' Rom. xi. 6.
Chap. 12.]
CHAP. 10 [iX.] — ANOTHER ERROR OF VICTOR'S, THAT INFANTS DYING UNBAFflZED MAY ATTAIN TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. ANOTHER, THAT THE SACRIFICE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST MUST BE OFFERED FOR INFANTS WHO DIE BEFORE THEY ARE BAFHZED.
But when he wished to answer with respect, however, to those infants who are prevented by death from being first baptized in Christ, he was so bold as to promise them not only paradise, but also the kingdom of heaven, — finding no way else of avoiding the necessity of saying that God condemns to eternal death innocent souls, which, without any previous desert of sin. He introduces into sinful flesh. He saw, however, to some extent what evil he was giving utterance to, in implying that without any grace of Christ the souls of infants are redeemed to everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, and that in their case original sin may be cancelled without Christ's baptism, in which is effected the forgiveness of sins: observing all this, and into what a depth he had plunged in his sea of shipwreck, he says, " I am of opinion that for them, indeed, constant oblations and sacrifices must be continually offered up by holy priests." You may here behold another danger, out of which he will never escape except by regret and a recall of his words. For who can offer up the body of Christ for any except for those who are members of Christ? Moreover, from the time when He said, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; " ' and again, " He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it; '^ - no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ, or death for Christ.^ CILA.P. II. — MARTYRDOM FOR CHRIST SUPPLIES THE PLACE OF BAPTISM. THE FAITH OF THE THIEF WHO WAS CRUCIFIED ALONG WITH CHRIST TAKEN AS MARTYRDOM AND HENCE FOR B.-VPTISM.
Accordingly, the thief, who was no follower of the Lord previous to the cross, but His confessor upon the cross, from whose case a presumption is sometimes taken, or attempted, against the sacrament of baptism, is reckoned by St. Cyprian ■* among the martyrs who are baptized in j their own blood, as happens to many unbaptized: persons in times of hot persecution. For to the fact that he confessed the crucified Lord so I much weight is attributed and so much availing I value assigned by Him who knows how to weigh and value such evidence, as if he had been crucified for the Lord. Then, indeed, his faith 3 f Augustin here confesses the validity of the "baptism of blood, ' that is, martyrdom, which may take the place of baptism. See the next chapter, and also Book ii. 17. — W.l * Cyprian's Letter to yubianiis. See likewise Augustin's work Against the Dotiatists, iv. 29; also On Leviticus, question 84; also his Retractations, ii. 18, 55.
on the cross flourished when that of the disciples failed, and that without recovery if it had not bloomed again by the resurrection of Him before the terror of whose death it had drooped. They despaired of Him when dying, — he hoped when joined with Him in dying; they fled from the author of life, — he prayed to his companion in punishment; they grieved as for the death of a man, — he believed that after death He was to be a king; they forsook the sponsor of their salvation, — he honoured the companion of His cross. There was discovered in him the full measure of a martyr, who then believed in Christ when they fell away who were destined to be martyrs. All this, indeed, was manifest to the eyes of the Lord, who at once bestowed so great felicity on one who, though not baptized, was yet washed clean in the blood, as it were, of martyrdom. But even of ourselves, who cannot reflect with how much faith, how much hope, how much charity he might have undergone death for Christ when living, who begged life of Him when dying? Besides all this, there is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief; and let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and where he pleases. For this is what the heresy of Pelagius promised them: he neither fears damnation for infants, whom he does not regard as having any original sin, nor does he give them the hope of the kingdom of heaven, since they do not approach to the sacrament of baptism. As for this man, however, although he acknowledges that infants are involved in original sin, he yet boldly promises them, even without baptism, the kingdom of heaven. This even the Pelagians had not the boldness to do, though asserting infants to be absolutely without sin. See, then, what a network of presumi)tuous ojiinion he entangles, unless he regret having committed such views to writing.
CHAP. 1 2 [x.] — DINOCR.ATES, BROTHER OF THE MARTYR ST. PERPETUA, IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED FRO.M THE STATE OF CONDEMNATION BY THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINT.
