Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 5 part 100/118

But if you believe anything, dearest brother, behold nearly five years have rolled by since I sent to the East a book — not of presumption but of my consultation — and to this day I have not merited a reply by which this question might be unravelled for me, in which you desire me to bring you a settled opinion. Both, therefore, I would have sent, if I had both. But this which I have, without the other which I do not yet have, I do not think I am now bound to send or publish to anyone.

lest that man who perhaps, as I desire, is going to answer me, may with good right be indignant that my question, elaborated with most laborious argument, should be spread abroad through men's hands and knowledge without his own reply — which is not yet to be despaired of — and may judge that I have done this more boastfully than usefully, as though I could have inquired into what he could not unravel, when perhaps he can, and — provided he do it — is to be waited for; for I know rather that he is occupied with other matters which are by no means to be deferred and are to be weighed as of greater worth. That your Holiness too may know this, attend for a little while to what he wrote back to me in another year, by the same bearer through whom I had written; for I have transferred this from his letter into this one: 'There fell,'

a most difficult time,' he says, 'when it was better for me to be silent than to speak, so that our studies ceased, and — after the manner of Appius — the 'canine eloquence' was exercised. And so to your two little books, which you dedicated to my name, most learned and shining with all the splendour of eloquence, I could not answer at the time — not that I think there is anything in them to be reproved, but because, according to the blessed Apostle, let each abound in his own sense, one indeed thus, another thus. Certainly whatever could be said, and drawn by sublime genius from the fountains of the holy Scriptures, has been set forth and expounded by you. But I ask your Reverence, suffer me a little while to praise your genius. For we discourse among ourselves for the sake of erudition.

But rivals, and most of all heretics, if they see differing opinions between us, will slander us as though they proceeded from rancour of soul. But to me it is a settled resolve to love you, to receive, honour, and admire you, and to defend your sayings as my own. Certainly even in the dialogue which I recently published, I made mention of your Beatitude, as was fitting — and rather let us give diligence that this most pernicious heresy be removed from the churches, which always feigns penitence, that it may have the faculty of teaching in the churches, lest, if it betray itself in open light, it die cast out of doors.'

You surely perceive, venerable brother, that these words of my dearest friend, given in reply to my inquiry, did not deny that reply, but excused it on account of the time — because he was compelled to expend his care on other more pressing matters. You also see how benevolent a mind he bears toward me, and what he admonishes: namely, that what we do among ourselves for the sake of erudition, with charity and the sincerity of friendship in every way preserved, the rivals and most of all the heretics may not slander as proceeding from rancour of soul. Accordingly, if men shall read both our works — both where I inquired and where he answered the inquiries — as is also fitting, so that, if the same question shall have been sufficiently explained according to his opinion,

I may give thanks that I have been instructed, no small fruit will result, when this comes into the knowledge of many, so that our juniors may not only know what they ought to think about this matter, which has been discussed between us with diligent debate, but may also learn by our example — God having mercy and being propitious — how, among most dear brethren, mutual discussion of inquiry may not be lacking in graciousness, and yet love may remain inviolate. But if my writing, where only a most obscure matter is read as inquired into, without his reply, where perhaps the discovery will appear, should get out and go abroad more widely,

and reach also those who, comparing — as the Apostle says — themselves with themselves, do not understand with what mind it is done by us, because they themselves know not how to do it with such a mind; and they will expound my goodwill toward a most beloved friend, to be honoured for his immense merits, not as they see it — since they do not even see it — but as it pleases them and as, with their hatred dictating, they suspect: this surely, as far as in us lies, we ought to guard against. But if perchance what we do not wish to become known through us should, even against our will, become known to those to whom we do not wish it, what will remain but to bear with equanimity the will of the Lord? For neither ought I to write this to anyone which I should always have wished to lie hidden. For if,

which God forbid, by any chance or necessity he should never write back, without doubt our consultation, which we sent to him, will at some time be made manifest, and will not be useless to readers; because, even if they do not find those things which they seek, they will assuredly find how such things ought to be inquired into and not rashly affirmed which they do not know, and, according to those things which they shall have read there, they too will take care to consult, with studious charity and not with quarrelsome contention, whomever they can, until either they find that which they wish, or by the very inquiry they exercise the sharpness of their mind, so that they may recognize that it is not to be inquired into further.

