CHAP. 43. — THE GOOD TREE EST THE GOSPEL THAT CANNOT BRING FORTH EVIL FRUIT, DOES NOT ME.'VN MARRIAGE.
What, then, does he mean by saying, " A tree is known by its fruits," on the ground of our reading that the Lord spake thus in the Gospel? AVas, then, the Lord speaking of this question in these words, and not rather of men's two wills, the good and the evil, calling one of these the I Gen. i. 28.
* Rom. V. 12.
good tree, and the other the corrupt tree, inasmuch as good works spring out of a good will, and evil ones out of an evil will — the converse being impossible, good works out of an evil will, and evil ones out of a good will? If, however, we were to suppose marriage to be the good tree, according to the Gospel simile which he has mentioned, then, of course, we must on the other hand assume fornication to be the corrupt tree. Wherefore, if a human being is said to be the fruit of marriage, in the sense of the good fruit of a good tree, then undoubtedly a human being could never have been born in fornication. " For a corrupt tree bringeth not forth good fruit." 3 Once more, if he were to say that not adultery must be supposed to occupy the place of the tree, but rather human nature, of which man is born, then in this way not even marriage can stand for the tree, but only the human nature of which man is born. His simile, therefore, taken from the Gospel avails him nothing in elucidating this question, because marriage is not the cause of the sin which is transmitted in the natural birth, and atoned for in the new birth; but the voluntary transgression of the first man is the cause of original sin. "You repeat," says he, " your allegation, ' Just as sin, from whatever source it is derived to infants, is the work of the devil, so man, howsoever he be born, is the work of God.' " Yes, I said this, and most truly too; and if this man were not a Pelagian, but a catholic, he too would have nothing else to avow in the catholic faith.
CHAP. 44 [XXVII.] THE PELAGIANS ARGUE THAT IF SIN COMES BY BIRTH, ALL MARRIED PEOPLE DESERVE CONDEMNATION.
What, then, is his object when he inquires of us, " By what means sin may be found in an infant, through the will, or through marriage, or through its parents"? He speaks, indeed, in such a way as if he had an answer to all these questions, and as if by clearing all of sin together he would have nothing remain in the infant whence sin could be found. I beg your attention to his very words: "Through what," says he, " is sin found in an infant? Through the will? But there has never been one in him? Through marriage? But this appertains to the parents' work, of whom you had previously declared that in this action they had not sinned; though it appears from your subsequent words that you did not make this concession truly. Marriage, therefore," he says, " must be condemned, since it furnished the cause of the evil. Yet marriage only indicates the work of personal agents. The parents, therefore, who by their coming together afforded occasion for the sin, are properly de- 3 Matt. vii. 18.
Chap. 46.]
serving of the condemnation. It does not then admit of doubt," says he, "any longer, if we are to follow your opinion, that married persons are handed over to eternal punishment, it being by their means brought about that the devil has come to exercise dominion over men. And what becomes of what you just before had said, that man was the work of God? Because if through their birth it happens that evil is in men, and through the evil that the devil has power over men, so in fact you declare the devil to be the author of men, from whom comes tlieir origin at birth. If, however, you believe that man is made by God, and that husband and wife are innocent, see how impossible is your standpoint, that original sin is derived from them."
CHAP. 45. — ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT: THE APOSTLE SAVS WE ALL SINNED IN ONE.
Now, there is an answer for him to all these questions given by the apostle, who censures neither the infant's will, which is not yet matured in him for sinning, nor marriage, which, as such, has not only its institution, but its blessing also, from God; nor parents, so far as they are parents, who are united together properly and lawfully for the procreation of children; but he says, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, tor in him all have sinned." ' Now, if these persons would only receive this statement with catholic hearts and ears, they would not have rebellious feelings against the grace and faith of Christ, nor would they vainly endeavour to convert to their own particular and heretical sense these very clear and manifest words of the apostle, when they assert that the purport of the passage is to this effect: that Adam was the first to sin, and that any one who wished afterwards to commit sin found an example for sinning in him; so that sin, you must know, did not pass from this one upon all men by birth, but by the imitation of this one. Whereas it is certain that if the apostle meant this imitation to be here understood, he would have said that sin had entered into the world and passed upon all men, not by one man, but rather by the devil. For of the devil it is written: " They that are on his side do imitate him." ^ He used the phrase " by one man," from whom the generation of men, of course, had its beginning, in order to show us that original sin had passed upon all men by generation.
