The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones

Augustine of Hippo, 411-412 AD

Introduction

Revisions II, 33 (60)

The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones: Three Books for Marcellinus

An urgent concern also arose which forced me to write against the new Pelagian heresy. Earlier we were opposing it, when there was need, not in writing, but by sermons and conferences, as each of us was able and ought to have. After there had been sent to me from Carthage some questions of theirs which I was to resolve by written reply, I first wrote three books, the title of which is The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins.

In them the discussion focused principally on the baptism of little ones on account of original sin and on the grace of God by which we are justified, that is, become righteous, even though in this life none so observe the commandments enjoining righteousness that they have no need to say in prayer for their own sins, "Forgive us our debts" (Matthew 7:12). With views opposed to all of these, they founded a new heresy.

In these books I still thought that I should not mention their names, in the hope that they could be more easily corrected. In fact, in the third book, which is a letter, but included among my books on account of the two to which I thought it should be joined, I mentioned the name of Pelagius with a certain amount of praise, because many spoke well of his life, and I refuted those statements which he did not set forth in his writings in his own name, but which he presented as what others were saying. Yet later, when he had become a heretic, he defended these ideas with a strong streak of stubbornness. On account of such statements, however, Caelestius, his disciple, had deserved excommunication before the episcopal tribunal at Carthage, at which I myself was not present.

In the second book, I said in a certain place that it will be granted to some people in the end that they will not feel death because of a swift transformation, for I was saving room for a more careful examination of this matter. After all, either they will not die, or by passing from this life to death and from death to eternal life by a very swift transformation, as in the blink of an eye, they will not feel death.

This work begins: Quamvis in mediis et magnis curarum aestibus (Although amid great and intense waves of worry).

Historical Background

Augustine began his first work against the Pelagians, The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sin and the Baptism of Little Ones, soon after Caelestius, the disciple of Pelagius, was condemned by the Council of Carthage in the late fall of 411 or early in 412. As the opening paragraph tells us, the immediate occasion of the work was a letter from the tribune, Flavius Marcellinus, asking Augustine to answer a series of questions. Though the letter from Marcellinus has not been preserved, the first paragraph of Book Three indicates that Marcellinus' chief concern was with the baptism of little ones and that this concern led him to ask Augustine to answer those who held (1) "that, even if he had not sinned, Adam would have died," (2) "that nothing passed to his descendants as a result of his sin by the process of generation," and (3) "that in this life there are and have been and will be human beings who have absolutely no sin."

In Book One Augustine responds to the first two propositions, while he spends all of Book Two on the third proposition, to which he returns in The Spirit and the Letter, because Marcellinus found it baffling that Augustine had maintained both that it is possible that human beings be completely free from sin and that apart from Christ there is no example of such human sinlessness. The second proposition reported to Augustine by Marcellinus obviously denies any inherited sin contracted from Adam by generation such that even newly born infants require baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The third proposition, which Augustine distinguishes into four separate questions, also denies any inherited sin, at least insofar as it maintains that there actually have been, are, or will be people who have no sin whatsoever at any time in their lives.

In the months following the fall of Rome to Alaric's Goths on 24 August 410, Pelagius passed through North Africa on his way from Rome to Jerusalem, landing at Hippo and soon leaving for Carthage. Augustine mentions in The Deeds of Pelagius 22, 46 that he saw him several times from a distance, but the two apparently never met. Pelagius' disciple, Caelestius, however, remained in Carthage where he disturbed many with his ideas about the abilities of human nature to avoid sin. When he asked to be ordained, he was accused of heresy by the deacon, Paulinus of Milan, formerly secretary to St. Ambrose — a fact of no small interest, since it clearly indicates that the doctrine of original sin did not originate with Augustine, as some historians of theology have maintained.

Caelestius was brought before an episcopal tribunal, where Augustine reports that he refused to condemn those who say "that the sin of Adam harmed him alone and not the human race and that at their birth infants are in that state in which Adam was before his transgression." Under questioning by Paulinus, Caelestius said that he was in doubt about the transmission of sin and claimed that the question was open to debate among Catholics. He could, however, offer only the name of Rufinus, a Roman priest, as one who shared this view with him. This priest was Rufinus the Syrian, whose Profession of Faith (Liber de fide) Augustine cites almost verbatim, though without mentioning the author, in The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins I, 18, 23 and who was reported by Marius Mercator as having introduced this heresy in the Roman Church during the pontificate of Anastasius (399-402). Indeed, by some, Rufinus is regarded as the real founder of Pelagianism. This first Council of Carthage concerned with the Pelagians, which took place after September of 411 and at the latest in January of 412, condemned Caelestius' teaching and excommunicated him. Augustine himself was not present at it, and though he reviewed the acts of the council during a later stay in Carthage, he does not seem to have been familiar with them at the time he wrote the first two books of The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins.

In The Deeds of Pelagius 11, 23, Augustine listed the propositions of Caelestius that were condemned at Carthage after they had been raised as charges against Pelagius at the Council of Diospolis in 415. These propositions which formed the core of the Pelagian teachings are: "Adam was created mortal so that he would die whether he sinned or did not sin." "The sin of Adam harmed him alone and not the human race." "The law leads to the kingdom just as the gospel does." "Before the coming of Christ there were human beings without sin." "Newly born infants are in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression." "The whole human race does not die through the death or transgression of Adam, nor does the whole human race rise through the resurrection of Christ."

Though Caelestius left Africa after being condemned, his followers and those of Pelagius continued to present a problem for the church of Carthage — so much so that Marcellinus wrote to Augustine with a plea for help and by his plea brought him into the controversy against Pelagius and his followers as a writer, though he states in the Revisions II, 33 (60) that he and others had previously combatted the heresy in sermons and conferences.

Marcellinus, the brother of the proconsul Arpingius, had been sent to North Africa in the winter of 411-412 by the emperor Honorius to convoke and preside over a conference between the Catholics and the Donatists and, in general, to supervise ecclesiastical affairs. During the conference with the Donatists held at Carthage in June of 411 Marcellinus had come to know Augustine. Indeed, through their common efforts at Church unity in preparation for and during the conference, a warm friendship grew up between the two men. In a letter written after Marcellinus' execution on 13 September 413, Augustine described him at length in highly laudatory terms; a short excerpt from the letter is sufficient to indicate Augustine's high opinion of his friend:

He lived as a religious man — a Christian in his heart and in his life. This reputation preceded him so that he arrived with it in the cause of the Church; this reputation stayed with him after his arrival. What moral goodness he had, what loyalty in friendship, what zeal for learning, what sincerity in religion! He was chaste in marriage, restrained as a judge, patient toward enemies, warm toward friends, humble toward the saints, loving toward all. He was quick to bestow favors, slow to ask for them; he loved good deeds and was saddened by sins.

Marcellinus appealed for help to Augustine in the winter of 411-412, because, as Augustine recalled, "Many of our weak brothers were being disturbed by these questions and by the assertion of these opinions which are now fiercely argued and heatedly debated everywhere." Indeed, Augustine tells us that Marcellinus was daily enduring the troublesome arguments of those raising these questions so that he consulted the bishop of Hippo by letter, the letter which brought Augustine to write the first of his works against the Pelagians.

Thus, Augustine came to write The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins, the first in the long list of works against "the enemies of the grace of God" that ultimately earned for him the title, "Doctor gratiae: Teacher of Grace." This letter was not, however, the only influence Marcellinus had on Augustine's writing career. His difficulties with Augustine's position in The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins evoked Augustine's second book against the Pelagians, The Spirit and the Letter, and it was again Marcellinus who by another letter to Augustine induced him to write the twenty-two books of his great work, The City of God. Hence, it was a deep personal loss for Augustine when Marcellinus and his brother were executed for their alleged connection with the uprising of Heraclian.

Augustine wrote The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins after the Council of Carthage, hence, after September 411, its earliest possible date. In Letter 139 to Marcellinus written before 28 February 412, Augustine said,

I have forgotten why, after I sent the volume to Your Excellence, I received back from you the books on the baptism of little ones, unless I perhaps found them defective, when I looked at them, and wanted to correct them, but I have still not done so, as I have been incredibly busy. You should know that the letter, which I was also to write for you and add to these, has progressed slightly, but is still unfinished, though I had already begun to dictate it, when I was there [i.e., at Carthage].

Hence, the first two books of The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins were completed — except for final emendations, which may have been extensive — early enough for Augustine to have sent them to Marcellinus, received them back from him, and supposedly forgotten why he received them back by the end of February 412. The third book, which was written as a letter and added to the other two books by reason of its content, was still unfinished at the time of Letter 139. Between the completion of the first two books and the writing of the third, Augustine obtained a copy of Pelagius' Expositions of the Letters of Saint Paul which contained an interpretation of Romans 5:12 of which Augustine had not been previously aware. Realizing that it required its own refutation, Augustine produced the third book of The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins.

The Structure and Contents of the Work

Book One first argues against the claim that Adam would have died, even if he had not sinned (paragraphs 2-8); then it defends the transmission of original sin to Adam's descendants by generation (paragraphs 9-20); finally, it takes up the principal concern of Marcellinus, namely, the purpose of infant baptism (paragraphs 21-61). The question of infant baptism leads Augustine to muster the scriptural texts that show that Christ is the savior and redeemer of the newborn (paragraphs 33-38) and that all human beings need Christ's redemption (paragraphs 39-61). The work is heavily laden with scriptural citations; in fact, approximately one fourth of the words in the translation of the first book are direct quotations from the Bible.

Augustine rejects in paragraphs 2-8 the Pelagian claim that Adam would have died, even if he had not sinned, as contrary to the clear statements of scripture. He does not deny that Adam had a mortal body, but claims that his mortal body would not have aged and suffered death, if he had remained obedient to God's commandment.

Marcellinus had reported to Augustine that those people who had aroused his concern had distorted the sense of Romans 5:12, but he did not indicate how they had interpreted the text. In paragraph 9, Augustine explains that he has tried to discover how they interpreted the passage and suggests that they held that Paul was referring to the death of the soul that is sin itself and that they maintained that sin was passed on to all human beings, not by propagation, but by imitation. Pelagius had, in fact, written in his commentary on Romans, "As by the example of Adam's disobedience many sinned, so too by the obedience of Christ many are justified." In opposition to the view that Adam's sin has been transmitted to all of Adam's descendants by imitation, Augustine sets out to prove that sin has passed to all by generation. It is here that Augustine uses for the first time in his writings the expression "original sin" to refer to the sinful condition in which human beings are born as the result of Adam's sin.

His Old Latin version of Romans 5:12 omitted the word "death" so that "sin" was understood as the subject of "was passed on to all human beings." Hence, in Romans 5:12 Augustine believed that he had a clear statement of sin's transmission to all human beings. Furthermore, his Latin text seemed to say that all sinned either in Adam or in Adam's sin, though neither reading is accepted by modern exegetes.

In paragraphs 12-20 Augustine continues his explanation of Romans 5, clarifying the roles of the law, of sin, and of grace, a theme to which he will return again and again and to which he devoted the whole of The Spirit and the Letter. The fact that all human beings are born with the guilt of Adam's sin explains the need for baptism for the forgiveness of sins, even in the case of newly born infants. In paragraph 21 Augustine states that infants who die without baptism will be subject to condemnation, though theirs will be the mildest punishment of all. Augustine is adamant (paragraph 22) in his denial that infants have any personal sins for which they need baptism. He cites in paragraph 23 a passage almost verbatim from Rufinus the Syrian's Liber de fide, in which Rufinus claimed that infants are baptized, not so that their sins might be forgiven, but so that they might be spiritually created in Christ and attain a share in the kingdom of heaven. Augustine indicates in paragraph 24 that some appealed to the Lord's statement in Matthew 19:14 that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the little ones. Though Augustine wavers between taking these little ones as an example of humility and seeing them as already made righteous by baptism, he insists in accord with Luke 5:32 that Christ either did not come to call them or that they were sinners. Just as they cannot as yet profess the faith in their own words but are counted as believers by reason of the words of their parents or sponsors, so they express their repentance by reason of the words of those who make the renunciations for them (paragraph 25).

The Pelagians wanted to grant to unbaptized infants salvation and eternal life, even though they accepted the Lord's words in John 3:3.5 which excluded them from the kingdom of God or of heaven. Against this view Augustine appeals in paragraphs 26-27 to words of the Lord, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you" (John 6:54), and maintains that those words apply to little ones, since in Augustine's time little ones received the Eucharist at their baptism, as is still the practice in Eastern churches. So too, in paragraphs 28-29 he appeals to John 3:35-36, arguing that either the little ones are to be counted as believers in the Son or they will not have life, but the anger of God will remain over them. Yet, when it comes to the question of why one infant dies after baptism and another dies without it, Augustine can only point to Paul's cry, "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God" (Romans 11:33).

To the Pelagian complaint that it is unjust to deprive unbaptized little ones of both the kingdom and eternal life, Augustine asks them how it is just on their view to deprive an unbaptized infant of the kingdom of heaven (paragraph 30).

An alternative explanation of the fact that human beings are born sinful claimed that preexistent souls sinned in their heavenly dwelling and, as punishment, came down to bodies appropriate to their merits. Such was the view attributed to Origen, and such was the view that Augustine himself seems at some point to have held. In paragraph 31 Augustine flatly rejects any prenatal sin on the basis of Romans 9:11-12, in which Paul rejects as an explanation of the election of Jacob and rejection of Esau their having done anything either good or bad before they were born. Augustine points out that the appeal to prenatal sin does not, in any case, solve the mystery of divine election and that its proponents are left to cry out, "O the depth" (Romans 11:33), when confronted with a good person who lives where he is unable to receive baptism, while a sinner is baptized and dies. In paragraph 32 Augustine produces examples meant to counter the theory that souls are more heavily weighed down by earthly bodies in proportion to the gravity of their prenatal sin; he points, for example, to the simple-minded whose affliction should, according to the theory, have been due to their grave prenatal sin, but who are baptized and live good Christian lives.

Hence, Augustine urges the Pelagians to assent to the authority of scripture (paragraph 33) which proclaims Christ as physician, as savior, and as redeemer for little ones as well as for adults. He points to the practice of Punic Christians who refer to baptism as salvation and who call the Eucharist life (paragraph 34), again insisting that they are salvation and life for little ones as well as for adults and that, if little ones were not sinners, they would not need salvation and life.

Christ came as light so that everyone who believes in him might not remain in the darkness, according to John 12:46; hence, Augustine argues that, if the little ones are not numbered among believers, they remain in that darkness. Some people, Augustine tells us in paragraphs 36-38, interpret John 1:19 as implying that every human being is enlightened by the true light at birth, though they admit that we still need baptism in order to attain the kingdom of God. After distinguishing various meanings of enlightenment, Augustine insists that the enlightenment of the gift of faith is given only in baptism by which the little ones become believers.

In paragraphs 39-56, Augustine amasses a series of scripture texts on Christ as redeemer and our participation through baptism in the salvation and redemption he has brought. The transmission of original sin through generation leads him to distinguish in paragraph 57 between the good use of sexual desire in marriage for the procreation of children and concupiscence itself, which is an evil. In paragraphs 58-62 he returns to scripture and develops the theology of baptism and union with Christ found in the crucial third chapter of John's gospel. He points out in paragraph 63 that the very form of baptism with its exorcism, renunciations, and profession of faith indicates that a little one is baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Well aware that not all those against whom he is arguing hold the same views, Augustine notes in paragraph 64 that some in the Pelagian camp maintain that infants are sinless so that baptism for the forgiveness of sin is a fraud, while others hold that sins are forgiven, but claim that infants have committed personal sins. Augustine regards the supposition that infants sin in their own lives immediately after birth as absurd and describes the darkness of their ignorance in paragraphs 65-69. Finally, in paragraph 70 he concludes the first book with the claim that, though all sins are forgiven in baptism, concupiscence remains. The fact that concupiscence remains leads into the question of the second book.

At the beginning of Book Two, Augustine turns to the third point raised by Marcellinus' letter, namely, whether there has been, is now, or will be anyone in this life, apart from Christ, who has no sin whatsoever. In paragraph 2 he indicates that the words of the Lord's Prayer, "And bring us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13), point to our need for God's help if we are to overcome temptation. The Pelagians correctly see that we do not sin unless we will to, but they fail to see that we need the full strength of the will if we are to avoid sin. However, concupiscence remains, Augustine insists, in paragraph 4, in the body of this death. Though its guilt is removed when infants are baptized, it remains as something against which we must struggle in this life until death is swallowed up in victory. Hence, we pray for the forgiveness of our sins and ask not to be brought into temptation, because we have lost our strength and need to be healed from the wounds of sin. As a result, Augustine claims in paragraphs 5-6 that we cannot do what is right without God's help and need to pray that God will grant what he commands. Otherwise, we would be like the Pharisee who thought he had already attained perfection and did not ask for God's help to grow in righteousness.

Augustine then turns in paragraph 7 to the principal topic of Book Two: whether human beings can attain or have attained sinlessness (impeccantia). He divides the topic into four questions: (1) Can human beings be sinless in this life? (2) Is there actually someone without sin? (3) Why are no human beings without sin, though a sinless life is possible? and (4) Can or could there be a human being who has had or will have absolutely no sin?

To the first question Augustine answers in paragraph 7 that human beings can be without sin in this life "by the grace of God and free choice." He insists, however, that our free choice is God's gift, not merely insofar as it exists, but insofar as it is good. Augustine's answer to the second question (paragraphs 8-25) is considerably longer. Two scripture texts, "No living person will be found righteous in your sight" (Psalms 142:2) and "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8), lead Augustine to a negative answer. The Pelagians, however, appealed to the apparently contrary text, "Those who have been born of God do not sin and cannot sin, because his seed remains in them" (1 John 3:9). In response, Augustine cites many scripture texts to show that our renewal in the Spirit, begun by the full forgiveness of sins in baptism, is at present only partial and needs to be completed as we are renewed from day to day until we attain the fullness of our redemption at the resurrection of our bodies. Thus he is able to counter the objection (paragraph 11) that a righteous person ought to produce a righteous child, just as sinners give birth to sinners, since human beings bear children, not insofar as they are children of God, but insofar as they are still children of this world.

In paragraphs 12-21, Augustine turns to a list of women and men whom scripture describes as righteous: Noah, Daniel, Job, Elizabeth and Zachary, all figures to whom the Pelagians appealed. Augustine grants that they were righteous and beyond reproach, but argues that they were not sinless. Even Paul, in fact, had not attained perfection. Though we are commanded to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, no one actually attains perfect sinlessness in this life. In paragraph 22 Augustine shows from Paul that Christians can in this life be perfect in one respect and yet lack perfection in another. He argues in paragraph 23 that God commands us to be sinless, though he foreknows that we will sin, just as he gave Adam and Eve the commandment about not eating the fruit of the tree, though he foreknew they would sin. Even Paul, who fought the good fight, ran the race, and kept the faith, had not yet attained perfect sinlessness; rather, because of his firm hope he spoke as though he had attained what still lay ahead. Hence, in paragraph 25, Augustine concludes this section by granting that there were many outstandingly holy women and men, but none of them were sinless.

In paragraph 26 Augustine turns to the third question: Why are no human beings in this life without sin, though they can be when God's grace helps their will? Augustine gives a brief answer: Because they do not will to be without sin. But the answer becomes long when the question shifts to the more profound one of why human beings do not will to be without sin. His answer points to their ignorance and weakness: either they do not know what is right or they find no delight in it. For we will something with greater strength in proportion to our certainty about its goodness and our delight in that goodness. In this work, as in others prior to 418, Augustine explains the influence of grace upon the human will in terms of God's providing knowledge and causing delight in the known good, not in terms of his acting directly upon the will. Thus, in paragraph 27 he says, "Hence, at one moment a person has the knowledge to undertake, perform, and complete a good deed; at another one does not. At one moment a person finds delight in this; at another one does not." Whatever good we human beings have, we have received, Augustine insists following 1 Corinthians 4:7. Yet, we must not "defend grace in such a way that we seem to destroy free choice" and must not "stress free choice in such a way that we are judged ungrateful to the grace of God..." (paragraph 28). If one attributes to God whatever good will we have, just because he has given us our existence, without which the good will could not exist, then we would be forced to attribute our bad will to him for the same reason (paragraph 29). Hence, we must attribute to God, not only the natural good of free choice, which we can misuse, but the good will, which we cannot misuse (paragraph 30).

Though we can turn away from God by our own evil will, we cannot turn back to him except by a good will which we cannot have without his help (paragraph 31). Yet, why God turns back to himself some and not others lies hidden in God's plan (paragraph 32). When we pray for God's help to do what is right, we ask "that he disclose what was hidden and that he make attractive what was not pleasing" (paragraph 33). Even God's holy people are at times healed of their defects more slowly so that "the good attracts them less than suffices for accomplishing what is right, whether it remains hidden from them or it is already clearly seen" (paragraph 33).

At last, Augustine turns in paragraph 34 to his fourth question: whether there can or could ever be a completely sinless human being. Augustine's first question had asked about the possibility of human sinlessness as something that can be brought about in this life by the help of God's grace. The present question asks whether any human beings could be absolutely free from sin in their whole lives so that they were not merely free from all personal sins, but also from original sin. Hence, since all human beings apart from the one mediator between God and human beings enter this world with original sin, the question can only be answered in the negative.

In paragraphs 35-36, Augustine turns to the story of the fall and stresses that the sin of Adam and Eve was a sin of disobedience and that, as a result of their disobedience, they came to experience the disobedience of their flesh, which Augustine sees most clearly exemplified in involuntary sexual arousal. Augustine argues (paragraph 37) that from their sinful flesh our sinful flesh is born that needs purification by the sacrament of Christ. He was born, not in sinful flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh, so that we who are born in sinful flesh might be reborn as children of God (paragraph 38).

In paragraphs 39-40 Augustine argues that even a child of baptized parents needs to be baptized, fending off the claim that children of baptized parents receive baptism in their parents' bodies, as Levi received tithes from Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham. So too, Augustine argues against the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14 as implying that children of believers have a cleanness and holiness that replaces the need for baptism; he shows that there are various kinds of sanctification, such as that conferred by the imposition of hands upon a catechumen, which do not dispense from the need for baptism (paragraphs 41-42). Again, Augustine tries to explain the need for children of the baptized parents to be baptized, insisting in paragraph 43 that the sacrament of rebirth presupposes birth so that unborn children cannot be reborn in their baptized parents. Augustine struggles to explain why, despite the fact that parents receive the full forgiveness of their sins in baptism, they beget offspring with the guilt of original sin (paragraph 44). Again, he explains in paragraph 45 that concupiscence remains in the baptized, not as something that needs forgiveness, but as something to be overcome with the help of grace and eventually destroyed in the resurrection of the body. But from the moment of Adam's sin until the end of this carnal generation, no human being is entirely free from all sin apart from the one mediator, and he is the one savior of both little ones and adults (paragraph 47-48).

Augustine turns in paragraph 49 to another Pelagian objection, namely that, if Adam's sin caused us to die, then those who believe in Christ should not die, since Adam's sin did not produce more harm than Christ's coming produced good. He replies that Adam's sin has indeed brought about bodily death for all, but that Christ has brought us redemption and resurrection to endless life. Christ could have exempted believers from bodily death, but that would have removed from faith its challenge and its merit (paragraphs 50-51). So too, the Lord performed miracles when faith was in its infancy, but faith is stronger to the extent that it does not rely on such things (paragraph 52).

A similar objection argues that, if death came from sin, we should no longer die once we have our sins forgiven in baptism (paragraph 53). Augustine answers that, though the guilt of sin has been removed, some of the penalties of sin remain to try us in the struggle of life. Death remains for us so that through faith we can conquer the fear of death (paragraph 54). After their dismissal from paradise, the sinful flesh of Adam and Eve needed to be taught obedience through labors, even though their sin was forgiven (paragraph 55). The fact that David suffered punishment for his sin, even though the sin was forgiven, confirms the same point (paragraph 56).

Hence, Augustine urges his reader in paragraph 57 to hold to the rule of faith that only Christ was born without any sin and to cling to the middle path, neither claiming to be without sin nor simply abandoning oneself to sin. Augustine brings the book to a close by pointing out that the Pelagian concession that little ones need redemption should really lead them to see that even little ones have sin and, therefore, need Christ's salvation and redemption.

The work had originally ended with the second book. However, no sooner had Augustine completed the first two books than he came upon Pelagius' Exposition of Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans, as he explains to Marcellinus in the beginning of the third book. In it he found a new argument against the transmission of sin. Hence, Augustine adds the third book as a letter to Marcellinus; his sole objective in it is the refutation of the interpretation of Romans 5:12, which Pelagius reports as the thought of those who oppose the transmission of sin, not as his own position. Here Pelagius is for the first time mentioned by name, though Augustine refers to him as "a holy man" (paragraph 1) and "a fine and praiseworthy man, as those who know him say" (paragraph 5).

The new argument found in Pelagius' work sets out to reduce to absurdity the idea that Adam's sin harmed those who did not themselves sin; it claims that, if Adam's sin harmed those who did not sin, then Christ's righteousness ought to benefit even those who do not believe (paragraph 2). It is, however, clear that Christ's righteousness does not benefit those who do not believe. Hence, the objectors would have us conclude that Adam's sin did not harm those who did not themselves sin, especially since the grace of Christ by far surpasses Adam's sin, as Paul assures us in Romans 5:15.

In his reply Augustine latches onto the argument's concession that Christ's righteousness does benefit baptized little ones. He appeals to their Christian faith that Christ's righteousness can benefit only believers. Hence, he concludes that little ones must be included among believers. "Just as by the responses of those through whom they are reborn the Spirit of righteousness gives them a faith which they could not have by their own will, so the sinful flesh of those through whom they are born gives them a guilt which they have not yet contracted in their own life" (paragraph 2). However, since Mark 16:16 is clear that those who do not believe and are not baptized will be condemned, little ones could not be justly condemned if they did not have original sin, since they have no personal sin (paragraph 3).

In paragraphs 5-6 Augustine is careful to note that Pelagius merely reports the views of others in his commentary on Romans and does not present these arguments in his own name. Augustine tries to put the best interpretation he can on Pelagius' procedure so that he does not at this point condemn him personally, though he clearly sees that the opinions and views Pelagius reports are opposed to the Christian faith.

In the face of the reported claims that Romans 5:12 is not clear, Augustine insists that texts that one finds unclear should be interpreted in the light of those which are perfectly clear (paragraph 7) and appeals to John 3:5, Matthew 1:21, and Matthew 9:12 as texts that clearly show the need for baptism and the roles of Jesus as savior and physician (paragraph 8). On the other hand, he is unwilling to concede that there is anything ambiguous in the passage from Romans except for Romans 5:14 in which Adam is said to be the form of what is to come — a text which both he and Pelagius interpreted in different ways.

In paragraphs 10-14 Augustine offers several citations from Cyprian's Letter 64, as well as from two of Jerome's writings, to show that it is the ancient tradition of the Church that infants are to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, which in their case can only be the sin inherited from Adam, since they are obviously incapable of personal sin. Since Jerome is a contemporary, the proof from the Church's ancient tradition really amounts to the letter of Cyprian alone. It was not until 418 that Augustine appealed to Ambrose in support of his view on original sin. On the other hand, Augustine is confident that, if he only had the opportunity to question a man of immense learning like Jerome, he would have been able to supply further evidence. In any case the canonical books are clear and authoritative; Romans 5:12 states that all sinned in Adam, "when they were all still that one man in virtue of that power implanted in his nature by which he was able to beget them." Through this presence of the whole race in Adam when he sinned, Augustine explains that little ones share in Adam's guilt, even though they were not yet living their own lives.

In paragraphs 15-18 Augustine turns to a series of three objections drawn from Pelagius' Exposition of Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans. The first objection argues that, if God forgives personal sins, he surely will not hold one guilty of the sin of another, i.e., of Adam's sin. Augustine answers that what was once Adam's sin becomes ours when we are born. The second objection argues that baptized parents cannot pass on to their children the sin they no longer have. Along with complaints about the ignorance of those who ask such questions, Augustine appeals to a pair of analogies: One, the son of a circumcised father is born uncircumcised, and two, wheat grown from grains from which the chaff has been removed grows with chaff. Augustine says that, if he were arguing against people who rejected the necessity of baptism, he would use such arguments to show the need for baptism. But since the Pelagians with whom he is arguing grant the necessity of baptism, though not for the forgiveness of sins, he argues that even they must admit that the children of Christian parents are not born Christians. The third objection drawn from Pelagius argues that, if the soul of the newborn did not come from Adam by generation, it is unjust that the soul bears the sin of Adam. Augustine notes the wariness of the objector with regard to the difficult question of the soul's origin and replies with an equal wariness, challenging the objector to show the justice in a newly born child's suffering bodily pains and torment from demons. And finally, in paragraphs 19-23, he offers a summary of the whole work and brings it to an end. He emphasizes the centrality of three passages from Paul, namely, Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, and 1 Corinthians 15:54-56, for showing that our being subject to bodily death is punishment for Adam's sin and that the sinfulness with which we are born is the inherited result of Adam's sin. Hence, even newly born infants need Christ's baptism for the forgiveness of sin, and there exists no human being — apart from Jesus Christ — who has been, is, or will be completely sinless.

