Writings of Augustine. A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin.
|
Advanced Information
Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy.
A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin.
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Extract from Augustin's "Retractations," Book II. Chap. 56,
On the Following Treatise, "De anima et ejus origine."
"At that time one Vincentius discovered in the possesion of a certain
presbyter called Peter, in Mauritania Cæsariensis, a little work of
mine, in a particular passage of which, touching the origin of souls
in individual men, I had confessed that I knew not whether they are
propagated from the primeval soul of the first man, and from that by
parental descent, or whether they are severally assigned to each
person without propogation, as the first was to Adam; but that I was,
at the same time, quite sure that the soul was not body, but spirit.
In opposition to these opinions of mine, he addressed to this Peter
two books, which were sent to me from Cæsarea by the monk Renatus.
Having read these books, I replied in four others,--one addressed to
the monk Renatus, another to the presbyter Peter, and two more to
Victor himself. That to Peter, however, though it has all the
lengthiness of a book, is yet only a letter, which I did not like to
be kept separate from the other three works. In all of them, while
discussing many points which were unavoidable, I defended my hesitancy
on the point of the origin of the souls which are given to individual
men; and I pointed out this man's many errors and presumptuous
pravity. At the same time, I treated the young man as gently as I
could,--not as one who ought to be denounced all out of hand, but as
one who ought to be still instructed; and I accepted the account of
his conduct which he wrote back to me. In this work of mine, the book
addressed to Renatus begins with these words: "Your sincerity towards
us;" while that which was written to Peter begins thus: "To his
Lordship, my dearly beloved brother and co-presbyter Peter." Of the
last two books, which are addressed to Vincentius Victor, the former
one thus opens: "As to that which I have thought it my duty to write
to you."
|
|
Advertisement to the Reader on the Following Treatise.
The occasion of these four books was furnished by a young man named
Vincentius Victor, a native of Mauritania Cæsariensis, a convert to
the catholic Church from the Rogatian faction (which split off from
the Donatist schism, and inhabited that part of Mauritania which lay
around Cartenna). This Victor, they say, had previously so high an
opinion of the Vincentius who succeeded Rogatus as the head of the
before-mentioned faction, that he adopted his name as his own. [2338]
Happening to meet with a certain work of Augustin's, in which the
writer acknowledged himself to be incapable of saying whether all
souls were propagated from Adam's soul simply, or whether every man
severally had his soul given to him by God, even as Adam himself had,
without propagation, although he declared, for all that, his
conviction that the soul was in its nature spirit, not body, Victor
was equally offended with both statements: he wondered that so great a
man as Augustin did not unhesitatingly teach what one ought to hold
concerning the origin of the soul, especially as he thought its
propagation probable; and also that he did state with so great
assurance the nature of the soul to be incorporeal. He accordingly
published two books written to one Peter, a presbyter of Spain,
against Augustin on this subject, containing some conceits of the
Pelagian heretics, and other things even worse than these. [2339]
A monk called Renatus happened then to be at Cæsarea. It appears that
this man had shown to Augustin, who was staying at the same place in
the autumn of the year 418, a letter of the Bishop Optatus consulting
him about the origin of the soul. [2340] This monk, of the order of
laymen, but perfectly orthodox in the faith, induced by the
circumstance, carefully copied the books of Victor, and forwarded them
from Cæsarea to Hippo the next summer; Augustin, however, only
received them at the end of autumn of the year 419, as is supposed. As
soon as the holy doctor read them, he without delay wrote the first of
the four following books to the good monk, and then the second, in the
shape of a letter, to the presbyter Peter, and the two last books to
Victor himself, but after a considerable interval, as it appears from
the following words of the fourth chapter of the second book: "If,
indeed, the Lord will that I should write to the young man, as I
desire to do." In the Retractations this little work of Augustin is
placed immediately after the treatises of the year 419, i.e. in the
fifth place after the Proceedings with Emeritus, which were completed
in the month of September in the year 418. It belongs, therefore, to
the termination of the year 419 or to the commencement of the year
420, having been written after "the condemnation of the Pelagians by
the authority of catholic Councils and of the Apostolic See," [2341]
but "very soon after," [2342] as that happy event had happened in the
year of Christ 418.
In Book I., written to Renatus, he points out his own opinion about
the nature of the soul, and his hesitation as to its origin, which had
been unjustly blamed by Victor. He reproves the man's juvenile
forwardness, shows him he had fallen into grave and unheard-of errors
while venturing to take upon himself the solution of a question which
exceeded his abilities, and points out that he adduced only doubtful
passages of Scripture, and such as were not applicable to the subject,
in his endeavour to prove that souls are not propagated, but that
entirely new ones are breathed by God into every man at his separate
birth.
In Book II., he advises Peter not to incur the imputation of having
approved of the books which had been addressed to him by Victor On the
Origin of the Soul by any use he might make of them, nor to take as
catholic doctrines that person's rash utterances contrary to the
Christian faith. Victor's various and very serious errors he points
out and briefly confutes, and he concludes with advising Peter himself
to try to persuade Victor to correct his errors.
In Book III., which was written to Victor himself, he points out the
corrections which Victor ought to make in his books if he wished to be
deemed a catholic; those opinions also and paradoxes of his, which had
been already refuted in the preceding books to Renatus and Peter, the
author briefly censures in this third book, and classifies under
eleven heads of error.
In Book IV., addressed to the same Victor, he first shows that his
hesitation on the subject of the origin of souls was undeservedly
blamed, and that he was wrongly compared with cattle, because he had
refrained from any bold conclusions on the subject. Then again, with
regard to his own unhesitating statement, that the soul was spirit,
not body, he points out how rashly Victor disapproved of this
assertion, especially when he was vainly expending his efforts to
prove that the soul was corporeal in its own nature, and that the
spirit in man was distinct from the soul itself.
Footnotes
[2338] See below, Book iii. c. 2.
[2339] See below, ii. 13, 15.
[2340] See Augustin's letter 190, ch. 1.
[2341] See Book ii. 17.
[2342] See Book i. 34.
A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin,
by Aurelius Augustin, Bishop of Hippo;
In Four Books,
written towards the end of 419.
.
Book I. [2343]
Addressed to Renatus, the Monk.
On receiving from Renatus the two books of Vincentius Victor, who
disapproved of Augustin's opinion touching the nature of the soul, and
of his hesitation in respect of its origin, Augustin points out how
the young objector, in his self-conceit in aiming to decide on so
abstruse a subject, had fallen into insufferable mistakes. He then
proceeds to show that those passages of Scripture by which Victor
thought he could prove that human souls are not derived by
propagation, but are breathed by God afresh into each man at birth,
are ambiguous, and inadequate for the confirmation of this opinion of
his.
Chapter 1 [I.]--Renatus Had Done Him a Kindness by Sending Him the
Books Which Had Been Addressed to Him.
Your sincerity towards us, dearest brother Renatus, and your brotherly
kindness, and the affection of mutual love between us, we already had
clear proof of; but now you have afforded us a still clearer proof, by
sending me two books, written by a person whom I knew, indeed, nothing
of,--though he was not on that account to be despised,--called
Vincentius Victor (for in such form did I find his name placed at the
head of his work): this you did in the summer of last year; but owing
to my absence from home, it was the end of autumn before they found
their way to me. How, indeed, would you be likely with your very great
affection for me to fail either in means or inclination to bring under
my notice any writings of the kind, by whomsoever composed, if they
fell into your hands, even if they were addressed to some one else?
How much less likely, when my own name was mentioned and read--and
that in a context of gainsaying some words of mine, which I had
published in certain little treatises? Now you have done all this in
the way you were sure to act as my very sincere and beloved friend.
Chapter 2 [II.]--He Receives with a Kindly and Patient Feeling the
Books of a Young and Inexperienced Man Who Wrote Against Him in a Tone
of Arrogance. Vincentius Victor Converted from the Sect of the
Rogatians.
