For if the order of the work and its reward be considered, the work is in faith and confession, the reward in baptism: for each one is judged worthy of baptism when the merit of faith and confession precedes, to which, as a reward, the sacrament of holy baptism is due to be granted. 'And the laborer is worthy of his hire' (Luke 10:7). He therefore ought not to be defrauded of the reward of baptism, who by the devotion of heart and mouth divinely given discharged the work of belief and confession. He assuredly was not to be questioned at the hour of baptism concerning what he had already confessed beforehand in the pronouncing of the Creed. And so the taking away of his voice did nothing to harm him in attaining eternal blessedness, who, as long as he was able, remained in that very confession of faith.
It was not taken away, nor changed; nor was that abolished which he said, at a time when he could no longer speak, because as long as he could feel, he did not change his resolve. But you say, 'I fear that the Lord, to whom all things are possible, denied him the faculty of speaking for this reason, because he judged him unworthy of the benefit of the second birth.' Nay rather, let us recognize therein that our Lord was not forgetful of his mercy, in that, although he took away his voice, he nevertheless did not take away his life, so that what he granted him to believe and confess, he might receive while living. But it is doubted 'how that age, being capable of reason, could be cleansed by another's confession.'
Nay rather, he is found to have been cleansed by his own confession, for whom the confession of others that followed after could then have been of no profit, if his own had by no means preceded. And so without doubt the confession of others profited him a second time, when it did not forestall one unwilling, but succored one failing by following after; and what in him the enlightened will had begun by believing and confessing, this brotherly charity perfected on his behalf. CHAPTER VI. — We read therefore that the Lord said: 'Whoever shall confess me before men, I also will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven' (Matt. 10:32). But as long as the faculty of speaking was present to this man, that confession was not lacking.
Who then will dare to call that confession unworthy of salvation, which he sees was not rejected by perversity of will, but overtaken by the necessity of infirmity? For his tongue was disabled, not his conscience depraved; and the Apostle says: 'Having the same spirit of faith, as it is written: I believed, for which reason I have spoken; we also believe, for which reason we also speak' (2 Cor. 4:13). He therefore who, having received the spirit of faith, believed and spoke, since he could then have lacked that very Spirit which he had received in order to believe if he had denied, when he did not deny, assuredly did not lack it. By that same Spirit, then, by which he spoke as believing, he was redeemed while silent:
since by that same Spirit the second birth is perfected, by which the second belief is given. Accordingly, when to the sound man there was no lack of the will to believe and to confess, to the infirm man the necessity of being silent did no harm. CHAPTER VII. — Now it is true that we rightly believe only infants to be saved by the faith of those who offer them, whom we know to be condemned by original iniquity alone, the divine justice bringing this about in wondrous ways: so that in a manner where there is by no means found any proper, that is, actual, malice, no proper will is required; but through the abundance of grace salvation is given, others believing, to those to whom, others sinning, guilt has been ascribed. But you add that this one lived by his own free choice:
and that over and above what he had drawn from the root, he had without doubt contracted many vices by his own desire, bound by the chains of very many sins, and to be saved by no means but a voluntary believing; whereas in that place of redemption he neither would nor was able to confess, because, feeling nothing, he was utterly unable to will anything at all. These indeed, most dear brother, are your words, which are contained in that letter you sent. Accordingly, the nature of original sin must first be considered: which, having been committed by others, was propagated to others by the fault of generation.
In the abolishing of which, if ever there be that age to which a proper confession cannot belong, salvation is given to infants by others believing and confessing, to whom, others sinning, guilt has been ascribed. Wherefore, since in ages already using reason a proper confession is required — for this reason, namely, that they both live and understand, having from life the sin of origin, and from understanding the sin of their own action — therefore we rightly say that this man was saved without any doubt, because understanding he believed, and confirmed by his own confession what he believed; and thereafter, although no longer understanding, yet still living, he received the sacrament of holy regeneration.