The Pelagian Sources

In I, 34, 63, Augustine refers to "a brief memo: libellus brevissimus" (a very short document) which contains the view that infants receive redemption from baptism, if not the remission of sin. Scholars generally agree that this "memo" is the document which Caelestius submitted in his own defense to the Council of Carthage in 411 or 412. Once Augustine cites almost verbatim the Liber de fide of Rufinus the Syrian, who has been called the real founder of Pelagianism. F. Refoule has also pointed out a series of verbal parallels between statements from this work by Rufinus and the positions to which Augustine replies in the first thirty-four chapters of Book One. By the time of the third book Augustine obviously had come upon Pelagius' Expositions of the Letters of Saint Paul which he cites frequently.

The Text and Previous Translations

The text translated is that of C. F. Urba and J. Zycha in CSEL 60 (Vienna, 1913), 3-151. I have also at times adopted the emendations to the text suggested in the ALG edition. The work has been previously translated into English by P. Holmes in NPNF 5/1 (New York, 1887; repr. 1971), 15-78. In the present century it has also been translated into Spanish by V. Capanaga in BAC 79 (Madrid, 1952), 200-439; into German by A. Fingerle in ALG I (Wurzburg, 1964), 54-301; and into Italian by I. Volpi in NBA 17/1 (Rome, 1981), 15-239.

Book One

[1] We are pressed on all sides by the worries and concerns we have over sinners who abandon God's law, though we count them as punishments for our own sins. I did not, nonetheless, want to be and, to tell you the truth, I could not endure to be any longer indebted to your zeal, Marcellinus, for it makes you very dear and pleasing to us. We are, in fact, compelled either by the love which makes us one in the immutable One, as we are being transformed for the better, or by the fear of offending God in you. For he has given you this desire, and by serving you I serve him who has given it to you. I am so compelled, as I said, so pulled and drawn, to solve as best I can, given my modest abilities, these questions which you posed, when you wrote to me. In fact, this matter has presently driven all the others from my mind, until I produce something that proves that I have been of service, if not sufficiently, at least obediently, to your good desire and that of those who are worried about these matters.

If Adam Had Not Sinned, He Would Not Have Died

[2] These people say, "Adam was created so that he would die, even if he did not sin, not as a punishment for his guilt, but by the necessity of his nature." They, of course, try to take the words of the law, "On the day that you eat, you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17), as referring, not to the death of the body, but to the death of the soul that occurs when one sins. The Lord indicated that unbelievers had died the latter sort of death, when he said of them, "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60). What reply, then, will they make, when they read that, by way of rebuke and condemnation, God also said to the first man after his sin, "You are earth, and you will return to earth" (Genesis 3:19). After all, it was obviously his body that was earth, not his soul, and it was by the death of that body that he was going to return to earth. He was surely earth in terms of his body and bore the animal body in which he was created; nonetheless, if he had not sinned, he was going to be changed into a spiritual body and pass into the state of incorruption, which is promised to believers and saints, without suffering the punishment of death. We not only experience in ourselves a desire for that state, but we also acknowledge it because of the apostle's statement. He says, "In this body we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, if only we might be found clothed and not naked. We who are in this present dwelling groan in our distress, for we do not want to be stripped, but to be clothed over with immortality and incorruption, so that what is mortal might be swallowed up by life" (2 Corinthians 5:2-4). Accordingly, if Adam had not sinned, he was not going to be stripped of his body; rather, he was going to be clothed over with immortality and incorruption so that what was mortal might be swallowed up by life, that is, that he might pass from an animal to a spiritual body.

[3] There was, after all, no need to fear that, if he lived here in his animal body for a long time, he would be burdened by old age and gradually come to die by growing old. God kept the clothes and shoes of the Israelites from wearing out during those many years. Why should we be surprised if the power of the same God would grant to the first man, if he remained obedient, that, though he had an animal, that is, a mortal body, he would enjoy in it a state that would allow him to live for many years without any diminishment? And then at the time God willed, he would pass from mortality to immortality without death intervening. For, just as this flesh which we now have is not invulnerable, simply because it need not suffer a wound, so Adam's flesh was not immortal, simply because it did not need to die. In my opinion, those who were taken from this life without dying were granted such a condition while still in their animal and mortal body. Henoch and Elijah, after all, have not during their long life deteriorated by reason of old age, and I do not believe that they were transformed into that spiritual sort of body that we are promised at the resurrection, because the Lord was the first to have that sort of body. Perhaps they have no need of these earthly foods which restore us as they are consumed, but from the time that they were carried off, they continue to live and are satisfied, just as Elijah was during those forty days when he survived on a cup of water and piece of bread. Or, if there was need of earthly foods, these men are perhaps fed in paradise, as Adam was before he deserved to leave there because of his sin. As I see it, he received refreshment against deterioration from the fruits of the trees and stability against old age from the tree of life.

Adam's Sin Is the Cause of Bodily Death

[4] I do not know how the words, "You are earth, and you will return to earth" (Genesis 3:19), can be interpreted except as referring to bodily death. But besides this passage which the Lord spoke while imposing punishment, there are other testimonies which make it perfectly clear that the human race earned death, not merely death of the spirit, but also death of the body. The apostle says to the Romans, "But if Christ is in you, the body is indeed dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account of righteousness. If then the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will bring to life even your mortal bodies through his Spirit dwelling in you" (Romans 8:10-11). I do not believe that so clear and so obvious a statement needs anyone to interpret it; it merely needs someone to read it. He says, "The body is dead," not on account of its earthly frailness, because it has been made from the dust of the earth, but "on account of sin" (Romans 8:10). What more could we want? He was most careful not to say, "mortal," but "dead."

[5] After all, the body could be mortal without being destined to die, before being changed into that state of incorruption which is promised to the saints at the resurrection. So too, this body of ours can be, so to speak, liable to illness, without being destined to become ill. After all, is there anyone who has flesh that cannot become ill, even if in a particular case the person dies before becoming ill? So too, that body was already mortal. The transformation into the state of eternal incorruption would have swallowed up this mortality, if righteousness, that is, obedience, had lasted in the man, but the mortal body experienced death only on account of sin. That transformation in the future resurrection is not only not going to have any death, for death came about on account of sin; it is also not going to have any mortality of the sort that the animal body had before sin. Hence, Paul did not say, "He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also bring to life your dead bodies," though he had said "dead body" above. Rather, he said, "He will bring to life even your mortal bodies" (Romans 8:11). That is, he will not only make them to be not dead, but not mortal, when the animal body rises as spiritual and this mortal body dons immortality and what is mortal is swallowed up by life.

[6] I am amazed that anyone wants something clearer than this clear statement. But perhaps one should listen to what they say in opposition to this clarity. They say that we should understand that the body is dead in the sense in which scripture said, "Put to death your earthly members" (Colossians 3:5). In this sense, however, the body is put to death on account of righteousness, not on account of sin. After all, we put to death our earthly members in order that we might act with righteousness. Or, they might suppose that "on account of sin" was added, so that we might understand not: "because sin was committed," but: "so that sin might not be committed." Then scripture would mean that the body is dead so that we do not commit sin. But then what did he mean, when after adding, "but the spirit is life," he went on to say, "on account of righteousness"? (Romans 8:10). After all, it was enough to mention the life of the spirit, so that one would understand here too, "so that sin might not be committed." Then we would understand that each of them has a single purpose: both the body is dead and the spirit is life so that sin might not be committed. Thus, even if he wanted merely to say, "on account of righteousness," that is, on account of acting righteously, each of them could refer to this. That is, both the body is dead and the spirit is life on account of acting righteously. But he in fact said that the body is dead on account of sin and the spirit is life on account of righteousness, assigning different recompenses to different things: to the body of death the punishment of sin, but to the life of the spirit the reward of righteousness. Hence, it is beyond doubt that "the spirit is life on account of righteousness" (Romans 8:10), that is, as a reward of righteousness. How else then ought we or can we understand the words, "the body is dead on account of sin," except as the punishment of sin, unless, of course, we are going to try to twist and distort the perfectly clear meaning of scripture as we choose? The following words also throw light on this. In describing the grace of the present era, he said that the body was indeed dead on account of sin, because the punishment of sin, that is, the necessity of death, remains in the body which has not yet been renewed by the resurrection. But the spirit is life on account of righteousness, because, although we are still burdened by the body of this death (Romans 7:24), we already breathe more easily in terms of the interior human being (Romans 7:22), since we have begun to be renewed in the righteousness that comes from faith. Nonetheless, so that human ignorance might not be without any hope for the resurrection of the body, he says that the very body which he called dead in the present world on account of the punishment of sin will be brought to life in the world to come on account of the reward of righteousness. And it will be brought to life, not merely in the sense that it will become alive after being dead, but in the sense that it will become immortal after being mortal.

[7] I am afraid that an explanation may simply obscure something that is quite clear, but pay attention to the light found in the apostle's words. He says, "But if Christ is in you, the body is indeed dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account of righteousness" (Romans 8:10). He said this so that people would not suppose that they had little or no benefit from the grace of Christ, since they were necessarily going to die a bodily death. They ought, of course, to be aware that the body still bears the punishment of sin, because it is subject to death, but that the spirit has already begun to live because of the righteousness of faith, even though the spirit itself had in human beings been extinguished by a sort of death stemming from unbelief. Therefore, you should not, he said, suppose that you have received a small gift by reason of the fact that Christ is present in you, because your spirit lives on account of righteousness in the body that is dead on account of sin. Nor should you give up hope for the life of the body either. "For if the Spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will bring to life even your mortal bodies through his Spirit dwelling in you" (Romans 8:11). Why does the fog of bickering continue to block out such a strong light? The apostle cries out, "The body is indeed dead in you on account of sin, but even your mortal bodies will be brought to life on account of righteousness." On account of that righteousness the spirit is already life, and all of this will be brought about through the grace of Christ, that is, through his Spirit dwelling in you. And yet they cry out against this! Paul even says how it will come about that life will transform death into life by putting it to death. "Therefore, my brothers and sisters," he says, "we owe nothing to the flesh so that we should live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if you put to death the works of the flesh, you will live" (Romans 8:12-13). What else does this mean but this: If you live according to death, the whole of you will die, but if you put death to death by living according to life, the whole of you will live?

[8] Similarly, how can the words, "Death came through a man, and the resurrection of the dead came through a man" (1 Corinthians 15:21), be understood otherwise than as referring to the death of the body? For he said this when he was speaking of the resurrection of the body, and he was arguing for it with great insistence and passion. He said, "Death came through a man, and the resurrection of the dead came through a man. For, just as all die in Adam, so too all will be brought to life in Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). What was he saying to the Corinthians in this passage but what he also said to the Romans: "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death" (Romans 5:12). Those people want to interpret this death, not as the death of the body, but as the death of the soul. They imply that he was saying something else to the Corinthians by the words, "Death came through a man." Here they certainly may not understand the death of the soul, because the passage is dealing with the resurrection of the body, which is just the opposite of the death of the body. He mentioned there only the death that came about through a man and not sin, precisely because he was not dealing with the righteousness which is the opposite of sin, but with the resurrection of the body, which is the opposite of the death of the body.

All Share in Adam's Sin by Generation, Not Merely by Imitation

[9] You have intimated in your letter that they try to twist into a new and different meaning the testimony of the apostle in which he says, "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death" (Romans 5:12). But you have not mentioned what meaning it was that they derived from those words. As far as I have been able to find out from others, this is what they think of that text: The death mentioned in that passage is not the death of the body which they deny Adam merited by sinning; it is, rather, the death of the soul which occurs in the sin itself, and this sin passed from the first man to other human beings not by propagation, but by imitation. Hence, they refuse to believe that in the case of little children original sin is removed by baptism, since they maintain that there is no sin at all in newborns. But if the apostle had wanted to mention the sin that entered this world, not by propagation, but by imitation, he would have called its originator not Adam, but the devil. Of the latter scripture says, "The devil is a sinner from the beginning" (1 John 3:8). We also read regarding him in the Book of Wisdom, "By the hatred of the devil, death entered the world" (Wisdom 2:24). After all, this death came to human beings from the devil, not because they came from him by propagation, but because they imitated him. Hence, it immediately added, "Those who belong to him imitate him" (Wisdom 2:25). Thus, when the apostle mentioned the sin and the death that passed from the one to all by propagation, he made their originator the one from whom the propagation of the human race took its beginning.

[10] Of course, all those who through disobedience transgress God's commandment imitate Adam. But it is one thing for him to be an example for those who sin by their will; it is something else for him to be the origin of those born with sin. After all, the saints also imitate Christ in the pursuit of righteousness. For this reason the same apostle says, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1). But apart from this imitation his grace also produces within us our enlightenment and justification by that action of which his same preacher says, "Neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything; it is, rather, God who gives the increase" (1 Corinthians 3:7). By this grace he brings into his body even infants who are baptized, and they are certainly unable to imitate him. Apart from his having offered himself as an example of righteousness to those who imitate him, the one in whom all are brought to life also gives to the faithful the most hidden grace of his Spirit, and he also bestows this grace upon little ones in a hidden manner. So too, apart from his being an example for those to imitate who willingly transgress the commandment of the Lord, the one in whom all die also infects in himself with the hidden corruption of his carnal concupiscence all those who are to come from his lineage. For this reason and none other, the apostle says, "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus it was passed on to all human beings in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). If I were to state this, these people would resist and cry out that I speak incorrectly and think incorrectly. They would, of course, find in these words no other meaning, regardless of who spoke them, than the meaning which they refuse to find in the apostle. But because they are the words of one to whose authority and teaching they yield, they accuse us of being slow to understand, while they try to twist a perfectly clear statement into some other meaning. Paul said, "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death" (Romans 5:12). This means by propagation, not by imitation; otherwise, he would say, "Through the devil." He is speaking of the first man, who was called Adam, a point which no one doubts. "And thus," he says, "it was passed on to all human beings" (Romans 5:12).

[11] Then, note the carefulness, the propriety, the clarity with which the next clause is stated, "in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). For if you have here understood the sin that entered the world through the one man in which sin all have sinned, it is certainly clear that personal sins of each person by which they alone sinned are distinct from this one in which all have sinned, when all were that one man. But if you have understood, not the sin, but that one man, in which one man all have sinned, what could be clearer than that clear statement? For we read that those who believe in him are justified in Christ on account of the hidden communication and inspiration of spiritual grace, which makes whoever clings to the Lord one spirit. Even though his saints also imitate him, I would like to find something of the sort said of those who have imitated his saints. Has anyone been said to have been justified in Paul or in Peter or in anyone else of those who have an eminent authority among the people of God? We are, of course, said to be blessed in Abraham in accord with God's words to him, "All the nations will be blessed in you" (Genesis 12:3 and Galatians 3:8), on account of Christ who is called his offspring according to the flesh. This is stated more clearly, when the same idea is put as follows, "All the nations will be blessed in your offspring" (Genesis 22:18). I doubt that anyone will find it stated in the words of God that someone has sinned or sins in the devil, though all sinful and evil persons imitate him. But with regard to the words of the apostle concerning the first man, "in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12), they continue to resist the propagation of sin and raise in objection the idea of imitation to cloud over the issue.

The Roles of Sin, the Law, and Grace

[12] Notice the words that follow. For, after he said, "In whom all have sinned," he went on to say, "For before the law there was sin in the world" (Romans 5:12-13), that is, because the law could not take away sin. After all, it came so that sin might be more abundant. This holds both for the natural law under which each person with the use of reason begins to add personal sins to original sin and for the written law given to the people by Moses. "For, if a law had been given which could give life, righteousness would, of course, come from the law. But scripture has enclosed all things under sin so that on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:21-22). "But sin was not imputed, when the law did not exist" (Romans 5:13). What does "was not imputed" mean but that in their ignorance people did not know it was sin? Nor did the Lord God regard sin as non-existent, since scripture says, "Those who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law" (Romans 2:12).

[13] He said, "But death reigned from Adam until Moses" (Romans 5:14), that is, from the first man right up to the law which God promulgated, since even the law could not remove the reign of death. For the reign of death means that the guilt of sin lords it over human beings in such a way that it does not permit them to attain eternal life, which is true life, but draws them to the second death, which is eternal punishment. In any human being this reign of death was destroyed only by the grace of the savior. That grace was also at work in the saints of old, all those who, before Christ came in the flesh, had recourse to his helping grace, not to the letter of the law, which can only command, but cannot provide help. This was hidden in the Old Testament in accord with God's perfectly just plan for the different times, but it has now been revealed in the New Testament. Hence, death reigned from Adam until Moses in all human beings who were not helped by the grace of Christ so that the reign of death in them was destroyed. Hence, it reigned "in those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam," that is, in those who did not sin, as he did, by their own personal will, but contracted original sin from him "who is the pattern of what was to come" (Romans 5:14). For in him the pattern of condemnation was established for his posterity yet to come who would come into being from his lineage. Thus, from the one man all are born destined for a condemnation, from which only the grace of Christ sets them free. I know, of course, that most Latin manuscripts read as follows: "Death reigned from Adam until Moses in those who sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam" (Romans 5:14), and those who have this reading give it the same interpretation. They understand that those who sinned in Adam sinned in the likeness of his transgression so that they are born like him. Just as they are human beings from a human being, so they are sinners from a sinner, persons destined to die from one destined to die, and persons under condemnation from one under condemnation. But all or nearly all the Greek manuscripts from which the Latin translation was made have the text as I first cited it.

[14] He goes on to say, "But the gift is not completely like the sin. For, if on account of the sin of one man many have died, the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, has been much more abundant for many" (Romans 5:15). It has not been abundant for many more, that is, for many more human beings, for there are not more who are justified than are condemned, but it has been much more abundant. Adam fathered many who were guilty as a result of his single transgression, but Christ destroyed and forgave by his grace even those sins human beings committed by their own will and added to the original sin in which they were born. He stated this more clearly in what follows.

[15] Consider more carefully his statement that "on account of the sin of one man many have died." After all, why did he say, "on account of the sin of one man" and not rather "on account of their own personal sins," if we are to understand this passage as speaking of imitation and not propagation? Notice what follows: "But the gift does not come in the same way as sin came through the one who sinned. For judgment starts from the one and leads to condemnation, but grace starts from many sins and leads to justification" (Romans 5:16). Let them state at this point how imitation has any place in these words. He says, "From the one and leads to condemnation." From one what, if not from one sin? He explains this when he adds, "But grace starts from many sins and leads to justification." Why then does judgment start from one sin and lead to condemnation, but grace starts from many sins and leads to justification? If there is no original sin, would it not be true not only that grace leads human beings to justification from many sins, but also that judgment leads them to condemnation from many sins? After all, grace pardons many sins, and judgment also condemns many sins. If people are brought to condemnation as the result of the one sin, because all the sins which are condemned were committed in imitation of that one sin, there is the same grounds for understanding that they are led to justification from the one sin, since all the sins which are forgiven for those who have been justified have been committed in imitation of that one sin. Yet that is not, of course, what the apostle understood when he said, "Judgment starts from the one sin and leads to condemnation, but grace starts from many sins and leads to justification" (Romans 5:16). But let us understand the apostle and see that he said that judgment starts from the one sin and leads to condemnation, because it would be sufficient reason for condemnation, even if there were only original sin in human beings. The condemnation of those who added personal sins to original sin is more severe, and more severe for individuals in proportion to the gravity of each person's sins. But that sin alone which was contracted from our origin separates people from the kingdom of God. Even little ones who have died cannot enter that kingdom without having received the grace of Christ, as this person admits. But that sin also keeps them from salvation and eternal life. For there is no salvation and eternal life apart from the kingdom of God into which one is brought only by the community of Christ.

[16] Thus we have contracted from Adam, in whom we have all sinned, not all our sins, but only original sin. But from Christ, in whom we are all justified, we obtain the forgiveness not only of that original sin, but also of the other sins which we have added to it. Therefore, "the gift does not come in the same way as the sin came through the one who sinned" (Romans 5:16). For judgment coming from the one sin, that is, from original sin, if it is not forgiven, can lead to condemnation, but grace starting from many sins that have been forgiven, that is, not from original sin alone, but also from all the rest, leads to our justification.

[17] "For, if on account of the sin of one man, death reigned through the one man, far more shall those who receive an abundance of grace and righteousness reign in life through the one Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17). Why did death reign through the one man on account of the sin of the one man, if not because, in that one man in whom all sinned, they were held bound by the chain of death, even if they did not add personal sins? Otherwise, death did not reign on account of the sin of the one man through the one man, but on account of the many sins of many through each one who sins. For, if the rest are dead on account of the sin of another, precisely because they followed after and imitated the one who preceded them in sinning, then Adam has for a much better reason died on account of the sin of another. For the devil sinned before him in order to persuade him to sin as well. But Adam did not try to persuade those who imitate him, and many who are called his imitators have either not heard or do not believe that he existed or committed such a sin. How much more correctly, as I said, would the apostle have made the devil the originator! Then he could say that sin and death passed from him to all, if he had wanted in this passage to teach not propagation, but imitation. It makes much more sense, after all, to call Adam the imitator of the devil who persuaded him to sin, if we can call people imitators of Adam, though Adam did not try to persuade them to sin or was utterly unknown to them. What does the phrase mean, "who receive an abundance of grace and righteousness" (Romans 5:17)? It surely means that they were given the grace of forgiveness, not only for that sin in which all sinned, but also for those sins which they added to it, and that human beings received such righteousness that, though Adam consented to sin when he was enticed, they do not yield even when pressured. Since the kingdom of death draws many more into eternal punishments, what can it mean that they will reign in life "far more" (Romans 5:17), unless we understand that both passages are speaking of those who have passed from Adam to Christ, that is, from death to life? For they will reign without end in eternal life far more than death reigned in them for a time and with an end.

[18] "And so, just as the sin of one led to the condemnation of all human beings, so the justification of one leads to righteousness of life for all human beings" (Romans 5:18). If we have imitation in mind, this sin of the one will be that of the devil. But since it is clear that the text is speaking of Adam and not of the devil, we are left to understand not imitation, but the propagation of sin. For his words concerning Christ, "the justification of one" (Romans 5:18), express this better than if he said, "the righteousness of one man." He is speaking, of course, of that justification by which Christ makes the sinner righteous. He does not set this justification before us as an example to be imitated; rather, it is something that he alone can do. The apostle could, of course, say with correctness, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1), but he would never say, "Be justified by me, as I am justified by Christ." There can be, there are, and there have been many righteous human beings for us to imitate, but Christ alone is righteous and justifies others. For this reason scripture says, "For those who believe in him who justifies sinners, faith is credited to them as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). If anyone, then, would dare to say, "I justify you," it would follow that this person should also say, "Believe in me." But no holy person could say that except the Holy of Holies (Daniel 9:24). He says, "Believe in God, and believe in me" (John 14:1), so that, because he makes the sinner righteous, the faith of one who believes in him may be counted as righteousness.

[19] For, if imitation alone produces sinners through Adam, why does imitation alone not produce righteous persons through Christ? "For just as the sin of one led to the condemnation of all human beings, so the justification of one leads to righteousness of life for all human beings" (Romans 5:18). In accord with such a view, those two individuals should not have been Adam and Christ, but Adam and Abel. For many sinners have gone before us in this life, and those who sinned at a later time imitated them. These people, nonetheless, would have it that scripture mentioned Adam alone as the one in whom all would sin by imitation, because he was the first human being to sin. On such grounds Abel ought, likewise, to be called the one in whom human beings are justified by imitation, since he was the first human being to live righteously. Or, if it was on account of the crucial moment of time marking the beginning of the New Testament that Christ was proposed as the head of those who are righteous by imitation, then Judas, who betrayed him, ought to be made the head of sinners. On the other hand, if Christ is the one in whom all are justified, because it is not merely imitation of him that makes persons righteous, but the grace that gives them rebirth through the Spirit, then Adam is the one in whom all have sinned, because it is not merely imitation of him that makes them sinners, but the penalty that gives them birth through the flesh. This is the reason that it says "all" both times. After all, not all who are born through Adam are reborn through Christ. But the statement is correct, because, as no one is born in the flesh except through Adam, so no one is born spiritually except through Christ. For if some human beings could be born in the flesh other than through Adam and some could be born in the Spirit other than through Christ, "all" would not have a clear meaning in either this passage or the other one. Scripture later refers to the same "all" as "many." In a particular case, a few can be all there are. But many are born in the flesh and many are born spiritually, though not as many are born spiritually as are born in the flesh. Nonetheless, as birth in the flesh includes all human beings, so spiritual birth includes all the righteous. For, as no one is a human being apart from birth in the flesh, so no one is a righteous human being apart from spiritual birth, and there are many in each group. "For just as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19).

[20] "But the law entered in so that sin might abound" (Romans 5:20). This was the sin that human beings added to original sin by their own will, not through Adam. This sin is also taken away and healed through Christ. For, "where sin abounded, there grace was even more abundant so that, as the reign of sin led to death" — including the sin which human beings did not inherit from Adam, but added by their own will — "so the reign of grace might through righteousness lead to eternal life" (Romans 5:20-21). But there is no righteousness apart from Christ, as there are some sins apart from Adam. Hence, after he said, "as the reign of sin led to death," he did not at this point add, "through one man" or "through Adam," because it said above that, when the law entered in, sin abounded, and this sin is not that which comes from our origin, but that which comes from our own will. But when he said, "so the reign of grace might through righteousness lead to eternal life," he added, "through Jesus Christ, our Lord" (Romans 5:21). For only original sin is contracted through birth in the flesh, but through rebirth in the Spirit we have forgiveness, not only of original sin, but also of voluntary sins.

Little Ones Who Die without Baptism Are Condemned

[21] Accordingly, one can correctly say that little ones who leave the body without baptism will be under the mildest condemnation of all. But one who preaches that they will not be under any condemnation misleads others very much and is himself very mistaken. For the apostle says, "Judgment starts from one sin and leads to condemnation" (Romans 5:16) and a little later, "The sin of one led to the condemnation of all human beings" (Romans 5:18). Hence, even though Adam's body was animal and mortal, when he sinned by not obeying God, his body lost the grace which made it completely obedient to his soul. At that moment there came into being that animal arousal of which human beings are rightly ashamed and which caused Adam to be embarrassed by his nakedness. At that moment too, they contracted a disease from an unexpected and deadly corruption. The result for them was that they lost the stability of the life in which they were created and began to move toward death through ages subject to change. Thus, although they lived for many years after this, they began to die on that day on which they received the law of death by which they began to age and grow old. For time does not stand still even for a moment. Rather, it unceasingly slips past, and everything involved in constant change gradually moves, not toward an end that perfects, but toward one that destroys. In that sense God's words, "On the day that you eat, you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17), have been fulfilled. As a result, then, of this disobedience of the flesh, as a result of this law of sin and death, all who are born in the flesh need to be reborn spiritually, not only so that they may come to the kingdom of heaven, but also so that they may be set free from the condemnation of sin. Thus they are born in the flesh, subject to both the sin and the death of the first human being, and they are reborn in baptism, joined to both the righteousness and the eternal life of the second. In accord with this, we find in Sirach, "The beginning of sin was brought about by the woman, and we all die by reason of her" (Sirach 25:24). Whether it says "by the woman" or "by Adam," both belong to the first human being, because, as we know, the woman came from the man and both had one flesh. Hence, we have the words of scripture, "And they will be two in one flesh. Therefore, they are no longer two," says the Lord, "but one flesh" (Matthew 19:5-6).

[22] Hence, it will not take a great effort to refute those who say that little ones are baptized in order to be forgiven the personal sin which they have contracted in this life, not the sin which they inherited from Adam. For, when they reflect a little by themselves, without wanting to be argumentative, on how absurd and unworthy of discussion their claim really is, they will immediately change their position. But if they refuse to do so, we should not place so little hope in the human mind that we fear that they will persuade anyone of their position. These people were themselves driven to say this, unless I am mistaken, as a result of some other position they previously adopted. That is, they must admit that sins are forgiven in baptism, and they refuse to admit that there is a sin derived from Adam which they concede that the little ones are forgiven. Hence, they are forced to accuse infants of sin, as if they are safer in accusing infants by the very fact that the accused cannot speak in their own defense. But, as I said, let us leave these people aside. After all, words or proofs are superfluous for establishing the innocence of infants in the life which they live in their own persons immediately after their birth, if the human mind fails to recognize it, unaided by the help of any argument.

[23] On the other hand, those people do raise a question and seem to offer something worth consideration and discussion. They claim that little ones newly born from their mothers' wombs do not receive baptism on account of the forgiveness of sin, but so that, through spiritual procreation, they might be created in Christ and become partakers of the kingdom of heaven, and in the same way "children and heirs of God, coheirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). But when we ask them whether those who are not baptized and have not become coheirs with Christ and sharers in the kingdom of heaven will have at least the benefit of eternal salvation at the resurrection of the dead, they find themselves in serious difficulties and see no way out. After all, will any Christian tolerate hearing that someone can attain eternal salvation without being reborn in Christ? He willed that this rebirth be brought about by baptism back when he was about to institute such a sacrament for those who needed to be reborn for the hope of eternal life. For this reason the apostle said, "Not as a result of the works of righteousness which we performed, but in accord with his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth" (Titus 3:5). He stated that this salvation is a matter of hope, while we live this life, when he said, "For we are saved in hope. But hope that is seen is not hope; after all, why should one hope for what one already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we look forward to it with patience" (Romans 8:24-25). Who then would dare to claim that little ones can attain eternal salvation without this rebirth, as if Christ did not die for them? After all, "Christ died for sinners" (Romans 5:6). But, if they are not held by any bond of sinfulness stemming from their origin, how did Christ, who died for the sinners, die for these infants who obviously have done nothing sinful in their own lives? If they are not afflicted by the disease of original sin, why do those caring for them bring them out of a holy fear to Christ the physician, that is, to receive the sacrament of eternal salvation? Why are they not told in church, "Take these innocents away; it is not those who are in good health who need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matthew 9:12); "Christ did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Luke 5:32)? No one ever said, no one ever says, and no one ever will say something as false and contrived as that in the Church of Christ!