I am somewhat pained, however, at being thus far less understood by
your Holiness than I should like to be; forasmuch as you supposed that
I should so receive your communication, as if you did me an injury, by
making known to me what another had done. You may see, indeed, how far
this feeling is from my mind, in that I have no complaint to make of
having suffered any wrong even from him. For, when he entertained
views different from my own, was he bound to preserve silence? It
ought, no doubt, to be even pleasant to me, that he broke silence in
such a way as to put it in our power to read what he had to say. He
ought, I certainly think, to have written simply to me, rather than to
another concerning me; but as he was unknown to me, he did not venture
to intrude personally on me in refuting my words. He thought there was
no necessity for applying to me in a matter on which he seemed to
himself least of all liable to be doubted, [2344] but to be holding a
perfectly well-known and certain opinion. He moreover, acted in
obedience to a friend of his by whom he tells us he was compelled to
write. And if he expressed any sentiment during the controversy which
was contumelious to me, I would prefer supposing that he did this, not
with any wish to treat me with incivility, but from the necessity of
thinking differently from me. For in all cases where a person's animus
towards one is indeterminate and unknown, I think it better to suppose
the existence of the kindlier motive, than to find fault with an
undiscovered one. Perhaps, too, he acted from love to me, as knowing
that what he had written might possibly reach me; being at the same
time unwilling that I should be in error on such points as he
especially thinks himself to be free from error regarding. I ought,
therefore, to be grateful for his kindness, although I feel obliged to
disapprove of his opinion. Accordingly, as regards the points on which
he does not entertain right views, he appears to me to deserve gentle
correction rather than severe disapproval; more especially because, if
I am rightly informed, he has lately become a catholic--a matter in
which he is to be congratulated. For he has freed himself from the
schism and errors of the Donatists (or rather the Rogatists) in which
he was previously implicated; and if he understands the catholic
verity as he ought, we may really rejoice at his conversion.
Footnotes
[2343] Written about the end of 419.
[2344] [The Edinburgh translator conjectures minime dubitandam here:
"on which he seemed to himself to be holding no doubtful, but a
perfectly well-known and certain opinion."--W.]
Chapter 3 [III]--The Eloquence of Vincentius, Its Dangers and Its
Tolerableness.
For he has an eloquence by which he is able to explain what he thinks.
He must, therefore, be dealt with accordingly; and we must hope that
he may entertain right sentiments, and that he may not turn useless
things into objects of desire; that he may not seem to have propounded
as true whatever he may have expressed with eloquence. But in his very
outspokenness he may have much to correct, and to prune of redundant
verbiage. And this characteristic of his has actually given offence to
you, who are a person of gravity, as your own writings indicate. This
fault, however, is either easily corrected, or, if it be resorted to
with fondness by light minds, and borne with by serious ones, it is
not attended with any injury to their faith. For we have already
amongst us men who are frothy in speech, but sound in the faith. We
need not then despair that this quality even in him (it might be
endurable, however, even if it proved permanent) may be tempered and
cleansed--in fact, may be either extended or recalled to an entire and
solid criterion; especially as he is said to be young, so that
diligence may supply to him whatever defect his inexperience may
possess, and ripeness of age may digest what crude loquacity finds
indigestible. The troublesome, dangerous, and pernicious thing is,
when folly is set off by the commendation which is accorded to
eloquence, and when a poisonous draught is drunk out of a precious
goblet.
Chapter 4 [IV.]--The Errors Contained in the Books of Vincentius
Victor. He Says that the Soul Comes from God, But Was Not Made Either
Out of Nothing or Out of Any Created Thing.
I will now proceed to point out what things are chiefly to be avoided
in his contentious statement. He says that the soul was made, indeed,
by God, but that it is not a portion of God or of the nature of
God,--which is an entirely true statement. When, however, he refuses
to allow that it is made out of nothing, and mentions no other created
thing out of which it was made; and makes God its author, in such a
sense that He must be supposed to have made it, neither out of any
non-existing things, that is, out of nothing, nor out of anything
which exists other than God, but out of His very self: he is little
aware that in the revolution of his thoughts he has come back to the
position which he thinks he has avoided, even that the soul is nothing
else than the nature of God; and consequently that there is an actual
something made out of the nature of God by the self-same God, for the
making of which the material of which He makes it is His own very self
who makes it; and that thus God's nature is changeable, and by being
changed for the worse the very nature of God Himself incurs
condemnation at the hands of the self-same God! How far all this is
from being fit for your intelligent faith to suppose, how alien it is
from the heart of a catholic, and how much to be avoided, you can
readily see. For the soul is either so made out of the breath, or
God's breath is so made into it, that it was not created out of
Himself, but by Himself out of nothing. It is not, indeed, like the
case of a human being, when he breathes: he cannot form a breath out
of nothing, but he restores to the air the breath which he inhaled out
of it. We may in some such manner suppose that certain airs surrounded
the Divine Being, and that He inhaled a particle of it by breathing,
and exhaled it again by respiration, when He breathed into man's face,
and so formed for him a soul. If this were the process, it could not
have been out of His very self, but out of the circumambient airy
matter, that what He breathed forth must have arisen. Far be it,
however, from us to say, that the Almighty could not have made the
breath of life out of nothing, by which man might become a living
soul; and to crowd ourselves into such straits, as that we must either
think that something already existed other than Himself, out of which
He formed breath, or else suppose that He formed out of Himself that
which we see was made subject to change. Now, whatever is out of
Himself, must necessarily be of the self-same nature as Himself, and
therefore immutable: but the soul (as all allow) is mutable. Therefore
it is not out of Him, because it is not immutable, as He is. If,
however, it was not made of anything else, it was undoubtedly made out
of nothing--but by Himself.
Chapter 5 [V.]--Another of Victor's Errors, that the Soul is
Corporeal.
But as regards his contention, "that the soul is not spirit, but
body," what else can he mean to make out, than that we are composed,
not of soul and body, but of two or even three bodies? For inasmuch as
he says that we consist of spirit, soul and body, and asserts that all
the three are bodies; it follows, that he supposes us to be made up of
three bodies. How absurd this conclusion is, I think ought rather to
be demonstrated to him than to you. But this is not an intolerable
error on the part of a person who has not yet discovered that there is
in existence a something, which, though it be not corporeal, yet may
wear somewhat of the similitude of a body.
Chapter 6 [VI.]--Another Error Out of His Second Book, to the Effect,
that the Soul Deserved to Be Polluted by the Body.
But he is plainly past endurance in what he says in his second book,
when he endeavours to solve a very difficult question on original sin,
how it belongs to body and soul, if the soul is not derived by
parental descent but is breathed afresh by God into a man. Striving to
explain this troublesome and profound point, he thus expresses his
view: "Through the flesh the soul fitly recovers its primitive
condition, which it seemed to have gradually lost through the flesh,
in order that it may begin to be regenerated by the very flesh by
which it had deserved to be polluted." You observe how this person,
having been so bold as to undertake what exceeds his powers, has
fallen down such a precipice as to say, that the soul deserved to be
defiled by the body; although he could in no wise declare whence it
drew on itself this desert, before it put on flesh. For if it first
had from the flesh its desert of sin, let him tell us (if he can)
whence (previous to sin) it derived its desert to be contaminated by
the flesh. For this desert, which projected it into sinful flesh to be
polluted by it, it of course had either from itself, or, which is much
more offensive to our mind, from God. It certainly could not, previous
to its being invested with the flesh, have received from that flesh
that ill desert by reason of which it was projected into the flesh, in
order to be defiled by it. Now, if it had the ill desert from its own
self, how did it get it, seeing that it did no sin previous to its
assumption of flesh? But if it be alleged that it had the ill desert
from God, then, I ask, who could listen to such blasphemy? Who could
endure it? Who could permit it to be alleged with impunity? For the
question which arises here, remember, is not, what was the ill desert
which adjudged the soul to be condemned after it became incarnate, but
what was its ill desert prior to the flesh, which condemned it to the
investiture of the flesh, that it might be thereby polluted? Let him
explain this to us, if he can, seeing that he has dared to say that
the soul deserved to be defiled by the flesh.
Chapter 7 [VII.]--Victor Entangles Himself in an Exceedingly Difficult
Question. God's Foreknowledge is No Cause of Sin.
In another passage, also, on proposing for explanation the very same
question in which he had entangled himself, he says, speaking in the
person of certain objectors: "Why, they ask, did God inflict upon the
soul so unjust a punishment as to be willing to relegate it into a
body, when, by reason of its association with the flesh, that begins
to be sinful which could not have been sinful?" Now, amidst the reefy
sea of such a question, it was surely his duty to beware of shipwreck;
nor to commit himself to dangers which he could not hope to escape by
passing over them, and where his only chance of safety lay in putting
back again--in a word, by repentance. He tries to free himself by
means of the foreknowledge of God, but to no purpose. For God's
foreknowledge only marks beforehand those sinners whom He purposes to
heal. For if He liberates from sin those souls which He Himself
involved in sin when innocent and pure, He then heals a wound which
Himself inflicted on us, not which He found in us. May God, however,
forbid it, and may it be altogether far from us to say, that when God
cleanses the souls of infants by the laver of regeneration, He then
corrects evils which He Himself made for them, when He commingled
them, which had no sin before, with sinful flesh, that they might be
contaminated by its original sin. As regards, however, the souls which
this calumniator alleges to have deserved pollution by the flesh, he
is quite unable to tell us how it is they deserved so vast an evil,
previous to their connection with the flesh.