Now, however, as long as the reply of the consulted friend is not yet to be despaired of, I think — as far as it lies in us — that our consultation ought not to be published; and I trust that I have persuaded your Charity of this, although you yourself did not demand it alone, but desired that there be sent to you also, joined to it, the reply of him whom I consulted — which I would certainly do, if I had it. But if — to use the words of your Holiness which you put in your letter — you call it not my consultation and inquiry itself, but a lucid demonstration of my wisdom, which, as you write, the Author of light has bestowed on me according to the merit of my life, and you think that the discovery of that thing which I sought has already come to me, and you rather ask that I send that very thing, I would do so

if it were as you think. For I, I confess, have not yet found out how the soul draws sin from Adam — whence it is not lawful to doubt — and yet it itself is not drawn from Adam: which is to be more diligently inquired into by me than too inconsiderately asserted. Your letter has, I know not how many, old men and men instructed by learned priests, whom you could not recall to the understanding and the affirmation, most full of truth, of your Modesty; nor yet do you express what your affirmation most full of truth is, to which you could not recall old men and men instructed by learned priests. For if these old men held or hold that

which they received from learned priests, how had the rustic and less instructed throng of clergy generated troubles for you in those matters in which it had been instructed by learned priests? But if these old men, or the throng of clergy, were deviating by their own depravity from that which it had received from learned priests, it ought rather to have been corrected by the authority of those priests, and restrained from its most contentious tumult.

But again, when you say that, being a new and untrained teacher, you feared to corrupt the traditions of so many and such great bishops, and dreaded to convert men to the better part on account of the injury to the deceased, what do you give to be understood, except that those whom you desired to correct, unwilling to abandon the traditions of learned and great bishops now deceased, refused to acquiesce to a new and untrained teacher? On which point, for the present I say nothing about them; but I very vehemently desire to know your affirmation, which you say is most full of truth: I do not mean the opinion itself, but its affirmation. For that you disapprove of those who affirm that all the souls of men, from that one which was given to the first-formed man,

are propagated and transmitted through the succession of generations, you have sufficiently conveyed to our knowledge; but by what reasoning, or by what testimonies of the divine Scriptures, you have shown this to be false, we do not know, because your letter does not contain it. Then, what you yourself hold on behalf of that which you disapprove, does not evidently appear to me reading your letter — both the one you formerly directed to the brethren of Caesarea and the one you very recently directed to me — except that I see you believe, as you write, that God has made men, and makes them, and will make them, and that there is nothing in the heavens or on the earth which does not consist, and has not consisted, by him as its Author. This indeed is so true that no one ought to doubt about it.

But you still need to express whence God makes the souls, which you deny are made from propagation — whether from somewhere else (and if it is so, what that might be) or altogether from nothing. For that opinion of Origen and Priscillian, or if any others hold some such thing — that according to the merits of a prior life earthly and mortal bodies are given in opposition — far be it that you should hold. For to this opinion the apostolic authority utterly contradicts, saying that Esau and Jacob, before they were born, had done nothing good or evil. Therefore not wholly, but in part, is your opinion on this matter known to us; but its affirmation — that is, whence it may be shown to be true what you hold — lies entirely hidden from us.

For this reason I had asked in my earlier letter that you would deign to send me the little book of the faith which you mention having written, and to which you complain that some presbyter or other has deceitfully subscribed; which even now I ask. And what of the divine testimonies you were able to bring to bear for unlocking this question. For you say in your letter to the Caesareans that it pleased you that even secular judges should take cognizance of the whole proof of the truth; and that, while they were sitting by common entreaty and searching into all things for the faith, the Divinity, as you write,

bestowed by the infusion of his mercy, that they should bring forth a greater affirmation and demonstration in favour of their own views than your mediocrity, with the authorities of vast testimonies, was maintaining against them. These authorities of vast testimonies, therefore, I desire with vast eagerness to know. For you seem to have followed only one single cause by which to refute your contradictors: namely, that they denied that our souls are the work of God. And if they think this, their opinion is deservedly judged worthy of condemnation. For if they said this of the bodies themselves, without doubt they would have to be corrected or detested. For what Christian would deny that the bodies of each and every one being born are the works of God?