[24] No one should think that little ones should be brought to baptism, because, just as they are not sinners, so they are not righteous. Why, given that opinion, do some mention that the Lord praised the goodness of this age, when he said, "Let the little ones come to me, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven"? (Matthew 19:14). For if he said this, not on account of the likeness to humility, since humility makes people little, but on account of the praiseworthy life of children, they are, then, righteous as well. After all, one could not be correct otherwise in saying, "To such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14), since it can only belong to the righteous. But perhaps it is not wrong to say that the Lord praised the life of little ones, when he said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, because the interpretation is correct that found a likeness of humility in that young age. On the other hand, perhaps one should maintain the interpretation I mentioned, that little ones should be baptized, because, as they are not sinners, so they are not righteous. But after he said, "I have not come to call the righteous," as if he received the reply, "Whom then have you come to call?" he immediately added, "but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). And thus, just as he did not come to call them, if they are righteous, so he did not come to call them, if they are not sinners, for he said, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Accordingly, they seem to rush, not only pointlessly, but also wrongly, to his baptism, though he does not call them. Heaven forbid that we hold such a view! The physician, then, calls them; he is not needed by those who are in good health, but by those who are sick, and he has come, not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance. And since they are not yet held guilty of any sins from their own lives, the illness stemming from their origin is healed in them by the grace of him who saves them through the bath of rebirth.

[25] Someone will say, "How, then, are they called to repentance? Can such little ones repent of anything?" To this we answer: If they should not be called repentant, because they do not yet have a mind capable of repentance, they should not be called believers, because they likewise do not yet have a mind capable of believing. But if they are correctly called believers, because they in some sense profess the faith by the words of their parents, why should we not also first regard them as repentant, since we see that they renounce the devil and this world by the words of these same parents? All of this takes place in hope by the power of the sacrament and of the divine grace which Christ has given to the Church. Moreover, is there anyone who does not know that, if baptized infants, upon coming to the age of reason, do not believe and do not refrain from illicit desires, they derive no benefit from what they received as children? If, nonetheless, they depart from this life, after receiving baptism, the guilt to which they were held subject by reason of their origin has been removed, and they will be made perfect in that light of the truth. While remaining unchangeable for eternity, that light enlightens those who have been made righteous by the presence of the Creator. For sins alone produce the separation between human beings and God, and they are removed by the grace of him through whom we are reconciled, when he makes the sinner righteous (Romans 4:5).

There Is No Eternal Life apart from the Kingdom of God

[26] These people stand in awe of the statement of the Lord, "Unless one has been born again, one will not see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). When he explained it, he said, "Unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5). Hence, they try to ascribe salvation and eternal life to unbaptized little ones as a recompense for their innocence. But, by a novel and strange hypothesis, they try to exclude them from the kingdom of heaven, because they were not baptized, as if there could be the eternal salvation of eternal life apart from the inheritance of Christ, apart from the kingdom of heaven. They do, of course, have a place in which to take refuge and hide, because the Lord did not say, "Unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one will not have life," but said, "one will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5). For if he had said the former, no doubt could arise on this point. Let the doubt, then, be removed; let us, I say, listen to the Lord, not to the suspicions and conjectures of mortals. Let us listen to the Lord, I say, as he speaks, not about the sacrament of the holy bath, but of the sacrament of his holy table which no one approaches properly unless he is baptized. The Lord says, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you" (John 6:54). What more are we looking for? What answer can anyone make to this, unless stubbornness turns its feisty muscles against the firmness of the clear truth?

[27] Or will anyone dare to say that this statement does not hold for little ones and that they can have life in themselves without sharing in this body and blood? For he did not say, "Unless one has eaten," as he said regarding baptism, "Unless one has been reborn" (John 3:5); rather, he said, "Unless you eat" (John 6:54), as if he were addressing those who were able to hear and understand him, something that little ones, of course, cannot do. But one who says this fails to notice this point: Unless the statement includes all people so that, without the body and blood of the Son of Man, they cannot have life, adults would have no reason to be concerned about it. After all, if you consider, not the intent, but the words of the speaker, it can seem that they were addressed only to those people to whom the Lord was then speaking, since he did not say, "Unless one has eaten," but "Unless you eat" (John 6:54). What happens to his statement in the same passage, where he says, "The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world" (John 6:52)? In accord with this statement, then, we see that this sacrament includes us as well, who did not yet exist at the time when he was saying these words. For we cannot say that we do not belong to the world for the life of which Christ gave his flesh. Who is going to doubt that the term, "world," refers to human beings who come into this world by birth? For, in another passage, he said, "The children of this world are born and beget children" (Luke 20:34). Accordingly, his flesh, which was given for the life of the world, was also given for the life of the little ones, and if they have not eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, they will not have life either.

[28] For this reason we also have the statement, "The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in his hand. One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who does not believe in the Son will not have life. Rather, the anger of God remains over him" (John 3:35-36). In which of these classes, then, are we to put infants? Among those who believe in the Son, or among those who do not believe in him? "In neither of them," someone will say, "because they cannot as yet believe, and they should not be counted as unbelievers." That is not what the rule of the Church indicates, for it includes baptized infants among the faithful. Moreover, if those who are baptized are counted among the faithful on account of the power and the celebration of this great sacrament, although they do not in their heart and on their lips do what belief and profession imply, then those who lack the sacrament should be regarded as among those who do not believe in the Son. Hence, if they leave the body without this grace, they will meet with what scripture says: "They will not see life. Rather, the anger of God remains over them." And, since it is clear that they do not have personal sins, what is the reason for this, if they are not held subject to original sin?

[29] It was correct not to say, "The anger of God will come over him," but "remains over him." This is the anger by which we are all under the power of sin; the apostle says of it, "For we were once by nature children of anger, just as the others" (Ephesians 2:3). From this anger nothing sets us free except the grace of God through Jesus Christ, our Lord (Romans 7:25). Why this grace comes to one person and does not come to another can have a hidden, but not an unjust cause. "Is there injustice in God? Heaven forbid" (Romans 9:14). But we must first bend our necks before the authorities of the holy scriptures so that through faith each of us may come to understanding. Scripture did not, after all, say without a reason, "Your judgments are like a great abyss" (Psalms 36:7). As if he were gasping at the depth of this abyss, the apostle cried out, "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Romans 11:33). He has prefaced this with a statement of amazing depth, when he said, "For God has enclosed all in unbelief so that he might have mercy upon all" (Romans 11:32). As if struck with horror at this depth, he says, "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and unsearchable his ways! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who first gave something to him so that he will be repaid? For all things are from him and through him and in him. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen" (Romans 11:33-36). Thus we have a very limited mind for investigating the righteousness of God's judgments, for investigating his gratuitous grace. This grace is not unjust despite the lack of previous merits; it does not disturb us so much when it is offered to the unworthy as when it is denied to others who are equally unworthy.

[30] For these people think it unjust that little ones who leave the body without the grace of Christ are deprived not only of the kingdom of God, into which they admit that they cannot enter unless they are reborn by baptism, but also of eternal life and salvation. They ask how it can be just that one person is set free from original sinfulness and another is not, though both share the same condition. Let them respond in terms of their own view how it is just that again and again baptism is offered to one person so that he enters the kingdom of God and is not offered to another, though the case of each of them is on a par. They are disturbed over the reason why from these two, though both were equally sinners in terms of their origin, the one to whom baptism is granted is freed from this bond and the other to whom this grace is not granted is not freed. Why, then, are they not equally disturbed that from two who are innocent in terms of their origin, one received baptism and can enter the kingdom of God and another did not receive it and cannot approach the kingdom of God? In each case we, of course, come back to that exclamation, "O the depth of the riches!" (Romans 11:33). Why from among the baptized little ones is one of them taken "so that evil would not change its mind" (Wisdom 4:11) and another lives on to be evil? Would not both enter the kingdom of heaven, if both were taken? And yet there is no injustice in God. Why? Who is not troubled? Who is not forced to exclaim at such a great depth, when some little ones are afflicted by an unclean spirit, and others suffer nothing of the sort, when some, like Jeremiah, are made holy in the wombs of their mothers, though, if there is original sin, all are equally guilty and, if there is not, they are equally innocent? What is the source of this great diversity, if it is not that his judgments are inscrutable and his ways unsearchable?

The Rejection of the Preexistence of Souls

[31] Or are we perhaps supposed to hold that exploded and rejected theory that souls first sin in their heavenly dwelling and gradually and slowly come down to bodies corresponding to their merits and suffer more or less bodily afflictions for the life they previously lived? Holy scripture clearly contradicts this opinion and says, while commending grace, "They were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, but in order that God's plan might remain in accord with his choice, scripture said that the older will serve the younger, not because of any works, but because of the one who calls" (Romans 9:11-12). Those who hold this position do not, nonetheless, escape the difficulty of this question; rather, they are trapped by it and are stuck there. And, just as we are, they are forced to exclaim, "O the depth!" (Romans 11:33). Why does it happen that some who are from youth on quite modest, talented, and temperate, who to a large extent conquer sexual desires, hate greed, and detest luxury, and who develop into persons much inclined toward and suited for the other virtues, live, nonetheless, in a place where the grace of Christ cannot be preached to them? "For how will they call upon him in whom they have not believed? Or how will they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how will they hear of him without someone to preach?" (Romans 10:14). Yet other persons who are slow of wit, given to sexual desires, buried deep in crimes and wrongdoing, are so guided by providence that they hear the word, believe, are baptized and then taken by death — or, if they are kept in this life, live in a praiseworthy manner. Where have these two different kinds attained such diverse merits — I do not mean so that the latter believe, while the former do not believe, which comes from the individual will, but so that the latter hear what they believe while the former do not hear, for this does not fall within the individual's power? Where, I ask, have they attained such diverse merits? If they lived another life in heaven so that in accord with their actions they are driven or fall to earth and are held in bodily containers suited to the life they previously lived, we must believe that the former lived a better life prior to this mortal body, since they merited not to be weighed down by it very much. Thus they had fine talents and were driven by milder desires of the body, which they could easily overcome. Yet they did not merit that grace be preached to them, though it alone could set them free from the destruction of the second death. But the other, in accord with worse merits, as they suppose, became attached to heavier bodies. And, for this reason, they were dull of heart and were overcome by the allurements of the flesh with its burning desire. Moreover, by a life of great sinfulness, they added on earth worse sins to those previous sins by which they merited to come here. Nonetheless, they either heard on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43), or they attached themselves to some apostle and, transformed by his preaching, were saved by the bath of rebirth, so that, "where sin abounded, grace might be even more abundant." I simply cannot see what answer those people might make; in their desire to defend the righteousness of God by human conjectures and in ignorance of the depth of his grace, they have composed myths lacking any probability.

[32] Many things can be said about the marvelous vocations of human beings which we have read about or encountered ourselves. These destroy the opinion of those who believe that the souls of human beings lived lives of their own prior to these bodies of theirs so that by those lives they came to these bodies in accord with their different merits to meet with different experiences, either good or bad, in this life. But my concern to bring this work to a close does not allow me to delay any longer on them. I will not, nonetheless, pass over one remarkable point among many which I have found. These people suppose that souls are weighed down more or less by earthly bodies as a result of the merits of the previous life they lived in the heavenly regions prior to this body. In accord with this opinion of theirs, who would not claim that those people sinned more wickedly and more seriously before this life who merited to lose the light of their mind to such an extent that they are born with a mind close to that of animals? I do not mean those who are slow-witted — for we use that expression of others — but those who are so stupid that, even with hair curled to incite laughter, they provide the intelligent with the entertainment of their simplemindedness. The common people call them by the term, "morons" (moriones), which is derived from the Greek word. One of these persons, nonetheless, was so Christian that, though he patiently endured all the injuries done to him with an amazing simplicity, he could not tolerate an injury done to the name of Christ or, in his own person, to the religion in which he had been instructed. He would not cease pursuing with stones blasphemers — intelligent people, of course — who said these things to provoke him, and on such grounds he would not spare even his masters. I think that such persons were predestined and created so that those who can might understand that the grace of God and the Spirit, who breathes where he wills (John 3:8), do not on this account leave out any kind of natural talent from the children of mercy. And, likewise, they do not leave out any kind of natural talent from the children of hell. And so, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:31 and 2 Corinthians 10:17). But what response can those people make who claim that for the merits of a previous life individual souls receive different earthly bodies by which some are weighed down more and others less? They claim that human natural abilities differ in accord with the same merits so that some are more quick-witted and others more dull and that divine grace is bestowed to set human beings free in accord with the merits of the previous life. How are they going to ascribe to that man both a terrible previous life so that he was born simpleminded and so meritorious a life that he was, for that reason, preferred to many very clever people in terms of the grace of Christ?

[33] Let us then yield and give our assent to the authority of holy scripture which can neither deceive nor be deceived. And as we believe that those who have not yet been born have done nothing good or bad to make a difference in their merits, so we have not the slightest doubt that all are subject to the sin which entered the world through one human being and has been passed on to all human beings. And from that sin only the grace of God through our Lord, Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25), sets us free.

Christ Is the Physician, Savior, and Redeemer for Little Ones

[34] It is not those who are in good health, but those who are sick, who need his coming as a physician, for he did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Only one who has been born again of water and the Spirit will enter into his kingdom, and no one will attain eternal life apart from his kingdom, since those who have not eaten his flesh and do not believe in the Son will not have life, but the anger of God remains over them. Only the physician who came, not on account of those who are in good health, but on account of those who are sick, only the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), only the savior of whom the human race was told, "Today a savior has been born for you" (Luke 2:11), only the redeemer whose blood wipes away our transgression, sets people free from this sin, from this illness, from this anger of God. Even if they do not have personal sin because of their age, those who carry with them original sin are by nature children of this anger. Who will be so bold as to say that Christ is not the savior and redeemer of infants? But from what does he save them, if they do not have the disease of original sin? From what does he redeem them, if they were not sold through their origin from the first human being to the power of sin? In our judgment, then, apart from Christ's baptism, no eternal salvation is promised to infants except that promised by the divine scripture, which we should prefer to all the powers of the human mind.

[35] Punic Christians are perfectly correct in calling baptism "salvation" and in calling the sacrament of Christ's body "life." What is their basis for doing this, if it is not, as I believe, the ancient and apostolic tradition? That tradition leads them to regard it as a mark of the Church of Christ that without baptism and participation in the Lord's table no human being can attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and eternal life. After all, scripture also testifies to this as we have stated above. For what else do those who call baptism "salvation" hold but what scripture says, "He saved us through the bath of rebirth" (Titus 3:5) and what Peter said, "So too, baptism has saved you in a similar manner" (1 Peter 3:21)? What else do those who call the sacrament of the Lord's table "life" say but what scripture says: "I am the living bread who have come down from heaven," and "The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world," and "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you" (John 6:51-52, 54)? If, then, as so many and such great testimonies of God agree, no one can hope for either salvation or eternal life without baptism and the body and blood of the Lord, there is no reason to promise either salvation or eternal life to little ones without these. Moreover, if only sins separate one from salvation and eternal life, it is the guilt of sin that is removed in little ones by these sacraments. Scripture says that none are free from that guilt, even if their lives last but a single day (Job 14:5 LXX). For this reason there is also this passage in the psalms, "For I was conceived in iniquity, and amid sins my mother fed me in the womb" (Psalms 51:7). Either this was said in the name of human beings in general, or, if David said this of himself personally, he was certainly not born out of wedlock, but from a lawful marriage. Hence, we should have no doubt that Christ's blood was also shed for infants who were to be baptized. Before that blood was shed, it was given and entrusted to us in the sacrament so that he said, "This is my blood which will be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). But these people deny that those human beings are set free, who they do not want to admit are under the power of sin. After all, from what are they set free, if they are not held captive in slavery to sin?

[36] He said, "I came into the world as light so that everyone who believes in me does not remain in darkness" (John 12:46). By saying this, what did he show but that everyone who does not believe in him remains in darkness and, by believing, one brings it about that one does not remain in darkness? What do we take this darkness to be but sins? But however else one may interpret this darkness, one who does not believe in Christ will in any case remain in it, and it is certainly a punishment, not like the darkness of night that is needed to provide rest for animals.

[37] Hence, if little ones do not enter the number of believers by the sacrament which God established for this purpose, they will certainly remain in this darkness.

[38] And yet some believe that they are enlightened as soon as they are born. They interpret in that sense the text of scripture, "He was the true light that enlightens every human being that comes into this world" (John 1:9). But if that is so, it is very puzzling why, after having been enlightened by the only Son, since he was the Word in the beginning, God with God, they are not admitted to the kingdom of God and are not heirs of God, coheirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). For even those who hold this view admit that they receive this latter only through baptism. Hence, if those who have been already enlightened are not fit to attain the kingdom of God, they ought at least to be happy to receive the baptism by which they become fit for it. And yet, we see them resist it with much weeping, and we pay no attention to their ignorance at that age so that we perform for them, even as they resist, the sacraments which we know are of benefit to them. After all, why does the apostle say, "Do not have minds like children" (1 Corinthians 14:20), if their minds have already been enlightened by that true light which is the Word of God?

[39] Hence, the gospel says, "He was the true light that enlightens every human being that comes into this world" (John 1:9). The gospel said this, because no human being is enlightened save by that light of the truth which is God. Thus none should suppose that they are enlightened so as to learn by someone from whom they hear something. And I do not mean merely if one happens to have as a teacher some great human being, but not even if one happens to have an angel. The word of truth is externally presented by means of a bodily voice; nonetheless, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything; it is, rather, God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:7). A human being hears someone speaking, either another human being or an angel, but in order that one might see and know that what is said is true, that light which remains eternally, but also shines in the darkness (John 1:5), is interiorly shed upon the mind. But as this sun in our sky is not seen by the blind, though it in a sense clothes them with its rays, so this light is not grasped by the darkness of folly.

[40] But why, after saying, "that enlightens every human being," did it add, "that comes into this world" (John 1:9)? This is the source of the idea that he enlightens the minds of little ones as they are born right at their bodily emergence from the womb of their mother. Although the Greek reads so that one could understand the light itself as coming into this world, nonetheless, if we must interpret it as speaking of every human being coming into this world, I see two possibilities. Either, like many things we find in the scriptures, the phrase was simply stated in such a way that, even if it is removed, nothing is lost from the meaning. Or, if we are to believe that this was added to indicate some distinction, it may have been said to differentiate spiritual enlightenment from this bodily enlightenment which brings light to the eyes of the body, whether by the sources of light in the heavens or by any fire. In that case, it spoke of the interior human being coming into this world, since the exterior human being is bodily, as this world is. Then it would equivalently say: He enlightens every human being coming into a body, in accord with the words of scripture, "I obtained a good soul, and I have entered a body that has been defiled" (Wisdom 8:19-20). If, then, "that he enlightens every human being that comes into this world" (John 1:9) was stated in order to make some distinction, it was either stated in such a way as to convey that he enlightens every interior human being. For, when the interior human being becomes truly wise, it is enlightened only by that which is the true light. Or it intended to call reason itself enlightenment, like the creation of the interior eye. For it is from reason that the human soul is called rational, and this reason remains hidden, as if at rest and asleep, but still present and implanted, as it were, in little ones. In this case one should not oppose the idea that the enlightenment took place when the soul was created, and it is not absurd to understand that this occurs when a human being comes into the world. Even though this eye has been created, it must, nonetheless, remain in darkness, if it does not believe in him who said, "I came into the world as light so that everyone who believes in me does not remain in darkness" (John 12:46). Mother Church has no doubt that this takes place in little ones by means of the sacrament; she offers them her maternal heart and lips so that they may be initiated in the sacred mysteries, because they cannot yet believe unto righteousness with their own heart or make profession with their own lips unto salvation. And no believer hesitates to call them believers — a name which is, of course, taken from believing. And yet, it was not these little ones themselves, but others who made the responses for them during the sacred rites.

The Scriptures Speak of Christ as the Redeemer

[41] It would take far too long, if we were to discuss the individual testimonies from scripture in this way. Hence, I think it is more appropriate to bring together the many testimonies, that come to mind or that seem sufficient, which make it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and that he took the form of the servant and became obedient unto the death of the cross for no other reason than the following. It was so that, by the dispensation of his grace filled with mercy, he might bring to life all those of whom he is the head, when they have become members inserted in his body. It was so that he might save them, set them free, redeem them, and enlighten them for the attainment of the kingdom of heaven. For they were previously situated in the death, illness, slavery, captivity, and darkness of sins, under the power of the devil, the prince of sinners. It was so that he would be the mediator between God and human beings. And, it was so that, after he had by the peace of his grace brought to an end the hostilities stemming from our godlessness, we would through him be reconciled to God, having been rescued for eternal life from the eternal death that awaited us. Once this point has been made abundantly clear, it will follow that those who do not need life, salvation, liberation, redemption, and enlightenment cannot belong to this dispensation of Christ's grace which was brought about by this lowliness he assumed. And since this dispensation of grace includes the baptism by which they are buried with Christ so that they might be incorporated in him as his members, that is, as believers in him, they certainly do not need baptism, since they have no need of that benefit of forgiveness and reconciliation which comes about through the mediator. In any case, those people grant that little ones should be baptized, because they cannot stand up against the authority, which was, beyond any doubt, given to the whole Church through the Lord and the apostles. They should, then, also grant that they need these benefits of the mediator so that, washed by the sacrament and love of the faithful and thus incorporated into Christ's body, which is the Church, they might be reconciled to God. Thus they would become in him living, saved, set free, redeemed, and enlightened. From what, save from the death, failings, guilt, subjection, and darkness of sins? And since they committed at that age no sins in their own life, there remains only original sin.

[42] This argument will be stronger when I have mustered the many testimonies I promised. We have already cited above, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Luke 5:32). So too, when he entered the home of Zacchaeus, he said, "Today salvation has come to this house, since this man too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:9-10). He made the same point concerning the lost sheep which was sought after and found, while the ninety-nine were left untended; he made the same point concerning the one coin out of ten that was lost. For this reason, "it was necessary," as he said, "that repentance and the forgiveness of sins be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46-47). At the end of his gospel, Mark testifies that the Lord said, "Go into the whole world and preach the good news to every creature. Those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but those who do not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16). But who does not know that for infants to believe means to be baptized and not to believe means not to be baptized? Although we have already quoted some passages from the Gospel of John, note these as well. John the Baptist said of him, "Behold, the Lamb of God; behold, the one who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). And the Lord says of himself, "Those who belong to my sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they will not perish for eternity" (John 10:27-28). Since little ones begin to belong to his sheep only by baptism, they will certainly perish, if they do not receive it, for they will not have the eternal life which he will give to his sheep. So too, in another passage he says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

[43] The apostles accepted this teaching. Observe the great solemnity with which they proclaim it. In his first letter, Peter says, "Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. In accord with the abundance of his mercy, he gave us a new birth for the hope of eternal life through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for an immortal, untarnished, unfading inheritance that is kept in heaven for you who live in God's truth through faith in the salvation that has been made ready to be revealed in the last times" (1 Peter 1:3-5). A little later he says, "May you be found destined for the praise and glory of Jesus Christ whom you once did not know, but in whom you now believe, though you do not see him. But when you see him, you will rejoice with an indescribable joy and with a glorious joy as you receive the inheritance of the faith, the salvation of your souls" (1 Peter 1:7-9). So too, in another passage, he says, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people he has adopted, so that you may announce the great deeds of him who has called you out of darkness into his wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9). Again he says, "Christ has suffered for our sins, a righteous man for the unrighteous, so that he might bring us to God" (1 Peter 3:18). Likewise, when he recalled the eight human beings saved in Noah's ark, he said, "So too, baptism has saved you in a similar manner" (1 Peter 3:21). Little ones are strangers to this salvation and light, and they will remain lost and in darkness, unless they are joined by adoption to the people of God and hold onto Christ who suffered as a righteous man for the unrighteous so that he might bring them to God.

[44] From the Letter of John the following passages came to mind which I thought indispensable for this question. He says, "But if we walk in the light, as he too is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, will cleanse us from every sin" (1 John 1:7). Likewise, he says in another passage, "If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God. Those who believe in the Son of God have the testimony in themselves. Those who do not believe God make him a liar, because they do not believe in the testimony which he gave concerning his Son. And this testimony is that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Those who have the Son have life; those who do not have the Son do not have life" (1 John 5:9-12). Little ones, then, will not only not have the kingdom of heaven, but will not even have life, if they do not have the Son, and they can have him only through baptism. So too, in another passage, he says, "The Son of God has been revealed for this purpose, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8). Little ones, then, will not share in the grace of the revelation of the Son of God, if he does not destroy the works of the devil in them.

[45] Now pay attention to the testimonies of the apostle Paul on this topic. They are, of course, more numerous, since he wrote more letters and took greater care to emphasize the grace of God in confrontation with those who were proud of their works. Not knowing God's righteousness and wanting to establish their own righteousness, they were not subject to the righteousness of God. In the Letter to the Romans, he says, "The righteousness of God for all who believe; for there is no distinction. All have, after all, sinned and lack the glory of God. They have been gratuitously justified by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God made him a sacrifice of atonement in his own blood through faith in order to show his righteousness with respect to the sins committed earlier during the time of God's patience in order that he might reveal his righteousness in the present time, that he is righteous and justifies those who have faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:22-26). In another passage he also says, "For one who works recompense is not counted as a grace, but as something owed. But for one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies sinners, faith is credited to him as righteousness. In that way David also declared blessed the person whom God accepts and to whom he grants righteousness without works, 'Blessed are they whose iniquities have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered over. Blessed are they to whom God has not imputed sin'" (Romans 4:4-8 with Psalms 32:1-2). So too, he says a little later, "Scripture did not say that faith was credited to him on his account alone, but on our account. For it will be credited to us who believe in him who raised up Christ Jesus, our Lord, from the dead. He was betrayed on account of our sins, and he rose on account of our justification" (Romans 4:23-25). Shortly afterward, he says, "When we were still weak, Christ died for sinners at the proper time" (Romans 5:6). Elsewhere he says, "We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under the power of sin. I do not know what I do, for I do not do what I want; rather, I do what I hate. But if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. Now it is not I who do this, but the sin that dwells in me. For I know that the good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. I can will the good, but I cannot do it. I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil that I do not want. But if I do what I do not want, then it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that dwells in me. I find it, then, to be a law that, when I want to do good, evil lies at hand for me. For I delight in the law of God in terms of the interior human being, but I see another law in my members that resists the law of my mind and holds me captive in the law of sin which lies in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ, our Lord" (Romans 7:14-25). Let those who can claim that human beings are not born in the body of this death so that they can also claim that they do not need the grace of God through Jesus Christ to be set free from the body of this death. A little later he says, "For what the law could not do inasmuch as it was weakened by the flesh God has done; he sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and by sin he condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3). Let them claim, if they dare, that Christ would have had to be born in the likeness of sinful flesh, if we were not born in sinful flesh.

[46] Similarly, he writes to the Corinthians, "First of all, I handed on to you what I myself received, that Christ has died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3). So too, he says to the same Corinthians in his second Letter, "The love of Christ compels us, for we believe that one has died for all. Hence, all have died, and he has died for all so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who has died for them and has risen. At present then we know no one in terms of the flesh, and if we did know Christ in terms of the flesh, we now no longer know him in that way. If, then, any are in Christ, they are a new creation; what is old has passed away; see, everything has been made new. But all this comes from God who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation. How did he do that? God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. We function, then, as ambassadors of Christ, and God speaks words of encouragement through us. On behalf of Christ we beg you to be reconciled to God. For him who did not know sin, he made sin on our behalf, so that in him we might be the righteousness of God. As your fellow workers, we beg you not to receive God's grace in vain. For he says, 'At a favorable moment I have heard you, and on the day of salvation I have helped you'" (Isaiah 49:8). "Look, this is the favorable moment, this is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 5:14-6:2). If little ones have no need for this reconciliation and salvation, who is going to try to bring them to Christ's baptism? But if they do, they are among the dead for whom Christ has died, and they cannot receive reconciliation and salvation from him unless he does not hold against them the sins that have been forgiven.

[47] Likewise, he writes to the Galatians, "May grace and peace be yours from God the Father and the Lord, Jesus Christ, who gave himself up for our sins in order to remove us from this present evil age" (Galatians 1:3-4). And in another passage he says, "The law was given for the sake of transgression until the offspring should come to whom the promise pertains; it was decreed by angels through the hand of a mediator. But a mediator implies more than one, and God is one. Is the law, then, opposed to what God has promised? Heaven forbid! For, if a law had been given which could give life, righteousness would, of course, come from the law. But scripture has enclosed all things under sin so that on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:19-22).