Chapter 8 [VIII.]--Victor's Erroneous Opinion, that the Soul Deserved
to Become Sinful.
Vainly supposing, then, that he was able to solve this question from
the foreknowledge of God, he keeps floundering on, and says: "If the
soul deserved to be sinful which could not have been sinful, yet
neither did it remain in sin, because, as prefigured in Christ, it was
not bound to be in sin, even as it was unable to be." Now what can he
mean when he says, "which could not have been sinful," or "was unable
to be in sin," except, as I suppose, this, if it did not come into the
flesh? For, of course, it could not have been sinful through original
sin, or have been at all involved in original sin, except through the
flesh, if it is not derived from the parent. We see it, then,
liberated from sin through grace, but we do not see how it deserved to
be involved in sin. What, then, is the meaning of these words of his,
"If the soul deserved to be sinful, yet neither did it remain in sin"?
For if I were to ask him, why it did not remain in sin, he would very
properly answer, Because the grace of Christ delivered it therefrom.
Since, then, he tells us how it came to pass that an infant's soul was
liberated from its sinfulness, let him further tell us how it happened
that it deserved to be sinful.
Chapter 9.--Victor Utterly Unable to Explain How the Sinless Soul
Deserved to Be Made Sinful.
But what does he mean by that, which in his introduction he says has
befallen him? For previous to proposing that question of his, and as
introducing it, he affirms: "There are other opprobrious expressions
underlying the querulous murmurings of those who rail at us; and,
shaken about as in a hurricane, we are again and again dashed amongst
enormous rocks." Now, if I were to express myself about him in this
style, he would probably be angry. The words are his; and after
premising them, he propounded his question, by way of showing us the
very rocks against which he struck and was wrecked. For to such
lengths was he carried, and against such frightful reefs was he borne,
drifted, and struck, that his escape was a perfect impossibility
without a retreat--a correction, in short, of what he had said; since
he was unable to show by what desert the soul was made sinful; though
he was not afraid to say, that previous to any sin of its own it had
deserved to become sinful. Now, who deserves, without committing any
sin, so immense a punishment as to be conceived in the sin of another,
before leaving his mother's womb, and then to be no longer free from
sin? But from this punishment the free grace of God delivers the souls
of such infants as are regenerated in Christ, with no previous merits
of their own--otherwise grace is no grace." [2345] With regard, then,
to this person, who is so vastly intelligent, and who in the great
depth of his wisdom is displeased at our hesitation, which, if not
well informed, is at all events circumspect, let him tell us, if he
can, what the merit was which brought the soul into such a punishment,
from which grace delivers it without any merit. Let him speak, and, if
he can, defend his assertion with some show of reason. I would not,
indeed, require so much of him, if he had not himself declared that
the soul deserved to become sinful. Let him tell us what the desert
was--whether good desert or evil? If good, how could well-deserving
lead to evil? If evil, whence could arise any ill desert previous to
the commission of any sin? I have also to remark, that if there be a
good desert, then the liberation of the soul would not be of free
grace, but it would be due to the previous merit, and thus "grace
would be no more grace." If there be, however, an evil desert, then I
ask what it is. Is it true that the soul has come into the flesh; and
that it would not have so come unless He in whom there is no sin had
Himself sent it? Never, therefore, except by floundering worse and
worse, will he contrive to set up this view of his, in which he
predicates of the soul that it deserved to be sinful. In the case of
those infants, too, in whose baptism original sin is washed away, he
found something to say after a fashion,--to the effect, that being
involved in the sin of another could not possibly have been
detrimental to them, predestinated as they were to eternal life in the
foreknowledge of God. This might admit of a tolerably good sense, if
he had not entangled himself in that formula of his, in which he
asserts that the soul deserved to be sinful: from this difficulty he
can only extricate himself by revoking his words, with regret at
having expressed them.
Footnotes
[2345] Rom. xi. 6.
Chapter 10 [IX.]--Another Error of Victor's, that Infants Dying
Unbaptized May Attain to the Kingdom of Heaven. Another, that the
Sacrifice of the Body of Christ Must Be Offered for Infants Who Die
Before They are Baptized.
But when he wished to answer with respect, however, to those infants
who are prevented by death from being first baptized in Christ, he was
so bold as to promise them not only paradise, but also the kingdom of
heaven,--finding no way else of avoiding the necessity of saying that
God condemns to eternal death innocent souls which, without any
previous desert of sin, He introduces into sinful flesh. He saw,
however, to some extent what evil he was giving utterance to, in
implying that without any grace of Christ the souls of infants are
redeemed to everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, and that in
their case original sin may be cancelled without Christ's baptism, in
which is effected the forgiveness of sins: observing all this, and
into what a depth he had plunged in his sea of shipwreck, he says, "I
am of opinion that for them, indeed, constant oblations and sacrifices
must be continually offered up by holy priests." You may here behold
another danger, out of which he will never escape except by regret and
a recall of his words. For who can offer up the body of Christ for any
except for those who are members of Christ? Moreover, from the time
when He said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;" [2346] and again, "He that
loseth his life for my sake shall find it;" [2347] no one becomes a
member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ, or death
for Christ. [2348]
Footnotes
[2346] John iii. 5.
[2347] Matt. x. 39.
[2348] [Augustin here confesses the validity of the "baptism of
blood," that is, martyrdom, which may take the place of baptism. See
the next chapter, and also Book ii. 17.--W.]
Chapter 11.--Martyrdom for Christ Supplies the Place of Baptism. The
Faith of the Thief Who Was Crucified Along with Christ Taken as
Martyrdom and Hence for Baptism.
Accordingly, the thief, who was no follower of the Lord previous to
the cross, but His confessor upon the cross, from whose case a
presumption is sometimes taken, or attempted, against the sacrament of
baptism, is reckoned by St. Cyprian [2349] among the martyrs who are
baptized in their own blood, as happens to many unbaptized persons in
times of hot persecution. For to the fact that he confessed the
crucified Lord so much weight is attributed and so much availing value
assigned by Him who knows how to weigh and value such evidence, as if
he had been crucified for the Lord. Then, indeed, his faith on the
cross flourished when that of the disciples failed, and that without
recovery if it had not bloomed again by the resurrection of Him before
the terror of whose death it had drooped. They despaired of Him when
dying,--he hoped when joined with Him in dying; they fled from the
author of life,--he prayed to his companion in punishment; they
grieved as for the death of a man,--he believed that after death He
was to be a king; they forsook the sponsor of their salvation,--he
honoured the companion of His cross. There was discovered in him the
full measure of a martyr, who then believed in Christ when they fell
away who were destined to be martyrs. All this, indeed, was manifest
to the eyes of the Lord, who at once bestowed so great felicity on one
who, though not baptized, was yet washed clean in the blood, as it
were, of martyrdom. But even of ourselves, who cannot reflect with how
much faith, how much hope, how much charity he might have undergone
death for Christ when living, who begged life of Him when dying?
Besides all this, there is the circumstance, which is not incredibly
reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of
the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with
the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say
nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that
he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let
every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about
baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example
of the thief; and let no one promise for the case of unbaptized
infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle
place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and where he pleases.
For this is what the heresy of Pelagius promised them: he neither
fears damnation for infants, whom he does not regard as having any
original sin, nor does he give them the hope of the kingdom of heaven,
since they do not approach to the sacrament of baptism. As for this
man, however, although he acknowledges that infants are involved in
original sin, he yet boldly promises them, even without baptism, the
kingdom of heaven. This even the Pelagians had not the boldness to do,
though asserting infants to be absolutely without sin. See, then, what
a network of presumptuous opinion he entangles, unless he regret
having committed such views to writing.
Footnotes
[2349] Cyprian's Letter to Jubianus. See likewise Augustin's work
Against the Donatists, iv. 29; also On Leviticus, question 84; also
his Retractations, ii. 18, 55.
Chapter 12 [X.]--Dinocrates, Brother of the Martyr St. Perpetua, is
Said to Have Been Delivered from the State of Condemnation by the
Prayers of the Saint.
Concerning Dinocrates, however, the brother of St. Perpetua, there is
no record in the canonical Scripture; nor does the saint herself, or
whoever it was that wrote the account, say that the boy, who had died
at the age of seven years, died without baptism; in his behalf she is
believed to have had, when her martyrdom was imminent, her prayers
effectually heard that he should be removed from the penalties of the
lost to rest. Now, boys at that time of life are able both to lie,
and, saying the truth, both to confess and deny. Therefore, when they
are baptized they say the Creed, and answer in their behalf to such
questions as are proposed to them in examination. Who can tell, then,
whether that boy, after baptism, in a time of persecution was
estranged from Christ to idolatry by an impious father, and on that
account incurred mortal condemnation, from which he was only delivered
for Christ's sake, given to the prayers of his sister when she was at
the point of death?