And yet we do not on that account deny that they are begotten by parents, because we confess that they are divinely fashioned. When, therefore, it is said that so too there are certain incorporeal seeds of our souls, each after its own kind, both drawn from parents, and yet from them the souls are made by the work of God, for the refuting of this not human conjecture but divine Scripture must be brought forward as witness. For from the holy books of canonical authority an abundance of testimonies could be at hand for you, by which it is proved that God makes souls: but by such testimonies those are refuted who deny that individual souls in men being born are the works of God — not those who confess this, and yet contend that they, like bodies, are indeed formed by God's working, but out of the propagation of parents.

For the refuting of these, certain divine testimonies must be sought by you, or, if you have already found them, they must be sent to us — who have not yet found them, though with the utmost effort, as far as we can, we inquire — by mutual love. For your consultation, brief and placed last, in the letter which you sent to the Caesarean brethren, runs thus: 'I entreat,' you say, 'that you would teach me — your son and disciple, and one newly and very recently coming, with God's help, to these mysteries — with the instruction with which you owe, and it is fitting, and with which it becomes prudent priests to answer,

whether that opinion is rather to be held, which says that the soul is by traduction, and that through a certain hidden origin and secret order the rest of the souls flow down into the whole race of men from the transfusion of Adam the first-formed; or rather that definition is to be chosen, and that belief to be retained, which all your brethren and the priests here stationed hold and affirm, which testifies and believes that God was, and is, and will be, the Author of all things and of all men. Of these two, then, which you set forth in consulting, you wish that one be chosen and one or the other be answered to you — which ought to be done by those who know, if these two contraries were mutually opposed to each other, so that one being chosen, the other should consequently be rejected.

But now, if someone should not choose one of these two, but should answer that both are true — that is, both that the rest of the souls flow down into the whole race of men from the transfusion of Adam the first-formed, and nonetheless should believe and say that God was, and is, and will be, the Author of all things and of all men — what do you judge is to be objected against this man? Are we going to say: 'If souls are propagated from parents, God is not the Author of all things, because he does not make souls'? For it will be answered, if we say this: 'Therefore, because bodies are propagated from parents, God is not the Author of all things, if for this reason he is to be said not to make bodies.'

But who would deny that God is the Author of all human bodies? Yet who would say that he is the Author of that one alone which he first fashioned from the earth, or certainly also of his wife's body, since he himself formed her too from his side, but not also of the rest, since we cannot deny that from those the rest of men's bodies have flowed down? And through this, if those against whom is your conflict in this question so asseverate the propagation of souls from the derivation of that one, that they now deny that God makes and forms them, press on to refute, convince, and correct them, as much as with the Lord's help you can.

But if they affirm that certain beginnings are drawn from that one, and thereafter from the parents, and yet that the individual souls in individual men are created and formed by God the Author of all things, inquire what may be answered to them — especially from the most holy Scriptures — which may not be ambiguous nor able to be understood otherwise; or, if you have already found it, as I asked above, direct it also to us.

But if this still lies hidden from you as it does from me, do indeed press with all your might to confute those who say that souls are not from the divine work — which you said in your letter they first murmured among more secret fables, and then, on account of this foolish and impious opinion, withdrew from your fellowship and from the service of the church — and against them defend and maintain in every way that which you set down in the same letter: that God made souls, and makes them, and will make them, and that there is nothing in the heavens or on earth which does not consist, or has not consisted, by him as its Author. For this is most truly and most rightly believed, said, defended, and proved of every kind of creature whatsoever.

For God is, and was, and shall be the author of all things and of all men whatsoever. This you set down at the very end of your consultation addressed to our fellow bishops of the province of Caesarea, and after a fashion you exhorted them to choose this view rather, following the example of all the brethren and fellow priests who are among you and who hold to it. But it is one question when it is asked whether God is the author and maker of all souls and bodies — which is what the truth holds — or whether something among natures arises which He Himself does not make, an opinion that is altogether erroneous; and it is another question when it is asked whether God makes human souls by propagation or without propagation, souls which nonetheless it is not lawful to doubt are made by Him.