[48] He also writes to the Ephesians, "You were dead because of the transgressions and sins in which you once lived in accord with the age of this world, in accord with the prince of the power of the air, that spirit which is now at work in the children of disbelief. We all once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of its inclinations, and we were by nature children of anger, just like the others. But God who is rich in mercy, on account of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead by sins, brought us to life with Christ, by whose grace we have been saved" (Ephesians 2:1-5). Shortly afterward he says, "You have been saved by grace through faith. This does not come from you; rather, it is God's gift. It is not the result of works so that no one may be filled with pride. We are, after all, the result of his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for the good deeds which God prepared so that we might live our lives in them" (Ephesians 2:8-10). A little later he says, "You were then without Christ, separated from the community of Israel and strangers to the covenants and the promise. You had no hope and were without God in this world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once distant have become near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; he has made the two one, removing the wall of stone, the hostility, dividing us. He has in his flesh rendered powerless the law with the decrees of its commandments so that he might, while bringing about peace, form in himself a new human being from the two and through the cross transform both of them into one body for God, slaying in himself the hostility. He came and proclaimed the good news of peace to you who were distant and the good news of peace to those who were near, for through him we both have access in the one Spirit to the Father" (Ephesians 2:12-18). Elsewhere he writes, "As the truth is present in Jesus, lay aside the old human being in accord with your former way of life. Be renewed, rather, in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new human being, the one who was created unto God in righteousness and holiness" (Ephesians 4:21-24). And in another passage he says, "Do not sadden the Holy Spirit of God with whom you have been sealed for the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30).

[49] He writes as follows to the Colossians, "Give thanks to the Father who makes us capable of sharing the heritage of the saints in the light. He has snatched us from the power of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption through the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:12-14). Elsewhere he says, "You have been made full in him who is the head of every principality and power. For in him you have been circumcised by a circumcision that has not been made by hand through the removal of flesh from the body, but by the circumcision of Christ you were buried with him in baptism. In him you have also risen through faith in the action of God who raised him from the dead, and though you were dead in your sins and in your uncircumcised flesh, he brought you to life along with him. He forgave all our sins, and he wiped out the record of our debts that stood against us, removing it and fixing it to the cross. He stripped himself of the flesh and made a public spectacle of the principalities and powers, triumphing over them in himself" (Colossians 2:10-15).

[50] And to Timothy he wrote, "It is a message full of mercy and worthy of complete acceptance that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners. Of them I am the first. I have obtained mercy so that in me first of all Christ might display his complete patience for the instruction of those who are going to believe in him unto eternal life" (1 Timothy 1:15-16). Likewise he says, "For God is one; one too is the mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself up as redemption for all" (1 Timothy 2:5-6). In his second Letter to the same Timothy, he says, "Do not, then, be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me, a prisoner on account of him. Rather, work with me for the gospel in accord with the power of God who is saving us and calling us with his holy vocation, not in accord with our deeds, but in accord with his plan and the grace which has been given to us in Christ Jesus before endless ages, but has now been revealed through the coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He has stripped death of its power and through the gospel has brought light to life and incorruption" (2 Timothy 1:8-10).

[51] He also wrote to Titus, "Awaiting that blessed hope and the revelation of the great God and our savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and cleanse us for himself as a people great in number and zealous for good works" (Titus 2:13-14). In another passage he said, "But when the kindness and mercy of the savior, our God, appeared, not because of the works of righteousness which we performed, but in accord with his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out in great richness upon us through Jesus Christ, our savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs in accord with the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:4-7).

[52] Some people regard the Letter to the Hebrews as uncertain. I have, nonetheless, read that some who hold views contrary to this position of ours concerning the baptism of little ones have wanted to use it as evidence for certain of their views. I myself am moved more by the authority of the eastern churches which includes it among the canonical books. Hence, one should note how many testimonies it contains in favor of our side. In its beginning we read, "Gradually and in many ways God spoke in former times to our forefathers through the prophets; finally, in the present time he has spoken to us through his Son, whom he made heir of all things, through whom he also made all ages. He is the reflection of his glory and the image of his substance; he also rules all things by his powerful word. He has brought about the purification from sins and has taken his seat at the right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:1-3). And shortly thereafter he said, "For if the message proclaimed by the angels had such force that every transgression and act of disobedience received its just recompense, how are we going to escape, if we disregard this great salvation?" (Hebrews 2:2-3). In another passage he says, "For this reason the children shared the same flesh and blood, and in a like fashion he shared in theirs so that he might through death destroy the one who had power over death, that is, the devil, and might set free those who were held in servitude to him through their whole life out of fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15). A little later he says, "Hence, he had to be like his brothers in every respect so that he might be the merciful and trustworthy high priest in those things which have to do with winning God's forgiveness for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17). Elsewhere he said, "Let us cling to our confession, for we do not have a priest who is unable to share our weaknesses with us. He has, in fact, experienced everything, just like us, apart from sin" (Hebrews 4:14-15). And in another passage, he said, "He has an unsurpassable priesthood. Hence, he can bring about the salvation of those who come to God through him, for he lives forever to make intercession for them. It was fitting, after all, that we have a high priest of this sort: righteous, without malice, undefiled, removed from sinners, raised above the heavens, who does not have the daily need, as the high priests did, to offer sacrifice first for his own sins, then for the people. For he did this once for all when he offered himself" (Hebrews 7:24-27). In another passage he said, "For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by hand, which resembled the true one; rather, he entered heaven itself to appear on our behalf before the face of God. He did not offer himself many times, as the high priest enters the sanctuary once a year with the blood of another. Otherwise, he would have had to suffer many times from the creation of the world, but now he has appeared once at the end of the ages for the forgiveness of sin through his sacrifice. Just as it is determined for human beings that they die only once and, after that, face judgment, so Christ was offered once in order to bear the sins of many. He will appear a second time without sins for the salvation of those who await him" (Hebrews 9:24-28).

[53] The Revelation of John bears witness that these praises are offered to Christ by a new song: "You are worthy to receive the book and open its seals, because you have been slain and have in your blood redeemed us for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9).

[54] So too, in the Acts of the Apostles the apostle Peter said that the Lord Jesus was the source of life, when he rebuked the Jews because they had killed him. He said, "But you have placed a burden on and rejected the holy and righteous one, and you have asked that a murderer be allowed to live and be released to you, for you have slain the source of life" (Acts 3:14-15). In another passage he says, "This is the stone rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone. For there is no other name under heaven given to human beings by which we can be saved" (Acts 4:11-12). Elsewhere he said, "The God of the fathers has raised up Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on the cross. God has exalted him in his glory as prince and savior in order to grant to Israel repentance and the forgiveness of sins in him" (Acts 5:30-31). Similarly, he says in another passage, "All the prophets bear witness to this man that everyone who believes in him receives the forgiveness of sins through his hand" (Acts 10:43). In the same book the apostle Paul says, "Let it be known to you, brothers, that the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you through this man. You were not able to be justified by all the prescriptions in the law of Moses, but everyone who believes in him is justified" (Acts 13:38-39).

[55] Whose pride and rebellion against God's truth would not be repressed by this great mass of testimonies? Many others can be found, but we must not overlook the need to bring this work to a close. I considered it superfluous to introduce numerous scriptural proofs in support of my position from the books of the Old Testament as well. For what is hidden there under the veil of apparently earthly promises is revealed in the preaching of the New Testament. The Lord himself briefly pointed out and described the usefulness of the old books, when he said that those things which were written about him in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms had to be fulfilled, namely, that it was necessary that Christ suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance and the forgiveness of sins be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47). And Peter said, as I mentioned just before, that all the prophets bear witness to this man that everyone who believes in him receives the forgiveness of sins through his hand.

[56] It is, nonetheless, more appropriate to introduce a few testimonies from the Old Testament which may serve to supplement or rather to top off what we already have. In speaking through the prophet, the Lord himself says in the psalm, "For the saints who dwell in the land, he has made all my wishes for them marvelous" (Psalms 16:3), not their merits, but my wishes. For what did they have but what comes next? "Their weaknesses have been multiplied" (Psalms 16:4), over and above the mere fact that they were weak. For this reason the law entered in so that sin might abound (Romans 5:20). But what does he add? "Afterward, they made haste" (Psalms 16:4). When their weaknesses were multiplied, that is, as sin abounded, they more eagerly sought for a physician so that, where sin abounded, grace might be even more abundant. Then he says, "I will not gather their assemblies for bloody sacrifices" (Psalms 16:4), for, when they formerly gathered in the tent or in the temple, the many bloody sacrifices proved them to be sinners rather than purified them. "I will not now," he says, "gather their assemblies for bloody sacrifices," for the one bloody sacrifice has been offered for many so that they may be truly purified by it. Next he says, "Nor will I remember their names upon my lips," inasmuch as they are purified and renewed. For their names were once: children of the flesh, children of the world, children of anger, children of the devil, the unclean, sinners, the wicked. But afterward they were: children of God, the new name for the new human beings singing the new song in the New Testament. Let us not be ungrateful to the grace of God, whether we are little ones or grown-ups, whether we are young or old. The voice of the whole Church cries out, "I have wandered off like a lost sheep" (Psalms 119:176); the voice of all Christ's members cries out, "We have all gone astray like sheep, and he was handed over for our sins" (Isaiah 53:6). This whole passage in Isaiah is prophetic. When Philip explained it to him, the eunuch of Queen Candace believed in Christ. See how often it stresses this point and teaches this to those who are proud and contentious. "He was a wounded man," it says, "and one who knew how to endure weaknesses; for this reason his face is turned away, bearing injuries and not much appreciated. He bears our infirmities, and he is amid sorrows on our behalf. And we thought that he was suffering sorrows, wounds, and punishment. But he was wounded on account of our sins, and he became weak on account of our iniquities. In him we learned of our peace; by his bruises we were healed. We all went astray like sheep, and the Lord handed him over for our sins. And he did not open his mouth because he was mistreated. He was led off like a sheep for sacrifice, and like a lamb before his shearer, he made not a sound; thus he did not open his mouth. His judgment was removed in humility. Who will tell of his generation? For his life will be taken from the earth. He was brought to death by the iniquities of my people. I will repay the evil on account of his burial and the rich on account of his death, because he did no wrong and had no deceit upon his lips. The Lord wishes to cleanse him of his wound. If you have given your life on account of your sins, you will see offspring with a long life. The Lord wishes to remove his soul from sorrows, to show him the light and form his mind, to justify the righteous one who serves the many well, and he will bear their sins. For this reason he will have many heirs and share the spoils of the mighty, because his soul was handed over to death and he was reckoned as one of the wicked. And he bore the sins of many and was handed over on account of their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:3-12). Note too the words of that same prophet which the Lord himself declared were fulfilled in his own person, when he held the office of reader in the synagogue, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; for this reason he has anointed me to bring the good news to the humble. He has sent me so that the broken-hearted might find comfort, to announce forgiveness to prisoners and sight to the blind" (Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18-19). Without any exception, then, let all of us who want to belong to his body, enter through him into his sheepfold, and share in the endless life and salvation which he promises to his people, recognize him — let us, I say, recognize the one "who committed no sin and bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might be separated from sin and live with righteousness; by his wounds we have been healed," though we were weak, "like straying sheep" (1 Peter 2:22, 24-25).

[57] Since this is so, sound faith and sound doctrine have held that no one of those who have come to Christ through baptism has ever been excluded from the grace of the forgiveness of sins and that no one can possess eternal salvation apart from his kingdom. For this eternal salvation was made ready to be revealed in the last times (1 Peter 1:5), that is, at the resurrection of the dead, who do not belong to the eternal death, which is called the second death, but to the eternal life which God, who does not lie, has promised to his holy and faithful ones. All those who have a share in this life will be brought to life only in Christ, just as they have all died in Adam. For, just as all who are born according to the will of the flesh die only in Adam, in whom all have sinned (Romans 5:12), so from these persons all who are reborn according to the will of the Spirit are brought to life only in Christ in whom they are all made righteous. For, just as by one man all were brought to condemnation, so by one man all are brought to justification. And there is no middle ground so that one who is not with Christ must be with the devil. Hence, the Lord himself wished to remove from the hearts of those whose faith was incorrect this middle ground which they try to assign to unbaptized little ones. They would have them to be in eternal life as if by the merit of their innocence, but not with Christ in his kingdom, since they were not baptized. To silence them the Lord uttered this decisive statement, when he said, "One who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30). Take any little ones then. If they are already with Christ, why are they baptized? But if — as the truth maintains — they are baptized so that they may be with Christ, those who are not baptized are certainly not with Christ. And since they are not with Christ, they are against him. We must not and cannot, after all, undermine or change his statement which is quite clear. Why, then, are they against Christ, if not because of sin? It is not, after all, because of their body and soul, each of which is God's creation. Moreover, if it is because of sin, what sin is found in that age but that original and ancient sin? There is in fact one sinful flesh in which all are born for condemnation, and there is one flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh, through which all are set free from condemnation. It did not say "all" there, as if we are to understand that all those who are born in sinful flesh are purified through the flesh like sinful flesh. For "not all have faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Rather, we are to understand that all who share in the birth from a carnal union are born in sinful flesh, and all those who share in the birth from a spiritual union are purified only through the flesh like sinful flesh. That is, the former are born through Adam for condemnation; the latter through Christ for justification. It is as if we were to say, "There is one midwife in this city who assists at the birth of all," and "There is one teacher of literature who teaches all." In the first case we can understand only all who are born, and in the latter only all who learn. All who are born do not, nonetheless, learn literature, but it is clear to anyone that it was correct to say in the former case, "She assists at the birth of all," since no one is born without her help. And in the latter case it is correct to say, "He teaches all," because apart from his instruction no one learns.

[58] Having considered all the divine testimonies which I mentioned, either discussing each one individually or combining many of them together, or other similar testimonies which I have not mentioned, I find nothing but what the universal Church maintains. She must remain vigilant against all profane novelties. The Church holds that all human beings are separated from God unless they are reconciled to God through Christ, the mediator, and that one can be separated from God only by the barrier of sins. Hence, one can only be reconciled to God through the forgiveness of sins through the one grace of the most merciful savior, through the one sacrifice of the true priest. Thus all the children of the woman who believed the serpent, so that she was corrupted by lust, are set free from the body of this death only through the son of the Virgin who believed the angel so that she gave birth without sinful lust.

Concupiscence and the Goodness of Marriage

[59] The goodness of marriage, then, does not consist in the heat of concupiscence, but in the permissible and morally good way of using that ardor appropriate to the propagation of offspring, not to satisfying lust. It is this will, not that pleasure which belongs to marriage. The fact, then, that the ardor of concupiscence stirs disobediently in the members of the body of this death, that it tries to cast down and draw the whole mind to itself, that it does not arise when the mind wants and does not quiet down when the mind wants, is due to the evil of sin with which every human being is born. But when it is restrained from foul and illicit acts and is permitted only for bringing forth in an orderly manner new members of the human race, it is the good of marriage through which a human being is born in a well-ordered society. No one is reborn in Christ's body unless he is first born in the body of sin. But as it is evil to use something good in an evil way, so it is good to use something evil in a good way. There are, then, these two, good and evil, and there are another two, good use and evil use; combined together, they make four distinct groups. One makes good use of a good in dedicating one's continence to God; one makes evil use of a good in dedicating one's continence to an idol. One makes an evil use of an evil in giving concupiscence free rein for adultery; one makes a good use of an evil in confining concupiscence to marriage. Just as, then, it is better to make good use of a good than to make good use of an evil, although each of them is good, so too, one who gives his virgin to marriage does something good and one who does not give her to marriage does something better. I have discussed this question to the extent that the Lord permitted me, given my weak abilities, much more extensively and satisfactorily in two other books, one, The Good of Marriage, the other, Holy Virginity. Those people, then, who exalt the flesh and blood of the transgressor in opposition to the flesh and blood of the redeemer, should not defend the evil of concupiscence by means of the good of marriage; they should not be bolstered in the pride of their strange error on account of the children, because the Lord offered us an example of humility drawn from their young age. He alone was born without sin whom the Virgin conceived without union with a man, not by the concupiscence of the flesh, but by the obedience of her mind. She alone was able to bear the medicine for our wound who did not bring forth her holy child from the wound of sin.

Jesus' Teaching on the Necessity of Baptism

[60] Let us now examine more carefully, to the extent that the Lord provides his help, the very chapter of the gospel where it says, "Unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5). If these people were not moved by that statement, they would not think that little ones should be baptized at all. They argue, "It does not say, 'Unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one will not have salvation or eternal life.' It only says, 'one will not enter the kingdom of heaven.' Hence, little ones are to be baptized precisely in order that they too might be with Christ in the kingdom of heaven, where they will not be, if they have not been baptized. And yet, even if little ones die without baptism, they will have salvation and eternal life, since they are not bound by any sin." First of all, though they say this, these people never explain how it is just that the image of God, though sinless, can be separated from the kingdom of God. Second, let us see whether the Lord Jesus, the one and only good teacher, has not indicated and shown in this gospel reading that it is only by means of the forgiveness of sins that the baptized attain the kingdom of God. And yet, for those who understand correctly, the statements, "Unless one has been born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3) and "Unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), ought to be sufficient. After all, why are we born again, if we do not need to be made new? From what do we need to be made new but from our old state? From what old state but that in which our old human being is crucified along with Christ so that the body of sin might lose its power? Or, why does the image of God not enter the kingdom of God, unless the impediment of sin prevents this? Nonetheless, as we have proposed, let us attentively and carefully examine, as best we can, the whole context of this gospel reading which pertains to the topic of this discussion.

[61] "There was a man," it says, "among the Pharisees, by the name of Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. This man came to him at night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher, for no one can produce these signs which you produce, if God is not with him.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly I tell you, unless one has been born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can one be born when one is old? Can one re-enter one's mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly I tell you, unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised that I said to you, You must be born again. The Spirit breathes where he wills, and you hear the sound he makes. But you do not know from where he comes or where he goes. So it is with everyone who has been born of the Spirit.' Nicodemus answered and said to him, 'How can these things come about?' Jesus answered him and said, 'Are you a teacher in Israel and do not know this? Truly, truly I tell you that we know what we speak and we bear witness to what we see, but you do not accept our testimony. If I spoke to you of earthly things and you have not believed, how are you going to believe, if I speak to you of heavenly things? No one ascends into heaven but he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. And as Moses raised up the serpent in the desert, so the Son of Man must be raised up in order that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but have eternal life. For God has so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son so that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but have eternal life. God did not, after all, send his Son into the world in order that he might judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through him. One who believes in him is not judged, but one who does not believe has already been judged because of not believing in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. This is the judgment: the light has come into the world and human beings loved the darkness more than the light, for their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light so that their deeds may not be made known. But those who act in accord with the truth come to the light so that their deeds may be revealed, for they were done in God" (John 3:1-21). Up to this point the whole conversation that has been developed is relevant to the topic we are discussing; after this, the narrator takes a different tack.

[62] When Nicodemus failed to understand what had been said, he asked the Lord how these things could come about. Let us see what the Lord responds to this. Surely, if he agrees to answer the question he was asked, namely, "How can these things come about?" he is going to say how human beings coming from a carnal birth can attain a spiritual rebirth. Hence, he noted briefly the lack of knowledge in one who considered himself superior to others because he was a teacher, and he rebuked the lack of faith of all such people, because they did not accept the testimony given by the truth. He also added that he spoke to them of earthly matters and that they did not believe, and he asked and wondered how they would believe heavenly matters. Nonetheless, he goes on, and to the question he was asked, namely, how these things can come about, he answers that others will believe, if they do not. He says, "No one ascends into heaven but he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (John 3:13). He explains, "In this way, there will come about the spiritual birth that transforms earthly human beings into heavenly ones. Human beings could not attain this, unless they were made my members. Thus the same one ascends who came down, since no one ascends save the one who came down." Hence, all who need to be transformed and raised up must come together into the unity of Christ, so that the Christ who has come down may himself ascend. He does not regard his body, that is, his Church, as something distinct from himself. For, we quite correctly interpret, "They will be two in one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), as referring to Christ and the Church, and he himself said of this flesh, "Therefore, they are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:8). But human beings were utterly unable to ascend, because "no one ascends into heaven but the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (John 3:13). For, though he became the Son of Man on earth, he did not think it inappropriate to use the title, Son of Man, of his divinity, by which he remained in heaven, when he came down to earth. After all, he did not want us to understand two Christs, the one God and the other man, but one and the same Christ, both God and man: God, because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God" (John 1:1), and man, because "the Word was made flesh and dwelled among us" (John 1:14). And thus by reason of the distance between the divinity and human weakness, the Son of God remained in heaven, and the Son of Man lived on earth. But by reason of the unity of the person, by which the two substances are the one Christ, the Son of God lived on earth, and the Son of Man remained in heaven. Thus, from believing things that are more difficult to believe, one comes to believe things easier to believe. For, the divine substance, which is far more remote and more lofty by reason of its incomparable superiority, was able on our account to take up a human substance so that there came to be one person, and thus the Son of Man, who was on earth on account of the weakness of the flesh, is himself in heaven by reason of the divinity in which the flesh shares. Hence, how much more believable it is that other holy human beings who believe in him become one Christ with the man Christ. Thus, when all ascend by reason of his grace and union with him, the one Christ who came down from heaven ascends into heaven. Thus the apostle said, "As in one body we have many members, but all the members of the body, though they are many, are still one body, so it is with Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12). He did not say, "And so it is with the Christs," that is, with the body of Christ and the members of Christ, but "so it is with Christ," calling the head and body one Christ.

[63] This is a great and astounding honor. Because it cannot come about except by the forgiveness of sins, he goes on to say, "And as Moses raised up the serpent in the desert, so the Son of Man must be raised up in order that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life" (John 3:14-15). We know what happened in the desert back then. Many were dying from snake bites. Then the people confessed their sins and prayed to the Lord through Moses so that this poison might be taken from them. And thus, at the command of the Lord, Moses raised up the bronze snake in the desert and told the people that whoever is bitten by a snake should look up at that bronze snake. As soon as they did this, they were cured. What is the raising of the snake but the death of Christ in that figure of speech in which the cause signifies the effect? Death, of course, came from the snake who persuaded the man to commit the sin as a result of which he merited to die. The Lord did not take into his flesh sin, which is like the venom of the snake, but he did take death. Thus the punishment of sin was present in the likeness of sinful flesh without guilt so that he might destroy in sinful flesh both the guilt and the punishment. Just as, then, one who looked upon the snake that was raised up was both cured of the venom and freed from death, so now one who is conformed to the likeness of Christ's death through faith in him and his baptism is set free from sin by justification and from death by resurrection. This is, after all, what he says, "In order that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life" (John 3:15). What need, then, is there that a little one be conformed to the death of Christ through baptism, if he has in no way been poisoned by the bite of the snake.

[64] Moreover, if — as he goes on to say — "God has so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son so that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16), little ones were going to perish and were not going to have eternal life, if they did not believe in the only-begotten Son of God through the sacrament of baptism. He came for the time being, not so that he might judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through him, especially since he goes on to say, "One who believes in him is not judged, but one who does not believe has already been judged because of not believing in the name of the only-begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). Where then do we locate the baptized little ones but among the believers, as the authority of the universal Church everywhere cries out? We locate them, then, among those who believe, for they receive this through the power of the sacrament and the responses of those who present them. And, accordingly, we rank those who have not been baptized among those who have not believed. Moreover, if those who have been baptized are not judged, these others are judged because they lack baptism. He adds, "This is the judgment: the light has come into the world and human beings loved the darkness more than the light" (John 3:19). Why did he say, "The light has come into the world," unless he was speaking of his coming? Without the sacrament of his coming how can the little ones be in the light? Or how do those people in their love of darkness not hold this too? As they themselves do not believe, they suppose that their little ones need not be baptized, when they fear their bodily death. But he says that the works of those who come to the light are done in God, since they understand that their justification does not belong to their own merits, but to the grace of God. "It is God, after all," says the apostle, "who produces in us the willing and the action in accord with good will" (Philippians 2:13). In this way there comes about the spiritual rebirth of all those who come to Christ from their birth in the flesh. Christ himself revealed this; he himself explained it, when he was asked how these things could come about; on this question he left to no one the freedom of human debate. Let the little ones not be kept from the grace of the forgiveness of sins; there is no other way to come to Christ. No one can be reconciled to God and come to God in any other way than through Christ.

The Very Form of Baptism Indicates Sins Are Forgiven

[65] What shall I say about the very form of the sacrament? I wish that some of those who think differently would bring a little one to me for baptism. What does my exorcism do for the child, if it is not held in servitude to the devil? These persons would have to make the responses to me on behalf of the same little one whom they present, because the child could not make the responses on its own. How, then, are they going to say that the child renounces the devil, if the devil had no claim on the child? How are they going to say that the child is turning back to God, if the child had not been turned away? How are they going to say that, among other things, the child believes in the forgiveness of sins, if the child receives no forgiveness? If I thought that they held views contrary to these, I would not permit them to approach the sacraments with the little one. In this matter I fail to grasp their disposition before other human beings or their thoughts as they stand before God, and I do not want to say anything more harsh.

Some of them saw that a false and deceptive form of baptism is administered to little ones, when one seems to speak of and effect the forgiveness of sins, but none takes place, and they saw that nothing more damnable and detestable than that can be said or thought. Furthermore, with regard to the necessity of baptism for little ones, they grant that they need redemption, as is stated in the brief memo by one of them, who was, nonetheless, unwilling to say anything clearer regarding the forgiveness of any sin. But as you have conveyed to me in your letter, they admit, as you say, that baptism brings about the forgiveness of sins, even in the case of little ones. That is not surprising. After all, what else could they mean by redemption? But they say, "They began to have sin, not from their origin, but in their own life, after they were born."

[66] Hence, you see the wide range of opinions that exist among those people against whom I have already argued long and extensively in this work. I have read a book by one of them, and I have refuted its contents as best I could. You see, then, the great difference of opinion that exists between those, as I began to say, who maintain that little ones are completely pure and free from all sin, both original and personal, and those who think that they have, after having been born, contracted personal sins, from which they believe that they need to be cleansed by baptism. Moreover, with an eye on the scriptures and authority of the whole Church and the form of the sacrament itself, the latter group correctly saw that baptism brings about forgiveness of sins in little ones, but they either are unwilling to say or cannot see that whatever sin they have stems from their origin. The former group, however, looked to human nature, which is available for everyone's consideration, and correctly saw — as was easy to do — that they could at that age have contracted no sin in their own life. But to avoid admitting original sin, they claim that little ones have no sin at all. On these points, then, let them first agree among themselves about the individual truths they state, and the result will be that they will in no way disagree with us. For if the former grant to the latter that baptized little ones obtain the forgiveness of sins and if the latter grant to the former that little ones have not yet contracted any sin in their own life, as nature itself cries out in the silent infants, then let both of them grant to us that in little ones there remains only original sin that has to be removed by baptism.

Infants Have Committed No Sins in Their Own Lives

[67] Or do we need to investigate, discuss, and spend time on this point too? That is, are we to prove and explain how infants, whom everyone calls innocents for this very reason, have committed nothing evil by means of their own will, without which there can be no sin belonging to one's own life? Look at their great weakness of mind and body, their ignorance of everything, their complete inability to obey a command, their inability to understand or observe any law, whether natural or written, and their lack of the use of reason for either side of a question. Does not all this proclaim and demonstrate their freedom from personal sin with a silence that bears stronger witness than any language of ours? Let the very obviousness of the matter speak for itself, for I am never so at a loss for words as when the matter under discussion is more obvious than anything one can say.

[68] I would like whoever holds this opinion to tell me what sin he saw or suspected in an infant fresh from the womb, for whose redemption he admits that baptism is now necessary. Let him tell me what evil the infant committed in this its own life by its body or its mind. Perhaps it cries and bothers adults, but I would be surprised if this should be attributed to sinfulness and not rather to unhappiness. Is it that its crying is not stopped by any reasoning of its own or by the prohibition of someone else? But this is a mark of the profound ignorance in which it lies. As a result of this ignorance, when it becomes stronger after a while, it will, when angered, strike even its mother and often her breasts which it demands when it is hungry. These things are not merely tolerated, but even loved in little ones. With what sort of love do we love them but with the carnal love which finds pleasure in laughter and joking which are based on the apparent absurdity of even clever human beings? If their thoughts corresponded to what they said, we would not laugh at their wit, but at their folly. We even see that those foolish people, whom the common folk call "morons," are used for the amusement of the clever and are valued more highly than the clever in the estimate of the slave market. The carnal affection of those who are in no sense fools is able to take such delight over another's misfortune. For one person finds pleasure in the foolishness of another, though he would not himself want to be such a person.

Though a father looks forward with delight to such things and coaxes them from the baby talk of his little son, if he knew that his son would be a man of that sort when he grew up, he would surely not hesitate to mourn for him with greater sorrow than if he were dead. But as long as there is hope of development and one believes that the light of intelligence will dawn with the increase in years, children's verbal attacks, even against their parents, are not only not taken as harmful, but are even regarded as charming and pleasant. No prudent person would approve of children not merely not being restrained from words or deeds of this sort, once they can be held back, but even of their being provoked to do this, because some adults love laughter and silliness. For, in general, at an age at which they recognize their father and mother, they do not dare to speak ill of either of them, unless this sort of thing is either permitted or demanded by one or both of them. But these things are characteristic of those little ones who are already uttering words and can express the emotions of their mind by some spoken signs. Let us, rather, turn our eyes to the deep ignorance of the newly born, from which, as they develop, they come to this babbling but transient silliness, as if in growing up they were striving for knowledge and speech.