Chapter 13 [XI.]--The Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Will
Not Avail for Unbaptized Persons, and Can Not Be Offered for the
Majority of Those Who Die Unbaptized.
But even if it be conceded to this man (what cannot by any means be
allowed with safety to the catholic faith and the rule of the Church),
that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ may be offered for
unbaptized persons of every age, as if they were to be helped by this
kind of piety on the part of their friends to reaching the kingdom of
heaven: what will he have to say to our objections respecting the
thousands of infants who are born of impious parents and never fall,
by any mercy of God or man, into the hands of pious friends, and who
depart from that wretched life of theirs at their most tender age
without the washing of regeneration? Let him tell us, if he only can,
how it is that those souls deserved to be made sinful to such a degree
as certainly never afterwards to be delivered from sin. For if I ask
him why they deserve to be condemned if they are not baptized, he will
rightly answer me: On account of original sin. If I then inquire
whence they derived original sin, he will answer, From sinful flesh,
of course. If I go on to ask why they deserved to be condemned to a
sinful flesh, seeing they had done no evil before they came in the
flesh, and to be so condemned to undergo the contagion of the sin of
another, that neither baptism shall regenerate them, born as they are
in sin, nor sacrifices expiate them in their pollution: let him find
something to reply to this! For in such circumstances and of such
parents have these infants been born, or are still being born, that it
is not possible for them to be reached with such help. Here, at any
rate, all argument is lacking. Our question is not, why souls have
deserved to be condemned subsequently to their consorting with sinful
flesh? But we ask, how it is that souls have deserved to be condemned
to undergo at all this association with sinful flesh, seeing that they
have no sin previous to this association. There is no room for him to
say: "It was no detriment to them that they shared for a season the
contagion of another's sin, since in the prescience of God redemption
had been provided for them." For we are now speaking of those to whom
no redemption brings help, since they depart from the body before they
are baptized. Nor is there any propriety in his saying: "The souls
which baptism does not cleanse, the many sacrifices which are offered
up for them will cleanse. God foreknew this, and willed that they
should for a little while be implicated in the sins of another without
incurring eternal damnation, and with the hope of eternal happiness."
For we are now speaking of those whose birth among impious persons and
of impious parents could by no possibility find such defences and
helps. And even if these could be applied, they would, it is certain,
be unable to benefit any who are unbaptized; just as the sacrifices
which he has mentioned out of the book of the Maccabees could be of no
use for the sinful dead for whom they were offered, inasmuch as they
had not been circumcised. [2350]
Footnotes
[2350] 2 Macc. xii. 43.
Chapter 14.--Victor's Dilemma: He Must Either Say All Infants are
Saved, or Else God Slays the Innocent.
Let him, then, find an answer, if he can, when the question is asked
of him, why it was that the soul, without any sin whatever, either
original or personal, deserved so to be condemned to undergo the
original sin of another as to be unable to be delivered from it; let
him see which he will choose of two alternatives: Either to say that
even the souls of dying infants who depart hence without the washing
of regeneration, and for whom no sacrifice of the Lord's body is
offered, are absolved from the bond of original sin--although the
apostle teaches that "from one all go into condemnation," [2351]
--all, that is, of course, to whom grace does not find its way to
help, in order that by One all might escape into redemption. Or else
to say that souls which have no sin, either their own or original, and
are in every respect innocent, simple, and pure, are punished with
eternal damnation by the righteous God when He inserts them Himself
into sinful flesh without any deliverance therefrom.
Footnotes
[2351] Rom. v. 16.
Chapter 15 [XII.]--God Does Not Judge Any One for What He Might Have
Done If His Life Had Been Prolonged, But Simply for the Deeds He
Actually Commits.
For my own part, indeed, I affirm that neither of the alternative
cases ought to be admitted, nor that third opinion which would have it
that souls sinned in some other state previous to the flesh, and so
deserved to be condemned to the flesh; for the apostle has most
distinctly stated that "the children being not yet born, had done
neither good nor evil." [2352] So it is evident that infants can have
contracted none but original sin to require remission of sins. Nor,
again, that fourth position, that the souls of infants who will die
without baptism are by the righteous God banished and condemned to
sinful flesh, since He foreknew that they would lead evil lives if
they grew old enough for the use of free will. But this not even he
has been daring enough to affirm, though embarrassed in such
perplexities. On the contrary, he has declared, briefly indeed, yet
manifestly, against this vain opinion in these words: "God would have
been unrighteous if He had willed to judge any man yet unborn, who had
done nothing whatever of his own free will." This was his answer when
treating a question in opposition to those persons who ask why God
made man, when in His foreknowledge He knew that he would not be good?
He would be judging a man before he was born if He had been unwilling
to create him because He knew beforehand that he would not turn out
good. And there can be no doubt about it, even as this person himself
thought, that the proper course would be for the Almighty to judge a
man for his works when accomplished, not for such as might be
foreseen, nor such as might be permitted to be done some time or
other. For if the sins which a man would have committed if he were
alive are condemned in him when dead, even when they have not been
committed, no benefit is conferred on him when he is taken away that
no wickedness might change his mind; inasmuch as judgment will be
given upon him according to the wickedness which might have developed
in him, not according to the uprightness which was actually found in
him. Nor will any man possibly be safe who dies after baptism, because
even after baptism men may, I will not say sin in some way or other,
but actually go so far as to commit apostasy. What then? Suppose a man
who has been taken away after baptism should, if he had lived, have
become an apostate, are we to think that no benefit was conferred even
upon him in that he was removed and was saved from the misery of his
mind being changed by wickedness? And are we to imagine that he will
have to be judged, by reason of God's foreknowledge, as an apostate,
and not as a faithful member of Christ? How much better, to be sure,
would it have been--if sins are punished not as they have been
committed or contemplated by the human agent, but foreknown and to
happen in the cognizance of the Almighty--if the first pair had been
cast forth from paradise previous to their fall, and so sin have been
prevented in so holy and blessed a place! What, too, is to be said
about the entire nullification of foreknowledge itself, when what is
foreknown is not to happen? How, indeed, can that be rightly called
the prescience of something to be, which in fact will not come to
pass? And how are sins punished which are none, that is to say, which
are not committed before the assumption of flesh, since life itself is
not yet begun; nor after the assumption, since death has prevented?
Footnotes
[2352] Rom. ix. 11.
Chapter 16 [XIII.]--Difficulty in the Opinion Which Maintains that
Souls are Not by Propagation.
This means, then, of settling the point whereby the soul was sent into
the flesh until what time it should be delivered from the
flesh,--seeing that the soul of an infant, which has not grown old
enough for the will to become free, is the case supposed,--makes no
discovery of the reason why condemnation should overtake it without
the reception of baptism, except the reason of original sin. Owing to
this sin, we do not deny that the soul is righteously condemned,
because for sin God's righteous law has appointed punishment. But then
we ask, why the soul has been made to undergo this sinful state, if it
is not derived from that one primeval soul which sinned in the first
father of the human race. Wherefore, if God does not condemn the
innocent,--if He does not make guilty those whom He sees to be
innocent,--and if nothing liberates souls from either original sins or
personal ones but Christ's baptism in Christ's Church,--and if sins,
before they are committed, and much more when they have never been
committed, cannot be condemned by any righteous law: then this writer
cannot adduce any of these four cases; he must, if he can, explain, in
respect to the souls of infants, which, as they quit life without
baptism, are sent into condemnation, by what desert of theirs it is
that they, without having ever sinned, are consigned to a sinful
flesh, there to find the sin which is to secure their just
condemnation. Moreover, if he shrinks from these four cases which
sound doctrine condemns,--that is to say, if he has not the courage to
maintain that souls, when they are even without sin, are made sinful
by God, or that they are freed from the original sin that is in them
without Christ's sacrament, or that they committed sin in some other
state before they were sent into the flesh, or that sins which they
never committed are condemned in them,--if, I say, he has not the
courage to tell us these things because they really do not deserve to
be mentioned but should affirm that infants do not inherit original
sin, and have no reason why they should be condemned should they
depart hence without receiving the sacrament of regeneration, he will
without doubt, to his own condemnation, run into the damnable heresy
of Pelagius. To avoid this, how much better is it for him to share my
hesitation about the soul's origin, without daring to affirm that
which he cannot comprehend by human reason nor defend by divine
authority! So shall he not be obliged to utter foolishness, whilst he
is afraid to confess his ignorance.