For through the sacrament of holy baptism, that life was released from the bonds of original sin which had been bound by the chains of that same sin. And because so great is the power of holy baptism, that wherever it finds a life in which it may loose that bond of original sin, it washes away by the benefit of the second birth all things it finds added on top, according to that which the Apostle says: 'For the judgment was from one unto condemnation, but grace is from many offenses unto justification' (Rom. 5:16): we worthily believe him to have been saved, in whom both before baptism belief and the confession of understanding were not lacking, and at the hour of baptism life, though in one infirm and feverish, remained.
The life therefore which contracted original sin, because when it could it gave testimony of its own conscience and understanding, even when it could not confess, by the merit of that confession received remission of original sin. Especially with the consecration of the Unity of the Church lending its aid, whereby it came to pass that the confession rendered in time past, since it could not be rendered at the hour of baptism because of the body's infirmity, was rendered by the help of brotherly charity: so that he was helped by the word of those members to whose fellowship he was to be reckoned. And with that original sin forgiven, no one of the faithful doubts that all the sins which he had contracted by his own will were forgiven.
The past confession, therefore, of one who knew, merited remission of sins even for him who knew not what he was saying, concerning which let us in no way doubt. CHAPTER VIII. — For no suspicion ought to recall our mind from this opinion, lest anyone should say that 'he would have been saved even if he had not come to the very washing of the body,' since indeed we do not say that he could have been saved by confession alone without the sacrament of baptism. For 'he who shall believe and be baptized shall be saved.' That youth, assuredly, because we know that he believed and confessed, we therefore affirm to have been saved through the sacrament of baptism. Who, if he were not baptized, would by no means be saved, not only unknowing, but even knowing.
For the way of salvation was in confession, salvation in baptism. For at that age, not only would confession without baptism profit him nothing, but neither would baptism itself in any way profit unto salvation one who does not believe nor confess. Therefore God willed confession to profit him for this reason, because he preserved him unto holy regeneration in this life. And so the gift of holy regeneration, just as he, because he willed, sought it; so God, because he willed, gave it. CHAPTER IX. Why the dead are not baptized. — But we do not baptize the dead for this reason, because every sin, whether original or actual, since it is at once common to both soul and flesh, none of them is remitted, if the soul be separated from its own flesh. For 'we must all',
'must be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ, that each one may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done, whether good or evil' (2 Cor. 5:10). And so the soul without the flesh is by no reasoning saved, which sinned in the body, and did not believe while it was in the body. And through this, it receives the evil which it did in the body, not the good which, being placed in the body, it did not do. The flesh likewise without the soul cannot be baptized, because it cannot receive remission of sins. For a thing that does not live, just as it cannot sin, so it cannot have penitence for sin. How can the sacrament of remission be given, where there is no life?
Or how can the flesh be baptized unto the remission of sins, where there is no soul, together with which the fellowship of sin cleaves? Therefore, even if there was in some living person a faithful will and devotion, who nevertheless died without the sacrament of baptism, for this reason the dead man could not be baptized, because from that body the soul, whose was the faithful will and devotion, had departed. Therefore this one, of whom we now treat, was worthily baptized, because his soul, whose faithful will and devotion were known to all, remained in its own flesh unto the hour of holy baptism. Those mysteries, therefore, which are performed in the Church before baptism, cause the spiritual man to be conceived, not to be reborn.
Hence it is that one will arrive at salvation, if the second birth brings him forth into the light. For which light a man is prepared by those mysteries, but is brought through by the sacrament of baptism. This is what I said above, that in those mysteries there is the office of salvation, in baptism the effect of salvation; which effect assuredly not the onset of infirmity, but only a change of will can deny to oneself. CHAPTER X. — Accordingly, most firmly is that judgment of the paternal canons to be held, which orders that the infirm be baptized, if they cannot answer for themselves, but have borne testimony to their will at their own peril. For the holy Fathers saw that a will is not guilty which is known to be hindered, not changed;
and that the sacrament of baptism ought not to be denied where firmness of will is recognized. And the holy Fathers, in decreeing this, indicated both what the Church ought to do, and what that man may receive. For the Church would not do this, if that man had received no benefit in this deed. For since the Apostle testifies that the Church of God is the pillar and ground of truth, if it has any part in mysteries of mine wherein there is no firm truth, it is not in all its mysteries the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). For whatever firmness is taken away from its sacraments, must needs be taken away from the Church itself.