[69] Let us, I say, ponder the darkness of a mind that is, of course, rational; in that darkness they are even ignorant of God, and they resist his sacraments, even when they are baptized. I ask why and when they were plunged into this darkness. Did they acquire it here, and did they forget God through extreme negligence in this life of their own, though they lived prudently and religiously even in the wombs of their mothers? Let those who dare say such things; let those who wish listen to them; let those who are able believe such things. I myself am convinced that only those whose minds have been befogged by the stubbornness of defending their own views can hold this position.

Or is there no evil of ignorance and, hence, none to be removed? What then is the purpose of this plea, "Do not bear in mind the sins of my youth and of my ignorance" (Psalms 25:7). For, even if those sins deserve greater condemnation that are committed by persons with knowledge, still, if there were no sins of ignorance, we would not read the passage I cited, "Do not bear in mind the sins of my youth and of my ignorance." Why or when or from where was the soul of a newly born infant thrust into that densest darkness of ignorance in which, though certainly a human soul, certainly a rational soul, it remains not only untaught, but unteachable? If it belongs to human nature to begin in this way and our nature is not now defective, why was Adam not created as such? Why was he able to obey a command and capable of naming his wife and all the animals? For he said of her, "She will be called 'woman'" (Genesis 2:23), and "Whatever Adam called a living soul, that is its name" (Genesis 2:19). But this child does not know where it is, what it is, by whom it was created; it is already guilty of sin, though not yet capable of obeying a command; it is involved in and overwhelmed by so thick a fog of ignorance that it cannot be roused, as from sleep, so that it might at least become aware of these things, once they were pointed out. Rather, one must await the time when it has slept off this drunkenness of sorts, not during a single night, as usually happens even in the worst cases, but gradually over many months and years. Until this happens, we put up with so many things in little ones that we punish in adults that we cannot even count them. If little ones acquired this great evil of ignorance and weakness, after they were born in this life, where, when, and how did they suddenly become wrapped in such darkness through the commission of some great act of godlessness?

[70] Someone will object, "If these things are not characteristics of a pure nature, but the beginnings of a defective nature, because Adam was not created in such a state, why did Christ, who was far more excellent and certainly born of the Virgin without any sin, come to us in the weakness of infancy?" We reply to this objection that Adam was not created in such a state, because he was not created in sinful flesh, since he had no parent who sinned before him. But we are born in this state, because we are born in sinful flesh, since Adam sinned before us. Christ, then, was born in this state, because he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh so that from sin he might condemn sin. We are not, after all, dealing with the size of Adam's body, since he was not created as a little one, but had the full growth of his members. One can say that the animals were also created that way, and that it is, nonetheless, not the result of a sin of theirs that their young are born as little ones. But we are not presently investigating this question. Rather, we are dealing with the strength of his mind and his use of reason so that he received with docility God's commandment and the law with its prescription and was able to obey it with ease, if he willed to do so. But now human beings are born so that they are utterly unable to do this on account of the terrible ignorance and weakness, not of the flesh, but of the mind, although we all admit that there is present in a little one a soul, not of another, but of the same substance as there was in the first human being, that is, a rational soul. And yet, the great weakness of the flesh indicates, I believe, some penal condition. In any case I wonder whether, if those first human beings had not sinned, they would have had offspring of the sort that could not use their tongue or hands or feet. They would perhaps have had to be born as little ones on account of the size of the womb. And yet, the rib which he made into the woman is a small part of the body, and God did not on that account make a little wife for the man. Hence, the omnipotence of the creator certainly could have made his children into adults immediately after they were born.

[71] But — to drop this point — he could certainly have given Adam's offspring what he has given even to many animals. Their young are little and do not develop mentally as their bodies grow, since they do not have a rational soul. But, even when they are at their smallest, they run about and recognize their mothers. They are not brought to suckle at the breasts by the care and help of another; rather, they themselves know how to find them with remarkable ease, though they are located in a hidden spot on the mother's body. A newly born human, on the other hand, does not have feet capable of walking or hands able even to scratch, and unless the nipple of the breast is inserted in its motionless lips by the help of a nurse, they do not see where they are and, despite their nearness to the breasts, they are better able to cry of hunger than to suck. Moreover, this weakness of the body corresponds perfectly to the weakness of the mind. The flesh of Christ would not have borne the likeness of sinful flesh, if this flesh were not the sinful flesh by the weight of which the rational soul is so weighed down, regardless of whether the soul itself is derived from the parents or is created right there or breathed in from above. I put off for now any investigation of this topic.

Concupiscence Remains after Baptism

[72] In little ones the grace of God brings it about that sinful flesh loses its power through the baptism of the one who came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But it does not lose its power so that in the living flesh itself the concupiscence spread through and born into it is suddenly done away with and no longer exists; rather, it loses its power so that what was present at birth is not harmful at death. For, if one lives on after baptism and comes to an age capable of obeying a commandment, one has a means of fighting and, with God's help, of overcoming concupiscence, if one has not received his grace in vain and does not want to be rejected. After all, it is not granted even to adults in baptism, unless perhaps by an ineffable miracle of the omnipotent creator, that the law of sin, which is present in the members, struggling against the law of the mind, is completely destroyed and no longer exists. Rather, whatever evil one has thought, said, or done, while enslaved through the mind's subjection to this concupiscence, is completely destroyed and regarded as if it had not occurred. The bond of guilt is broken by which the devil held the soul through that concupiscence, and the wall is torn down by which he separated human beings from their creator. Yet, it continues on in the battle in which we chastise our body and subject it to servitude. It remains either to be released for permissible and necessary purposes or to be held in check by continence. But the Holy Spirit, who knows far better than we do everything past, present, and future about the human race, has foreknown and predicted a human life of the sort that no living person is found righteous in the sight of God. Hence, it happens that through ignorance or weakness we do not exert all the powers of our will against it, and we give in to it with regard to some things which are not permitted. We give in more seriously and more often to the degree that we are worse, and we give in less seriously and less frequently to the degree that we are better. But this has to do with the question whether there can be or is or will be a human being without sin in this life, apart from the one who said, "Behold, the prince of the world comes, and he will find nothing in me" (John 14:30). Since we must discuss this question with somewhat greater care, let the present volume end here so that we can investigate it from a fresh start.

Book Two

The Question of Freedom from Sin in This Life

[1] We have, I believe, my dear Marcellinus, sufficiently discussed the baptism of little ones in the previous book. We have shown that they are baptized in order to attain not only the kingdom of God, but also salvation and eternal life. No one can possess the latter apart from the kingdom of God and without the community with Christ the savior, for which he has redeemed us by his blood. In the present book, however, I have undertaken to discuss and clarify, with as much care and ability as God grants, the following question: Is there anyone now living, or has anyone ever lived, or will anyone ever live in this world without any sin whatever? I leave aside, of course, the one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself up as redemption for all (1 Timothy 2:6). But you should not be surprised, if the question of the sin and the baptism of little ones repeatedly arises in this discussion because of some need or on some given occasion, and we must not shirk the duty of responding, as best we can, in those places to every question that requires an answer from us.

The Lord's Prayer Indicates a Solution to the Question

[2] The solution of this question concerning human life free from sin's stealthy attack or unexpected conquest is especially required on account of our daily prayers. For there are some who rely so heavily on the free choice of the human will that they suppose that we need no help, even from God, in order to avoid sin, after our nature has once and for all received the free choice of the will. From this it follows that we need not pray so that we do not enter into temptation, that is, that we are not overcome by temptation, either when it deceives and takes hold of us in our ignorance or when it pushes and pulls us in our weakness. I do not have the words to explain how harmful to our salvation in Christ, how destructive and contrary to the religion which we have been taught, and how strongly opposed to the piety with which we worship God it is that we do not beg the Lord to receive such a benefit or that we suppose that the words, "And bring us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13), were inserted in the Lord's Prayer without any purpose.

Free Choice Alone Is Insufficient against Temptation

[3] They think that they say something clever — as if any of us were unaware of this — when they say that "if we do not will to, we do not sin, and God would not command human beings to do what would be impossible for the human will." But they see less well that, in order to overcome temptation in the case of some things which we desire wrongfully or fear wrongfully, we at times need the great and full strength of the will. He who willed that the prophet truthfully say, "No living person will be found righteous in your sight" (Psalms 143:2), foresaw that we will not in every case fully use this power. Knowing in advance that we were going to be such persons, the Lord gave us, even after baptism, certain salutary remedies against the guilt and the bonds of sin and willed that they be effective, namely, works of mercy. For he said, "Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and they will give to you" (Luke 6:37-38). Who, after all, would leave this life with any hope of attaining eternal salvation, as long as the judgment stands, "Whoever has observed the whole law, but has offended on one point, has become guilty on every count" (James 2:10)? Yet there follows soon afterward, "Speak and act as if you are beginning to be judged by the law of freedom. For judgment will be without mercy for one who does not show mercy, but mercy triumphs over judgment!" (James 2:12-13).

[4] Concupiscence, then, remains in the members of the body of this death as the law of sin. It is present in the little ones at birth, though its guilt is removed when little ones are baptized. It remains for the combat that is life, but it does not punish with damnation those who die before engaging in that combat. It holds unbaptized little ones enmeshed in guilt and draws them to damnation, like children of anger, even if they die as little ones. But in the case of baptized adults who have the use of reason, whenever the mind consents to that same concupiscence in order to sin, it is due to one's own will. After the destruction of all sins and after the removal of that guilt as well, by which it held them in bonds from their origin, it remains in the meanwhile for the combat that is life, until death shall be swallowed up by victory. Then, when peace has been achieved, there will remain nothing more to be conquered. It will do no harm whatsoever to those who do not consent to it regarding what is forbidden. But it holds guilty those who consent to it regarding what is forbidden. And unless they are healed by the medicine of penance and works of mercy through the heavenly priest who makes intercession for us, it brings them to the second death and to damnation.

For this reason, when the Lord was teaching us to pray, he advised us to say, among other things, "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" (Matthew 6:12-13). For evil remains in our flesh, not by reason of the nature in which human beings were created by God, but by reason of the sinfulness into which they have fallen. Now, having lost their strength, they are not healed with the same ease of will with which they were wounded. The apostle says of this evil, "I know that the good does not dwell in my flesh" (Romans 7:18). He commands us not to obey this evil, when he says, "Let sin, then, not reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires" (Romans 6:12). If, then, we consent to these desires stemming from the concupiscence of the flesh by an illicit turn of the will, we say in order to heal this wound, "Forgive us our debts." And drawing a remedy from works of mercy, we add, "As we also forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). But so that we do not consent to it, we beg for help with the words, "And bring us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13) — or as some manuscripts have it, "Lead us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13). It is not that God himself tempts someone with such a temptation. For "God is not a tempter toward evil; rather, he tempts no one" (James 1:13). But we pray that, if we should begin to be tempted by our concupiscence, we may not lack his help so that we may be victorious in him and not be enticed and carried off. Finally, we mention what will be accomplished in the end, when what is mortal will be swallowed up by life: "But deliver us from evil" (Matthew 6:13). At that time, after all, there will be no concupiscence of the sort that we are commanded to fight and to which we are commanded not to consent. We can, then, briefly ask for this whole cluster of three benefits as follows: "Forgive us those times in which we have been carried off by concupiscence; help us not to be carried off by concupiscence; take concupiscence away from us."

We Need God's Help If We Are to Act Righteously

[5] We are not, of course, helped by God to sin, but we cannot do what is right or carry out the commandment of righteousness in every respect, unless we are helped by God. The body's eye is not helped by light so that, closed and turned away, it may withdraw from the light; rather, it is helped by it to see, and it cannot do so at all unless the light helps it. In the same way, God, who is the light of the interior human being, helps the sight of our mind, so that we do something good, not according to our own righteousness, but according to his righteousness. But if we turn away from him, that is our fault; then we are wise according to the flesh; then we consent to the concupiscence of the flesh with respect to what is forbidden. God, then, helps those who turn to him, but abandons those who turn away. But he also helps us to turn to him — something that this light certainly does not do for the eyes of body. He commands us with the words, "Turn toward me, and I will turn toward you" (Zechariah 1:3), and we say to him, "Turn us to you, O God of our salvation" (Psalms 85:5) and "God of power, turn us to you" (Psalms 80:8). What else are we saying but, "Grant what you command"? He commands us with the words, "Be intelligent, you who are without understanding among the people" (Psalms 94:8), and we say to him, "Give me understanding that I may learn your commandments" (Psalms 119:73). What else are we saying but, "Grant what you command"? He commands with the words, "You shall not go after your desires" (Sirach 18:30), and we say, "We know that no one can be chaste unless God grants this." What else are we saying but, "Grant what you command"? He commands with the words, "Act righteously" (Isaiah 56:1), and he also says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, because they will be satisfied" (Matthew 5:6). From whom ought we to ask the food and drink of righteousness but from him who promises those who hunger and thirst for it that they will be satisfied.

[6] Let us then drive away from our hearing and from our minds those who say that, having received once and for all free choice of the will, we need not pray that God might help us not to sin. Not even the Pharisee of the gospel was blinded by such darkness. He was mistaken in thinking that his righteousness was perfect and in supposing that he had attained its fullness. But he still gave thanks to God, because he was not like other human beings unjust, thieves, and adulterers, like the tax collector, since he fasted twice a week and gave away a tenth of all he possessed. He did not ask that his righteousness be increased, but by giving thanks to God for the things he had, he admitted that he had received everything from him. He, nonetheless, met with disapproval for two reasons: As though he had his fill, he asked to receive nothing to nourish his righteousness, and he acted in an insulting manner toward the tax collector, preferring himself to a man who hungered and thirsted for righteousness. What, then, will befall those people who, even if they admit that have no righteousness or that they do not have complete righteousness, presume that they must get it from themselves and need not ask for it from their creator where its storehouse and source is found? Nor does it follow that we should rely on prayers alone in this matter and not bring to bear the strength of our will upon living a good life. After all, God is said to be our helper, and we cannot be helped unless we try to do something ourselves, because God does not produce our salvation in us as if we were mindless rocks or beings in whose nature he did not create reason and will. But why he helps one and not another, helps one to this extent and another to that, and helps one in this way and another in that, lies with him in the decision of his hidden justice and in his surpassing power.

The First Question: Can Human Beings Be Sinless in This Life?

[7] One need not, of course, with a rash incautiousness, immediately oppose those who say that there can be human beings in this life without sin. After all, if we say that it is impossible, we will be disparaging both the free choice of persons who use their will to strive for this as well as the power and mercy of God who brings it about by his help. But it is one question whether this is possible; it is quite another whether it is actually the case. It is still another question why it is not actually the case, if it is not so, though it is possible. And it is still another question not only whether there is someone who has never had any sin whatsoever, but whether there can or could ever be such a person. If someone asks me in accord with these four ways of posing the question whether a human being can be without sin in this life, I admit that one can be by the grace of God and free choice. I have no doubt that free choice itself belongs to the grace of God, that is, to God's gifts, not only insofar as it exists, but also insofar as it is good, that is, insofar as it turns to carrying out God's commandments. In that way God's grace not merely shows us what we are to do, but also helps us so that we are able to do what God has shown us. After all, "what do we have that we have not received?" For this reason Jeremiah also says, "I know, Lord, that a man's path does not lie in his power and that it is not up to a man to walk and direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). For the same reason, when someone said to God in the Psalms, "You prescribed that your commandments be strictly observed" (Psalms 119:4), he did not rely on himself to do it, but immediately expressed the hope, "May my paths be guided to observe your ordinances. Then I will not be put to shame, as I gaze upon all your commandments" (Psalms 119:5-6). Does anyone hope for what so lies in his power that he needs no help to do it? He shows clearly enough in what follows from whom one should hope for this, since it does not come from chance or fate or anything else but God. He says, "Guide my journeys according to your word, and let not all sinfulness lord it over me" (Psalms 119:133). From servitude to this damnable lordship those are set free whom the Lord Jesus gave the power to become children of God, when they welcomed him. From this terrible dominion they needed to be set free, for he said to them, "If the Son sets you free, then you will truly be free" (John 8:36). Because of these and many other testimonies of this sort, I cannot doubt that God has not commanded human beings anything impossible and that nothing is impossible for God in terms of assisting and helping us to accomplish what he commands. Hence, human beings can, if they want, be without sin, if they are helped by God.

The Second Question: Is There Actually Someone without Sin?

[8] But if one asks the question I put in second place, namely, whether it is actually the case, I do not believe it is. For I prefer to believe the scripture which says, "Do not enter into judgment with your servant, because no living person will be found righteous in your sight" (Psalms 143:2). There is, then, need of God's mercy which triumphs over judgment, and the person who does not show mercy will not have God's mercy. When the prophet said, "I have said, Against myself I will declare my sin to the Lord, and you have forgiven the wickedness of my heart," he immediately added, "Every holy person will pray to you for this at the proper time" (Psalms 32:5-6). He said, "Every holy person," not "every sinner." These are, after all, the words of holy persons, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). Hence, there are in the Revelation of the same apostle those one hundred and forty-four thousand holy men who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins, and no lie was found on their lips, because they were beyond reproach. They were, of course, beyond reproach, precisely because they truthfully reproached themselves. And no lie was found on their lips, precisely because, if they were to say that they had no sin, they would deceive themselves, and the truth would not be in them, and there would certainly be a lie where the truth was absent. For, the righteous person certainly does not lie when he accuses himself as he begins to speak.

Our Adoption as Children of God Remains Incomplete

[9] Accordingly, because they consider the scriptures less than they should, they are greatly misled by the words of scripture, "Those who have been born of God do not sin and cannot sin, because his seed remains in them" (1 John 3:9), even if other passages say something of this sort. For they do not notice that people become children of God to the extent that they begin to exist in the newness of the Spirit and begin to be renewed in the interior human being according to the image of him who created them. All the old weakness is not done away with from the moment of one's baptism. Rather, the renewal begins with the forgiveness of all sins and is realized to the extent that one who is wise is wise about spiritual things. But the other things are realized in hope, until they are brought about in reality as well, when the body itself will be renewed into the better state of immortality and incorruption with which we will be clothed at the resurrection of the dead. After all, the Lord called this a rebirth, not the sort that takes place in baptism, but a rebirth in the sense that what now has begun in the spirit will be completed in the body as well. He said, "In the rebirth when the Son of Man shall sit on his throne of majesty, you too will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28).

A total and complete forgiveness of sins is brought about in baptism. But suppose that there were immediately realized the total and complete change of the human being into a new and eternal state. I do not mean this in terms of the body which clearly is still tending toward its old corruption and death and must be renewed in the end when there will truly be a new condition. But apart from the body, if in the mind itself, which is the interior human being, a completely new condition was brought about in baptism, the apostle would not say, "Though our exterior human being is being corrupted, the interior human being is being renewed from day to day" (2 Corinthians 4:16). Certainly those who are still being renewed from day to day have not been wholly renewed. And to the extent that they have not yet been renewed, to that extent they are in their old condition. Moreover, to the extent that they are still in their old condition, even though they have been baptized, to that extent they are still children of the world. But to the extent that they are in their new condition, that is, as a result of the full and complete forgiveness of sins and to the extent that they are wise in terms of the Spirit and lead lives that correspond to this, they are children of God. For interiorly we put off the old human being and don the new one, because it is there that we set aside the lie and speak the truth, as well as the other things by which the apostle explains what it means to put off the old human being and don the new one "who was created according to God in the righteousness and holiness of the truth" (Ephesians 4:22-24). He exhorts the baptized faithful to do this, but they would not still need this admonition, if it had already been completely accomplished in baptism. And yet it has been accomplished, just as we have been saved, for "he saved us through the bath of rebirth" (Titus 3:5). But in another passage he explains how this has been accomplished, "Not only they, but we too possess the firstfruits of the Spirit, and we groan within ourselves, as we await our adoption, the redemption of our body. For we are saved in hope, but a hope that is seen is not hope. After all, why should one hope for what one already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we look forward to it with patience" (Romans 8:23-25).

[10] Our adoption as God's children will become complete when our body is also redeemed. We now have the first fruits of the Spirit, and in that respect we have now really become children of God. In the other respects, however, as we have been saved and renewed in hope, so we are children of God in hope. But because our salvation has not yet become a reality, we are not yet fully renewed and are not yet children of God, but children of the world. We make progress, then, toward renewal and a righteous life inasmuch as we are children of God, and in that respect we cannot sin at all. We make progress until the whole of our being undergoes this transformation, even the respect in which we are still children of the world. In that respect, after all, we can still sin. Thus it is that, on the one hand, "Those who have been born of God do not sin" (1 John 3:9) and, on the other, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). Our being children of the flesh and of this world, then, will be done away with, and our being children of God and persons reborn of the Spirit will be brought to perfection. For this reason John also says, "Beloved, we are now children of God and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be" (1 John 3:2). What do "we are" and "we shall be" mean, if not that we are in hope and we shall be in reality? For he goes on to say, "We know that, when he appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). Hence, we have now begun to be like him, because we have the first fruits of the Spirit, and we are still unlike him because of the remnants of our old condition. Hence, we are children of God because of our rebirth by the Spirit to the extent that we are like him, and we are children of the flesh and of the world to the extent that we are unlike him. As like him, then, we cannot sin, but as unlike him, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8). And this lasts until our adoption has become complete and the sinner is no more so that, if you look in his place, you will not find him.

Why the Righteous Do Not Give Birth to Righteous Children

[11] It was pointless, then, for some to have produced this argument and to have said, "If a sinner gave birth to a sinner so that a little one is freed from its guilt of original sin in the reception of baptism, a righteous person ought also to give birth to a righteous child." The argument implies that one bears a child according to the flesh insofar as one is righteous and not rather insofar as the law of sin is stirred in one's members by concupiscence and is turned by the law of the mind to the purposes of propagation. Hence, one gives birth insofar as one still carries about the old condition among the children of the world, not insofar as one enters into the new condition among the children of God. "For the children of this world are born and beget children" (Luke 20:34). Hence, what is born is such as it is, because "what is born of the flesh is flesh." But only the children of God are righteous. Insofar, however, as they are children of God, they do not bear children according to the flesh, because they themselves have been born of the Spirit, not of the flesh. But those of them who give birth to children give birth as a result of this flesh, since they have not yet transformed completely all the remnants of their old condition into perfect newness. Hence, any children born as a result of that old and weak condition are necessarily themselves also old and weak. Thus they must themselves be renewed for another birth through the forgiveness of sins. But if they do not receive that rebirth, righteous parents will do them no good. Such parents are righteous in the Spirit, but they did not give them birth by the Spirit. But if they do receive that rebirth, even parents who are not righteous do them no harm. For in the latter case, the children have passed by spiritual grace into the hope of an eternal new condition; in the former case, they remain entirely in the old condition by reason of their carnal mind.

Noah and Daniel Were Righteous, But Not Sinless

[12] The testimony, then, which says, "Those who have been born of God do not sin" (1 John 3:9), does not contradict the testimony which says to those who have already been born of God, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). For as long as any human being, even though now wholly existing in hope and already partially renewed by spiritual rebirth, carries about "the body which is being corrupted and weighs down the soul" (Wisdom 9:15), one must distinguish, even in a single human being, to what part something belongs and on what grounds something is said. For, as I see things, scripture does not readily provide such great testimony to the righteousness of anyone as it does to the three servants of God, Noah, Daniel, and Job. The prophet Ezekiel said that they alone can be freed from the threat of God's anger; he was, of course, using those three men as symbols for three kinds of human beings who were to be set free. He took Noah as the symbol of righteous leaders of peoples on account of his governance of the ark, which is like the Church; he took Daniel as the symbol of righteous celibates; he took Job as the symbol of righteous married people. If there should happen to be another interpretation, we need not discuss it now. It is, nonetheless, sufficiently clear from this testimony of the prophet and from other divine testimonies how outstanding these men were in righteousness. And yet, no sober person would say that drunkenness is not a sin, even though it befell such a great man. For Noah was, as we find in scripture, drunk, though heaven forbid that he was a drunkard.

[13] After the prayer which Daniel poured out to God, he said of himself, "I prayed and confessed to the Lord my God my sins and the sins of my people" (Daniel 9:20). It was for that reason, unless I am mistaken, that Ezekiel, whom we mentioned above, said to a certain proud person, "Are you wiser than Daniel?" (Ezekiel 28:3). Nor can one say in this case what some people argue in opposition to the Lord's Prayer. They say, "Although the apostles, who were holy and already perfect and who had absolutely no sin, said this prayer, it was on behalf of the imperfect and those still sinners that they said, 'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors' (Matthew 6:12). Thus, by saying 'our debts,' they showed that there existed in the one body both those who still had sins and they themselves who had absolutely no sin." In Daniel's case one certainly cannot say this. He foresaw, I believe, as a prophet, that this presumptuousness would one day arise, since he often repeated in prayer, "We have sinned" (Daniel 9:5, 11, 15). When he explained to us why he said this, we did not hear him say, "I prayed and confessed to the Lord my God the sins of my people." Nor did he blur the distinction and say, "I confessed to the Lord my God our sins," so that it was uncertain whether he said that on account of their fellowship in one body. Rather, he spoke quite distinctly, as if stressing this distinction and strongly emphasizing it; he said, "My sins and the sins of my people" (Daniel 9:20). Who is going to deny this evidence except persons who find more pleasure in defending what they think than in discovering what they should think?

Even Job Was Not Completely Sinless

[14] But let us see what Job himself said after such a great testimony from God to his righteousness. He said, "In the truth I know that it is so. For how will one be righteous before the Lord? If, after all, one wants to contend with him, he will not be able to obey him" (Job 9:2-3). And a little later he says, "Who will oppose his judgment? Even if I am righteous, my mouth will speak wickedness" (Job 9:19). Again much later he says, "I know that he will not let me go unpunished. Since I am wicked, why am I not dead? Even if I shall be purer than snow and have clean hands, you have sufficiently dipped me in filth" (Job 9:28-31). So too, he says in another discourse, "Because you have written down evils against me and wrapped me in the sins of my youth and set my foot in stocks, you have preserved all my deeds and you have examined the soles of my feet, which grow old like a bag or like a garment eaten by a moth. For a man born of a woman is short-lived and full of anger, and he passes like a flower when it blooms and fades; like a shadow he does not last. Have you not made concern for him enter into your judgment? For who will be clean from filth? No one, not even if one's life lasts only a single day" (Job 13:26-14:5). A little later he says, "You have counted all my needs, and none of my sins has escaped your notice; you have sealed my sins in a bag, and you have noticed if I have done anything unwillingly" (Job 14:16-17).

See, even Job confesses his sins and says that he knows in the truth that no one is righteous before the Lord. And he knows this in the truth, because, if we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us. Hence, in terms of human conduct, God offers this great testimony to his righteousness. But Job himself, measuring himself by that rule of righteousness which he sees in God, as best he can, knows in the truth that it is so and adds, "For how will one be righteous before the Lord? If, after all, one wants to contend with him, he will not be able to obey him" (Job 9:2-3). That is, if, in facing judgment, one wants to show that nothing worthy of condemnation can be found in him, he will not be able to obey God. After all, he also loses that obedience by which he could obey God who commands him to confess his sins. For this reason the Lord rebukes certain people with the words, "Why do you want to contend with me in judgment?" (Jeremiah 2:29). To avoid this, the psalmist says, "Do not enter into judgment with your servant, because no living person will be found righteous in your sight" (Psalms 143:2). Hence, Job also says, "Who will oppose his judgment? Even if I am righteous, my mouth will speak wickedness" (Job 9:19-20). That means: If I shall declare myself righteous contrary to his judgment in which that perfect rule of righteousness proves me unrighteous, my mouth will certainly speak wickedness, because it will speak against God's truth.

[15] He also showed the frailness or rather the damnation of the carnal generation stemming from the transgression of the original sin. When he dealt with his own sins, he said, as if he were stating their causes, that "a man born of woman is short-lived and full of anger." Of what anger? Surely of that anger as a result of which all, as the apostle said, were "by nature," that is, from their origin, "children of anger" (Ephesians 2:3), because they are children of the concupiscence of the flesh and of the world. He goes on to show that human death is tied to this anger. For, when he said that a man is short-lived and full of anger, he also added, "And he passes like a flower when it blooms and fades; like a shadow, he does not last" (Job 14:1-2). But when he added, "Have you not made concern for him enter into your judgment? For who will be clean from filth? No one, not even if one's life lasts only a single day" (Job 14:3-4), he was, of course, really saying this: You have made concern for man with his short life enter into your judgment. For however brief his life might be, even if it were only a single day, he could not be clean from filth and, therefore, it is perfectly just that he comes into your judgment. He said, "You have counted all my needs, and none of my sins has escaped your notice; you have sealed my sins in a bag, and you have noticed if I have done anything unwillingly" (Job 14:16-17). Did he not make it quite clear by this that one is justly held accountable even for those sins which are not committed out of the enticement of pleasure, but for the sake of avoiding some trouble, pain, or even death? For we say that these sins are committed out of some necessity, although they should all be overcome by the love for and delight in righteousness. One can also view his words, "And you have noticed if I have done anything unwillingly" (Job 14:17), as pertinent to the statement which says, "For I do not do what I want; rather, I do what I hate" (Romans 7:15).

[16] Scripture, that is, the Spirit of the Lord, said that in all the things that happened to him Job did not sin with his lips before the Lord. Why is it that the Lord, who gave such testimony to him, afterward rebuked him, when he spoke to him? Job himself bears witness to this, when he says, "Why, after having been admonished, do I still face judgment and hear the Lord's rebukes?" (Job 39:33). But no one is justly rebuked unless there is something in that person that deserves a rebuke.