In this question I wish you to be sober and vigilant, and not so to overthrow the propagation of souls that you incautiously fall into the Pelagian heresy. For if of human bodies, whose propagation is known to all, we nevertheless say — and say truly — that God is the creator not only of that first man or of the first married pair, but of all who are propagated from them, I think it is easily understood that those who defend the propagation of souls do not wish us to overthrow the propagation of souls on the ground that God makes souls, since He also makes bodies, which we cannot deny come to be by propagation; but other proofs must be sought by which those who hold that souls are propagated may be refuted, if the truth declares that they err — the very matter about which those men had greater cause.

if it could be done, they should be questioned — those deceased men on account of whose injury, as you write in the letter which you sent me later, you feared to convert men to a better view. For you said that these deceased were such and so great and so learned bishops that, as a new and untrained teacher, you were unwilling to corrupt their traditions.

And so, if I could know by what reasonings or testimonies those men, so great and so learned, asserted this opinion concerning the propagation of souls ............ , the opinion which nevertheless, in your letter written to the Caesareans, by no means regarding their authority, you called a new invention and an unheard-of dogma — whereas surely, even if it is an error, we should recognize it to be not new but old and ancient. But when certain causes rightly compel us to doubt in some question, we ought not on that account to doubt whether we ought to doubt. For concerning doubtful matters we must without doubt doubt.

You see how the Apostle does not doubt to doubt concerning himself, whether it was in the body or out of the body that he was caught up into the third heaven; 'whether the one or the other, I know not, God knows,' he says. Why then may I not be permitted, so long as I do not know, to doubt whether my soul came into this life by propagation or without propagation, since I do not doubt that in either way it was made by the most high and true God? Why is it not lawful for me to say: I know that my soul subsists from the work of God and is altogether the work of God, whether from propagation as the body, or apart from propagation as that soul which was given to the first man; I know not, God knows? Which of the two you wish me to affirm, I could, if I knew.

But if you yourself know it, behold, you find me more eager to learn what I do not know than to teach what I do know. If, however, you are as ignorant as I am, pray as I too do, that whether through some servant of His or through Himself, that Master may teach us — He who said to His disciples: 'Do not wish to be called Rabbi by men; for one is your Master, Christ' — provided at least He knows it expedient for us that we should know such things, He who knows not only what He should teach, but also what it is expedient for us to learn. For I confess to your love my own desire: I do indeed desire to know this also which you seek;

but much more would I wish to know, if it could be, when He who is desired of all nations shall be presented, and when the kingdom of the saints shall come, than whence I began to come into this earth. And yet, when His disciples, our apostles, asked that of Him who knows all things, they received the answer: 'It is not for you to know the times which the Father has placed in His own power.' What if He knows that this too is not for us to know — He who assuredly knows what is useful for us to know? And this indeed I know through Him, that it is not for us to know the times which the Father has placed in His own power. But whether it is for us to know the origin of souls — which I do not yet know — that is, whether it pertains to us to know it, not even this do I know.

For if I at least knew this, that it is not for us to know it, I would cease not only to affirm — so long as I do not know — but even to inquire. But as it is, although the matter is so obscure and profound that I fear the rashness of teaching there more than I have desire for learning, yet this too I would wish to know, if I could. And although what that holy man said is far more necessary — 'Make known to me, O Lord, my end' (for he did not say 'my beginning') — yet would that at least my beginning, so far as concerns this question, were not hidden from me!

Yet even concerning my beginning I am not ungrateful to my Teacher, in that I know the human soul to be spirit, not body, and that it is rational or intellectual; and that it is not of the nature of God, but rather a creature, in some measure mortal, inasmuch as it can be changed for the worse and be alienated from the life of God, by whose participation it becomes blessed; and in some measure immortal, since it cannot lose that consciousness by which after this life it fares either well or ill. I know also that it did not deserve to be enclosed in flesh for deeds done before the flesh, and yet that it is not on that account in man without the defilement of sin, even if his life upon earth be, as it is written, of one day.

And through this I know that no one is born from Adam by the succession of generation without sin, whence it is necessary even for little ones to be reborn in Christ through the grace of regeneration. These things, so many and no small matters concerning the beginning or origin of our souls — among which are many things pertaining to that knowledge which stand firm by faith — I rejoice both to have learned and I affirm that I know. Wherefore, if I do not know, in the origin of souls, whether God makes them for men by propagation or without propagation — souls which nonetheless I do not doubt are made by Him — I do indeed prefer to know even this rather than not to know; but so long as I cannot, I do better to doubt here than to affirm something as certain which may perhaps be contrary to that matter about which I ought perhaps not to doubt.