The Church, therefore, is not truly called the pillar and ground of truth, if in that very principal mystery of human salvation it is found infirm. But because it is truly named by the Apostle the pillar and ground of truth, whatever, according to the constitutions of the Church itself, in the holy mysteries of human redemption and reconciliation, is given and received within her, is given with firm truth, is received with firm truth. And that we may in no way reject the general constitutions of our holy mother Church, that is, those which the most harmonious assent of all the pontiffs establishes, it is thus commanded in Proverbs: 'Hear, my son, the laws of your father, and reject not the ordinances of your mother' (Prov. 1:8).
Who then would judge that to be void of profit, which he hears from God is by no means to be rejected? If therefore he who is thus baptized is not saved, there is no guilt if this be neglected: nor will the minister of the word, if he has not done this, be held in the fault of negligence, if he in whom this is done cannot be a partaker of righteousness. There, then, is one convicted as guilty of negligence, where the effect of the work is not despaired of. And just as he is worthily convicted of negligence who does not do what is useful, so of him who spends labor on superfluous things, that very labor is rightly disapproved as vain and useless. And if in this matter vain labor is spent, then without doubt the judgment of Paul the Apostle will be vain, whereby he said:
'For each one shall receive his own reward according to his own labor' (1 Cor. 3:8): since without doubt he was speaking of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God, as the passage of that same epistle indicates. For he had premised: 'I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase' (1 Cor. 3:6). And what was it for Paul to plant, and for Apollos to water, except that Paul planted by evangelizing the word of salvation, while Apollos watered by ministering the sacrament of baptism? When therefore the Apostle had said: 'And so neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase' (1 Cor. 3:7), in order to show that the reward of that planting and watering remains firm, he immediately added:
'Each one shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.' And to show that the labor of the divine work cannot be empty, in another place of the same epistle he speaks thus: 'And so, beloved brethren, be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord' (1 Cor. 15:58). But that is the work of God, which is so bestowed on each living person that it can profit either the soul or the body of him who receives it. And those things indeed which profit the soul must needs profit the body also; but not all things which profit the body pertain to the benefit of souls:
as is food, drink, clothing, and lodging, which are found to profit not the soul that receives them, but the giver. But the sacrament of baptism is given to man for this end, that the soul together with the flesh may be saved. Which the minister assuredly gives in vain, if he does not give it for this end, that he who is baptized may receive the gift of eternal salvation. For the sacrament of redemption is given in vain, if he to whom it is given is not redeemed. But if we attend to one single word of your letter, no doubt of this will remain. For you said that this was defined by the paternal canons for this reason, 'that the minister of the word may be free from the fault of negligence.' But how does the minister incur the fault of negligence in this, if by diligence he accomplishes nothing?
For he does not vainly contract the guilt of one who is negligent, except because he did not do what he ought to have done: but he ought to do it for this reason, because it could profit if he had done it. Therefore he was charged with the fault of negligence, because by not doing what would without doubt have profited if he had done it, he did harm. Accordingly, for this reason that infirm man, to whose will the attestation of those near him is not lacking, ought without doubt to be baptized, according to the paternal canons, so that both the minister of the word may be free from the fault of negligence, and that man may become a sharer and partaker of righteousness. CHAPTER XI. — But no one of the faithful ought to be disturbed concerning those who, though they are lawfully baptized with a sound mind, are not allowed, by a death coming too swiftly upon them, to eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood:
on account, namely, of that saying of the Savior wherein he said: 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you' (John 6:53). And whoever shall be able to consider this not only according to the mysteries of the truth, but according to the truth of the mystery, will foresee that this comes to pass in the very washing of holy regeneration. For what is done in the sacrament of holy baptism, except that believers may become members of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may belong by ecclesiastical unity to the frame of his body? For to them the blessed Apostle says: 'You are the body of Christ, and members of a member' (1 Cor. 12:27).