What sort of a rebuke is this? It is correctly understood as spoken in the person of Christ the Lord. He spells out for him the divine actions stemming from his power. He rebukes him with the intention that it might be clear that he is saying: Can you do these great deeds which I can? What is the point but that Job should understand? After all, we believe that God inspired him so that he foreknew that Christ would come in order to suffer. Hence, the point was that he should understand how he ought to endure his sufferings with equanimity, if Christ did not refuse to be obedient in suffering, for Christ had absolutely no sin, though he become man on our account, and as God he had such great power. Job understood that with a purer intention of the heart and added to his response, "Before I heard you with the hearing of the ear, and now, behold, my eye sees you. Hence, I have reproached myself, wasted away, and regarded myself as dust and ashes" (Job 42:5-6). Why was he so displeased with himself in this great insight? After all, God's work which made him a man could not rightly displease him, since scripture also says to God, "Do not look down upon the works of your hands" (Psalms 138:8). Rather, it was precisely in terms of that righteousness, by which he knew that he was righteous, that he reproached himself and wasted away and regarded himself as dust and ashes. For with his mind he saw the righteousness of Christ; there could not be any sin, not only not in his divinity, but also not in his soul and not in his flesh. In comparison to this righteousness which comes from God, the apostle Paul regarded his own righteousness, which was beyond reproach in terms of the righteousness which comes from the law, not only as loss, but even as rubbish.

[17] Hence, that splendid testimony by which God praised Job does not stand in contradiction to the testimony which says, "No living person will be found righteous in your sight" (Psalms 143:2). For it does not prove to us that there was absolutely nothing in him that he himself could truthfully or that God could correctly reprehend. And yet it was not falsely said of him that he was a righteous and true worshiper of God who refrained from every evil deed. These are, after all, God's words about him: "Have you noticed my servant, Job? For there is not a man like him upon the earth: without reproach, righteous, a true worshiper of God, refraining from every evil deed" (Job 1:8). By the first words, he is praised in comparison with human beings who are on earth; in fact, he surpassed all who at that time were able to be righteous on earth. But it does not follow that he was absolutely without sin, merely because he went beyond the others in his progress in righteousness. Then it adds, "without reproach": a man about whose life no one justly complains; "righteous": one who has so developed in moral goodness that no one can equal him; "a true worshiper of God": one who truly and humbly confesses his sins; "refraining from every evil deed": it would be surprising if he refrained as well from every evil word and thought.

We do not know how great Job was, but we know that he was righteous. We also know that he was a great man who bore terrible trials and afflictions; we know that he endured all those things, not on account of his sins, but in order to reveal his righteousness. Nonetheless, these words by which the Lord praises him could also be said of that man who finds pleasure in the law of God according to the interior human being, but sees another law in his members resisting the law of his mind, especially when he says, "I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil that I hate. But if I do the evil that I hate, then it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that dwells in me" (Romans 7:19-20). Note that this man is free from every evil deed in terms of the interior human being, because it is not he himself who does it, but the evil that dwells in his flesh. And yet, since his finding pleasure in the law of God is something that he has only from the grace of God, he still needs to be set free and cries out, "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ, our Lord" (Romans 7:24-25).

[18] There are, then, persons on earth who are righteous, great, brave, prudent, chaste, patient, pious, merciful, and who endure all temporal evils with equanimity for the sake of righteousness. But granted that this is true, it is also true that "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8) and "No living person will be found righteous in his sight" (Psalms 143:2). Hence, those people are not sinless, and none of them are so insanely arrogant that they think that they have no need of the Lord's Prayer for some sins of their own.

Nor Were Zechariah and Elizabeth Completely Sinless

[19] What shall we say about Zechariah and Elizabeth who are often raised as an objection to us in discussions of this question? Scripture, after all, bears witness that Zechariah was a man of outstanding righteousness among the high priests appointed to offer the sacrifices of the Old Testament. But we read in the Letter to the Hebrews the testimony that I already quoted in the previous book that Christ alone was a high priest who, unlike those who were called high priests, had no need to offer sacrifice daily first for his own sins and then for the people. It says, "It was fitting, after all, that we have a high priest of this sort: righteous, without malice, undefiled, removed from sinners, raised above the heavens, who does not have the daily need, as the high priests did, to offer sacrifice first for his own sins" (Hebrews 7:26). To this series of priests there belonged Zechariah, Phinehas, and Aaron, who was the first in this order, as well as all the others who lived praiseworthy and righteous lives in that priesthood. Nonetheless, they needed to offer sacrifice first for their own sins, since Christ, whom they prefigured, was the only one who, as a spotless priest, did not need to do this.

[20] What has been said in praise of Zechariah and Elizabeth that is not found in the apostle's words about himself, before he believed in Christ? After all, he said that he was without reproach in terms of the righteousness that comes from the law. We read this concerning them in these words: "But they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without reproach" (Luke 1:6). Because whatever justice they had was not a matter of pretense before human beings, it said, "before God." But the words of scripture about Zechariah and his wife, "in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord," were briefly summed up by Paul as "in the law" (Philippians 3:6). After all, prior to the gospel they did not have one law and he another; rather, they all had one and the same law. It was the law which, as we read, was given through Moses to their forefathers and in accord with which Zechariah was a priest and offered sacrifice in his turn. And yet the apostle who at that time possessed a similar righteousness goes on to say, "Those things which had been my successes, I have come to regard as losses on account of Christ. And yet I consider everything to be a loss on account of the excellent knowledge of Christ Jesus, our Lord. On his account I have considered all things not only as disadvantages, but even as rubbish, in order that I might gain Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness derived from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, a righteousness that comes from God in faith. Thus I want to know him and the power of his resurrection and the sharing in his sufferings, as one who has been conformed to his death, in order that I may somehow attain the resurrection of the dead" (Philippians 3:7-11).

We are, then, so far from believing on the basis of those earlier words that Zechariah and Elizabeth possessed perfect righteousness without any sin that we do not think that even the apostle was perfect by the same lofty standard. I do not mean only in terms of that righteousness of the law which he, as well as they, possessed and which he ranked among losses and rubbish in comparison with the surpassing righteousness which lies in faith in Christ. I mean also in terms of the gospel itself where he earned the high rank of being so great an apostle. I would not dare to say this, if I did not consider it unthinkable not to believe him. For, he goes on to say, "Not that I have already grasped the goal or have already become perfect. Rather, I struggle on in the hope that I may grasp it, as I have been grasped by Christ Jesus. Brothers and sisters, I do not think that I have already grasped it. But I do one thing: having forgotten the past and stretched out toward what lies ahead, I deliberately struggle on toward the reward of God's lofty calling in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:12-14). He himself admits that he has not yet grasped the goal, that he is not yet perfect in the full righteousness which he longs to attain in Christ, but that he still deliberately struggles on and, while forgetting the past, is stretched out to what lies ahead. He admits all this so that we may know that his words, "Though our exterior human being is being corrupted, the interior human being is being renewed from day to day" (2 Corinthians 4:16), hold true of him as well. For although he was a perfect wayfarer, he had not yet reached the end of the journey. Finally, he wants to take along with him the sort of companions whom he addresses, when he adds, "Let as many of us, then, as are perfect bear this in mind, and if you think differently, God will reveal this to you as well; nonetheless, let us walk in the knowledge we have already attained" (Philippians 3:15-16). This walking is not done by bodily feet, but by the longings of the mind and the actions of one's life. In that way those who make progress on the straight road of faith by being renewed from day to day become able to be perfect possessors of righteousness. They have already become perfect wayfarers toward that same righteousness.

[21] And so all those people whom the scriptures of God proclaimed to us because of their good will and acts of righteousness in this life and all the people of this sort who came after them, even though they were not proclaimed and praised by those testimonies, and those who exist even now or will exist hereafter are all great, all righteous, all truly praiseworthy, but they are not completely without sin. We believe, after all, the testimonies of the scriptures concerning the praises of these persons, and by those same testimonies we also believe that no living person is found righteous in the sight of God. For this reason, we pray that he may not enter into judgment with his servants, and we believe that the Lord's Prayer, which he gave to his disciples, is necessary for all the faithful, not only in general, but even for each individual.

Why We Are Commanded to Be Perfect, If No One Is Sinless

[22] "But," they object, "the Lord said, 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect' (Matthew 5:48). He would not command this, if he knew that he is commanding what is impossible." At this point the question is not whether it is possible, if they take this perfection to mean that a person can be without sin, while living this life. For we have answered above that it is possible. Our present question is rather whether anyone has actually been sinless. We have long known that there is no one who exerts his will as much as the occasion demands, as the massive testimonies of the scriptures, which I mentioned, declare.

When scripture mentions the perfection of some individual, we must see in what respect scripture speaks of it. After all, I previously cited a testimony from the apostle in which he admits that he is not yet perfect in terms of acquiring the righteousness he desires. But he immediately says, "Let as many of us, then, as are perfect bear this in mind" (Philippians 3:15). He would not say both of these things, unless he were perfect in one respect and not so in another. Thus, suppose that someone is a perfect student of wisdom — something that those people were not to whom he said, "I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet able to take it, nor are you able even now" (1 Corinthians 3:2). He also said to them, "We speak wisdom among the perfect" (1 Corinthians 2:6), where he certainly meant us to understand, "perfect students." It is possible, then, as I said, that one is already a perfect student of wisdom, but is not also a perfect teacher of it. One can have perfect knowledge of righteousness and not yet practice it perfectly. One can be perfect to the point of loving one's enemies, but not yet perfect to the point of accepting suffering from them. And with regard to one who is perfect insofar as he loves all human beings, who has even attained a love for his enemies, the question still remains whether he is already perfect in that love. That is, does he love those he loves as much as the immutable standard of truth prescribes that they should be loved? When we read in scripture about the perfection of some person, we must carefully note in what respect the person is said to be perfect, since a person is not taken to be without sin, merely on account of being called perfect in some respect. And yet, one could say that a person is worthy of being called perfect, not because of having already arrived at the goal, but because of having advanced a good distance toward it. Accordingly, a person can be called perfect in the teaching of the law, even though he still lacks some knowledge. In that sense the apostle called those people perfect, to whom he said, "And if you think differently, God will reveal this to you as well; nonetheless, let us walk in the knowledge that we have already attained" (Philippians 3:15).

[23] Nor ought we to deny that God commands that we should be so perfect in acting righteously that we have absolutely no sin. After all, whatever it is, it is not a sin, if God does not command that it should not be. "Why then," they ask, "does he command what he knows no human being is going to do?" In the same way one can also ask why he commanded those first human beings, who were the only two, what he knew they would not do. Nor should we say that he gave the command precisely so that one of us would do it, if they did not, for God gave to them alone the command that they should not take food from that tree. Just as he knew the righteousness that they were not going to observe, so he knew the righteousness that he was going to produce from them. In that way, then, he commands all human beings not to commit any sin, although he foreknows that no one will fulfill the command. Thus he himself will produce what is right by damning all those who have wickedly and damnably held his commandments in contempt. So too, he will produce what is good by purifying all those who obediently and piously make progress in his commandments, even though they do not observe all he has commanded, and who forgive the sins of others, as they want to be forgiven themselves. How, after all, can persons be forgiven by God's mercy as they forgive, if there is no sin? Or if there is a sin, how can it not be forbidden by God's righteousness?

[24] "But, look," they object, "the apostle says, 'I have fought the good fight; I have run the race; I have kept the faith. There remains for me the crown of righteousness' (2 Timothy 4:7-8). He would not say this, if he had any sin." Quite the contrary, let them explain to me how he could say this, when there still remained for him so great a battle, so great a fight, in the suffering which he said still lay ahead for him. Had he all but finished the race, when he still had not reached the point at which he was going to face a fiercer and cruder enemy? With such words he may have expressed his joy with certitude and security, because he who had revealed that this suffering still lay ahead for him had made him certain and secure regarding his victory in the great fight to come. In that case, he said these things, not because of their full attainment, but because of his firm hope. Thus he spoke of what he was confident would be, as if it had already come about. If, then, he were to add to these words, "I now have no sin," we would understand that he said this too with regard to the perfection that lay in the future, not the perfection that has already come about. For his being sinless — something that they think was already realized in him, because he said these things — belonged to the finishing of his race, just as his triumphing over his opponent belonged to the finishing of his race. But even these people must admit that this latter still had to be realized, when he said this.

We maintain, then, that all of this still had to be realized in him, when, trusting in God's promise, he stated all this as if it had already taken place. To finishing his race there belonged, of course, his forgiving his debtors their debts and his praying that his own debts be forgiven. Because of the Lord's promise he was completely certain that he would have no sin at that final moment which, though still to come, he described as already realized because of his trust. For, to omit other matters, I wonder whether, when he said those words which led them to think that he was sinless, there had already been taken from him that thorn in his flesh. He had asked the Lord three times to take it away from him, and he received the answer, "My grace is sufficient for you; virtue is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9). It was necessary for the perfection of this great man that the angel of Satan not be taken from him. By that angel he was struck in the face so that he might not become proud on account of the greatness of his revelations. Will, then, anyone dare to think or to say that a person subjected to the burden of this life is completely free of every sin?

[25] Granted that there are outstanding human beings of such great righteousness that God spoke to them from out of the pillar of cloud. "Moses and Aaron among his priests and Samuel among those who call upon his name" (Psalms 99:6) were such men. Scripture which speaks the truth proclaims with great praise Samuel's piety and innocence from his early childhood, when his mother left him in the temple to fulfill her vow and offered him as a servant to the Lord. Scripture also says of such persons, "You were merciful to them and punished all their loves" (Psalms 99:8). In anger he punishes the children of damnation, but with mercy he punishes the children of grace, since "he chastises the one whom he loves" (Proverbs 3:12) and "he scourges every son he acknowledges as his own" (Hebrews 12:6). But only sin deserves the punishment, correction, and scourge of God. I leave aside him who stood ready for the scourges, so that he might experience all things like us apart from sin, and be the holy priest of a holy people, making intercession even for the holy. Each of them truthfully says of himself, "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). Those people who argue against this are praiseworthy for their chaste life and morals, and they do not hesitate to follow the counsel that the Lord gave to the rich man who asked his advice about attaining eternal life. After he answered that he already observed all the commandments, the Lord told him that, if he wished to be perfect, he should sell all that he had and give it to the poor and transfer his treasure to heaven. Nonetheless, none of these people dare to say that they are without sin. When they say this, we believe that they are speaking truthfully, but, if they are lying, they begin by that very fact to increase their sin or to be sinful.

The Third Question: Why No Human Being Lives a Sinless Life

[26] Let us now turn to the question I put in the third place. Since a human being can be without sin in this life, when God's grace helps the human will, I could easily and truthfully give as an answer to the question why no one is without sin: Because they do not will to be. But if someone asks me why they do not will to be, the question becomes a long one. I will, nonetheless, give a short answer to it, without precluding a more careful investigation. Human beings do not will to do what is right, either because they do not know whether it is right or because they find no delight in it. For we will something with greater strength in proportion to the certainty of our knowledge of its goodness and the deep delight that we find in it. Ignorance and weakness, then, are defects which hinder the will from being moved to do a good deed or to refrain from an evil deed. But it is due to God's grace helping the human will that we come to know what is hidden and find pleasing what was not attractive. The reason why human beings are not helped by his grace lies in them, not in God. They were, after all, predestined either to be damned on account of their sinful pride or to face judgment and correction for their pride, if they are children of mercy. For this reason, when Jeremiah had said, "I know, Lord, that a man's path does not lie in his own power and it is not up to a man to walk and direct his steps," he immediately added, "Rebuke me, Lord, but in your judgment, not in your anger" (Jeremiah 10:23-24). It is as if he said, "I know that I deserve rebuke for receiving less help from you in order that I might perfectly direct my steps. Nonetheless, do not deal with me as you would in your anger by which you have decided to damn the wicked, but as you would in your judgment by which you teach your own not to be proud." For this reason it says elsewhere, "And your judgments will help me" (Psalms 119:175).

[27] Consequently, do not attribute to God the cause of any human sin. The cause of all human failings is, after all, pride. It was to overcome and destroy this pride, that such a remedy came down from heaven; to human beings puffed up with pride, God came humbly out of mercy, revealing his grace with wondrous clarity in the man whom he assumed with such great love before his companions. After all, he who was in that way united to the Word of God did not bring it about by any preceding merits of his will that the one Son of God also became the one Son of Man as a result of that union. It was necessary that there be just one. There would, however, have been two or three or more, if this was something that could be brought about, not by God's gift alone, but by the free choice of a human being. This point, therefore, is particularly emphasized; this point especially, as best I can judge, is what we teach and are taught from the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in Christ.

Hence, at one moment a person has the knowledge to undertake, perform, and complete a good deed; at another one does not. At one moment a person finds delight in this; at another one does not. In that way we can know that it is not due to our own ability, but to the gift of God either that we have the knowledge or that we find such delight. And in that way we can be healed of our empty pride and know how truly scripture says, not about this earth, but in a spiritual sense, "The Lord will give it loveliness, and the earth will bear its fruit" (Psalms 85:13). A good act is the more delightful in proportion to our love for God, the supreme and immutable good and author of all other goods. So that we may love God, "love is poured out in our hearts, not by us, but by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us" (Romans 5:5).

[28] We human beings strive to find in our will some good that is ours and that we do not have from God, but I do not know how one can find such a good. We have heard the words of the apostle, when he was speaking about human goods, "After all, what do you have that you have not received? But if you have received, why do you boast as if you have not received?" (1 Corinthians 4:7). But the path of reason, upon which such persons as we are can enter, presses each of us investigating this question not to defend grace in such a way that we seem to destroy free choice and not to stress free choice in such a way that we are judged ungrateful to the grace of God because of our wicked pride.

A False Solution to the Question Is Rejected

[29] Some want to defend the words of the apostle I mentioned by saying that we should attribute whatever good will we have to God, because it could not exist in us, if we human beings did not exist. Why should we not attribute to God as its author whatever good will we have, since we have it from God alone that we are anything at all and that we are human beings? It would not, after all, exist, unless we existed in whom it is found. But in that way one could also say that we should also attribute to God our bad will, because it could not exist in a human being, unless the human being existed in whom it is found. God is the author of the existence of the human being. Thus, one would have to credit God with being the author of this bad will too, since it could not exist if it did not have a human being in which to exist. But it is utterly wrong to say that!

[30] Hence, we must maintain not only that the choice of the will, which freely turns this way and that and which belongs to the natural goods which a bad person can misuse, but also that the good will, which already belongs to those goods which cannot be misused, can come to us only from God. Otherwise, I do not know how we are going to defend the words of scripture, "After all, what do you have that you have not received?" (1 Corinthians 4:7). For, if we have from God a free will that can become either good or bad, while the good will comes from us, what comes from us is better than what comes from God. But if that is a ridiculous claim to make, we must admit that we obtain a good will from God. Moreover, I would be surprised if the will could stand in between so that it would be neither good nor bad. For, if we love righteousness, the will is good. And if we love it more, the will is better; if we love it less, the will is less good. But if we do not love it at all, the will is not good. Who is going to hesitate to say that a will that does not love righteousness at all is not only a bad will, but the very worst will? If, then, the will is either good or bad and if we certainly do not have a bad will from God, it remains that we have a good will from God. Otherwise, I do not know what other gift of his we ought to rejoice in, when we are made righteous by him. And for this reason, I believe, scripture says, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Proverbs 8:35), and in the Psalms it says, "The Lord will guide a man's steps, and he will prosper his way" (Psalms 37:23). The apostle also says, "It is God, after all, who produces in you the willing and the action in accord with good will" (Philippians 2:13).

[31] Our turning away from God is our own doing, and this turning is an evil will. But our turning toward God is something we cannot do unless he rouses us and helps us, and this turning is a good will. Hence, what do we have that we have not received? But if we have received, why do we boast as if we had not received? And for this reason, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:31 and 2 Corinthians 10:17). For those to whom God wills to grant this, it is a sign of his mercy, not of their merits. But for those to whom God does not will to grant this, it is a sign of the truth. For sinners deserve just punishment, because "the Lord God loves mercy and truth" (Psalms 84:12), and "Mercy and truth have met" (Psalms 85:11). So too, "All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth" (Psalms 25:10). Who can explain the frequency with which the divine scripture mentions these two together? At times the terms are changed so that "grace" is used in place of "mercy." Thus we have, "And we have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). At times "judgment" is used instead of "truth," for example, "I will sing to you, Lord, of mercy and judgment" (Psalms 101:1).

[32] But why he wills to turn these persons back to himself and to punish those for turning away stems from the plan of righteousness that lies more deeply hidden in him. No one, after all, is right to find fault with someone who mercifully grants a benefit, and no one is right to find fault with someone who truthfully exacts punishment. So, in the case of those workers in the gospel no one is right to blame the man who pays some the wage they agreed to and gives to others the same wage, though they had not agreed upon it.

Why God Withholds His Grace at Times

[33] To the extent that God let us bear in mind, and let us understand, if we can, that the good Lord God at times does not grant even to his holy people either the certain knowledge of or the victorious delight in some good deed in order that they may know that they do not have from themselves, but from him the light that enlightens their darkness and the loveliness by which their earth brings forth fruit.

[34] But when we ask him for his help to do and accomplish what is right, what else do we ask for but that he disclose what was hidden and that he make attractive what was not pleasing? By his grace we have learned that we must ask him for this, though it was previously hidden, and we have by his grace come to love it, though we did not previously find it attractive. And thus one who boasts may boast, not in himself, but in the Lord. To be inflated with pride, of course, is due to the human being's own will, not to God's activity, for God neither compels nor helps one toward this. There first arises in the human will a desire for independence so that one becomes disobedient through pride. And if this desire did not exist, nothing would have been difficult, and one could have refused to be disobedient, when one wanted to. But there resulted from the punishment that was just and deserved such a defect that it was now difficult to be obedient to righteousness. And unless that defect is overcome with the help of grace, no one turns back to righteousness; unless it is healed as an effect of grace, no one enjoys the peace of righteousness. By whose grace is it overcome and healed but the grace of him to whom it was said, "Turn us to you, Lord of our salvation, and turn aside your anger from us" (Psalms 85:5)? And if God does this, he does it out of mercy so that we say, "He has not treated us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us according to our wickedness" (Psalms 103:10). To those for whom he does not do this, he does not do so out of judgment. And who is going to say to him, "What have you done?" since in a spirit of piety the holy sing of his mercy and judgment. For that reason he heals even his holy and faithful people more slowly of some of their defects. Thus in these cases the good attracts them less than suffices for fully accomplishing what is right, whether it remains hidden from them or it is already clearly seen. As a result, in comparison with the integral rule of his truth, no living person is found righteous in his sight. His purpose in all this is not that we become worthy of damnation, but that we become humble. He teaches us about his grace so that we do not suppose, because we have experienced an ease in all we do, that his gift is something that comes from us. For this error is very much opposed to religion and piety. On the other hand, we should not think that we ought to remain in those same defects. Rather, we should strive with vigilance, especially against pride on account of which we are humbled by these defects, and we should ardently plead with him, always with the understanding that we have such striving and such prayer as his gift. Thus, in all things we will not have our gaze turned to ourselves, but our hearts raised up to the Lord our God, and we will give thanks and, when we boast, we will boast in him.

The Fourth Question: Can or Could There Ever Be a Completely Sinless Human Being?

[35] The fourth question remains. When we have explained it to the extent that the Lord gives his help, this lengthy discussion will at last come to an end. The question is not only whether there has been someone among those human beings already born who never has had or never will have any sin, but also whether there ever could or can be such a person. It is absolutely certain that there is not, was not, and will not be anyone of that sort, except the one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus. For this reason we have already said a great deal about the baptism of little ones. For, if they have no sin, not only are there countless human beings without sin, but there also have been and will be. But if the answer we gave to our second question is correct, namely, that there is no one without sin, then little ones are certainly not without sin. It follows from this as something beyond any doubt that, even if there could be someone in this life so perfect in virtue as to attain complete righteousness and, consequently, be without any sin, that person was, nonetheless, previously a sinner and was transformed from that state into this newness of life. For we asked one question in the second place, and we have raised another question in this fourth spot. In that earlier question we asked whether anyone in this life did by God's grace and by effort of the will attain that perfect life which is completely without sin. In this fourth question we are asking whether among human offspring there was someone or there could have been or can be someone, not who has come to absolutely perfect righteousness from sin, but who has never been bound by any sin whatsoever. Hence, if those many statements we made about little ones are true, there is not and has not been and will not be any human being of that sort, apart from the one mediator between God and human beings. In him is found our atonement and justification, by which the hostilities resulting from sin have been ended and we have been reconciled to God. It is not, then, off the point to go over a few things concerning the beginning of the human race to the extent that seems sufficient for the present question, so that the reader's mind will be instructed by them against various arguments that could cause problems.

The Disobedience of Adam and Eve and Its Results

[36] Those first human beings, the one man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, who was formed from him, chose not to remain obedient, after they had received God's commandment; hence, they received the just punishment they deserved. For God had threatened that they would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit. Moreover, they had received the right to use every tree in paradise as food, and God had also planted there the tree of life. He had forbidden them only the tree which he called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; that name was meant to signify the consequences they would experience, both the good they were going to discover if they kept the commandment and the evil they were going to discover if they violated it. We are, of course, correct in thinking that they refrained from the forbidden food before the devil maliciously persuaded them and that they made use of the foods that were permitted and, hence, of the other trees and especially of the tree of life. After all, what is more absurd than to believe they took nourishment from the other trees, but not from that tree as well? It too was permitted them, and its principal benefit was that it did not permit their bodies, even though they were animal bodies, to be transformed through the corrupting influence of time and to grow old toward death. It gave this benefit to the human body from its own body, and it showed by its mystical signification what the rational soul derives from wisdom, of which it is the symbol. For, given life by its nourishment, the rational soul would in no sense turn to the corruption and death that is wickedness. After all, scripture correctly says of it, "It is the tree of life for those who embrace it" (Proverbs 3:18). As the former tree stands in the bodily paradise, so the latter stands in the spiritual paradise. The one provided to the senses of the exterior human being, the other to those of the interior human being vital strength so that they did not change in the course of time into something inferior. They were, therefore, serving God with the piety of obedience that was so strictly enjoined upon them, for by it alone do we worship God. How great it is in itself and how it alone suffices to keep the rational creature subordinate to the creator could not be taught in a more excellent way than by their being forbidden a tree that was not bad. The creator of good things, after all, made all things, "and behold they are very good" (Genesis 1:31). Heaven forbid that he planted something bad in the fertile soil of even that bodily paradise. Rather, in order to show to human beings, for whom it was most beneficial to serve under such a lord, the great goodness of obedience alone, he demanded only obedience from his servant. And yet, it would be profitable for a human being to obey him, not merely on account of his lordship, but also on account of the benefit that comes to one who serves him. They were forbidden that tree which, if they had made use of it, when they were not forbidden, they would have suffered no evil. Thus what they suffered when using it after it was forbidden is sufficient proof that it was not a deadly tree with poisonous fruit, but only the violation of obedience that brought this upon them.

Adam and Eve before and after Their Disobedience

[37] Before they had gone against this obedience, they were pleasing to God, and God was pleased with them. And though they had an animal body, they felt nothing in that body stir against them in disobedience. The order of righteousness, of course, brought it about, that, because their soul had received the body as its servant, its body was obedient to it and offered a service appropriate to that life without any resistance, just as the soul was obedient to its Lord. Hence, they were naked and were not ashamed. Now the rational soul feels shame out of a natural modesty, because by reason of a certain weakness it cannot bring about in the flesh, over which it received the power of a master over a servant, that its members are not aroused against its will and that they are aroused when it wills. On this account these members are correctly called shameful (pudenda), even in a chaste person, because they are aroused in opposition to their lord, the mind, as they want. It is as if they are in their own power and as if the reins of virtue have only sufficient control over them to prevent them from doing impure and forbidden actions. This disobedience of the flesh, which is now found in this stirring, even if it is not permitted to carry out the act, did not exist then in those first human beings, when they were naked and were not embarrassed. The rational soul, the lord over the flesh, had not yet emerged as disobedient to its Lord, so that it experienced the disobedience of its own servant, the flesh, with a certain sense of confusion and bother, and it certainly did not by its disobedience produce that feeling in God. After all, it is not something embarrassing or bothersome for God, if we do not obey him, for we are absolutely unable to diminish his sovereign power. But it is something embarrassing for us that the flesh does not obey our command, because this is the result of the weakness which we merited by sinning, and it is called the sin dwelling in our members. It is, however, sin in the sense that it is the punishment of sin. After the transgression was committed and the disobedient soul had turned away from the law of its Lord, its servant, that is, its body, began to have the law of disobedience in opposition to it, and those human beings were ashamed of their nakedness, when they noticed the stirring which they had not previously felt. Their noticing this is what was meant by the opening of their eyes. For they were certainly not wandering about in the midst of those trees with their eyes closed. It was in this sense that scripture said of Hagar, "Her eyes were opened, and she saw the well" (Genesis 21:19). Then the human beings covered their genitals; God made those members, but they made them something to be ashamed of.

