Latin original · 39 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 5:3594–5:3632 (4615 verses in all)
But He willed so many to be born by creating, whom He foreknew would not belong to His grace, that by an incomparable multitude they might be more than those whom He deigned to predestine, as sons of promise, unto the glory of His kingdom; so that even by the very multitude of the rejected it might be shown of how little moment before the just God is any number, however great, of those most justly damned. And so that from this too they might understand — those who are redeemed out of that very damnation — that this was owed to that whole mass, which they perceived to be rendered to so great a part of it, not only in those who add much to original sin by the choice of an evil will,
but also in so many little children who, bound only by the chain of original sin, without the grace of the Mediator are snatched from this light. For that whole mass would receive the debt of just damnation, if the potter — not only just but also merciful — did not make from it other vessels unto honor according to grace, not according to debt, since He both succors little children, of whom no merits can be spoken, and prevents (goes before) the older ones, that they may be able to have some merits. Since these things are so, if your assertion does not tend to this, that you say new souls cannot, on account of the innocence of their newness, before they use free choice for sinning, be liable to original damnation,
but you confess by the catholic faith that even if they depart from the body in that tender age, they will go into the damnation of perdition, unless they are freed by the sacrament of the Mediator, who came to seek and to save that which had perished — then seek where, or whence, or when they began to have the merit of damnation, if they are new, in such a way, of course, that you make neither God nor any nature which God did not create the author either of their sin or of the damnation of the innocent. And if you find what I have admonished you to seek — which I myself, I confess, have not yet found — defend it as much as you can, and assert that the newness of infants' souls is of such a kind that they are drawn by no propagation; and what you find, share with us in brotherly love.
But if you do not find why or how the souls of infants become sinful and, having in themselves nothing of malice by which they may be compelled to draw it from Adam, are yet condemned — since you believe them to be not propagated from that first sinful soul but new and innocent, enclosed in the flesh of sin — then let not your assent be rashly turned aside into another opinion, so that you believe them to be transmitted by propagation from that one soul, lest perhaps another may be able to find what you yourself cannot, or you yourself may at some time find what you now could not. For even those...
...who assert that souls are propagated from that one which God gave to the first man, and thus say that they are drawn from the parents — if they follow the opinion of Tertullian, they assuredly contend that these are not spirits but bodies, and arise from corporeal seeds. Than which what more perverse thing can be said? Nor is it to be wondered at that Tertullian dreamed this, who thinks that even the Creator God Himself is nothing but a body. But this madness having been repelled from a Christian heart and mouth, whoever confesses that the soul,
...as it truly is, is not a body but a spirit, and yet that it is drawn into the children from the parents — in this indeed he is hemmed in by no straits, namely that the true faith proclaims that all souls, even those of little children, whom the Church baptizes not indeed in a false but in a true remission of sins, draw the original sin committed by the proper will of the first man and transmitted to all posterity by generation, to be purged by regeneration alone. But when one begins to consider and examine what is being said, it is a marvel if any human sense can comprehend in what manner — just as a lamp is kindled from a lamp, and without loss to the one, another fire arises thence — so a soul comes to be in the offspring from the soul of the parent, or is transmitted into the offspring.
Whether the incorporeal seed of the soul runs by some hidden and invisible path of its own, apart from the seed of the body, from the father into the mother when conception takes place in the woman; or—what is harder to believe—whether it lies concealed within the seed of the body; and, since seeds flow away ineffectually without any conceptions taking place, whether the seed of the soul does not go forth at the same time, or whether with utmost swiftness and in an atom of time it runs back to the place from which it had come, or whether it perishes; and if it perishes, how then is the soul, whose seed is mortal, itself immortal? Or does it receive immortality only at the moment when it is formed so that it may live, just as it receives righteousness when it is formed so that it may be wise?