CHAP. 46. — THE REIGN OF DEATH, WHAT IT IS; THE FIGURE OF THE FUTURE ADAM; HOW ALL MEN ARE JUSTIFIED THROUGH CHRIST, But what else is meant even by the apostle's ' Rom. V. 12.
2 Wisd.
'subsequent words? For after he had said the above, he added, " For until the law sin was in the world," 3 as much as to say that not even the law was able to take away sin. " But sin," adds he, " was not imputed when there was no law." 3 It existed then, but was not imputed, for it was not set forth so that it might be imputed. It is on the same principle, indeed, that he says in another passage: " By the law is the knowledge of sin." * " Nevertheless," says he, " death reigned from Adam to Moses; " 5 that is, as he had already expressed it, " until the law." Not that there was no sin after Moses, but because even the law, which was given by Moses, was unable to deprive death of its power, which, of course, reigns only by sin. Its reign, too, is such as to plunge mortal man even into that second death which is to endure for evermore. " Death reigned," but over whom? "Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come." 5 Of whom that was to come, if not Christ? And in what sort a figure, except in the way of contrariety? which he elsewhere briefly expresses: " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." ^ The one condition was in one, even as the other condition was in the other; this is the figure. But this figure is not conformable in every respect; accordingly the apostle, following up the same idea, added, " But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." 7 But why " hath it much more abounded," except it be that all who are delivered through Christ suffer temporal death on Adam's account, but have everlasting life in store for the sake of Christ Himself? "And not as it was by one that sinned," says he, " so is the gift: for the judgment was from one to condemnation, but the free gift is from many offences unto justification." 7 " By one " what, but offence? since it is added, " the free gift is from many offences."
Let these objectors tell us how it can be " by one offence unto condemnation," unless it be that even the one original sin which has passed over unto all men is sufficient for condemnation? \\' hereas the free gift delivers from many offences to justification, because it not only cancels the one offence, which is derived from the primal sin, but all others also which are added in every individual man by the motion of his own will. " For if by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abuntlance of grace and righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, by the offence of 5 Rom. V. 14.
[Book IL one upon all men to condemnation; so by the righteousness of one upon all men unto justification of life." ' Let them after this persist in their vain imaginations, and maintain that one man did not hand on sin by propagation, but only set the example of committing it. How is it, then, that by one's offence judgment comes on all men to condemnation, and not rather by each man's own numerous sins, unless it be that even if there were but that one sin, it is sufficient, without the addition of any more, to lead to condemnation, — as, indeed, it does lead all who die in infancy who are born of Adam, without being born again in Christ? Why, then, does he, when he refuses to hear the apostle, ask us for an answer to his question, " By what means may sin be discovered in an infant, — through the will, or through marriage, or through its parents? " Let him listen in silence, and hear by what means sin may be discovered in an infant. " By the offence of one," says the aposde, " upon all men to condemnation." He said, moreover, all to condemnation through Adam, and all to justification through Christ: not, of course, that Christ removes to life all those who die in Adam; but he said " all " and " all," be-,cause, as without Adam no one goes to death, so without Christ no man to life. Just as we say of a teacher of letters, when he is alone in a town: I'his man teaches all their learning; not because all the inhabitants take lessons, but because no man who learns at all is taught by any but him. Indeed, the apostle afterwards designates as many those whom he had previously described as aii, meaning the self-same persons by the two different terms. " For," says he, "as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."^ CH.'VP. 47. — THE SCRIPTURES REPEATEDLY TEACH US THAT ALL SIN IN ONE.
Still let him ply his question: " By what means may sin be discovered in an infant? " He may find an answer in the inspired pages: " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all sinned." "Through the offence of one many are dead." "The judgment was from one to condemnation." " By one man's offence [ death reigned by one." " By the offence of one,! judgment came upon all men to condemnation."! " By one man's disobedience many were made, sinners." 3 Behold, then, "by what means sin | may be discovered in an infant." Let him now j believe in original sin; let him permit infants to come to Christ, that they may be saved, [xxvni.]; What means this passage of his: " He sins not ' Rom. V. 17, 18 * Rom. V. 19.
^ Rom. V. 12-19 who is born; he sins not who begat him; He sins not who created him. Amidst these intrenchments of innocence, therefore, what are the breaches through which you pretend that sin entered?" Why does he search for a hidden chink when he has an open door? "By one man," says the apostle; " through the offence of one," says the apostle; " By one man's disobedience," says the apostle. What does he want more? What does he require plainer? What does he expect to be more impressively repeated? * CHAP. 48. — ORIGINAL SIN AROSE FROM ADAM'S DEPRAVED WILL. WHENCE THE CORRUPT WILL SPRANG.