Concerning Dinocrates, however, the brother [Book I.
of St. Perpetua, there is no record in the canonical Scripture; nor does the saint herself, or whoever it was that wrote the account, say that the boy, who had died at the age of seven years, died without baptism; in his behalf she is believed to nave had, when her martyrdom was imminent, her prayers effectually heard that he should be removed from the penalties of the lost to rest. Now, boys at that time of life are able both to lie, and, saying the truth, both to confess and deny. Therefore, when they are baptized they say the Creed, and answer in their behalf to such questions as are proposed to them in examination. Who can tell, then, whether that boy, after baptism, in a time of persecution was estranged from Christ to idolatry by an impious father, and on that account incurred mortal condemnation, from which he was only delivered for Christ's sake, given to the prayers of his sister when she was at the point of death?
CHAP, 1 3 [XI.] — THE SACRIFICE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST WILL NOT AVAIL FOR UNBAPTIZED PERSONS, AND CAN NOT BE OF- FERED FOR THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO DIE UNBAPTIZED.
But even if it be conceded to this man (what cannot by any means be allowed with safety to the catholic faith and the rule of the Church), that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ may be offered for unbaptized persons of every age, as if they were to be helped by this kind of piety on the part of their friends to reaching the kingdom of heaven: what will he have to say to our objections respecting the thousands of infants who are born of impious parents and never fall, by any mercy of God or man, into the hands of pious friends, and who depart from that wretched life of theirs at their most tender age without the washing of regeneration? Let him tell us, if he only can, how it is that those souls deserved to be made sinful to such a degree as certainly never afterwards to be delivered from sin. For if I ask him why they deserve to be condemned if they are not bap tized, he will rightly answer me: On account of original sin. If I then inquire whence they derived original sin, he will answer, From sinful flesh, of course. If I go on to ask why they deserved to be condemned to a sinful flesh, seeing they had done no evil before they came in the flesh, and to be so condemned to undergo the contagion of the sin of another, that neither baptism shall regenerate them, born as they are in sin, nor sacrifices expiate them in their pollution: let him find something to reply to this! For in such circumstances and of such parents have these infants been born, or are still being bom, that it is not possible for them to be reached with such help. Here, at any rate, all argument is lacking. Our question is not, why souls have deserved to be condemned subsequently to their consorting with sinful flesh?. But we ask, liow it is that souls have deserved to i be condemned to undergo at all this association! with sinful flesh, seeing that they have no sin previous to this association. There is no room for him to say: " It was no detriment to them ' that they shared for a season the contagion of another's sin, since in the prescience of God redemption had been provided for them." For we are now speaking of those to whom no redemption brings help, since they depart from the body before they are baptized. Nor is there any propriety in his saying: " The souls which baptism does not cleanse, the many sacrifices which are offered up for them will cleanse. God foreknew this, and willed that they should for a little while be implicated in the sins of another without incurring eternal damnation, and with the hope of eternal happiness." For we are now speaking of those whose birth among impious persons and of impious parents could by no possibility find such defences and helps. And even if these could be applied, they would, it is certain, be unable to benefit any who are unbaptized; just as the sacrifices which he has mentioned out of the book of the Maccabees could be of no use for the sinful dead for whom they were offered, inasmuch as they had not been circumcised.'
CHAP. 14. — victor's DILEMMA: HE MUST EITHER SAY ALL INFANTS ARE SAVED, OR ELSE GOD SLAYS THE INNOCENT.
Let him, then, find an answer, if he can, when the question is asked of him, why it was that the soul, without any sin whatever, either, original or personal, deserved so to be condemned to undergo the original sin of another as to be unable to be delivered from it; let him see which he will choose of two alternatives: Either to say that even the souls of dying infants who depart hence without the washing of regeneration, and for whom no sacrifice of the Lord's body is oftered, are absolved from the bond of original sin — although the apostle teaches that " from one all go into condemnation,"^ — all, that is, of course, to whom grace does not find its way to help, in order that by One all might escape into redemption. Or else to say that souls which have no sin, either their own or original, and are in every respect innocent, simple, and pure, are punished with eternal damnation by the righteous God when He inserts them Himself into sinful flesh without any deliverance therefrom.