And in what manner God fashions the soul in man—even if the soul is drawn seminally from a soul—just as He fashions in man the members of the body, although the body is drawn seminally from a body. For if the spiritual creature also were not fashioned by God, it would not have been written: «Who fashions the spirit of man within him»; and in that which is read: «Who fashioned the hearts of men one by one»—if by «hearts» souls are signified—who could doubt that they can be fashioned? But the question is whether they are fashioned from the one soul of the first man, just as He fashions the faces of men one by one, yet from the one body of the first man. When these and many like matters concerning this subject are inquired into—
—matters which can be explored by no bodily sense, which lie far removed from our experience and are hidden in the most secret recesses of nature—a man ought not to blush to confess that he does not know what he does not know, lest, while he lies that he knows, he never deserve to know at all. But who denies that God is the Creator and Maker not only of one soul but of every soul, save one who most openly resists His own words? For without any ambiguity He says through the prophet: «I have made every breath»—wishing, that is, souls to be understood; which the following words make plain. Therefore not the one breath alone which He breathed into the first man made from the earth, but every breath He Himself made and still makes.
Yet it is asked whether He makes every breath from that one breath, just as He makes every human body from that one body, or whether He indeed makes new bodies from the one, but new souls out of nothing. For who fashions the kinds of things, each fitted to its own origin, even from seeds, save He who made the seeds themselves without seeds? But where a matter naturally obscure surpasses our small measure, and open divine Scripture does not come to our aid, human conjecture rashly presumes to define anything here. Now according to the lives which they begin to have as their own, we say that new men are born, whether as soul or without body; but according to original sin they are born old, and therefore are renewed by baptism.
Therefore I have not yet found anything certain about the origin of the soul in the canonical Scriptures. For those who assert that new souls come into being without any propagation, among the testimonies by which they strive to show this, set down also those two which I mentioned a little before: «Who fashions the spirit of man within him,» and «Who fashioned the hearts of men one by one.» Concerning these you see how it may be answered by those who resist: for whether, when He fashions, He fashions from something else or out of nothing, is uncertain. Yet that testimony seems to be preeminent above the rest, which is read in the book of Solomon, Ecclesiastes: «And the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.» But it is very easily answered:
The body returns to the earth, from which the first man's body was made; and the spirit to God, by whom the first man's soul was made. For just as our body—they say—although propagated from that first body, yet returns to that whence the first body itself was made, so our soul, although propagated from that soul, returns not to nothing (since it is immortal) but to Him by whom that first soul itself was made. And for this reason that which is written concerning the spirit of every man, that it returns to God who gave it, does not resolve this most obscure question; because whether God gave it from that one soul or from no other, He assuredly gave it.
Likewise those who, with inconsiderate rashness, defend the propagation of souls, among other testimonies which they suppose favor their cause, can think that none more manifest and express can be brought forward on their behalf than that which is written in Genesis: «Now all the souls that entered into Egypt with Jacob, who came out of his loins.» For by this most evident testimony, as they think, souls can be believed to be propagated into sons from parents, since it seems plainly enough to be said that souls also, not the bodies of the sons alone, came forth from the loins of Jacob—so that in this way they would have that too understood as the whole from a part, which Adam said when his wife was shown to him: «This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.»
For he did not say «and soul of my soul,» but it can happen that, when flesh is named, both are understood, just as here he named souls and yet wished bodies also in the sons to be understood. But this testimony, however clear and manifest it seems, would certainly not suffice for unraveling this question—not even if it were read in the feminine gender, «who came out of his loins,» so that we should understand souls to be the ones that came out. And it would not suffice for this reason: because it is shown that by the word «soul» the body alone can also be signified, by a certain manner of speech in which by that which is contained is signified that which contains—as a certain poet says, «The wines crown,» when the vessels were being crowned with wine; for the wine is contained, the vessel contains.
Just as, therefore, we call a basilica «church,» by which is contained the people who is truly called the church—so that by the name «church,» that is, of the people who is contained, we signify the place which contains—so, because souls are contained by bodies, the bodies of the sons can be understood by the souls that are named. For in this way that too is better taken which the Law says defiles the man who has gone in over a dead soul, that is, over the corpse of a dead person—so that by the name «dead soul» is understood the dead body which contained the soul; since even in the absence of the people, that is, of the church, that place is nonetheless called the church.
These things would be answered, as I said, if it were put in the feminine gender, «who came out of the loins of Jacob,» that is, «which souls.» But now, since the masculine gender is used, that is, «who came out of the loins of Jacob,» who would not rather understand it thus: «all the souls of them who came out of his loins,» that is, the souls of the men—so that even thus it can be understood that the men came out of their father's loins according to the body only, whose souls those were, by the number of which so many men are understood? But I should like to read your little book, which you mentioned in your letter, lest perhaps you have set down there some testimonies that are not ambiguous.