Whom he shows to be not only partakers of the sacrifice itself, but the holy sacrifice itself, when he bids them present themselves to God as a living victim, humbly, saying: 'I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living victim, holy, pleasing to God' (Rom. 12:1). Which holy Peter likewise teaching, says: 'And you also, as living stones, be built up into spiritual houses, into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual victims acceptable to God through Jesus Christ' (1 Pet. 2:5). Whence the blessed Paul, when he had said in a certain place: 'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?'
and the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord?' (1 Cor. 10:16). In order to show that we ourselves are that true bread and true body, he immediately subjoined: 'Because we, being many, are one bread, one body, all we who partake of the one bread' (1 Cor. 10:17). Whence in another place he says: 'One body and one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling' (Eph. 4:4). And again: 'But doing the truth in charity, let us grow up in him in all things, who is the head, Christ. From whom the whole body, compacted and knit together by every joint of supply, according to the working in the measure of each single member, makes the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in charity' (Eph. 4:15-16).
For confirming also that we are the flesh of the Lord, he says: 'For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as also Christ the Church: because we are members of his body, and of his bones' (Eph. 5:29-30). Wherefore, since we, being many, are one bread and one body, then each one begins to be a partaker of that one bread, when he has begun to be a member of that one body; which, in each of its several members, when in baptism it is joined to Christ the head, then indeed is truly offered to God as a living victim. For by that gift of birth it becomes a sacrifice, just as it becomes a temple. Which the blessed Apostle teaching, says: 'Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?' (1 Cor.
3:16). He therefore who becomes a member of the body of Christ, how does he not receive what he himself becomes? — seeing that he assuredly becomes the true member of that body whose sacrament is in the sacrifice. This, then, that man becomes by the regeneration of holy baptism, which he is to receive from the sacrifice of the altar. Which we know that the holy Fathers also believed and taught without doubt. The blessed Augustine likewise made a sermon on this matter, exceedingly clear, and apt for the edification and instruction of the faithful. Which whole sermon I have preferred to append to the letter, because it is neither prolix, and in its very brevity is full of great instruction and sweetness.
'This which you see upon the altar of God, you saw also on the past night, but what it was, what it meant, how great a thing's sacrament it contained, you have not yet heard. What therefore you see is bread and the cup; which your very eyes report to you. But what your faith demands to be instructed: the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ. This indeed has been said briefly, which may perhaps suffice for faith; but faith desires instruction. For the prophet says: Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Isa. 7:9). You can therefore now say to me: You have bidden that we believe; explain, that we may understand. For such a thought can arise in anyone's mind.'
'Our Lord Jesus Christ — we know whence he took flesh: from the Virgin Mary. As an infant he was suckled, was nourished, grew, was brought to the age of youth, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung upon the wood, was slain on the wood, was taken down from the wood, was buried, on the third day rose again, on the day he willed ascended into heaven. Thither he raised his body, whence he is to come to judge the living and the dead. There he is now sitting at the right hand of the Father. How is the bread his body, and the cup, or what the cup holds, how is it his blood? These things, brethren, are called sacraments for this reason, because in them one thing is seen, another understood.'
'What is seen has a bodily appearance; what is understood has a spiritual fruit. If therefore you wish to understand the body of Christ, hear the Apostle saying to the faithful: You are the body of Christ and members (1 Cor. 12:27). If then you are the body of Christ and members, your mystery is placed upon the table of the Lord: you receive the mystery of the Lord. To that which you are, you answer Amen, and in answering you subscribe. You hear then, The body of Christ, and you answer Amen. Be a member of the body of Christ, that the Amen may be true. Why then in bread? Let us assert nothing here of our own; let us hear the Apostle himself again. For when he was speaking of this sacrament, he said: One bread, one body, being many, are we. Understand, and rejoice.'