Chapter 17 [XIV.]--He Shows that the Passages of Scripture Adduced by
Victor Do Not Prove that Souls are Made by God in Such a Way as Not to
Be Derived by Propagation: First Passage.
Here, perhaps, he may say that his opinion is backed by divine
authority, since he supposes that he proves by passages of the Holy
Scriptures that souls are not made by God by way of propagation, but
that they are by distinct acts of creation breathed afresh into each
individual. Let him prove this if he can, and I will allow that I have
learnt from him what I was trying to find out with great earnestness.
But he must go in quest of other defences, which, perhaps, he will not
find, for he has not proved his point by the passages which he has
thus far advanced. For all he has applied to the subject are to some
extent undoubtedly suitable, but they afford only doubtful
demonstration to the point which he raises respecting the soul's
origin. For it is certain that God has given to man breath and spirit,
as the prophet testifies: "Thus saith the Lord, who made the heaven,
and founded the earth, and all that is therein; who giveth breath to
the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it." [2353] This
passage he wishes to be taken in his own sense, which he is defending;
so that the words, "who giveth breath to the people," may be
understood as implying that He creates souls for people not by
propagation, but by insufflation of new souls in every case. Let him,
then, boldly maintain at this rate that He does not give us flesh, on
the ground that our flesh derives its original from our parents. In
the instance, too, which the apostle adduces, "God giveth it a body as
it hath pleased Him," [2354] let him deny, if he dares, that corn
springs from corn, and grass from grass, from the seed, each after its
kind. And if he dares not deny this, how does he know in what sense it
is said, "He giveth breath to the people"?--whether by derivation from
parents, or by fresh breathing into each individual?
Footnotes
[2353] Isa. xlii. 5.
[2354] 1 Cor. xv. 38.
Chapter 18.--By "Breath" Is Signified Sometimes the Holy Spirit.
How, again, does he know whether the repetition of the idea in the
sentence, "who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them
that walk over it," may not be understood of only one thing under two
expressions, and may not mean, not the life or spirit whereby human
nature lives, but the Holy Spirit? For if by the "breath" the Holy
Ghost could not be signified, the Lord would not, when He "breathed
upon" His disciples after His resurrection, have said, "Receive ye the
Holy Ghost." [2355] Nor would it have been thus written in the Acts of
the Apostles, "Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as if a mighty
breath were borne in upon them; and there appeared unto them cloven
tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were
all filled with the Holy Ghost." [2356] Suppose, now, that it was this
which the prophet foretold in the words, "who giveth breath unto the
people upon it;" and then, as an exposition of what he had designated
"breath," he went on to say, "and spirit to them that walk over it."
Surely this prediction was most manifestly fulfilled when they were
all filled with the Holy Ghost. If, however, the term "people" is not
yet applicable to the one hundred and twenty persons who were then
assembled together in one place, at all events, when the number of
believers amounted to four or five thousand, who when they were
baptized received the Holy Ghost, [2357] can any doubt that the
recipients of the Holy Ghost were then "the people," even "the men
walking in the earth"? For that spirit which is given to man as
appertaining to his nature, whether it be given by propagation or be
inbreathed as something new to individuals (and I do not determine
which of these two modes ought to be affirmed, at least until one of
the two can be clearly ascertained beyond a doubt), is not given to
men when they "walk over the earth," but whilst they are still shut up
in their mother's womb. "He gave breath, therefore, to the people upon
the earth, and spirit to them that walk over it," when many became
believers together, and were together filled with the Holy Ghost. And
He gives Him to His people, although not to all at the same time, but
to every one in His own time, until, by departing from this life, and
by coming into it, the entire number of His people be fulfilled. In
this passage of Holy Scripture, therefore, breath is not one thing,
and spirit another thing; but there is a repetition of one and the
same idea. Just as "He that sitteth in the heavens" is not one, and
"the Lord" is not another; nor, again, is it one thing "to laugh," and
another thing "to hold in derision;" but there is only a repetition of
the same meaning in the passage where we read, "He that sitteth in the
heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." [2358] So,
in precisely the same manner, in the passage, "I will give Thee the
heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for Thy possession," [2359] it is certainly not meant that
"inheritance" is one thing, and "possession" another thing; nor that
"the heathen" means one thing, and "the uttermost parts of the earth"
another; there is only a repetition of the self-same thing. He will,
indeed, discover innumerable expressions of this sort in the sacred
writings, if he will only attentively consider what he reads. [2360]
Footnotes
[2355] John xx. 22.
[2356] Acts ii. 2.
[2357] Acts iv. 31.
[2358] Ps. ii. 4.
[2359] Ps. ii. 8.
[2360] [It is the parallelism of Hebrew poetry to which Augustin here
appeals: and that soundly, although the interpretation of "spirit" in
the passage in hand, which is suggested in the chapter, is
untenable.--W.]
Chapter 19.--The Meaning of "Breath" In Scripture.
The term, however, that is used in the Greek version, pnoe, is
variously rendered in Latin: sometimes by flatus, breath; sometimes by
spiritus, spirit; sometimes by inspiratio, inspiration. This term
occurs in the Greek editions of the passage which we are now
reviewing, "Who giveth breath to the people upon it," the word for
breath being pnoe. [2361] The same word is used in the narrative where
man was endued with life: "And God breathed upon his face the breath
of life." [2362] Again, in the psalm the same term occurs: "Let every
thing that hath spirit praise the Lord." [2363] It is the same word
also in the Book of Job: "The inspiration of the Almighty is that
which teaches." [2364] The translator refused the word flatus, breath,
for adspiratio, inspiration, although he had before him the very term
pnoe, which occurs in the text of the prophet which we are
considering. We can hardly doubt, I think, that in this passage of Job
the Holy Ghost is signified. The question discussed was concerning
wisdom, whence it comes to men: "It cometh not from number of years;
but the Spirit is in mortals, and the inspiration of the Almighty is
that which teaches." [2365] By this repetition of terms it may be
quite understood that he did not speak of man's own spirit in the
clause, "The Spirit is in mortals." He wanted to show whence men have
wisdom,--that it is not from their own selves; so by using a duplicate
expression he explains his idea; "The inspiration of the Almighty is
that which teaches." Similarly, in another passage of the same book,
he says, "The understanding of my lips shall meditate purity. The
divine Spirit is that which formed me, and the breath of the Almighty
is that which teacheth me." [2366] Here, likewise, what he calls
adspiratio, or "inspiration," is in Greek pnoe, the same word which is
translated flatus, "breath," in the passage quoted from the prophet.
Therefore, although it is rash to deny that the passage, "Who giveth
breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it,"
has reference to the soul or spirit of man,--although the Holy Ghost
may with greater credibility be understood as referred to in the
passage: yet I ask on what ground anybody can boldly determine that
the prophet meant in these words to intimate that the soul or spirit
whereby our nature possesses vitality [is not given to us by God
through the process of propagation?] [2367] Of course if the prophet
had very plainly said, "Who giveth soul to the people upon earth," it
still would remain to be asked whether God Himself gives it from an
origin in the preceding generation, just as He gives the body out of
such prior material, and that not only to men or cattle, but also to
the seed of corn, or to any other body whatever, just as it pleases
Him; or whether He bestows it by inbreathing as a new gift to each
individual, as the first man received it from Him?
Footnotes
[2361] The passage stands in the LXX.: Kai didous pnoen to lao to ep'
autes.
[2362] The LXX. text of Gen. ii. 7 is, Kai enephusesen eis to proso
pon autou pnoen zoes.
[2363] Ps. cl. 6: Pasa pnoe ainesato ton Kurion.
[2364] According to the LXX., Pnoe de pantokratoros estin he
didaskousa.
[2365] Job xxxii. 7, 8.
[2366] Job xxx. 3, 4, according to the LXX., of which the text is,
Sunesis de cheileon mou kathara noesei. Pneuma theion to poiesan me,
pnoe de pantokratoros estin he didaskousa.
[2367] The words here given in brackets are suggested by the
Benedictine editor. [The Latin as it stands may be translated simply:
"that the prophet meant to signify in these words the soul or spirit
whereby our nature lives?" and is not this better than the
conjecture?--W.]
Chapter 20.--Other Ways of Taking the Passage.
There are also some persons who understand the prophet's words, "He
gave breath to the people upon it," that is to say, upon the earth, as
if the word "breath," flatus, were simply equivalent to "soul," anima;
while they construe the next clause, "and spirit to them that walk
over it," as referring to the Holy Ghost; and they suppose that the
same order is observed by the prophet that is mentioned by the
apostle: "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." [2368] Now from this
view of the prophet's words an elegant interpretation may, no doubt,
be formed consistent with the apostle's sense. The phrase, "to them
that walk over it," is in the Latin, "calcantibus eam;" and as the
literal meaning of these words is "treading upon it," we may
understand the idea of contempt of it to be implied. For they who
receive the Holy Ghost despise earthly things in their love of
heavenly things. None of these opinions, however, is contrary to the
faith, whether one regards the two terms, breath and spirit, to
pertain to human nature, or both of them to the Holy Ghost, or one of
them, breath, to the soul, and the other, spirit, to the Holy Ghost.