You therefore, my good brother, since you consult me and wish that I should define one of these two — whether the other souls come to be from that one man like bodies by propagation, or without propagation like the soul of that one man, each singly from the Creator for each individual (for that they are made by Him, whether in this way or in that, we do not deny) — allow that I too may consult, in what way the soul draws sin originally from that source whence originally it is not itself drawn. For that all souls draw original sin from Adam we likewise do not deny, lest we detestably rush into the detestable Pelagian heresy. If what I ask you also do not know, permit me patiently to be ignorant of both — both what you ask and what I ask; but if you already know

what I ask, then when you shall have taught me this also, I will answer that too, which you wish me to answer, fearing nothing there any longer. I ask therefore that you be not angry that I could not affirm what you seek, but could show what you should seek. And when you have found it, do not hesitate to affirm what you were seeking. And this indeed I thought should be written to your holiness, you who now, as if already certain, think that the propagation of souls should be rejected. But if a reply had to be written to those who assert it, perhaps I would show how they are ignorant of that which they suppose themselves to know, and with what great reason they ought to fear to dare to assert it. Truly, let not the reply of a friend, which I have inserted in this letter, perhaps disturb you,

in that he mentioned two books sent by me, to which he answered that he had no free time to reply. One of them is on this question, not both; in the other I inquired of him something else by consulting and treating of it. But as to his admonishing and exhorting that we should rather give our effort to have that most pernicious heresy removed from the churches, he means that very Pelagian heresy, which I admonish you, brother, to avoid as cautiously as you can, as much as you are able, when you either think about or already dispute concerning the origin of souls — lest it creep upon you to believe that any soul whatever, save that of the one Mediator, does not draw original sin from Adam, bound by generation, to be loosed by regeneration. 203.

To the distinguished and most excellent and most longed-for son Largus, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord. I have received the letter of your excellence, in which you ask me to write to you — which indeed you would not desire, unless you also held pleasing and agreeable this, which you supposed I was able to write — namely, that the vain things of this world, if you have coveted them untried, you may now, having tried them, despise. For in them the sweetness is deceitful, the labor unfruitful, the fear perpetual, the eminence perilous; the beginning without foresight, and the end with repentance. So stand all things which, in this misery of mortality, are sought more greedily than prudently. But other is the hope of the pious, other the fruit of their labor, other the reward of their perils.

For in this world not to fear, not to grieve, not to labor, not to be in peril is impossible; but it matters very greatly for what cause, with what expectation, at what end each man endures these things. As for me, indeed, when I behold the lovers of this world, I know not when wisdom can be opportune for the healing of their souls. For when they have their affairs as it were prosperous, in their pride they spurn wholesome admonitions and reckon them an old wife's ditty; but when in adversities they are anguished, they think more of how to escape whence for the present they are anguished, than of how to grasp whence they may be cured and whence they may come to that place where they can no longer be anguished at all.

Yet sometimes certain men apply and bring the ears of the heart to the truth — more rarely amid prosperity, more frequently amid adversity — but still they are few. For so it was foretold; among whom I desire you to be, because I truly love you, distinguished lord and most excellent and most longed-for son. Let this admonition be my greeting in return to you, because, although I would not that you should henceforth suffer such things as you have suffered, yet I would still less that you should have suffered these very things without some change of your life for the better. 204. To the excellent and honorable son Dulcitius, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord.

I ought not to have despised your request, in which you desired to be instructed by me how you ought to answer the heretics, whose salvation, resting in the Lord's mercy, is sought also by the diligence of your zeal. For although vast multitudes of them — whereat we greatly rejoice — understand what benefit is conferred upon them, yet some of them, ungrateful both to God and to men by a pitiable impulse of madness, when they cannot lay us waste by their own slaughters, believe they can terrify us by their own destruction, either seeking their own joy from our deaths or our sadness from their own deaths. But the furious error of a few men ought not to hinder the salvation of so many and so great peoples.