that they may be incorporated into which they are washed 5 Pertinere ad.
8 Matt. ix. 12.
9 See John vi. 53.
72 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
in the sacrament of baptism? Does not truth, without any dubiety, testify that for no other rea- son 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? \\'hy 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 man- ner of doubt?
CHAP. 9. THE AMBIGUrrV OF " ADAM IS THE FIGURE OF HIM TO COME."
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, " Adam is the figure of Him that was to come." ' 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 perhaps act- ually contended for various senses from the words in question at different times, ^ and very likely we shall propound yet another view, which, however, will not be incompatible with the sense here mentioned; and 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 care- fully 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 universal Church from the earliest times — that be- lieving infants have obtained through the baptism of Christ the remission of original sin.
CHAP. 10 [v.] HE SHOWS THAT CYPRIAN HAD NOT DOUBTED THE ORIGINAL SIN OF INFANTS.
Accordingly, it is not without reason that the blessed Cyprian ^ carefully shows how from the very first the Church has held this as a well understood article of faith. When he was assert- ing the fitness of infants only just born to receive Christ's baptism, on a certain occasion when he was consulted whether this ought to be admin- istered before the eighth day, he endeavoured, as far as he could, to prove that they were per- ' "' Adam fortnam fiitnri;" see Rom. v. 14.
^ Comp. ahpTe, Book i. c. 13; Ef>ht. 157: De Nupiiis, ii. 44; and Contra Juliauum. vi. 8.
feet,-* lest any one should suppose, from the num- ber of the days (because it was on the eighth day that infants were before circumcised), that they so far lacked perfection. However, after bestow- ing upon them the full support of his argument, he still confessed that they were not free from original sin; because if he had denied this, he would have removed all reason for the very bap- tism which he was maintaining their fitness to receive. You can, if you wish, read for yourself the epistle of the illustrious martyr On the Bap- tism of Little Children; for it cannot fail to be within reach at Carthage. But 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, since that due regard ought to be paid to the law of circumcision of old, so that you thought that the infant should not be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after its birth, — a far dif- ferent view has been formed of the question in our council. Not a man there assented to what you thought ought to be done; but the whole of us rather determined that to no one born of men ought God's mercy and grace to be denied. For since the Lord in His gospel says, 'The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them,' s so far as in us lies, not a soul I ought, if possible, to be lost." You observe how in these words he supposes that it is fraught with j ruin and death, not only to the flesh, but also to the soul, for one to depart this life without 1 that saving sacrament. Wherefore, if he said j nothing else, it was 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 might rather hinder those who have reached the stages of adults, and ad- vanced life, and old age. Since, however, remis- ' sion of sins is given even to the greatest sinners after they have believed, however much they have I previously sinned against God, and since nobody ; is forbidden baptism and grace, how much more ought an mfant not to be forbidden who new- I born has done no sin, except that from having been born carnally after Adam he has contracted I from his very birth the contagion of the prime- val death! How, too, does this fact contribute in itself the more easily to their reception of the forgiveness- of sins, that the remission which * The word implies " of ripe age; " i.e., for " baptism." 5 LuUe i.\. 56.
Chat. 12.]
ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS, AND BAPTISM.
72> they have is not of their own sins, but of those of another! " CHAP. 1 1. — THE ANCIENTS ASSUMED ORIGINAL SIN.
You see with what confidence this great man expresses himself after the ancient and un- doubted 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 concerning which he informs him that a decree of a council had been passed, to the effect that, if an infant were brought even before the eighth day after his birth, no one should hesitate to baptize him. Now it was not then determined or confirmed by the council that infants were held bound by original sin as if it were new, or as if it were attacked by the opposition of some one; but when another con- troversy was being conducted, and the question was discussed, in reference to the law of the cir- cumcision of the flesh, whether they ought to be baptized before the eighth day. None agreed with the person who denied this; because it was not an open question admitting of discussion, but was fixed and unassailable, that the soul would forfeit eternal salvation if it ended this life without obtaining the sacrament of baptism: 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 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 pre- vent his perishing for ever. When also a reason was given for the circumcision of the flesh as being itself a shadow of what was to be, its pur- port was not that we should understand that bap- tism ought to be administered on the eighth day after birth, but rather that we are spiritually cir- cumcised in the resurrection of Christ, who rose from the dead on the third day, indeed, after His passion, but among the days of the week, by which time is counted, on the eighth, that is, on the first day after the Sabbath.
CHAP. 1 2 [vi.] — THE UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS RE- SPECTING ORIGINAL SIN.