If, however, the soul and spirit of the human being be the meaning
here, since undoubtedly it ought to be, as the gift of God to him,
then we must further inquire, in what way does God bestow this gift?
Is it by propagation, as He gives us our bodily limbs by this process?
Or is it bestowed on each person severally by God's inbreathing, not
by propagation, but as always a fresh creation? These questions are
not ambiguous, as this man would make them; but we wish that they be
defended by the most certain warrant of the divine Scriptures.
Footnotes
[2368] 1 Cor. xv. 46.
Chapter 21.--The Second Passage Quoted by Victor.
On the same principle we treat the passage in which God says: "For my
Spirit shall go forth from me; and I have created every breath."
[2369] Here the former clause, "My Spirit shall go forth from me, must
be taken as referring to the Holy Ghost, of whom the Saviour similarly
says, "He proceedeth from the Father." [2370] But the other clause, "I
have created every breath," is undeniably spoken of each individual
soul. Well; but God also creates the entire body of man; and, as
nobody doubts, He makes the human body by the process of propagation:
it is therefore, of course, still open to inquiry concerning the soul
(since it is evidently God's work), whether He creates it as He does
the body; by propagation, or by inbreathing, as He made the first
soul.
Footnotes
[2369] Isa. lvii. 16. In the Septuagint it is, Pneuma gar par' emou
exeleusetai, kai pnoen pasan ego epoisa.
[2370] John xv. 26.
Chapter 22.--Victor's Third Quotation.
He proceeds to favour us with a third passage, in which it is written:
"Who forms the spirit of man within him." [2371] As if any one denied
this! No; all our question is as to the mode of the formation. Now let
us take the eye of the body, and ask, who but God forms it? I suppose
that He forms it not externally, but in itself, and yet, most
certainly, by propagation. Since, then, He also forms "the human
spirit in him," the question still remains, whether it be derived by a
fresh insufflation in every instance, or by propagation.
Footnotes
[2371] Zech. xii. 1, which in the Septuagint is, Kurios...plasson
pneuma anthoopou en auto.
Chapter 23.--His Fourth Quotation.
We have read all about the mother of the Maccabean youths, who was
really more fruitful in virtues when her children suffered than of
children when they were born; how she exhorted them to constancy,
speaking in this wise: "I cannot tell, my sons, how ye came into my
womb. For it was not I who gave you spirit and soul, nor was it I that
formed the members of every one of you; but it was God, who also made
the world, and all things that are therein; who, moreover, formed the
generation of men; and searches the action [2372] of all; and who will
Himself of His great mercy restore to you your spirit and soul."
[2373] All this we know; but how it supports this man's assertion we
do not see. For what Christian would deny that God gives to men soul
and spirit? But similarly, I suppose that he cannot deny that God
gives to men their tongue, and ear, and hand, and foot, and all their
bodily sensations, and the form and nature of all their limbs. For how
is he going to deny all these to be the gifts of God, unless he
forgets that he is a Christian? As, however, it is evident that these
were made by Him, and bestowed on man by propagation; so also the
question must arise, by what means man's spirit and soul are formed by
Him; by what efficiency given to man--from the parents, or from
nothing, or (as this man asserts, in a sense which we must by all
means guard against) from some existing nature of the divine breath,
not created out of nothing, but out of His own self?
Footnotes
[2372] Actum; another reading is ortum, more in accordance with the
Greek genesin, the meaning of which would be: "Searches the origin of
all things."
[2373] 2 Macc. vii. 22, 23.
Chapter 24 [XV.]--Whether or No the Soul is Derived by Natural Descent
(Ex Traduce), His Cited Passages Fail to Show.
Forasmuch, then, as the passages of Scripture which he mentions by no
means show what he endeavours to enforce (since, indeed, they express
nothing at all on the immediate question before us), what can be the
meaning of these words of his: "We firmly maintain that the soul comes
from the breath of God, not from natural generation, because it is
given from God"? As if, forsooth, the body could be given from
another, than from Him by whom it is created, "Of whom are all things,
through whom are all things, in whom are all things;" [2374] not that
they are of His nature, but of His workmanship. "Nor is it from
nothing," says he, "because it comes forth from God." Whether this be
so, is (we must say) not the question to be here entertained. At the
same time, we do not hesitate to affirm, that the proposition which he
advances, that the soul comes to man neither out of descent nor out of
nothing, is certainly not true: this, I say, we affirm to be without
doubt not true. For it is one of two things: if the soul is not
derived by natural descent from the parent, it comes out of nothing.
To pretend that it is derived from God in such wise as to be a portion
of His nature, is simply sacrilegious blasphemy. But we solicit and
seek up to the present time some plain passages of Scripture bearing
on the point, whether the soul does not come by parental descent; but
we do not want such passages as he has adduced, which yield no
illustration of the question now before us.
Footnotes
[2374] Rom. xi. 36.
Chapter 25.--Just as the Mother Knows Not Whence Comes Her Child
Within Her, So We Know Not Whence Comes the Soul.
How I wish that, on so profound a question, so long as he is ignorant
what he should say, he would imitate the mother of the Maccabean
youths! Although she knew very well that she had conceived children of
her husband, and that they had been created for her by the Creator of
all, both in body and in soul and spirit, yet she says, "I cannot
tell, my sons, how ye came into my womb." Well now, I only wish this
man would tell us that which she was ignorant of! She, of course, knew
(on the points I have mentioned) how they came into her womb as to
their bodily substance, because she could not possibly doubt that she
had conceived them by her husband. She furthermore confessed--because
this, too, she was, of course, well aware of--that it was God who gave
them their soul and spirit, and that it was He also who formed for
them their features and their limbs. What was it, then, that she was
so ignorant of? Was it not probably (what we likewise are equally
unable to determine) whether the soul and spirit, which God no doubt
bestowed upon them, was derived to them from their parents, or
breathed into them separately as it had been into the first man? But
whether it was this, or some other particular respecting the
constitution of human nature, of which she was ignorant, she frankly
confessed her ignorance; and did not venture to defend at random what
she knew nothing about. Nor would this man say to her, what he has not
been ashamed to say to us: "Man being in honour doth not understand;
he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like unto them." [2375]
Behold how that woman said of her sons, "I cannot tell how ye came
into my womb," and yet she is not compared to the senseless brutes. "I
cannot tell," she said; then, as if they would inquire of her why she
was ignorant, she went on to say, "For it was not I who gave you
spirit and soul." He, therefore, who gave them that gift, knows whence
He made what He gave, whether He communicated it by propagation, or
breathed it as a fresh creation,--a point which (this man says) I for
my part know nothing of. "Nor was it I that formed the features and
members of every one of you." He, however, who formed them, knows
whether He formed them with the soul, or gave the soul to them after
they had been formed. She had no idea of the manner, this or that, in
which her sons came into her womb; only one thing was she sure of,
that He who gave her all she had would restore to her what He gave.
But this man would choose out what that woman was ignorant of, on so
profound and abstruse a fact of our nature; only he would not judge
her, if in error; nor compare her, if ignorant, to the senseless
cattle. Whatever the point was about which she was ignorant, it
certainly pertained to man's nature; and yet anybody would be
blameless for such ignorance. Wherefore, I too, on my side, say
concerning my soul, I have no certain knowledge how it came into my
body; for it was not I who gave it to myself. He who gave it to me
knows whether He imparted it to me from my father, or created it
afresh for me, as He did for the first man. But even I shall know,
when He Himself shall teach me, in His own good time. Now, however, I
do not know; nor am I ashamed, like him, to confess my ignorance of
what I know not.
Footnotes
[2375] Ps. xlviii. 12.
Chapter 26 [XVI.]--The Fifth Passage of Scripture Quoted by Victor.