* 2 Mace. xii. 43.
2 Rom. V. 16.
Chap. i6.]'
CHAP. 15 [XII.] — GOD DOES NOT JUDGE ANY ONE FOR WHAT HE ftHGHT HAVE DONE IF HIS LIFE HAD BEEN PROLONGED, I',UT SIMPLY FOR THE DEEDS HE ACTUALLY COMMITS.
For my own part, indeed, I affirm that neither of the alternative cases ought to be admitted, nor that third opinion which would have it that souls sinned in some other state previous to the flesh, and so deserved to be condemned to the flesh; for the apostle has most distinctly stated that " the children being not yet born, had done neither good nor evil." ' So it is evident that infants can have contracted none but original sin to require remission of sins. Nor, again, that fourth position, that the souls of infants who will die without baptism are by the righteous God banished and condemned to sinful flesh, since He foreknew that they would lead evil lives if they grew old enough for the use of free will. But this not even he has been daring enough to affirm, though embarrassed in such perplexities. On the contrary, he has declared, briefly indeed, yet manifestly, against this vain opinion in these words: " God would have been unrighteous if He had willed to judge any man yet unborn, who had done nothing whatever of his own free will." This was his answer when treating a question in opposition to those persons who ask why God made man, when in His foreknowledge He knew that he would not be good? He would be judging a man before he was born if He had been unwilling to create him because He knew beforehand that he would not turn out good. And there can be no doubt about it, even as this person himself thought, that the proper course would be for the Almighty to judge a man for his works when accomplislied, not for such as might be foreseen, nor such as might be permitted to be done some time or other. For if the sins which a man would have committed if he were alive are condemned in him when dead, even when they have not been committed, no benefit is conferred on him when he is taken away that no wickedness might change his mind; inasmuch as judgment will be given upon him according to the wickedness which might have developed in him, not according to the uprightness which was actually found in him. Nor will any man possibly be safe who dies after baptism, because even after baptism men may, I will not say sin in some way or other, but actually go so far as to commit apostasy. What then? Suppose a man who has been taken away after baptism should, if he had lived, have become an apostate, are we to think that no benefit was conferred even upon him in that he was removed and was saved from the misery of his mind being changed by wickedness? And ' Rom. ix. II.
are we to imagine that he will have to be judged, by reason of God's foreknowledge, as an apostate, and not as a faithful member of Christ? How much better, to be sure, would it have been — if sins are punished not as they have been committed or contemplated by the human agent, but foreknown and to happen in the cognizance of the Almighty — if the first pair had been cast forth from paradise previous to their fall, and so sin have been prevented in so holy and blessed a place! What, too, is to be said about the entire nullification of foreknowledge itself, when what is foreknown is not to happen? How, indeed, can that be rightly called the prescience of something to be, which in fact will not come to pass? And how are sins punished which are none, that is to say, which are not committed before the assumption of flesh, since life itself is not yet begun; nor after the assumption, since death has prevented?
CHAP. 16 [XIII.] — DIFFICULTY IN THE OPINION WHICH MAINTAINS THAT SOULS ARE NOT BY PROPAGATION.
This means, then, of settling the point whereby the soul was sent into the flesh until what time it should be delivered from the flesh, — seeing that the soul of an infant, which has not grown old enough for the will to become free, is the case supposed, — makes no discovery of the reason why condemnation should overtake it without the reception of baptism, except the reason of original sin. Owing to this sin, we do not deny that the soul is righteously condemned, because for sin God's righteous law has appointed punishment. But then we ask, why the soul has been made to undergo this sinful state, if it is not derived from that one primeval soul which sinned in the first father of the human race. Wherefore, if God does not condemn the innocent,— if He does not make guilty those whom He sees to be innocent, — and if nothing liberates souls from either original sins or personal ones but Christ's baptism in Christ's Church, — and if sins, before they are committed, and much more when they have never been committed, cannot be condemned by any righteous law: then this writer cannot adduce any of these four cases; he must, if he can, explain, in respect to the souls of infants, which, as they quit life without baptism, are sent into condemnation, by what desert of theirs it is that they, without having ever sinned, are consigned to a sin fill flesh, there to find the sin which is to secure their just condemnation. Moreover, if he shrinks from these four cases which sound doctrine condemns, — that is to say, if he has not the courage to maintain that souls, when they are even without sin, are made sinful by God. or that they are freed from the original sin that is in them without [Book I.