[38] From this law of sin there is born the sinful flesh that needs to be purified through the sacrament of the one who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, so that the body of sin might be destroyed. The apostle also calls it the body of this death, and from it only the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord frees pitiful human beings. For this law was passed from them to their descendants as the beginning of death, just as the burden of labor by which all human beings labor on the earth was passed on, just as the pains of birth were passed on to women. For, when they were found guilty of sin, they merited these punishments from the sentence of God which we see is carried out, not in them alone, but also in their descendants, in some more than in others, but in all of them. The initial righteousness of those first human beings consisted in their obeying God and not having this law of concupiscence in their members in opposition to the law of their mind. Now, after their sin, since our sinful flesh is born from them, it is considered something great for those who obey God not to obey the desires of the same concupiscence, but to crucify in themselves the flesh along with its passions and concupiscence in order to belong to Jesus Christ. He prefigured this on his cross, and he gave to them the power to become children of God by his grace. For he gave, not to all human beings, but to as many as welcomed him, that they who were born to this world in the flesh might be reborn for God by the Spirit. Thus scripture says of them, "But to as many as welcomed him, he gave the power to become children of God; they have been born, not from the flesh, not from the blood, not from the will of man, not from the will of the flesh, but from God" (John 1:12-13).

The Word Became Flesh That We Might Become Children of God

[39] He went on, however, to add, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelled among us" (John 1:14). He as much as said that something great was brought about in them: those who had first been born for the world from the flesh, even though they had been created by God, were to be born for God from God. But something far more wonderful has come about. It belonged to their nature to be born of the flesh, but it was a gift to be born of God. And in order that they might obtain this gift, he who was in his nature born from God deigned in his mercy to be born from the flesh. That is what it means that "The Word was made flesh and dwelled among us" (John 1:14). In this way, he says, God brought it about that we, who are born flesh from flesh, are afterward spirit by being born of the Spirit and dwell in God, because God, who was born from God, afterward also was made flesh by being born from flesh and dwelled among us. After all, the Word that was made flesh existed in the beginning and was God with God. But his partaking of our lowliness so that we might partake of his loftiness had a certain middle point in the birth of the flesh, for we are born in sinful flesh, while he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh. We are born not only from flesh and blood, but from the will of man and the will of the flesh; he was born only from flesh and blood, not from the will of man or from the will of the flesh, but from God. And thus we face death on account of sin; he faced death on account of us without any sin. But just as the lowly condition by which he came down to us is not in every respect equal to the lowly condition in which he found us here, so too the loftier condition in which we rise up to him will not be equal to the loftier condition in which we shall find him there. For we were made children of God by his grace; he was always the Son of God by nature. Having at some point turned back to God, we will cling to him, though unequal to God; never having turned away, he remains equal to God. We partake of eternal life; he is eternal life. Therefore, he alone, having become man, while remaining God, never had any sin and did not assume sinful flesh, though he assumed flesh from the sinful flesh of his mother. Whatever of the flesh he took from her, he either cleansed it to assume it or cleansed it by assuming it. And so he created his virgin mother; she did not conceive by the law of sinful flesh, that is, not by the stirring of carnal concupiscence; rather, by her pious faith she merited that the holy child come to be in her. He created her in order to choose her, from whom he chose to be created. How much more, then, does sinful flesh need to be baptized in order to escape judgment, if sinless flesh was baptized as an example to imitate.

Why Children of Baptized Parents Need to Be Baptized

[40] We replied above to those who say, "If a sinner gave birth to a sinner, a righteous person ought also to give birth to a righteous child." We give the same answer to those who say that someone born of baptized parents ought to be regarded as having been baptized. They ask, "Why could they not, after all, be baptized in the loins of their father, if, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, Levi was able to receive tithes in the loins of Abraham?" Those who say this should notice that Levi did not afterwards not receive tithes, because he had received tithes in the loins of Abraham. Rather, he received them, because he was given the honor of the priesthood so that he received tithes and did not give them. Otherwise, the rest of his brothers who gave tithes to him would not be given tithes, since they too had received tithes from Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham.

[41] No one should argue as follows: The sons of Abraham could rightly receive tithes, even though they had already received tithes in the loins of their father, because that tithing was something to be repeatedly performed in the case of each person. Accordingly, the Israelites used to offer to the Levites many tithes from all their crops every year, even for the whole of their lives. But baptism is a sacrament that is given once, and if one had already received it when he was in his father, he must be considered as having been baptized, since he was begotten from one who had been baptized. Let me be brief; one who argues that way should consider circumcision; it is performed once, but it is performed once on each individual. Just as during the time of that sacrament one begotten of a circumcised parent had to be circumcised, so now one who is begotten of a baptized parent has to be baptized.

[42] "The apostle says, 'Your children would be unclean, but now they are holy' (1 Corinthians 7:14). And so," they claim, "the children of believers do not now need to be baptized." I am surprised that those people say this who deny that sin is derived from our origin from Adam. After all, if they interpret this statement of the apostle so that they suppose that the children of believers are born in a state of holiness, why are they convinced that they must be baptized? Why do they, moreover, refuse to admit that some sin is derived from our origin from a sinful parent, if some holiness is derived from a holy parent? And, even if holy children are produced by believing parents, it is not contrary to our statement that, if they are not baptized, they face damnation. These people exclude them from the kingdom of heaven, although they claim that they have no sin, neither personal nor original. Or, if they think it wrong that holy persons are damned, how is it right that holy persons are separated from the kingdom of God? They would do better to consider why some sin is not derived from sinful parents, if some holiness is derived from holy parents and some uncleanness from unclean parents. After all, he who said, "Your children would be unclean, but now they are holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14), mentioned both of these. Let them also explain how it is just that both holy children born of believing parents and unclean children born of non-believing parents are equally prevented from entering the kingdom of God, if they have not been baptized. What benefit, then, do they get from that holiness? They might have said that unclean children born of non-believing parents are damned, but that the holy children of believing parents are still not damned, because they are holy, though they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, unless they have been baptized. Then there would be some sort of distinction. But they say that holy children born of holy parents and unclean children born of unclean parents equally escape damnation, because they have no sin, and are excluded from the kingdom of God, because they were not baptized. Who is going to believe that such fine minds fail to see this absurdity?

[43] The apostle said, "The one brought all to condemnation" and "The one brought all to righteousness of life" (Romans 5:16, 18). Consider for a moment how it is not opposed to our view or, rather, to the apostle's own view that he says in another context, "Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14).

[44] Sanctification is not all of one sort. I think, in fact, that even the catechumens are sanctified in their own way by the sign of Christ and prayer along with the imposition of hands. And though what they receive is not the body of Christ, it is, nonetheless, holy and more holy than the foods by which we are nourished, because it is a sacrament. But the same apostle said that those foods we use for the necessary sustenance of this life are sanctified by the word of God and the prayer we say, when we are about to take refreshment for our bodies. The sanctification of those foods does not mean that what enters the mouth does not pass into the stomach and is not cast into the toilet because of the corruption that destroys all earthly things. It was for this reason that the Lord exhorted us to seek another food that does not corrupt. In the same way, if catechumens are not baptized, their sanctification is useless for entering the kingdom of heaven or for the forgiveness of sins. And for this reason, whatever sort of sanctification it is that the apostle says is found in the children of believers, it has nothing at all to do with this question of baptism and of the origin and forgiveness of original sin. For he says in the same passage that non-believing spouses are sanctified by their believing spouses, when he says, "For a husband who does not believe is sanctified in his wife, and a wife who does not believe is sanctified in a brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14). None, I suspect, understand these words, however they interpret them, in so unbelieving a way that they think that a non-Christian husband does not need to be baptized, because his wife is a Christian, and that he has attained the forgiveness of sins and will enter the kingdom of God, because he was sanctified in his wife.

[45] If any are still disturbed over why children born of baptized parents are baptized, let them listen to this brief explanation. Just as the birth of sinful flesh through the one Adam brings to damnation all those who are born in that way, so the birth in the Spirit by grace through the one Jesus Christ leads to the justification of eternal life all those who have been predestined and reborn in that way. The sacrament of baptism is, of course, the sacrament of rebirth. Hence, just as a human being who has not lived cannot die and one who has not died cannot rise, so one who has not been born cannot be reborn. From this it follows that no one who has not been born could be reborn in his parent. It is necessary, then, that everyone who has been born must be reborn, because "unless one has been born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Even a little one, then, must be immersed in the sacrament of rebirth to avoid departing from this life without it in an evil state. And this is done only for the forgiveness of sins. Christ also showed this in the same passage. When he was asked how this was possible, he recalled what Moses did when he raised up the serpent. Since infants, then, are conformed to the death of Christ through the sacrament of baptism, we must confess that they are set free from the bite of the serpent, if we do not want to depart from the rule of Christian faith. Yet, they did not receive that bite in their own personal life, but in the one upon whom it was first inflicted.

Baptism Brings Forgiveness of All Sins, But Not Complete Renewal

[46] The fact that parents' personal sins do them no harm after their conversion should not lead to misunderstanding. They claim, "For how much more do they not harm the child!" Those who think this do not notice that, just as the personal sins of the parents do them no harm, because they have been reborn by the Spirit, so the sins derived from the parents will harm the child born of them, unless it is reborn in the Spirit. After all, the parents who have been renewed beget a child in the flesh, not from the first fruits of their new state, but from the remains of their old condition, and the children, though begotten entirely in the old sinful flesh as a result of the old condition of their parents, escape the damnation that was due to the old human being by the sacrament of spiritual rebirth and renewal. Here is something to which we ought to pay attention and which we ought to bear in mind, especially on account of the questions which have been and still can be raised on this subject: Baptism only brings about the full and complete forgiveness of sins, but it does not immediately transform the whole condition of the human being. Rather, in those who are making good progress, as their renewal grows from day to day, the first fruits of the Spirit transform into themselves what pertains to the old flesh, until the whole is so renewed that even the weakness of the animal body attains spiritual strength and incorruption.

Concupiscence Remains, Though the Guilt Is Forgiven

[47] The apostle, however, also refers to this law of sin as "sin," when he says, "Let sin, then, not reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires" (Romans 6:12). It does not remain in the members of those who have been reborn of water and the Spirit, as though it were not forgiven, once they received the full and complete forgiveness of sins and all the hostilities were destroyed, by which we were separated from God. Rather, it remains in the old condition of the flesh as something overcome and destroyed, provided it does not to some extent revive through our consenting to what is wrong and it is not recalled into its own kingdom and dominion. But the apostle sharply distinguished the life of the Spirit, in whose newness the baptized are reborn through the grace of God, from this old condition of the flesh in which this law of sin, or sin, has already been forgiven. It was not enough for him to say that such persons were not in sin; he also added that they were no longer in the flesh, even before they departed from this mortal life. He said, "But those who are in the flesh cannot please God; you, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, provided that the Spirit of God dwells in you" (Romans 8:8-9). And yet, those who apply its members to good works make good use of this flesh, corruptible as it is, though they are not in this flesh, because they neither think nor live in accord with it. So too, those who with courage and patience offer their death for their brothers, for the faith, or for any true, holy, and just cause, make good use of death, which is the penalty of the first sin. In the same way, believing married couples make good use even of that law of sin which remains in the old condition of the flesh, though already forgiven, for, inasmuch as they are in the newness of Christ, they do not allow lust to rule over them. But inasmuch as they still bring with them the old condition of Adam, they bear children subject to death who need to be reborn for immortality. And they have that sinful heritage which does not hold subject those who have been reborn and from which those who are born are released by being reborn. The law of concupiscence, then, remains in the members, but, despite its remaining, its guilt is removed. It is removed in one who has received the sacrament of rebirth and has begun to be renewed. But one who is born from that old condition of concupiscence that remains needs to be reborn in order to be healed, because believing parents who have been born in the flesh and reborn in the Spirit have begotten children in the flesh. But how could children in any sense be reborn before they are born?

[48] Do not be surprised that I said that, although the law of sin remains in concupiscence, its guilt is removed by the grace of the sacrament. For wicked thoughts, words, and deeds have passed away and no longer exist in terms of any movement of the mind and body they involved. But though they have now passed away and no longer exist, their guilt remains, unless it has been removed by the forgiveness of sins. So, conversely, this law of concupiscence has not passed away, but still remains, though its guilt is removed and no longer exists, when the full forgiveness of sins takes place in baptism. Moreover, if departure from this life immediately follows, there will be absolutely nothing to hold the one subject to guilt, since everything that held such a one has been removed. Just as, then, it is not surprising that the guilt of past thoughts, words, and deeds remains prior to the forgiveness of sins, so it ought, conversely, to come as no surprise that after the forgiveness of sins the guilt ceases, while the concupiscence remains.

No One Is Absolutely Sinless apart from the One Mediator

[49] Since this is the case, from the moment that "through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus it was passed on to all human beings" (Romans 5:12) until the end of this carnal generation and corruptible world, the children of which are born and beget children, there is no human being present in this life whom one can truthfully call absolutely sinless, apart from the one mediator, who reconciles us to our creator through the forgiveness of sins. This same Lord denies his saving medicine during no age of the human race prior to the last judgment, which is still to come, to those he predestined by his certain foreknowledge and just beneficence to reign with him for eternal life. After all, before the birth of his flesh, the weakness of his suffering, and the strength of his resurrection, he formed those who lived at that time by the faith in those events that were to come in order that they might inherit eternal life. By faith in those events when they were present, he formed those who were there when they took place and saw what had been foretold become reality. By faith in those events now in the past, he continues to form those who came later, as well as us and those who are still to come. Hence, there is one faith which saves all those who are saved from their birth in the flesh by being reborn spiritually; it is directed toward him who came to be judged and to die for us, the judge of the living and the dead. But the sacraments of this one faith have changed through the various ages in accord with the vantage point from which they expressed it.

[50] There is, then, one and the same savior for little ones and adults. The angels said of him, "Today a savior has been born for you" (Luke 2:11). An angel also said of him to the Virgin Mary, "You shall call his name, Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). There we have clear proof that he was given this name, "Jesus," by which he was called, on account of the salvation which he brought us. "Jesus," of course, means "savior" in Latin. Who, then, is going to dare to say that Christ, the Lord, is Jesus only for adults and not also for little ones? He came in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to destroy the body of sin. In that weak body of sin, with its infant members neither suited for nor capable of any use, the rational soul is weighed down by wretched ignorance. I certainly do not in any sense believe that this ignorance was present in that infant in whom the Word was made flesh in order to dwell among us, nor do I think that there was in the little Christ that weakness of mind that we observe in little ones. For as a result of this weakness, when they are disturbed by irrational emotions, they are not brought under control by any reason, by any command, but by pain at times and by fear of pain. There you can see the children of that disobedience which is aroused in the members, resisting the law of the mind, and which does not quiet down, when reason wants. It is, rather, quieted either by bodily pain from, for example, a spanking or from fear or some such emotion, but it is not controlled by the will's command. But because there was in Christ the likeness of sinful flesh, he chose to undergo the changes in age, beginning from infancy, so that it seemed that his flesh could come to death by growing old, if he were not killed as a young man. But in the likeness of sinful flesh he willingly and obediently accepted that death which in sinful flesh is the just punishment of disobedience. As he was about to go to death and to suffer it, he said, "Behold, the prince of this world comes, and he will find nothing in me. But in order that all may know that I do the will of my Father, get up, let us leave here" (John 14:30-31). After he said this, he went to the death which he did not deserve, having become "obedient even to death" (Philippians 2:8).

Adam's Sin Brought About Death for All Human Beings

[51] These people say, "If the sin of the first man has caused us to die, Christ's coming should cause those who believe in him not to die," and they add, as if giving a reason, "For the transgression of the sinner did not do us more harm than the incarnation or redemption of the savior benefited us." Why do they not instead pay attention to, listen to, believe without discussion what the apostle has stated without any ambiguity: "Because death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. For, just as all die in Adam, so too all will be brought to life in Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). He was certainly not speaking of anything but the death of the body. He said, then, that one man brought about the death of all and promised that the one Christ would bring about the resurrection of everyone's body. How, then, did Adam do us more harm by sinning than Christ benefited us by redeeming us? After all, by the sin of the one we die in time, while by the redemption of the other we rise, not for a temporal life, but for an endless life. Our body, then, has died on account of sin, but Christ's body alone has died without sin so that, by the shedding of his sinless blood, he might destroy the written record of all the sins, by which those who believe in him were once held as debtors to the devil. Hence, he said, "This is my blood which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28).

[52] He could also have granted to believers that they not experience the death of this body. But if he had done that, the flesh would have acquired a felicity of sorts, but faith would have decreased in strength. Human beings, after all, are so afraid of this death that they would declare Christians fortunate merely because they could not die. And for this reason no one would hasten to the grace of Christ with the courage to despise this death on account of that life which will be truly happy after death. Rather, with an eye to their own comfort, people would believe in Christ only for the sake of removing the pain of death. Hence, he offered more grace; he undoubtedly gave more to those who believe in him. After all, what would be so great about believing that one is not going to die, when one sees that those who believe do not die? How much greater, how much more courageous, how much more praiseworthy it is to believe so that we hope that we will live without end, though we are destined to die. Moreover, some will at the end receive the gift of not experiencing this death by reason of their sudden transformation; they will rather be snatched up in the clouds, along with those who will rise, to meet Christ in the air and thus they will live forever with the Lord. And it is right that they receive this gift, since they will not have any coming after them, who would believe, not because they hope for what they do not see, but because they love what they see. Such faith is weak and feeble, and we should not call it faith at all, since faith has been defined in this way: "Faith is the foundation of those who hope, the conviction of things which are not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Hence, in the same Letter to the Hebrews where this is written, after he has gone on to enumerate those who pleased God by faith, he adds, "In accord with faith all these have died, though they had not received the promises. Rather, they saw them from afar and greeted them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth" (Hebrews 11:13). And shortly after this encomium of faith, he concludes in this way. He says, "And all who had accepted the testimony through faith did not have the promises, but they foresaw better things for us so they should not attain full perfection without us" (Hebrews 11:39). There would not be this encomium of faith, nor would there be faith at all, as I have already said, if human beings attained visible rewards for believing, that is, if in this world the reward of immortality were given to those who believed.

[53] For this reason the Lord himself chose to die so that, as scripture says, "he might by death remove from power the one who had rule over death, that is, the devil, and might set free those who out of fear of death were through the whole of life subject to slavery" (Hebrews 2:14-15). This testimony shows clearly enough that this death of the body came about under the leadership and at the instigation of the devil, that is, as a result of the sin resulting from his persuasion. He would not, after all, truly be said to have the power of death for any other reason. Hence, he who died without any sin, whether original or personal, stated those words which I cited just before, "Behold, the prince of the world will come," that is, the devil who has the power of death, "and he will find nothing in me," that is, nothing of the sin by which he brought it about that human beings die. And as if someone asked him, "Why then are you going to die?" he said, "But in order that all may know that I do the will of my Father, get up, let us leave here" (John 14:30-31), that is, in order that I may die, though I do not have a cause for my death from sin under the power of the author of sin, but from the righteousness of obedience, "having become obedient even to death" (Philippians 2:8). This testimony, then, has shown that the fact that believers conquer the fear of death belongs to the combat of faith, which would, of course, not occur, if immortality immediately followed upon the act of faith.

[54] The Lord performed many visible miracles as a result of which the faith began to sprout up from its infancy and grow from its tender beginnings to full strength. But it is stronger to the extent that it no longer looks for such things. Thus he willed that we look forward, without seeing it, to the promised state we hope for so that the righteous might live from faith. In fact, though he rose on the third day, he did not want to remain among human beings. Rather, after he had in his flesh provided an example of the resurrection for those whom he chose to have as witnesses of its reality, he ascended into heaven. Thus, he removed himself even from their sight and gave to the flesh of none of them anything like what he showed them in his own flesh. Accordingly, they too could live from faith and could in the meanwhile look forward in patience to the reward of that righteousness by which one lives from faith — a reward which they did not then see, but which they would later see. We should, I believe, interpret in this sense his words concerning the Holy Spirit, "He cannot come, unless I leave" (John 16:7). For this amounts to saying, "You cannot live in righteousness from faith — which you will have from my gift, that is, from the Holy Spirit — unless I take from your sight what you are looking at so that your heart may develop spiritually by believing what you do not see." He again and again praises this righteousness based on faith, when he speaks of the Holy Spirit. He says, "He will convict the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment. Regarding sin, because they did not believe in me; regarding righteousness, because I go to the Father and you will see me no more" (John 16:8-10). What does this righteousness on the basis of which they would not see him mean but that the righteous live from faith? Thus, we do not look back to things that are seen, but to those which are not seen, and by the Spirit we look forward to the hope of righteousness based on faith.

[55] They say, "If this death of the body came from sin, we surely would not die after the forgiveness of sins which the redeemer has given us." They do not understand that, though God has destroyed the guilt of those things so that they do us no harm after this life, he has allowed them to remain for the contest of faith so that we learn from them and are exercised as we advance in the struggle for righteousness. After all, someone else who does not understand this point could say, "If on account of sin God said to the man, 'In the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, and the earth will bring forth thorns and thistles for you' (Genesis 3:19, 18), why does this toil continue even after the forgiveness of sins, and why does the earth bring forth these harsh and troublesome plants for believers? So too, if the woman was told on account of sin, 'You will bear children with groaning' (Genesis 3:16), why do believing women suffer those same pains in childbirth, even after the forgiveness of sins?" And yet it is certain that it was on account of the sin that they committed that those first human beings heard these words and deserved these punishments from God. No one rejects these words of God's book which I cited concerning the man's toil and the woman's childbirth except someone who is fully separated from the Catholic faith and is opposed to these same writings.

Once Punishments, Now Challenges for the Righteous

[56] But there are such people, and we answer them, once the question has been raised, by saying that before the forgiveness of sins those things were punishments, but after the forgiveness of sins they provide challenges and exercise for the righteous. And so, we must say to the people who are similarly disturbed over the death of the body that we admit that it came about as a result of sin and that we do not deny that after the forgiveness of sins it was left as a challenge for us so that, as we grow in strength, we might conquer our great fear of it. If faith that works through love demanded only a small amount of virtue, then it would not be so great a glory for the martyrs to conquer the fear of death, nor would the Lord say, "No one has greater love than that one gives his life for his friends" (John 15:13). In his Letter John puts it this way, "As he gave his life for us, so we too ought to give our life for our brothers" (1 John 3:16). We would never, then, have special praise for the suffering involved in enduring death or for making light of it for the sake of righteousness, if death did not entail very great and fierce pain. One who conquers the fear of it out of faith gains the great glory and just reward of that faith. Hence, we should not be surprised that death would not have been the lot of human beings, if they had not committed a sin which entailed such a punishment, and that death is now the lot of believers so that their righteousness might be strengthened by conquering the fear of it.

[57] The flesh that was originally created was not the sinful flesh in which human beings refused to remain in righteousness amid the delights of paradise. As a result God decreed that after their sin the sinful flesh that was propagated had to struggle in labors and difficulties to attain righteousness. For this reason too, after he was dismissed from paradise, Adam dwelled opposite Eden, that is, opposite the place of delights. This was to signify that sinful flesh, which, before it was sinful flesh, did not observe obedience amid delights, has to be taught obedience amid labors, which are opposite to delights. Those first human beings afterward lived righteously, and for that reason we are right to believe that they were set free from final punishment by the blood of the Lord. But they still did not in that life merit to be called back into paradise. In the same way, even if one lives righteously in it after receiving the forgiveness of sins, sinful flesh does not immediately merit not to suffer the death which it derived from the propagation of sin.

[58] We are taught something of the sort in the Book of Kings with regard to the patriarch, David. When the prophet was sent to him and threatened him that he would suffer disasters as a result of God's anger because of the sin he had committed, he merited pardon by confessing his sin, and the prophet told him that his outrageous crime was forgiven. Nonetheless, those disasters which God had threatened took place so that he suffered humiliation from his son. Why do they not say with regard to this passage, "If God made that threat on account of the sin, why did he carry out what he threatened, once the sin was forgiven?" If they said that, would we not be perfectly correct in replying, "The sin was forgiven so that he would not be prevented from gaining eternal life, but the threat was carried out so that his piety could be tried and tested in that humiliation"? So too, God imposed upon human beings bodily death on account of sin, and after the forgiveness of sin he did not take bodily death away in order to test their righteousness.

The Middle Path of the Savior

[59] Let us, then, hold to the unwavering rule of faith. There is only one person who has been born without sin in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin in the midst of others' sins, and who died without sin on account of our sins. Let us turn neither to the right nor to the left. For to turn to the right means to deceive oneself by claiming to be without sin, but to turn to the left means to surrender oneself to sins out of some perverse and depraved carefreeness, as if there were no punishment. "For the Lord knows the ways that are to the right; he alone is without sin and can destroy our sins. But those to the left are perverse" (Proverbs 4:27), namely, friendships with sin. In this way those twenty-year-old youths prefigured the new people; when they entered the promised land, they turned, it is said, neither to the right nor to the left. We should, of course, not compare the age of twenty to the innocence of little ones, but, unless I am mistaken, this number foreshadows and echoes something mystical. For the five books of Moses are preeminent in the Old Testament, while the authority of the four Gospels shines forth brilliantly in the New. These numbers multiplied by each other amount to twenty, for four times five or five times four are twenty. Such a people, as I said, instructed in the kingdom of heaven through the two Testaments, the Old and the New, will enter into the promised land, neither turning to the right in a proud claim to righteousness nor turning to the left in a carefree love of sin. There we will no longer pray for the forgiveness of our sins, nor will we have any fear of suffering their punishment in ourselves, once we have been set free by that redeemer who was not sold into slavery to sin and has redeemed Israel from all her iniquities, whether those committed in the life of each individual or those derived from our origin.

[60] It was, after all, not a small concession that they made to the authority and truth of the scriptures of God, when they admitted that little ones needed redemption, even if they refused to state clearly in their writings that they needed the forgiveness of sins. They used a different word, a word also drawn from Christian doctrine, but they said exactly the same thing. Those who read with faith, hear with faith, and embrace with faith the divine scripture should have no doubt about this point: The flesh first became sinful flesh by the will to sin, and then through succeeding generations sin and death were transferred to all. From that flesh only sinful flesh has been begotten with one exception: the likeness of sinful flesh, and that would not, of course, exist, if there were no sinful flesh.

[61] With regard to the soul, one can ask whether it is propagated in the same way and is subject to the guilt which it needs to have forgiven. For we cannot claim that only the child's flesh, and not also its soul, needs the help of the savior and redeemer and that its soul has nothing to do with the expression of thanksgiving we find in the Psalms. We read there, "Bless the Lord, my soul, and do not forget all his recompenses. He is forgiving toward all your sins; he heals all your ills; he redeems your life from corruption" (Psalms 103:2-4). One can also ask whether, if the soul is not propagated, it still needs the forgiveness of the sin and redemption by reason of the fact that it is weighed down and mingled with the flesh of sin, so that God judges by his sovereign foreknowledge which little ones do not merit to be absolved of that guilt, even though, when not yet born, they nowhere did anything either good or bad in their own life. And one could ask how, if he does not produce souls by propagation, God is not, nonetheless, the author of that guilt on account of which the soul of the little one needs redemption through the sacrament. That is an immense question and requires another treatise, but one, as I see it, tempered by such moderation that it would be praised for its careful investigation rather than blamed for hasty assertions. After all, when one is debating about a very obscure matter without the help of certain and clear proofs from the divine authorities, human presumption ought to hold itself in check, doing nothing to favor one side or the other. For, even if I am ignorant of how any one of these theories can be proved and explained, I still believe that the authority of the words of God would also be perfectly clear on this point, if human beings could not be ignorant of it without loss of the salvation promised them.

Here you have this work composed to the best of my abilities. I hope that it is as helpful as it is long. I am tempted to defend its lengthiness, but I fear to make it even longer by such a defense.

Book Three

The Occasion for the Addition of the Third Book

Bishop Augustine, the servant of Christ and of Christ's servants, sends his greetings to his dear son, Marcellinus.

[1] I have already completed two long books on the questions you presented to me. It was especially on account of the baptism of little ones, which the universal Church administers in the manner of a loving mother, that you asked that I write a response for you against those people who claim that, even if he had not sinned, Adam would have died and that nothing passed to his descendants as a result of his sin by the process of generation. They also claim that in this life there are and have been and will be human beings who have absolutely no sin. In those books I did not think that I had dealt with all the ideas in everyone's mind on this topic. I do not know whether I or anyone could do that; in fact, I am convinced that no one could. But I thought that I had produced a work such that the defenders of the faith which our predecessors have handed down on these matters would not stand utterly defenseless against the innovations of those who hold other ideas. But only a few days later I read certain writings of Pelagius, a holy man, as I hear, and a Christian of considerable religious development; they contained brief explanations of the letters of the apostle Paul. I came to the passage where the apostle says that through one man sin entered the world and, through sin, death and thus it was passed on to all human beings. There I found a new line of argument from those people who deny that little ones have original sin. I admit that I did not refute it in those long volumes of mine, because it never entered my mind that anyone could think or say such things. Accordingly, since I did not want to add anything to that work which I had brought to a definitive close, I thought that I should incorporate in this letter both that argument in the very words in which I read it and my own thoughts in opposition to it.

The New Argument against the Transmission of Sin

[2] That argument is set forth as follows. He says, "But those who are opposed to the transmission of sin by generation try to attack it in this way. They say, 'If the sin of Adam did harm even to those who are not sinners, then the righteousness of Christ also benefits those who are not believers, because he says that human beings are saved through the one man in a similar way and in fact to a greater extent than they perished through the other.'" As I said, I made no answer to this argument in those two books which I wrote for you, nor did I propose to refute it. Now then, take note of this, first of all. When they say, "If the sin of Adam harmed even those who were not sinners, then the righteousness of Christ also benefits those who are not believers," they take it to be obviously absurd and false that the righteousness of Christ also benefits those who are not believers. From this they think that they can infer that the sin of the first human being could not have done harm to little ones, just as the righteousness of Christ cannot benefit any who are not believers.