'Unity, piety, truth, charity — one bread, one body, being many, are we (1 Cor. 10:17). For recall that bread is not made of one grain, but of many. When you were being exorcised, you were as it were being ground; when you were baptized, you were as it were moistened; when you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were as it were baked. Be what you see, and receive what you are. This the Apostle said of the bread; now what we should understand of the cup, even this saying sufficiently shows. For just as, that there may be the visible appearance of bread, many grains are moistened into one; as though that should come to pass which holy Scripture says of the faithful: They had one soul and one heart toward God (Acts 4:32); so also of the wine, brethren, recall whence it is one.'
'Many grapes hang on the cluster, but the liquor of the grapes is blended into unity. So the Lord Jesus Christ signified us, willed us to belong to him; he consecrated on his table the mystery of our peace and unity. He who receives the mystery of unity, and does not keep (var. hold) the bond of peace, receives not the mystery for himself, but a testimony against himself.'
I judge, holy brother, that our discussion, confirmed by the sermon of the illustrious teacher Augustine, leaves no room whatsoever for anyone to doubt that each of the faithful then becomes a partaker of the Lord's body and blood, when in baptism he is made a member of the body of Christ; nor is he estranged from that fellowship of the bread and cup, even if, before he eats that bread and drinks that cup, he departs from this world established in the unity of the body of Christ. For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of that sacrament, when he himself is found to be that which that sacrament signifies. Pray for us always, quickened and strong in Christ, holy and venerable brother. LETTER XIII.
Ferrandus to Fulgentius, proposing five questions. To the most blessed lord, and holy one to be regarded with all veneration, Father FULGENTIUS the bishop, FERRANDUS the deacon, greeting in the Lord. Often have I wished to ask many things with the affection of one desiring to learn, but the rarity of carriers, owing to the length of the journey, has prevented me from addressing my absent master by frequent letters. Whence now, admonished by the benefit of the present occasion, I have gathered into one what I could, and to be better expanded by your reply I briefly inquire; asking and beseeching Christ, from whom within you hear what you may teach without, that you would truly tell me:
Whether the Trinity, inseparable on account of one and the same nature, operation, and will, ought to be said to have separable persons, or whether even in its persons it is to be proclaimed altogether inseparable. Or, whether, just as the Son of God is said to have been born, to have suffered, to have died, to have been crucified, so we ought to affirm his divinity to have been born, to have suffered, to have died, to have been crucified: although, whether he be named God, or divinity, the flesh alone is to be understood as mutable and passible, according to which God or the divinity could suffer that which in his own nature he could not.
Thirdly I further inquire, whether the soul of Christ has altogether full knowledge of the Deity that took it up, and whether, just as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit know one another, so the same Son knows himself, through that which he is as man, in that which he is as God, comprehending the whole Father from each and in each substance. Or perhaps, just as with bodily eyes it in no way sees God the Spirit — lest dignity be believed not to have been added to man, but nature to have been utterly changed — so, with however pious an understanding and a most pure heart of the rational soul, the whole essence of divinity is neither seen nor comprehended, lest any creature whatsoever be found to comprehend the Creator. Suffer me, I beseech you, to inquire again:
For I wish to set forth several things at once, since there is no occasion here to inquire about each one separately. We believe and confess one kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, perceiving that they rule together over all creatures. Why then, in the prayers of the priests, throughout nearly all the regions of Africa, has the Catholic Church been accustomed to say, 'through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit'? As though the Son alone possessed the kingdom together with the Father; so that by the phrase 'in the unity of the Holy Spirit' the Holy Spirit is implied to unite those who reign, rather than to reign together with them.
Answer these things, I pray, speedily, and feed with the sweetest honey of heavenly discourse one who inquires in unpolished speech about matters unknown to him. Clarify also this: what is the meaning of the fact that Luke the Evangelist, when about to narrate the Lord's Supper, says first that He took the cup and immediately handed it to the disciples to be divided among themselves; and then afterward, having taken bread, said, 'This is my body'; and likewise, after He had supped, having taken the cup, then said, 'This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is poured out for you' (Luke 22:17ff.). Was one and the same cup given a second time, or was one given first and another afterward?