Christ's sacrament, or that they committed sin in some other state before they were sent into the flesh, or that sins which they never committed are condemned yi them, — if, I say, he has not the courage to tell us these things because they really do not deserve to be mentioned, but should affirm that infants do not inherit original sin, and have no reason why they should be condemned should they depart hence without receiving the sacrament of regeneration, he will without doubt, to his own condemnation, run into the damnable heresy of Pelagius. To avoid this, how much better is it for him to share my hesitation about the soul's origin, without daring to affirm that which he cannot comprehend by human reason nor defend by divine authority! So shall he not be obliged to utter foolishness, whilst he is afraid to confess his ignorance.
CHAP. 1 7 [XIV.] HE SHOWS THAT THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ADDUCED BY VICTOR DO NOT PROVE THAT SOULS ARE MADE BY GOD IN SUCH A WAY AS NOT TO BE DERIVED BY PROPAGA- TION: FIRST PASSAGE.
Here, perhaps, he may say that his opinion is backed by divine authority, since he supposes that he proves by passages of the Holy Scriptures that souls are not made by God by way of propagation, but that they are by distinct acts of creation breathed afresh into each individual. Let him prove this if he can, and I will allow that I have learnt from him what I was trying to find out with great earnestness. But he must go in quest of other defences, which, perhaps, he will not find, for he has not proved his point by the passages which he has thus far advanced. For all he has applied to the subject are to some ■extent undoubtedly suitable, but they afford only ■ doubtful demonstration to the point which he raises respecting the soul's origin. For it is certain that God has given to man breath and spirit, as the prophet testifies: " Thus saith the Lord, who made the heaven, and founded the earth, and all that is therein; who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it." ' This passage he wishes to be taken in his own sense, which he is defending; so that the words, " who giveth breath to the people," may be understood as implying that He creates souls for people not by propagation, but by insufflation of new souls in every case. Let him, then, boldly maintain at this rate that He does not 'give us flesh, on the ground that our flesh derives its original from our parents. In the instance, too, which the apostle adduces, " God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him," ^ let him deny, if he dares, that corn springs from corn, and grass from grass, from the seed, each after its kind. And if he dares not deny this, how does he know in what sense it is said, " He giveth breath to the people "? — whether by derivation from parents, or by fresh breathing into each individual?
CHAP. 1 8. BY "breath" IS SIGNIFIED SOMETIMES THE HOLY SPIRIT.
How, again, does he know whether the repetition of the idea in the sentence, " who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it," may not be understood of only one thing under two expressions, and may not mean, not the life or spirit whereby human nature lives, but the Holy Spirit? For if by the " breath " the Holy Ghost could not be signified, the Lord would not, when He "breathed upon" His disciples after His resurrection, have said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost." ^ Nor would it have been thus written in the Acts of the Apostles, "Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as if a mighty breath were borne in upon them; and there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." ■♦ Suppose, now, that it was this which the prophet foretold in the words, " who giveth breath unto the people upon it; " and then, as an exposition of what he had designated " breath,''' he went on to say, " and spirit to them that walk over it." Surely this prediction was most manifestly fulfilled when they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. If, however, the term ^^ people '' is not yet applicable to the one hundred and twenty persons who were then assembled together in one place, at all events, when the number of believers amounted to four or five thousand, who when they were baptized received the Holy Ghost,s can any doubt that the recipients of the Holy Ghost were then " the people," even " the men walking in the earth "? For that spirit which is given to man as appertaining to his nature, whether it be given by propagation or be inbreathed as something new to individuals (and I do not determine which of these two modes ought to be affirmed, at least until one of the two can be clearly ascertained beyond a doubt), is not given to men when they " walk over the earth," but whilst they are still shut up in their mother's womb.