"Learn," says he, "for, behold the apostle teaches you." Yes, indeed,
I will learn, if the apostle teaches; since it is God alone who
teaches by the apostle. But, pray, what is it which the apostle
teaches? "Behold," he adds, "how, when speaking to the men of Athens,
he strongly set forth this truth, saying: `Seeing He giveth to all
life and spirit.'" Well, who thinks of denying this? "But understand,"
he says, "what it is the apostle states: He giveth; not, He hath
given. He refers us to continuous and indefinite time, and does not
proclaim past and completed time. Now that which he gives without
cessation, He is always giving; just as He who gives is Himself ever
existent." I have quoted his words precisely as I found them in the
second of the books which you sent me. First, I beg you to notice to
what lengths he has gone, while endeavouring to affirm what he knows
nothing about. For he has dared to say, that God, without any
cessation, and not merely in the present time, but for ever and ever,
gives souls to persons when they are born. "He is always giving," says
he, "just as He who gives is Himself ever existent." Far be it from me
to say that I do not understand what the apostle said, for it is plain
enough. But what this man says, he even ought himself to know, is
contrary to the Christian faith; and he should be on his guard against
going any further in such assertions. For, of course, when the dead
shall rise again, there will be no more persons to be born; therefore
God will bestow no longer any souls at any birth; but those which He
is now giving to men along with their bodies He will judge. So that He
is not always giving, although He is ever existent, who at present is
giving. Nor, indeed, is that at all derivable from the apostle's
expression, who giveth (not hath given), which this writer wishes to
deduce, namely, that God does not give men souls by propagation. For
souls are still given by Him, even if it be by propagation; even as
bodily endowments, such as limbs, and sensations, and shape, and, in
fact, the whole substance, are given by God Himself to human beings,
although it be by propagation that He gives them. Nor again, because
the Lord says, [2376] "If God so clothes the grass of the field, which
to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven" (not using the
preterite time, hath clothed, as when He first formed the material;
but employing the present form, clothes, which, indeed, He still is
doing), shall we on that account say, that the lilies are not produced
from the original source of their own kind. What, therefore, if the
soul and spirit of a human being in like manner is given by God
Himself, whenever it is given; and given, too, by propagation from its
own kind? Now this is a position which I neither maintain nor refute.
Nevertheless, if it must be defended or confuted, I certainly
recommend its being done by clear, and not doubtful proofs. Nor do I
deserve to be compared with senseless cattle because I avow myself to
be as yet incapable of determining the question, but rather with
cautious persons, because I do not recklessly teach what I know
nothing about. But I am not disposed on my own part to return railing
for railing and compare this man with brutes; but I warn him as a son
to acknowledge that he is really ignorant of that which he knows
nothing about; nor to attempt to teach that which he has not yet
learnt, lest he should deserve to be compared with those persons whom
the apostle mentions as "desiring to be teachers of the law,
understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm." [2377]
Footnotes
[2376] Matt. vi. 30.
[2377] 2 Tim. i. 7.
Chapter 27 [XVII.]--Augustin Did Not Venture to Define Anything About
the Propagation of the Soul.
For whence comes it that he is so careless about the Scriptures, which
he talks of, as not to notice that when he reads of human beings being
from God, it is not merely, as he contends, in respect of their soul
and spirit, but also as regards their body? For the apostle's
statement, "We are His offspring," [2378] this man supposes must not
be referred to the body, but only to the soul and spirit. If, indeed,
our human bodies are not of God, then that is false which the
Scripture says: "For of Him are all things, through Him are all
things, and in Him are all things." [2379] Again, with reference to
the same apostle's statement, "For as the woman is of the man, so also
is the man by the woman," [2380] let him explain to us what
propagation he would choose to be meant in the process,--that of the
soul, or of the body, or of both? But he will not allow that souls
come by propagation: it remains, therefore, that, according to him and
all who deny the propagation of souls, the apostle signified the
masculine and feminine body only, when he said, "As the woman is of
the man, so also is the man by the woman;" the woman having been made
out of the man, in order that the man might afterwards, by the process
of birth, come out of the woman. If, therefore, the apostle, when he
said this, did not intend the soul and spirit also to be understood,
but only the bodies of the two sexes, why does he immediately add,
"But all things are of God," [2381] unless it be that bodies also are
of God? For so runs his entire statement: "As the woman is of the man,
so also is the man by the woman; but all things are of God." Let,
then, our disputant determine of what this is said. If of men's
bodies, then, of course, even bodies are of God. How comes it to pass,
therefore, that whenever this person reads in Scripture the phrase,
"of God," when man is in question, he will have the words understood,
not in reference to men's bodies, but only as concerning their souls
and spirits? But if the expression, "All things are of God," was
spoken both of the body of the two sexes, and of their soul and
spirit, it follows that in all things the woman is of the man, for the
woman comes from the man, and the man is by the woman: but all things
of God. What "all things" are meant, except those he was speaking of,
namely, the man of whom came the woman, and the woman who was of the
man, and also the man who came by the woman? For that man came not by
woman, out of whom came the woman; but only he who afterwards was born
of man by woman, just as men are now born. Hence it follows that if
the apostle, when he said the words we have quoted from him, spoke of
men's bodies, undoubtedly the bodies of persons of both sexes are of
God. Furthermore, if he insists that nothing in man comes from God
except their souls and spirits, then, of course, the woman is of the
man even as regards her soul and spirit; so that nothing is left to
those who dispute against the propagation of souls. But if he is for
dividing the subject in such a manner as to say that the woman is of
the man as regards her body, but is of God in respect of her soul and
spirit, how, then, will that be true which the apostle says, "All
things of God," if the woman's body is of the man in such a sense that
it is not of God? Wherefore, allowing that the apostle is more likely
to speak the truth than that this person must be preferred as an
authority to the apostle, the woman is of the man, whether in regard
to her body only, or in reference to the entire whole of which human
nature consists (but we assert nothing on these points as an absolute
certainty, but are still inquiring after their truth); and the man is
through the woman, whether it be that his whole nature as man is
derived to him from his father, and is born in him through the woman,
or the flesh alone; about which points the question is still
undecided. "All things, however, are of God," and about this there is
no question; and in this phrase are included the body, soul, and
spirit, both of the man and the woman. For even if they were not born
or derived from God, or emanated from Him as portions of His nature,
yet they are of God, inasmuch as whatever is created, formed, and made
by Him, has from Him the reality of its existence.
Footnotes
[2378] Acts xvii. 28.
[2379] Rom. xi. 36.
[2380] 1 Cor. xi. 12.
[2381] 1 Cor. xi. 12.
Chapter 28.--A Natural Figure of Speech Must Not Be Literally Pressed.
He goes on to remark: "But the apostle, by saying, `And He Himself
giveth life and spirit to all,' and then by adding the words, `And
hath made the whole race of men of one blood,' [2382] has referred
this soul and spirit to the Creator in respect of their origin, and
the body to propagation." Now, certainly any one who does not wish to
deny at random the propagation of souls, before ascertaining clearly
whether the opinion is correct or not, has ground for understanding,
from the apostle's words, that he meant the expression, of one blood,
to be equivalent to of one man, by the figure of speech which
understands the whole from its part. Well, then, if it be allowable
for this man to take the whole from a part in the passage, "And man
became a living soul," [2383] as if the spirit also was understood to
be implied, about which the Scripture there said nothing, why is it
not allowable to others to attribute an equally comprehensive sense to
the expression, of one blood, so that the soul and spirit may be
considered as included in it, on the ground that the human being who
is signified by the term "blood" consists not of body alone, but also
of soul and spirit? For just as the controversialist who maintains the
propagation of souls, ought not, on the one hand, to press this man
too hard, because the Scripture says concerning the first man, "In
whom all have sinned" [2384] (for the expression is not, In whom the
flesh of all has sinned, but "all," that is, "all men," seeing that
man is not flesh only);--as, I repeat, he ought not to be too hard
pressed himself, because it happens to be written "all men," in such a
way that they might be understood simply in respect of the flesh; so,
on the other hand, he ought not to bear too hard on those who hold the
propagation of souls, on the ground of the phrase, "The whole race of
men of one blood," as if this passage proved that flesh alone was
transmitted by propagation. For if it is true, as they [2385] assert,
that soul does not descend from soul, but flesh only from flesh, then
the expression, "of one blood," does not signify the entire human
being, on the principle of a part for the whole, but merely the flesh
of one person alone; while that other expression, "In whom all have
sinned," must be so understood as to indicate merely the flesh of all
men, which has been handed on from the first man, the Scripture
signifying a part by the whole. If, on the other hand, it is true that
the entire human being is propagated of each man, himself also entire,
consisting of body, soul, and spirit, then the passage, "In whom all
have sinned," must be taken in its proper literal sense; and the other
phrase, "of one blood," is used metaphorically, the whole being
signified by a part, that is to say, the whole man who consists of
soul and flesh; or rather (as this person is fond of putting it) of
soul, and spirit, and flesh. For both modes of expression the Holy
Scriptures are in the habit of employing, putting both a part for the
whole and the whole for a part. A part, for instance, implies the
whole, in the place where it is said, "Unto Thee shall all flesh
come;" [2386] the whole man being understood by the term flesh. And
the whole sometimes implies a part, as when it is said that Christ was
buried, whereas it was only His flesh that was buried. Now as regards
the statement which is made in the apostle's testimony, to the effect
that "He giveth life and spirit to all," I suppose that nobody, after
the foregoing discussion, will be moved by it. No doubt "He giveth;"
the fact is not in dispute; our question is, How does He give it? By
fresh inbreathing in every instance, or by propagation? For with
perfect propriety is He said to give the substance of the flesh to the
human being, though at the same time it is not denied that He gives it
by means of propagation.