Let them tell us, then, what benefit the righteousness of Christ brings to baptized little ones; let them state whatever it is that they mean. After all, if they have not forgotten that they are Christians, they surely have no doubt that it brings them some benefit. Whatever benefit, then, it brings them, it cannot bring it to those who are not believers, as these people themselves state. Hence, they are forced to include baptized little ones in the number of believers and agree with the authority of the holy Church present throughout the world. The Church does not consider those unworthy to be called believers, whom the righteousness of Christ, even according to the view of these people, could benefit, only if they were believers. Just as by the responses of those through whom they are reborn the Spirit of righteousness gives them a faith which they could not yet have by their own will, so the sinful flesh of those through whom they are born gives them a guilt which they have not yet contracted in their own life. And just as the Spirit of life gives them rebirth in Christ as believers, the body of death gave them birth in Adam as sinners. For the former birth is carnal; the latter is spiritual. The former produces children of the flesh; the latter children of the Spirit; the former children destined to die, the latter children destined for resurrection. The former brings forth children of the world, the latter children of God; the former children of anger, the latter children of mercy. And, accordingly, the former brings forth children subject to original sin; the latter children set free from every bond of sin.

[3] Finally, we are compelled by God's authority to assent to what we are unable to grasp even with the keenest of minds. As they admonish us to do, they correctly admit that the righteousness of Christ can benefit only believers and does in some way benefit the little ones. Hence, as we have said, they must without any equivocation include them in the number of believers after they have been baptized. It follows, then, that if they are not baptized, they will be among those who do not believe. And, hence, they will not have life, but the anger of God remains over them. For "one who does not believe in the Son will not have life. Rather, the anger of God remains over him" (John 3:36). Moreover, they have been judged, for "one who does not believe has already been judged" (John 3:18), and they will be condemned, for "those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but those who do not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Let them now consider with what sort of justice they attempt or try to claim that sinless human beings are destined, not for life, but for God's anger, and are judged and condemned by God, if they have no original sin, just as they have no personal sin.

[4] In the other two books of my long work I have, I believe, already given a sufficient and clear answer to the other points which, as Pelagius tells us, are mentioned by those who argue against original sin. If some people find it either too short or obscure, I ask them to pardon this and to come to some agreement with those who perhaps find fault with it, not because it is too short, but because it is too long. And I ask those who still do not understand those points, which I think I stated quite clearly, given the nature of questions, not to criticize me unfairly for negligence or for my lack of ability. I ask them, rather, to beg God that they may receive understanding.

Other Arguments Reported by Pelagius

[5] We must, nonetheless, carefully note that this man — a fine and praiseworthy man, as those who know him say — did not introduce this argument against the transmission of sin in his own name. Rather, he reported what those people say who do not accept the transmission of sin. This holds not only for the point I just stated and answered, but also for the other points which I recall having answered in those other books. For he said, "They say, 'If the sin of Adam harmed even those who were not sinners, then the righteousness of Christ also benefits those who are not believers.'" From my response you see that he not merely does not attack what we say, but he even admonishes us as to what we should say. He goes on to add, "They say next, 'If baptism washes away that ancient transgression, those who have been born of two baptized parents ought to be free from this sin. For they could not pass on to their offspring what they themselves did not have.'" He adds, "They make the further point that, if the soul does not come by generation, but only the flesh, only the flesh has the transmitted sin, and it alone deserves punishment. They claim that it is unjust that a new-born soul that is not made from the mass of Adam bears so ancient a sin of another." "They also say," he reports, "that there is no reason to grant that God who forgives personal sins holds one responsible for the sins of another."

[6] Do you see, then, I ask you, how Pelagius introduced all this into his writings, not in his own name, but in the name of others? He knew full well that this was some sort of innovation that had already begun to sound contrary to the ancient view of the Church. And as a result, he was either ashamed or afraid to make it his own. Perhaps he himself does not hold that human beings are born without sin, since he admits that they need baptism in which sins are forgiven. Perhaps he does not hold that sinless human beings are condemned, for we must count those who have not been baptized among non-believers, and the text of the gospel, which certainly cannot deceive us, states with utter clarity, "Those who do not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Finally, perhaps he does not hold that the sinless image of God is excluded from the kingdom of God, since "unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). In that case, it would either be plunged into eternal death without sin, or — what is even more absurd — it would have eternal life outside the kingdom of God. For, when the Lord foretold that he would say to his own people in the end, "Come, blessed ones of my Father, receive the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the beginning of the world" (Matthew 25:34), he also made it clear what kingdom he was speaking about. He concluded, "As the others will enter eternal fire, the righteous will enter eternal life" (Matthew 25:46). These opinions and others like them that go with this error are so perverse and opposed to the Christian truth that I do not believe that this exemplary Christian holds them. It could be that he is so moved by the arguments of those opposed to the transmission of sin that he wants to hear or to know what one might say in reply to them. And for this reason he did not want to pass over in silence the claims of those opposed to the transmission of sin. In that way he could point out that the question needed to be discussed, while dissociating himself from it so that no one would think that he himself held these views.

We Must Cling to the Perfectly Clear Teaching of Scripture

[7] But even if I am not able to refute the arguments of these people, I see that we must, nonetheless, hold onto the points which are perfectly clear in the scriptures. Then, on the basis of these points one might clarify those which are obscure, or one might believe them without any hesitation, if the mind still cannot see them, once they have been pointed out, or cannot investigate them, if they remain hidden. What is more obvious than the many great testimonies from the words of God which make it perfectly clear that, apart from community with Christ, no one can attain eternal life and salvation and that no one can by God's judgment be unjustly condemned, that is, excluded from that life and salvation? Nothing else is accomplished by the baptism of little ones but that they are incorporated into the Church, that is, that they are joined to the body and members of Christ. Hence, it clearly follows that they would be subject to condemnation, if baptism were not conferred upon them. But they could not be condemned, if they had no sin whatsoever. Since at their age they could not contract any sin in their personal life, we are left to understand or, if we cannot yet understand it, at least to believe that little ones bring with them original sin.

[8] And thus, if there is something ambiguous about the words of the apostle where he says, "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus it was passed on to all human beings in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12), and if they can be interpreted and given another meaning, are these words also ambiguous: "Unless one has been reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)? Are these words also ambiguous: "You shall call his name, Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21)? Is it also ambiguous that "it is not those who are in good health who need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matthew 9:12)? That is, it is not those who have no sin who need Jesus, but those who must be healed from sin. Is it also ambiguous that, unless human beings eat his flesh, that is, become partakers of his body, they will not have life? These testimonies are brilliantly clear by the divine light and utterly certain by the divine authority. In them, as well as in others of the sort that I pass over at the moment, does not the truth proclaim without any ambiguity that unbaptized little ones not only cannot enter the kingdom of God, but cannot possess eternal life apart from the body of Christ and that, in order to be incorporated in this body, they are given the sacrament of baptism? Does not the truth bear witness beyond any doubt that they are carried in the arms of their believing sponsors to Jesus, that is, to the savior and to Christ the physician, for no other reason than that they may be healed by the medicine of the sacraments from the plague of sin? Why, then, do we hesitate to understand the words of the apostle, about which we may have been in doubt, so that they agree with those testimonies about which we can have no doubt?

[9] Nonetheless, in this whole passage in which the apostle speaks of the condemnation of many through the sin of one person and of the justification of many through the righteousness of one person, I do not find anything ambiguous apart from his calling Adam the pattern of what is to come. For, as a matter of fact, this not only fits the view in accord with which we understand that his offspring to come were born with sin after that same pattern, but these words can be interpreted in various other senses. After all, we ourselves have interpreted it differently in the past, and we will perhaps interpret it differently in the future. Pelagius too has not explained it in just one way. One must pay careful attention and consider the remaining things which are said there, as I certainly tried to do in the first of those two books. If one does so, even if they lead to a statement that is not completely clear by reason of the difficulty of the subject matter, they still could not have another sense than that which has caused the universal Church from its earliest days to maintain that believing little ones have received the forgiveness of original sin through Christ's baptism.

Two Witnesses from the Tradition of the Church

[10] Hence, blessed Cyprian has rightly made it quite clear how the Church has from the beginning preserved this in her faith and understanding. He stated that little ones fresh from the wombs of their mothers are already suited to receive Christ's baptism, when he was asked whether this might take place before the eighth day. He tried as best he could to show that they were ready, so that no one would think that they still had to be made ready over eight days, because infants were formerly circumcised on the eighth day. But although he offered them the strong protection of his defense, he did not admit that they were free from original sin. For, if he denied this sin, he would have removed the reason for baptism itself, and it was for the sake of receiving it that he was defending them. You can read the letter of the aforementioned martyr on the baptism of little ones, if you wish, for there must be a copy in Carthage. But I believe that a few items should be also copied into this letter of ours to the extent that seems sufficient for the present question. Pay wise attention to this quotation: "Regarding infants," he said, "you claimed that they ought not to be baptized within a day or two after they have been born and that one should bear in mind the law regarding the circumcision of old. Thus you thought that the newborn should not be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day. Our episcopal council decided the matter in a far different way, for no one agreed with what you thought should be done. Rather, we all judged that no human child should be denied God's mercy and grace. Since, after all, the Lord says in his gospel, 'The Son of Man did not come to destroy, but to save human souls' (Luke 9:56), insofar as it is up to us, no soul should be lost, if at all possible." Do you see what he says? Do you see how he thinks that to depart from this life without that saving sacrament is deadly and lethal, not merely to the flesh, but also to the soul of the infant? Hence, if he said nothing more, we would have every right to conclude that a soul cannot be lost without sin. But notice what he says about them in all clarity, when he is defending the innocence of little ones a bit later. He says, "But if anything can prevent human beings from attaining grace, it is especially serious sins that can prevent adults, mature, and elderly persons. But even the most serious transgressors and those who formerly sinned much against God receive the forgiveness of sins, when they later believe, and we hold no one back from baptism and grace. How much the more, then, should we not hold back a newly born infant who has committed no sin apart from having contracted by the first birth the contagion of the ancient death by being born in the flesh as a child of Adam. The infant comes to receive the forgiveness of sins with greater ease by reason of the fact that it receives forgiveness, not for its own sins, but for those of another."

[11] You see with what immense confidence this great man speaks on the basis of the ancient and undoubted faith. He offered these most certain proofs so that he might bolster what was uncertain by means of their strength. For the person to whom he is replying had consulted him about what was uncertain, and the council, as he mentions, drew up its decree, namely, that no one should hesitate to baptize an infant, even before the eighth day after its birth, if the infant is brought for baptism. After all, the council did not then establish as something new, or confirm as something under attack from some opponent, the teaching that infants are held subject to original sin. Rather, because of the law regarding circumcision of the flesh, the council raised and debated the question whether they might baptize children even before the eighth day. And none agreed with the person who said that one may not, because they already held it, not as a point for inquiry or discussion, but as something solid and certain, that a soul will be lost for eternal salvation, if it ends this life without the reception of that sacrament, even if little ones fresh from the womb are subject only to the guilt of original sin. For this reason, though it is much easier in their case, since it is the sins of others that are forgiven, they still need the forgiveness of sins. These certitudes resolved that uncertain question about the eighth day, and the council decided that one may provide help to human beings on any day after their birth so that they may not perish for eternity. The council also explained that the circumcision of the flesh foreshadowed what was to come, not in the sense that baptism should be administered on the eighth day after birth, but in the sense that we are spiritually circumcised in the resurrection of Christ. He rose from the dead on the third day after he suffered, but on the eighth day, that is, on the first day after the Sabbath in terms of the days of the week by which time passes.

Jerome's Testimony to the Presence of Original Sin

[12] And now, with the boldness typical of a new theory, some persons are trying to make us uncertain about principles that our predecessors appealed to as utterly certain in order to resolve points that people found uncertain. I do not know when this present discussion began, but I do know that even the saintly Jerome, a man who is presently occupied with ecclesiastical writings and enjoys an excellent reputation for his teaching, unhesitatingly used this most certain proof for resolving various questions in his books. In his commentary on the prophet Jonah, when he came to the passage where it mentions that even little ones were punished with fasting, he says, "Those who are older begin, but even the younger are included. For no one is without sin, even if his life has but a single day and the years of his life can be counted. For if the stars are unclean in the sight of God, how much more are a worm and corruption and those who are held subject to the sin of Adam the transgressor!" If we could easily question this highly learned man, how many commentators on the divine scriptures in both languages and how many authors of Christian treatises could he mention who have held this same doctrine from the time Christ's Church was founded, who have received this same doctrine from their predecessors, and who have handed this same doctrine on to their successors! Though I have read far fewer works, I do not recall having heard any different teaching from Christians who accept both testaments, not only from those in the Catholic Church, but even from those in some heresy or schism. I do not recall that I have read any different doctrine in the authors I was able to read from among those who wrote on these topics and who followed the canonical scriptures or believed they did or wanted others to believe they did.

I do not know the source from which this problem has so suddenly come upon us. A short time ago when we were in Carthage, I heard in passing from certain persons, who were casually conversing, that little ones are not baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, but in order to be sanctified in Christ. I was disturbed by this new idea, but since it was not the right moment for me to say something against it and since they were not the kind of persons about whose authority I was concerned, I readily considered the matter over and done with. And now look, it is being defended with burning zeal. See for yourself, it is being preserved in writing; see, the matter has reached a crisis so that we are asked about it by our brethren. See, we are being forced to argue and write against it.

[13] A few years ago in Rome there emerged a certain Jovinian who is supposed to have persuaded nuns, even those of an advanced age, to marry. He did this, not by seduction, because he wanted to take one of them as his wife, but by the argument that virgins with vows of virginity have no more merit before God than married believers. The idea, nonetheless, never entered his mind that he should try to maintain that human children are born without original sin. And certainly, if he had developed this argument, women would be much more readily inclined to marry, if they were going to bear children who were perfectly innocent. The brothers sent this man's writings to Jerome in order to be refuted, for he was so bold as to put his views in writing. Jerome not only did not find any argument of this sort in them, but for the refutation of certain of his foolish ideas he even asserted, among his many proofs, the following point as utterly certain. It concerned the original human sin, about which he believed that Jovinian also had no doubt. Here are Jerome's words. He said, "'Those who claim to abide in Christ ought themselves to live as he lived' (1 John 2:6). Let my opponent choose which of the two he prefers; we are giving him the option. Does he or does he not abide in Christ? If he abides in Christ, let him then live as Christ did. But if he finds it rash to promise to be like the Lord in the virtues, he does not abide in Christ, because he does not live as Christ. 'He committed no sin, and no deception was found on his lips; when they spoke ill of him, he did not speak ill of them in return' (1 Peter 2:22-23). And like a lamb before the shearer, he did not open his mouth. The prince of this world approached him and found nothing in him. Though he committed no sin, God made him sin on our behalf. But according to the Letter of James, 'we all sin in many ways' (James 3:2), and 'no one is clean from sin, even if one's life lasts only a single day' (Job 14:4-5). 'For who is going to boast of having a chaste heart? Or who is going to presume to be clean from sins' (Proverbs 20:9). We are held guilty in the likeness of Adam's transgression. For this reason David too says, 'See, I was conceived in iniquities, and my mother conceived me in transgressions'" (Psalms 51:7).

[14] I have not quoted these words, because we rely upon the views of certain writers as if they were a canonical authority. I did this, rather, so that it would be evident that, from the beginning up to the present time when this new opinion arose, this teaching on original sin was preserved in the faith of the Church. And it was preserved with such great constancy that, in order to refute other false ideas, the commentators on God's words appealed to it as utterly certain rather than that anyone tried to refute it as false.

Moreover, the holy canonical books support this position with their perfectly clear and full authority. The apostle cries out, "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus it was passed on to all human beings in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). Hence, one cannot simply say that Adam's sin did not harm those who did not sin, since scripture says, "in whom all have sinned." And these sins are not called those of another, as if they did not belong to the little ones. For they all sinned then in Adam, when they were all still that one man in virtue of that power implanted in his nature by which he was able to beget them. They are, rather, called the sins of another, because the little ones themselves were not yet living their own lives, but the life of one human being contained whatever was in his future posterity.

Refutation of the Individual Arguments of the Pelagians

[15] They say, "There is no reason to grant that God who forgives personal sins holds one responsible for the sins of another." He forgives sins, but for those reborn of the Spirit, not for those born of the flesh. Now he does not hold them responsible for the sins of another, but for their own. They were, of course, the sins of another, when these people did not yet exist who were going to have them through generation. But now they belong by reason of birth in the flesh to those who have not yet had them forgiven by spiritual rebirth.

[16] They argue, "If baptism washes away that ancient transgression, those who have been born of two baptized parents ought to be free from this sin. For they could not pass on to their offspring what they themselves did not have." Notice the source from which an error all too often draws its strength: human beings are capable of raising questions about matters which they are not capable of understanding. For to whom or with what words am I to explain this? Corrupt mortal beginnings do no harm to those who have begun again from new immortal beginnings, and they, nonetheless, harm the children whom those very persons, who are no longer harmed by them, have generated from those same corrupt beginnings. How are people to understand that, if prejudice in favor of their own view and the heavy chain of stubbornness further prevent their lazy mind? But suppose I had undertaken this argument against people who absolutely forbade infants to be baptized or maintained that there was no need to baptize them, claiming that children born of believers necessarily receive the reward of their parents. In that case, I ought perhaps to have been roused to defeat this view with greater toil and effort. In that case, if on account of the obscure nature of the matter, I ran into difficulty with dense and stubborn persons in refuting what is false and in convincing them of what is true, I would perhaps have recourse to these examples that are in use and at hand. I would ask them this in turn: Since it bothers them that a sin which is washed away in baptism is present in those whom the baptized parents generate, how do they themselves explain that the foreskin that is removed by circumcision is present in those whom circumcised parents generate? How too is the chaff which is so carefully removed by human labor still found in grain which grows from wheat that has been threshed?

[17] By these and similar examples I would try somehow or other to persuade the people who believe that it is not necessary to administer the sacraments of cleansing to children of those who have been cleansed that to baptize the children of baptized parents is the correct thing to do. I would try to show them how it is possible that persons reborn through the Spirit, who have both the seed of death in the flesh and the seed of immortality in the spirit, are not harmed by what harms their child born in the flesh. I would try to persuade them that in them forgiveness has washed away what in the child needs to be washed away by a similar forgiveness, just as in case of circumcision or of threshing and winnowing. But since we are now dealing with those who admit that children of baptized parents must be baptized, we do much better to say to them: You claim that children of parents who have been cleansed from the stain of sin ought to have been born without sin. Why do you fail to notice that one can by the same argument say to you that children of Christian parents ought to have been born Christian? Why, then, do you think they must become Christian? Did their parents lack Christian bodies, even though scripture said of them, "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 6:15).

Or was the body born from Christian parents perhaps Christian, but it did not receive a Christian soul? This would be much more surprising. For you may hold one of these two views regarding the soul. After all, you certainly believe with the apostle that, before it was born, the soul had done nothing good or bad. Hence, the soul either came to be through generation, and then, just as a body of Christian parents would be Christian, so the soul ought also to be Christian. Or, as created by Christ, either in a Christian body or for the sake of a Christian body, it ought to have been created or sent as Christian.

Perhaps you are going to say that Christian parents could beget a Christian body and that Christ himself could not create a Christian soul. And so, yield to the truth and see this: As you yourselves admit, a non-Christian can be born of Christians, and one who is not a member of Christ can be born of members of Christ. And to include as well all those who belong to any religion, even if a false one, one not initiated can be born to initiated parents. In the same way, one not cleansed can be born from parents who have been cleansed. How are you going to explain why a non-Christian is born of Christians, unless it is not birth, but rebirth that produces Christians? Give yourselves the same explanation, because in the same way no one is cleansed from sins by being born, but all are cleansed by being reborn. And so, a human being born from human beings who have been cleansed, because they have been reborn, must be reborn in order to be cleansed. The parents were able to pass on to their offspring what they themselves did not have, not only as grain passes on chaff and a circumcised person passes on a foreskin, but also as — a point you yourselves admit — believers pass on to their offspring unbelief. This defect no longer belongs to those who have been reborn through the Spirit; it belongs, rather, to the mortal seed from which they were generated in the flesh. For you certainly do not deny that those little ones, who in your judgment need to be made into believers through the sacrament of believers, were born non-believers from believing parents.

Pelagius and the Difficult Question of the Soul

[18] They also hold this, "If it is not the soul, but only the flesh that comes by generation, only the flesh has the transmitted sin, and it alone deserves punishment. They claim that it is unjust that a newly born soul that is not made from the mass of Adam bears so ancient a sin of another." I have copied those words which I just cited from Pelagius' book. I beg you, please pay attention to how, as a man of circumspection, he is well aware that he is in the midst of the difficult question of the soul. After all, he does not say that the soul does not come from generation, but: "If it is not the soul that comes from generation." He is, after all, right to speak with hesitation rather than with confidence regarding a matter so obscure, about which we cannot find, or can find only with difficulty, any certain and clear testimonies in the holy scriptures.

Hence, I too will reply to the present question with a statement that is equally cautious: If the soul does not come from generation, then what sort of justice is it that a soul recently created, certainly free from every transgression, and completely pure from all contamination with sin, is forced in little ones to undergo the sufferings and various torments of the flesh and — what is worse — the attacks of demons? After all, the flesh does not suffer any of these without the living and sentient soul suffering these penalties even more. For if one shows that this is just, then one can also show by what sort of justice the soul is subject in sinful flesh to original sin, which must be washed away by the sacrament of baptism and the mercy of grace. But if one cannot show the former, I do not think that we can show the latter either. Let us, then, put up with the fact that both of these are hidden from us and remember that we are human beings, or, if it seems necessary, let us at some other time undertake another work on the soul in which we discuss the matter with sobriety and caution.

Conclusion and Summary of the Work

[19] The apostle said, "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus it was passed on to all human beings in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). Let us now interpret those words so that we are not judged to contradict, with great folly and to our own misfortune, so many, great and clear testimonies of the divine scriptures. They teach us that no one can attain eternal life and salvation apart from the community with Christ, which we have in him and with him, when we receive his sacraments and are made members of his body. For he did not say to the Romans, "Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus it was passed on to all human beings" (Romans 5:12) in any other sense than he said to the Corinthians, "Death came through a man, and the resurrection of the dead came through a man. For, just as all die in Adam, so too all will be brought to life in Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). No one, of course, can fail to see that these last words refer to the death of the body, since the question of the resurrection of the body was the focus of the apostle's attention. And so, we see that he made no mention of sin there, since the question did not concern righteousness. But in writing to the Romans, he mentioned both of them and taught at great length about both of these: sin in Adam along with righteousness in Christ and death in Adam along with life in Christ. I examined and explained, as I said, all these words of the apostle to the extent of my ability and to the extent that seemed sufficient in the first of the previous two books.

[20] And yet, even in the Letter to the Corinthians, at the end he concluded the passage that we have discussed at length concerning the resurrection in such a way that he left us no doubt that the death of the body came about as a punishment for sin. For he said, "The corruptible body must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal body must put on immortality. But when this corruptible body has put on incorruptibility and this mortal body has put on immortality, then the words of scripture will be fulfilled: Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" Then he added, "But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law" (1 Corinthians 15:53-56). As the clear words of the apostle reveal, death will be swallowed up in victory when this corruptible and mortal body will put on incorruptibility and immortality, that is, when God will bring to life even our mortal bodies on account of his Spirit dwelling in us. Hence, it is clear that sin is the sting of even this death of the body, which is the opposite of the resurrection of the body. It is the sting by which death came to be, not the sting which death has caused. For we die as a result of sin; we do not sin as a result of death. Therefore, scripture spoke of the sting of death in the way it spoke of "the tree of life" (Genesis 2:9); it was not the tree which human life made, but the tree from which human life might come to be. It also spoke of it in the way it spoke of "the tree of knowledge" (Genesis 2:9); it was the tree which would produce human knowledge, not a tree which human beings might produce by their knowledge. And so, it is the sting of death by which death came to be, not the sting which death made. After all, we call a cup of death one from which someone has died or could die, not one that a dead or dying person has made. Sin, then, is the sting of death; pierced by sin, the human race has been put to death.

Why do we still ask whether it is the death of the soul or of the body? Or whether it is the first death by which we all now die or the second by which the wicked will die later? There is no reason to raise the question; there is no room for escape. The words of the apostle, by which he deals with this, give the answer. He says, "When this mortal body has put on immortality, then the words of scripture will be fulfilled: Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:54-56). He was dealing with the resurrection of the body, because death will be swallowed up in victory, when this mortal body has put on immortality. Then we will laugh in the face of death, which will be swallowed up in victory by the resurrection of the body. Then we will say to it, "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" We will say this to the death of the body. For victorious immortality will swallow this up, when this mortal body will have put on immortality. Then, we will say to the death of the body, "Where, O death, is your victory?" by which you conquered all human beings so that even the Son of God did battle with you and overcame you, not by avoiding you, but by taking you on. You conquered in those who die; you have been conquered in those who rise. Your victory by which you swallowed up the bodies of the dying was temporal; our victory by which you are swallowed up in the bodies of those who rise will last eternally.

"Where is your sting?" that is, the sin by which we were pierced and poisoned so that you came to be even in our bodies and owned them for so long a time? "But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law." We all sinned in the one man so that we all died in the one man; we received the law, not so that we might bring sin to an end by our becoming better, but so that we might increase it by our transgression. "But the law entered in so that sin might abound" (Romans 5:20) and "Scripture has enclosed all things under sin" (Galatians 3:22). "But thanks be to God who has given us the victory through our Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:57). And so, where sin was abundant, grace might be even more abundant, and "on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22). Thus we might also conquer death through deathless resurrection and conquer sin, its sting, through the free gift of justification.

[21] Let no one, then, be mistaken about this matter and mislead others. This clear meaning of the holy scripture banishes and removes all ambiguity. Just as death in the body of this death comes from our origin, so too sin in this sinful flesh has come from our origin. To heal this sinfulness contracted by birth and increased by our will and to raise up this flesh, the physician came in the likeness of sinful flesh. It is not those who are in good health who need him, but those who are sick, and he did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Moreover, when the apostle advised the faithful not to separate from unbelieving spouses, he said, "For a husband who does not believe is sanctified in his wife, and a wife who does not believe is sanctified in a brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14). We must either interpret these words as we have explained them elsewhere and as Pelagius explained them when he was commenting on this same letter to the Corinthians. The explanation is that there had already been examples of husbands who won their wives and of wives who won their husbands for Christ, as well as examples of little ones in whose case the Christian desire of the one parent prevailed to make them Christians. Or perhaps, as the words of the apostle seem rather to suggest and in some sense even to demand, we should understand in this passage some other sanctification by which a non-believing husband or a wife is sanctified through the spouse who believes or by which the children of believers are born holy. Perhaps they refrained from intercourse at the time of the wife's period, because either the husband or the wife read this in the law. Ezekiel, after all, lists this among the commandments which are not to be interpreted figuratively. Or it may have been on account of some other conferral of sanctity that is not clearly stated, coming from the union of spouses and their children. But, whatever that sanctification may be, we must hold it as beyond any doubt that it is unable to make them Christians and to forgive sins, unless they become believers by the teaching and sacraments of Christ and the Church. For, no matter how holy and righteous their spouses are, non-believers are not cleansed from the sinfulness which compels those who have been excluded from the kingdom of God to enter into condemnation. And no matter how holy and righteous the parents are who begot them, little ones are released from the guilt of original sin, only if they have been baptized in Christ. For these we must speak more unstintingly, the more they are unable to speak for themselves.

[22] The point of that discussion, after all, was that some people think that infants have no need to be baptized, and we must oppose that novel idea with the ancient truth. They do not state this point in plain words for fear that the well-established and salutary custom of the Church would be unable to tolerate those who violate it. If we are commanded to help orphans, how much more ought we to labor for these children who, even with their parents, will remain more destitute and more wretched than orphans, if they are denied the grace of Christ for which they themselves are unable to ask.

[23] These people claim, however, that some human beings, who already have the use of their own reason, will live, have lived, or are now living without any sin. We should hope that this will be the case; we should strive to make it so; we should pray that it will be so. We should not, however, presume that it is already the case. After all, for those who hope for and strive after and pray for this with suitable prayers, whatever is left of their sins is daily removed by the words we truthfully say in the prayer, "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). Whoever claims that this prayer is not necessary in this life for anyone, even for a holy person who knows and does God's will, except for the Holy of Holies, is greatly mistaken and is utterly unable to please the very one whom he praises. If persons believe that they are such, they deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them, for no other reason than that they believe what is false. That physician, then, whom those in good health do not need, though the sick do, knows full well how, by his healing, to bring us to perfection for eternal salvation. Although it was imposed as a punishment for sin, he does not in this age take death itself away from those whose sins he forgives so that, through having to overcome the fear of death, they might take up the struggle out of pure faith. And in certain cases he does not help even his righteous ones to bring their righteousness to perfection, because they can still become proud. Thus, as long as no living person is found righteous in his sight, we will always owe a debt of gratitude to his mercy, and by holy humility we will be healed from that first cause of all sins, that is, from the swelling of pride. Though my intent here was to produce a short letter, I have given birth to a long book. I wish it had not merely at last come to an end, but had attained as well a comparable completeness.