" He gave breath, therefore, to the people upon the earth, and spirit to them that walk over it," when many became believers together, and were together filled with the Holy Ghost. And He gives Him to His people, although not to all at i the same time, but to every one in His own time, until, by departing from this life, and by coming into it, the entire number of His people * Isa. xUi. 5.
2 I Cor. XV. 38.
3 John XX. 22.
* Acts ii. 2.
S Acts iv. 31.
Chap. 20.]
3^3 be fulfilled. In this passage of Holy Scripture, therefore, breath is not one thing, and spirit another thing; but there is a repetition of one and the same idea. Just as " He that sitteth in the heavens " is not one, and " the Lord " is not another; nor, again, is it one thing " to laugh," | and another thing " to hold in derision; " but ' there is only a repetition of the same meaning in the passage where we read, " He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." ' So, in precisely the same manner, in the passage, " I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession," ^ it is certainly not meant that " inheritance " is one thing, and " possession " another thing; nor that " the heathen " means one thing, and " the uttermost parts of the earth " another; there is only a repetition of the self-same thing. He will, indeed, discover innumerable expressions of this sort in the sacred writings, if he will only attentively consider what he reads. ^ CHAP. 19. THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE.
BREATH IN The term, however, that is used in the Greek version, tti'o?;, is variously rendered in Latin: sometimes by flatus, breath; sometimes by spiritus, spirit; sometimes by inspiratio, inspiration. This term occurs in the Greek editions of the passage which we are now reviewing, " Who giveth breath to the people upon it," the word for breath being -n-vorj.* The same word is used in the narrative where man was endued with life: " And God breathed upon his face the breath of life." 5 Again, in the psalm the same term occurs: " Let every thing that hath spirit praise the Lord." ^ It is the same word also in the Book of Job: " The inspiration of the Almighty is that which teaches."? The translator refused the word flatus, breath, for adspirafio, inspiration, although he had before him the very term -Kvoy], which occurs in the text of the prophet which we are considering. We can hardly doubt, I think, that in this passage of Job the Holy Ghost is signified. The question discussed was concerning wisdom, whence it comes to men: " It cometh not from number of years; but the Spirit is in mortals, and the inspiration of the.Almighty is that which teaches." ^ By this repetition of terms I Ps. ii. 4.
2 Ps. ii. 8.
3 [It is the fiarnUelistn of Hebrew poetry to which Augustin here appeals: and that soundly, although the interpretation of " spirit" in the passage in hand, which is suggested in the chapter, is untenable.—W.j * The passage stands in the LXX.: Kai 6i5ou? -nvoriv tu> Aaw tw €7r* avrfj?.
5 The LXX. text of Gen. ii. 7 is, Kat ivi^\i<rr^<jtv eis to irpo<r<o iroi' auToi) ■nvor\v ^'wijf, * Ps. cl. 6: na(Ta TTfor; aiVtcroTtt) Tov Ku'ptoi'.
it may be quite understood that he did not speak of man's own spirit in the clause, " The Spirit is in mortals." He wanted to show whence men have wisdom, — that it is not from their own selves; so by using a duplicate expression he explains his idea; " The inspiration of the Almighty is that which teaches." Similarly, in another passage of the same book, he says, " The understanding of my lips shall meditate purity. The divine Spirit is that which formed me, and the breath of the.Almighty is that which teacheth me." ^ Here, likewise, what he calls adspiratio, or " inspiration," is in Greek TTi'oi/, the same word whicli is translated ]iati/s, " breath," in the passage c[uoted from the prophet. Therefore, akhough it is rash to deny that the passage, " Who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it," has reference to the soul or spirit of man, — although the Holy Ghost may with greater credibility be understood as referred to in the passage: yet I ask on wliat ground anybody can boldly determine that the prophet meant in these words to intimate that the soul or spirit whereby our nature possesses vitality [is not given to us by God through tlie process of propagadon?] '° Of course if the prophet had very plainly said, " Who giveth soul to the people upon earth," it still would remain to be asked whether God Himself gives it from an origin in the preceding generation, just as He gives the body out of such prior material, and that not only to men or cattle, but also to the seed of corn, or to any other body whatever, just as it pleases Him; or whether He bestows it by inbreathing as a new gift to each individual, as the first man received it from Him?