" If," says he, " sin comes from the will, it is an evil will that causes sin; if it comes from nature, then nature is evil." I at once answer, Sin does come from the will. Perhaps he wants to know, whether original sin also? I answer, most certainly original sin also. " Because it, too, was engendered from the will of the first man; so that it both existed in him, and passed on to all. As for what he next proposes, " If it comes from nature, then nature is evil," I request him to answer, if he can, to this effect: As it is manifest that all evil works spring from a corrupt will, like the fruits of a corrupt tree; so let him say whence arose the corrupt will itself — the corrupt tree which yields the corrupt fruits. If from an angel, what was the angel, but the good work of God? If from man, what was even he, but the good work of God? Nay, inasmuch as the corrupt will arose in the angel from an angel, and in man from man, what were both these, previous to the evil arising within them, but the good work of God, with a good and laudable nature? Behold, then, evil arises out of good; nor was there any other source, indeed, whence it could arise, but out of good. I call that will bad which no evil has preceded; no evil works, of course, since they only proceed from an evil will, as from a corrupt tree. Nevertheless, that the evil will arose out of good, could not be, because that good was made by the good God, but because it was created out of nothing — not out of God. What, therefore, becomes of his argument, " If nature is the work of God, it will never do for the work of the devil to permeate the work of God "? Did not the work of the devil, I ask, arise in a work of God, when it first arose in that angel who became the devil? Well, then, if evil, which was absolutely nowhere previously, could arise in a work of God, why could not evil, which had by this time found an existence somewhere, pervade the work of God; especially when the apostle uses the very expression in the passage, "And so death passed Chap. 50.]
upon all men "? ' Can it be that men are not the work of God? Sin, therefore, has passed upon all men — in other words, the devil's work has penetrated the work of God; or putting the same meaning in another shape, The work done by a work of God has pervaded God's work. And this is the reason why God alone has an unchangeable and almighty goodness: even before any evil came into existence He made all things good; and out of all the evils which have arisen in the good things which He has made, He works through all for good.
CH.\P. 49 [xxrx.] — IN INFANTS NATURE IS OF GOD, AND THE CORRUPTION OF NATURE OF THE DEVIL.
" In a single man rightly is the intention blamed and the origin praised; because there must be two tilings to admit of contraries: in an infant, however, there is but one thing, nature only; because will has no existence in his case. Now this one thing," says he, "is ascribable either to God or to the devil. If nature," he goes on to observe, " is of God, there cannot be original evil in it. If of the devil, there will be nothing on the ground of which man may be vindicated for the work of God. So that he is completely a Manichean who maintains original sin." Let him hear rather what is true in opposition to all this. In a single man the will is to be blamed, and his nature to be praised; because there should be two things for the application of contraries. Still," even in an infant, it is not the case that there is but one thing only, that is, the nature in which man was created by the good God; for he has also that corruption, which has passed upon all men by one, as the apostle wisely says, and not as the folly of Pelagius, or Ccelestius, or any of their disciples would represent the matter. Of these two things, then, which we have said exist in an infant, one is ascribed to God, the other to the devil. From the fact, however, that (owing to one of the two, even the corruption) both are subjected to the power of the devil, there really ensues no incongruity; because this happens not from the power of the devil himself, but of God. In fact, corruption is subjected to corruption, nature to nature, because the two are even in the devil; so that whenever those who are beloved and elect are " delivered from the power of darkness " ^ to which they are justly exposed, it is clear enough how great a gift is bestowed on the justified and good by the good God, who brings good even out of evil.
CHAP. 50. — THE RISE AND ORIGIN OF EVIL. THE EXORCISM AND EXSUFFLATION OF IXF.\XTS, A PRLMinVE CHRISTIAN RITE.
As to the passage, which he seemed to him- Rom.