And now, again, with a strange boldness in new controversy, certain persons are endeavour- ing to make us uncertain on a point which our forefathers used to bring forward as most cer- tainly fixed, whenever they would solve such questions as seemed uncertain t^ some. AV'hen this controversy, indeed, first began, I am una- ble to say; but one thing I know, that even the holy Jerome, who is in our own day renowned for great industry and learning in ecclesiastical literature, for the solution of sundry questions treated in his writings, makes use of the same most certain assumption without exhibition of proofs. For instance, in his commentary on the prophet Jonah, when he comes to the passage where the infants were mentioned as chastened by the fast, he says: ' " The greatest age comes first, and then all the rest is per\'aded down to the least.^ For there is no man without sin, whether the 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 sight of God,^ how much more is a worm and corruption, such as are they who are held subject to the sin of the offending Adam?" If, mdeed, we could readily interrogate this most learned man, how many authors who have treated of the divine Scriptures in both languages, •♦ and have written on Christian controversies, would he mention to us, who have never held any other opinion since the Church of Christ was founded, — who neither received any other from their forefathers, nor handed 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 estab- lished in the Catholic Church, or in any heretical or schismatic body whatever. I do not remem- ber, 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, 5 in a passing conversation with certain persons while we were at Carthage, my ears were suddenly offended with such a proposition as this: " That infants are not bap- tized 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 ob- livion. And lo! it is now maintained with burn- ing zeal against the Church; lo! it is committed to our permanent notice by wTiting; nay, the matter is brought to such a pitch of distracting influence, that we are even consulted on it by ' St. Jerome, on Jon. iii.
2 Ver. 3.
3 Job XXV. 4.
* Or " who have treated of both languages of the divine Scrip- tures."
5 Probably in the year 41 t, when a conference was held at Car- thage wiih the Donatists. Aiigiistin says that he then saw Pclagius; see his work, De Gestis Pela^ii, t. 46.
74 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
our brethren; and we are actually obliged to oppose its progress both by disputation and by \\Titing.
CHAP. 13 [VII.] — THE ERROR OF JOVINIANUS DID NOT EXTEND SO FAR.
A few years ago there lived at Rome one Jovinian,' who is said to have persuaded nuns of even advanced age to marry, — not, indeed, by seduction, as if he wanted to make any of them his wife, but by contending that virgins who dedi- cated themselves to the ascetic life had no more merit before God than believing wives. It never entered his mind, however, along with this con- ceit, to venture to affirm that children of men 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 such pure offspring. When this man's writ- ings (for he dared to \\Tite) were by the breth- ren 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 doctrine.^ These are his words when treating of it: " He who says that he abides in Christ, ought himself also to walk even as He walked. 5 We give our opponent the option to choose which alternative he likes. Does he abide in Christ, or 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 guile found in His mouth; •♦ who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth; s to whom the prince of this world came, and found nothing in Him; ^ whom, though He had done no sin, God made sin for us.^ We, however, according to the Epis- tle of James, all commit many sins; ^ and none of us is pure from uncleanness, even if his life should be but of one day.^ For who shall boast that he has a clean heart? Or who shall be con- fident that he is pure from sins? We are held guilty according to the likeness of Adam's trans- gression. Accordingly David also says: ' Behold, * [This " Christian Epicurus," as he is called by the intemperate zeal of the asceticism of his day, was condemned as a heretic by coun- cils at Rome and JMilan in 390. According to Jerome, who wrote a book against him, he not only opposed asceticism, but also contended for the essential equality of all sins and of the punishments and re- wards of the next world, and for the sinlessness of those baptized by the Spirit. — W.]
2 See Jerome's work Against ypvinian, ii. near the beginning.
3 John ii. 6.
* Isa. liii. 9. S Isa. liii. 7.
I was shapen in inicjuity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.' " '" CHAP. 14. THE OPINIONS OF ALL CONTROVERSIAL- ISTS WHATEVER ARE NOT, HOWEVER, CANONICAL AUTHORrrV; original sin, HOW another's; WE WERE ALL ONE M.AN 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 be 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 re- fute 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 ex- claims: " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men, in which all have sinned."" 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 which all have sinned^ Nor, indeed, are those sins of infancy so said to be another's, as if they did not belong 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 all as yet the one Adam; but they are called another'' s,^^ because as yet they were not living their own lives, but the life of the one man contained whatsoever was in his future posterity.
CH.AP. 15 [VIII.] — WE ALL SINNED ADAM'S SIN.
" It is," they say, "by no means conceded that God who remits to a man his own sins imputes to him another's." He remits, indeed, but it is to those regenerated by the Spirit, not to those generated by 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 propagated; but now the sins belong to them by carnal generation, to wdiom they have not yet been remitted by spiritual regeneration.
CHAP. 16. — ORIGIN OF ERRORS; A SIMILE SOUGHT FROM THE FORESKIN OF THE CIRCUMCISED, AND FROM THE CHAFF OF WHEAT.
" But surely," say they, " if baptism cleanses the primeval sin, they who are born of two bap- Chap. 17.]
ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS, AND BAPTISM.
75 tized parents ought to be free from this shi; for these could not have transmitted to their chil- dren that thing which they did not themselves possess." Now observe whence error usually thrives: it is when persons are able to start sub- jects which they are not able to understand. P'or before what audience, and in what \Vords, can I explain how it is that sinful mortal beginnings bring no obstacle to those who have inaugurated other, immortal, beginnings, and at the same time j)rove an obstacle to those whom those very per- sons, against whom it was not an obstacle, have begotten out of the self-same sinful beginnings? How can a man understand these things, whose labouring mind is impeded both by its own prejudiced opinions and by the chain of its own stolid obstinacy? If indeed I had under- taken 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 besets 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 puz- zled 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 again, 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?