Now when a friend most dear to me and most zealous for the divine letters had asked me what I thought about this question, and, setting shame aside, I had confessed to him hence my perplexities and my ignorance, he wrote thereupon far across the sea to a most learned man, who wrote back to him that he should rather consult me—not knowing that he had already done so, and had been unable to hear anything certain and definite from me. Yet in that same brief letter of his he indicated that he himself believes souls to be made rather than propagated, while at the same time reminding us that the Western church—for he himself is in the East—is accustomed to hold to the propagation of souls.
Having learned of this greater occasion, I wrote to him a not brief book, consulting him and asking that he first teach me, and then send me those whom I may teach. That book—as the mind not of a teacher but of an inquirer, and rather of one desiring to learn—may be read at my house; but it ought not to be sent anywhere or given to anyone abroad, until, with the Lord's help, I have received a reply concerning what he thinks—being most ready and most willing to defend it, if he shall have been able to teach me how souls neither come from Adam and yet from him incur the just lot of damnation, unless they attain by being reborn to the remission of sins.
For far be it that we should believe either that the souls of little ones receive in the laver of regeneration a false cleansing from sins, or that God is—or that any nature which God did not create is—the author of that defilement from which they are cleansed. Until, therefore, either he writes back, or I, if God shall will, in some way learn how, if the soul draws no origin from that sinful one, there can be a cause of the soul's undergoing original sin—which must needs be in all little ones, and to which neither God, who is not the author of sinning, compels it though innocent, nor any evil nature, since there is none—I dare proclaim nothing of the sort. But you, dearest brother, if you willingly or patiently admit it, I admonish, lest, being less cautious, you rush into a new heresy,
which strives to overturn the foundations of the most ancient faith, established as they are, by disputing against the grace of God which the Lord Christ bestows on small and great with unspeakable goodness. Of this heresy, since Pelagius and Caelestius had stood forth as its authors, or at least its keenest and most notorious advocates, they were—by the vigilance of episcopal councils, with the help of the Savior, who guards His own church, and by two venerable prelates of the Apostolic See, Pope Innocent and Pope Zosimus, unless they should be corrected and do penance—condemned throughout the whole Christian world; concerning whom there are copies of recent letters.
—whether those which issued specially to the Africans, or those which issued universally to all bishops from the aforesaid See—lest perchance they have not yet reached your Holiness, we have taken care to have them sent to you by those brethren by whom we also gave these letters to be directed to your Reverence. Now these men are not heretics for this reason, that they say souls do not draw their origin from that first sinful one—which either perhaps can be said truly on some grounds, or without harm to the faith can be left unknown—but they try to bring about from this the conclusion by which they are judged altogether the most manifest heretics: that the souls of little ones draw nothing evil from Adam which must be expiated in the laver of regeneration. For Pelagius's argumentation on this matter,
which among his other damnable statements was also appended to the letters of the Apostolic See, runs thus: «If the soul,» he says, «is not from transmission, but the flesh alone has the transmission of sin, then the flesh alone deserves punishment. For it is unjust that a soul born today should bear an alien sin so ancient, not from the mass of Adam; for by no reasoning is it granted that God, who remits proper sins, should impute one that is alien.» If, therefore, you can so assert the newness of souls without any propagation, that by a just reasoning, and not alien to the catholic faith, they may even thus be shown liable to the sin of the first man—then assert what you hold, as best you can.
But if you cannot otherwise make them free from propagation except by at the same time making them free from every bond of sin, then restrain yourself utterly from disputation of this kind. For the remission of sins even in the baptism of little ones is not false, nor is it said merely in word, but is truly accomplished. For, to use now the words which are read in the very letter of the most blessed prelate Zosimus: «The Lord is faithful in His words, and His baptism holds the same fullness in deed and in words—that is, in work, confession, and the true remission of sins—in every sex, age, and condition of the human race. For no one is made free save he who is a slave of sin, nor can anyone be called redeemed save he who was truly a captive beforehand through sin.»
As it is written: «If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.» For through Him we are reborn spiritually, through Him we are crucified to the world; by His death the handwriting of that death which was brought in and transmitted from Adam to all of us—the handwriting contracted by propagation upon the whole soul—is broken; in which handwriting absolutely none of those born, before he is set free through baptism, is held otherwise than liable. In these words of the Apostolic See the catholic faith is so ancient and well-founded, so certain and clear, that it is impious for a Christian to doubt of it.