2 Col. i. 13.
self to indite in a pious vein, as it were, " If nature is of God, there cannot be original sin in it," would not another person seem even to him to give a still more pious turn to it, thus: " If nature is of God, there cannot arise atiy sin in it? " And yet this is not true. The Manicheans, indeed, meant to assert this, and they endeavoured to steep in all sorts of evil the very nature of God itself, and not His creature, made out of nothing. For evil arose in nothing else than what was good — not, however, the sujjreme and unchangeable good which is God's nature, but that which was made out of nothing by the wis- \ dom of God. This, then, is the reason why man is claimed for a divine work; for he would not be man unless he were made by the operation of God. But evil would not exist in infants, if evil had not been committed by the wilfulness of the first man, and original sin derived from a nature thus corrupted. It is not true, then, as he puts it, " He is completely a Manichean who maintains original sin; " but rather, he is completely a Pelagian who does not believe in original sin. For it is not simply from the time when the pestilent opinions of Manichseus began to grow that in the Church of God infants about to be baptized were for the first time exorcised with exsufflation, — which ceremonial was intended to show that they were not removed into the kingdom of Christ without first being delivered from the power of darkness; ^ nor is it in the books of Manichsus that we read how " the Son of man come to seek and to save that which was lost," ^ or how " by one man sin entered into the world," ' with those other similar passages which we have quoted above; or how God "visits the sins of the fathers upon the children;" ■* or how it is written in the Psalm, " I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me; " 5 or again, how " man was made like unto vanity: his days pass away like a shadow; " ^ or again, " behold, Thou hast made my days old, and my ej^istence as nothing before Thee; nay, every man living is altogether vanity; "7 or how the apostle says, "every creature was made subject to vanity; " '^ or how it is written in the book of Ecclesiastes, " vanity of vanities; all is vanity: what profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? "9 and in the book of Ecclesiasticus, "a heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam from the day that they go out of their mother's womb to the day that they return to the mother of all things; " '° or how again the apostle writes, " in Adam all die;"" or how holy Job says, when speaking about his own sins, " for man that is born of a woman is short-lived and full of wrath : as * Ex. XX. 5. 7 Ps. xxxix. 5. *° Ecclus. xl. I.
[Book II.
^ the flower of grass, so does he fall; and he departs like a shadow, nor shall he stay. Hast Thou not taken account even of him, and caused him to enter into judgment in Thy sight? For who shall be pure from uncleanness? Not even one, even if his life should be but of one day upon the earth." ' Now when he speaks of uncleanness here, the mere perusal of the passage is enough to show that he meant siii to be understood. It is plain from the words, of what he is speaking. The same phrase and sense occur in the prophet Zechariah, in the place where " the filthy garments " are removed from off the high priest, and it is said to him, " I have taken away thy sins."^ Well now, I rather think that all these passages, and others of like import, which point to the fact that man is born in sin and under the curse, are not to be read among the dark recesses of the Manicheans, but in the sunshine of cathoKc truth.
CHAP. 51. — TO CALL THOSE THAT TEACH ORIGINAL SIN AL\NICHEANS IS TO ACCUSE AMBROSE, CYP- RIAN, AND THE WHOLE CHURCH.
What, moreover, shall I sav of those commentators on the divine Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic Church? They have never tried to pervert these testimonies to an alien sense, because they were firmly established in our most ancient and solid faith, and were never moved aside by the novelty of error.
Were I to wish to collect these together, and to make use of their testimon}^, the task would both be too long, and I should probably seem to have bestowed less preference than I ought on canonical authorities,^ from which one must nev-er deviate. I will merely mention the most blessed Ambrose, to whom (as I have already obser\'ed ■♦) Pelagius accorded so signal a testimony of his integrity in the faith. This Ambrose, however, maintained that there was nothing else in infants, which required the healing grace of Christ, than original sin.s But in respect of Cyprian, with his all-glorious crown, ^ will any one say of him, that he either was, or ever could by any possibility have been, a Manichean, when he suffered before the pestilent heresy had made its appearance in the Roman world? And yet, in his book on the baptism of infants, he so vigorously maintains original sin as to declare, that even before the eighth day, if necessary, the infant ought to be baptized, lest his soul should be lost; and he wished it to be understood, that the infant could the more readily attain to the indulgence of baptism, inasmuch as it is not so much his own sins, but the sins of another, which are remitted to him. Well, then, * See Hook i. of this treatise, last chapter.
5 Ambrose On [saiali: cited in the same Book, i. ch. 35.
6 i.e., of martyrdom.
let this writer dare to call these Manicheans; let him, moreover, under this scandalous imputation asperse that most ancient tradition of the Church, whereby infants are, as I have said, exorcised with exsufflation, for the purpose of being translated into the kingdom of Christ, after they are delivered from the power of darkness — that is to say, of the devil and his angels. As for ourselves, indeed, we are more ready to be associated with these men, and with the Church of Christ, so firmly rooted in this ancient faith, in suffering any amount of curse and contumely, than with the Pelagians, to be covered with the flattery of public praise.
CHAP. 52 [XXX.] — SIN WAS THE ORIGIN OF ALL SHAMEFUL CONCUPISCENCE.