Since, therefore, by the death of Christ the handwriting of death—contracted by the propagation not of one or of some, but of the whole soul—is broken, if you can so defend souls as free from propagation, that yet by a most correct reasoning they may be shown bound by this handwriting (which is to be broken by the death of Christ alone), and may justly appear obligated by this debt not of their own propagation but of the flesh, then not only defend it with no one forbidding, but even show us how we may defend it together with you. But if you cannot otherwise assert what you hold concerning the newness of souls, except by saying that they are not held by the sin of the first man, or that through a propagation not their own but of the flesh—with God as author, or by some unknown evil nature—the most innocent are made sinners,
—it is better that the origin of the soul lie hidden, provided only we do not doubt that it is a creature of God, than that either God be called the author of sin, or an alien evil nature be introduced against God, or the baptism of little ones be reckoned void. But that your love may hear from me too concerning this question something defined—not to be lightly esteemed, nay rather chiefly necessary and to be held fast—however the origin of souls may stand, whether they be propagated from that one or from no other: it is nevertheless not lawful to doubt that the soul of the Mediator drew no sin from Adam.
For if no soul is propagated from another, where all are held by the propagated flesh of sin, how much less is it to be believed that the soul could have come from the propagation of the sinful one—the soul whose flesh came from a Virgin, conceived not by lust but by faith, that it might be in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in the flesh of sin! But if the other souls are held liable to the sin of the first sinful soul for this reason, that they are propagated from it, then assuredly that soul which the Only-begotten joined to Himself either drew no sin thence, or was not drawn thence at all.
For neither could He who loosed our sins fail to be able to draw a soul to Himself without sin; nor could He who created a new soul for that flesh which He made from the earth without a parent, fail to be able to create a new soul for that flesh which He took from a woman without a man. These things I have answered as best I could—to letters not indeed given to me, but yet to our dearest ones—of your Holiness, not with the skill you desired, but with anxious love. If you receive it gratefully, and preserve the fraternal admonition, now useful, not by erring but by prudent consideration in the peace of the church, thanks be to God.
But if you marvel that I do not yet know these things—or even do not marvel, and do not refuse to teach me by mutual charity something certain about the origin of souls, with this faith preserved intact which is most certain and most clear—then far more abundantly, thanks be to God. Mindful of us, may you ever live to the Lord, most blessed lord and brother, desirable to us with sincere love. Letter 191. To the venerable lord, and in the charity of Christ to be received, the holy brother and fellow-presbyter Sixtus, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord.
From the time when the letters of your kindness, directed through our holy brother the presbyter Firmus, came to Hippo in my absence—after which, when I had returned, I was able to read them, although their bearer had already set out from there—this first and most welcome occasion of writing back has presented itself through our most beloved son, the acolyte Albinus. But that we were not then together with those to whom you wrote at the same time is the reason it came about that you should receive separate letters from each of us, not one letter from us both. For the bearer of this letter departed from me by way of my venerable brother and fellow-bishop Alypius, who, being about to pass on, would write another reply to your Holiness; to whom he himself also carried those very letters of yours which I had already read.
With how great a joy these have filled us—what can a man strive to speak, which he cannot utter? Nor do I think you sufficiently know it yourself; but believe us how much good you have done in sending us such writings. For as you are witness of your own mind, so we are of ours—how it was affected by the most luminous sincerity of those letters. For if we transcribed with exultant eagerness that very brief letter of yours which you directed on this same matter to the most blessed elder Aurelius through the acolyte Leo, and read it with great zeal to those to whom we could—wherein you set forth to us what you feel about that most pernicious dogma, or what, on the contrary, about the grace of God which He bestows on small and great,
—to which that dogma is most hostile—then feel how greatly, do you suppose, we have read these your more extensive writings, either with exultation, or with care that they be read; and offered them, to those whom we could, with great zeal, and still offer them to those whom we can! For what can be read or heard more gladly than so pure a defense of the grace of God against His enemies, from the mouth of one who was formerly boasted of as a patron of great weight for those same enemies? Or whence ought we to give more abundant thanks to God, than that His grace is thus defended by those to whom it is given, against those to whom either it is not given, or that which is given is unwelcome—because, that it may be welcome to them, it is by the hidden and just judgment of God not given?
Wherefore, venerable lord, and in the charity of Christ to be received, holy brother, although you do excellently in writing to the brethren about this matter—among whom those men are wont to boast of your friendship—yet this greater care remains for you: that not only may those be smitten with salutary severity who dare too freely to prattle that error most hostile to the Christian name, but also that these be most diligently guarded against, with pastoral vigilance, for the sake of the weaker and simpler sheep of the Lord—those who, more guardedly indeed and more timidly, yet do not cease to whisper it, «creeping into houses,» as the apostle says, and doing the rest that follows, «with practiced impiety.»
Nor are those to be neglected who, out of fear, suppress even to the depth of silence what they feel, yet do not cease to feel the same perversity. For some of them, before that very plague was condemned by the most manifest judgment even of the Apostolic See, could become known to you—whom now you perceive to have suddenly fallen silent; nor can it be known whether they are healed, until they not only keep silent about those false dogmas, but also defend the true things contrary to them with that same zeal with which they are wont to defend the false. Yet these are certainly to be handled more gently; for why is there need to terrify those whom their very taciturnity shows sufficiently terrified? Nor for that reason are they to be passed over, as though healthy, by the diligence of medicine—those whose wound is in a hidden place.
For even if they are not to be terrified, yet they are to be taught; and, as I judge, they can be taught more easily while in them the fear of severity aids the teacher of truth—so that, with the Lord's grace helping, once it is understood and loved, they may even by speaking assail that which they now do not dare to speak. Letter 192. To the venerable lord, and exceedingly to be desired, the holy brother and fellow-deacon Caelestinus, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord. Although I was far absent when the writings of your Holiness, directed to Hippo through the cleric Proiectus, came to me, yet after I had come and, having read them, recognized that I was made a debtor of a reply, I was awaiting a time for repaying.
And behold, suddenly, in our most beloved brother the acolyte Albinus who is about to set out from us, a most welcome occasion has presented itself. Rejoicing therefore over your welfare, which is most longed for by me, I render to your Holiness the salutation due. But I always owe charity, which alone, even when repaid, ever keeps the debtor bound. For it is repaid when it is expended; yet it is owed even if it has been repaid, because there is no time when it is not still to be expended. Nor, when it is repaid, is it lost, but rather by repaying it is multiplied; for it is repaid by having, not by lacking. And since it cannot be repaid unless it be had, nor can it be had unless it be repaid—nay, even when it is repaid by a man, it grows in the man, and the more abundantly it is repaid, the greater it is acquired.
But how is that denied to friends which is owed even to enemies? Yet to enemies it is expended with caution, to friends it is repaid with security. It acts nonetheless, as far as it can, that even from those to whom it will render good for evil, it may receive that which it expends. For we desire that he become a friend whom we truly love as an enemy, since we do not love him except in willing his good—which indeed will not be, unless he loses the evil of enmities. Charity therefore is not expended as money is; for, apart from the fact that money is diminished by expending, charity is increased.
In this too they differ among themselves: that to whomever we have given money, we shall then be more benevolent to him if we do not seek to recover it; but there cannot be a true expender of charity unless he be a kindly exactor of it, since money, when it is recovered, accrues to him to whom it is given, but recedes from him by whom it is given—whereas charity not only grows in him who exacts it from one whom he loves, even if he does not recover it, but also that man from whom he recovers it then begins to have it when he repays it. Accordingly, brother lord, I willingly repay you mutual charity, and joyfully receive it; that which I receive, I still ask for again; that which I repay, I still owe. For we must, as docile pupils, hear our one Master, under whom we are fellow-disciples, commanding and saying through His apostle:
«Owe no one anything, except to love one another.» Letter 193. To the most beloved lord, and in the members of Christ to be proclaimed with most sincere charity, the son Mercator, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord. The letter of your love, which you had sent earlier and which I received at Carthage, affected me with so great a joy that even in your later one—where you were vexed that I had not written back to you—I received it most gratefully. For that very indignation of yours was not the beginning of a quarrel, but a token of charity. But that I did not write back from Carthage—the occasion of bearers was not lacking, but other more urgent matters kept us most occupied and most intent, until we should set out from there.