Footnotes
[2382] Acts xvii. 25.
[2383] Gen. ii. 7.
[2384] Rom. v. 12.
[2385] Another reading has "he asserts," i.e. Augustin's opponent,
Victor.
[2386] Ps. lxv. 2.
Chapter 29 [XVIII.]--The Sixth Passage of Scripture Quoted by Victor.
Let us now look at the quotation from Genesis, where the woman was
created out of the side of the man, and was brought to him, and he
said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Our
opponent thinks that "Adam ought to have said, `Soul of my soul, or
spirit of my spirit,' if this, too, had been derived from him." But,
in fact, they who maintain the opinion of the propagation of souls
feel that they possess a more impregnable defence of their position in
the fact that in the Scripture narrative which informs us that God
took a rib out of the man's side and formed it into a woman, it is not
added that He breathed into her face the breath of life; for this
reason, as they say, because she had already been ensouled [2387] from
the man. If, indeed, she had not, they say, the sacred Scripture would
certainly not have kept us in ignorance of the circumstance. With
regard to the fact that Adam says, "This is now bone of my bone, and
flesh of my flesh," [2388] without adding, Spirit or soul, from my
spirit or soul, they may answer, just as it has been already shown,
that the expression, "my flesh and bone," may be understood as
indicating the whole by a part, only that the portion that was taken
out of man was not dead, but ensouled; [2389] for no good ground for
denying that the Almighty was able to do all this is furnished by the
circumstance that not a human being could be found capable of cutting
off a part of a man's flesh along with the soul. Adam went on,
however, to say, "She shall be called woman, because she was taken out
of man." [2390] Now, why does he not rather say (and thus confirm the
opinion of our opponents), "Since her flesh was taken out of man"? As
the case stands, indeed, they who hold the opposite view may well
contend, from the fact that it is written, not woman's flesh, but the
woman herself was taken out of man, that she must be considered in her
entire nature endued with soul and spirit. For although the soul is
undistinguished by sex, yet when women are mentioned it is not
necessary to regard them apart from the soul. On no other principle
would they be thus admonished with respect to self-adornment. "Not
with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but which
(says the apostle) becometh women professing godliness with a good
conversation." [2391] Now, "godliness," of course, is an inner
principle in the soul or spirit; and yet they are called women,
although the ornamentation concerns that internal portion of their
nature which has no sex.
Footnotes
[2387] "Animata," possessing the "anima," or soul.
[2388] Gen. ii. 23.
[2389] "Animata," possessing the "anima," or soul.
[2390] Gen. ii. 23.
[2391] 1 Tim. ii. 9, 10.
Chapter 30--The Danger of Arguing from Silence.
Now, while the disputants are thus contending with one another in
alternate argument, I so judge between them that they must not rely on
uncertain evidence; nor make bold assertions on points of which they
are ignorant. For if the Scripture had said, "God breathed into the
woman's face the breath of life, and she became a living soul," it
would not have followed even then that the human soul is not derived
by propagation from parents, except the same statement were likewise
made concerning their son. For it might have been that whilst an
unensouled [2392] member taken from the body might require to be
ensouled, [2393] yet that the soul of the son might be derived from
the father, transfused by propagation through the mother. There is,
however, an absolute silence on the point; it is entirely concealed
from our view. Nothing is denied, but at the same time nothing is
affirmed. And thus, if in any place the Scripture is possibly not
quite silent, the point requires to be supported by clearer proofs.
Whence it follows, that neither they who maintain the propagation of
souls receive any assistance from the circumstance that God did not
breathe into the woman's face; nor ought they, who deny this doctrine
on the ground that Adam did not say, "This is soul of my soul," to
persuade themselves to believe what they know nothing of. For just as
it has been possible for the Scripture to be silent on the point of
the woman's having received her soul, like the man, by the inbreathing
of God, without the question before us being solved, but, on the
contrary, remaining open; so has it been possible for the same
question to remain open and unsolved, notwithstanding the silence of
Scripture, as to whether or not Adam said, This is soul of my soul.
And hence, if the soul of the first woman comes from the man, a part
signifies the whole in his exclamation, "This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh;" inasmuch as not her flesh alone, but the
entire woman, was taken out of man. If, however, it is not from the
man, but came by God's inbreathing it into her, as at first into the
man, then the whole signifies a part in the passage, "She was taken
out of the man;" since on the supposition it was not her whole self,
but her flesh that was taken.
Footnotes
[2392] "Animari," or endued with the "anima," or soul.
[2393] "Animari," or endued with the "anima," or soul.
Chapter 31.--The Argument of the Apollinarians to Prove that Christ
Was Without the Human Soul of This Same Sort.
Although, then, this question remains unsolved by these passages of
Scripture, which are certainly indecisive so far as pertains to the
point before us, yet I am quite sure of this, that those persons who
think that the soul of the first woman did not come from her husband's
soul, on the ground of its being only said, "Flesh of my flesh," and
not, "Soul of my soul," do, in fact, argue in precisely the same
manner as the Apollinarians argue, and all such gainsayers, in
opposition to the Lord's human soul, which they deny for no other
reason than because they read in the Scripture, "The Word was made
flesh." [2394] For if, say they, there was a soul in Him also, it
ought to have been said, "The Word was made man." But the reason why
the great truth is stated in the terms in question really is, that
under the designation flesh, Holy Scripture is accustomed to describe
the entire human being, as in the passage, "And all flesh shall see
the salvation of God." [2395] For flesh alone without the soul cannot
see anything. Besides, many other passages of the Holy Scriptures go
to make it manifest, without any ambiguity, that in the man Christ
there is not only flesh, but a human--that is, a reasonable--soul
also. Whence they, who maintain the propagation of souls might also
understand that a part is put for the whole in the passage, "Bone of
my bone, and flesh of my flesh," in such wise that the soul, too, be
understood as implied in the words, in the same manner as we believe
that the Word became flesh, not without the soul. All that is wanted
is, that they should support their opinion of the propagation of souls
on passages which are unambiguous; just as other passages of Scripture
show us that Christ possesses a human soul. On precisely the same
principle we advise the other side also, who do away with the opinion
of the propagation of souls, that they should produce certain proofs
for their assertion that souls are created by God in every fresh case
by insufflation, and that they should then maintain the position that
the saying, "This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," was not
spoken figuratively as a part for the whole, including the soul in its
signification, but in a bare literal sense of the flesh alone.
Footnotes
[2394] John i. 14.
[2395] Luke iii. 6, and Isa. xl. 5.
Chapter 32 [XIX.]--The Self-Contradiction of Victor as to the Origin
of the Soul.
Under these circumstances, I find that this treatise of mine must now
be closed. It contains, in fact, all that seemed to me chiefly
necessary to the subject under discussion. They who peruse its
contents will know how to be on their guard against agreeing with the
person whose two books you sent me, so as not to believe with him,
that souls are produced by the breath of God in such wise as not to be
made out of nothing. The man, indeed, who supposes this, however much
he may in words deny the conclusion, does in reality affirm that souls
have the substance of God, and are His offspring, not by endowment,
but by nature. For from whomsoever a man derives the origin of his
nature, from him, in all sober earnestness, it must needs be admitted,
that he also derives the kind of his nature. But this author is, after
all, self-contradictory: at one time he says that "souls are the
offspring of God,--not, indeed, by nature, but by endowment;" and at
another time he says, that "they are not made out of nothing, but
derive their origin from God." Thus he does not hesitate to refer them
to the nature of God, a position which he had previously denied.
Chapter 33.--Augustin Has No Objection to the Opinion About the
Propagation of Souls Being Refuted, and that About Their Insufflation
Being Maintained.
As for the opinion, that new souls are created by inbreathing without
being propagated, we certainly do not in the least object to its
maintenance,--only let it be by persons who have succeeded in
discovering some new evidence, either in the canonical Scriptures, in
the shape of unambiguous testimony towards the solution of a most
knotty question, or else in their own reasonings, such as shall not be
opposed to catholic truth, but not by such persons as this man has
shown himself to be. Unable to find anything worth saying, and at the
same time unwilling to suspend his disputatious propensity, without
measuring his strength at all, in order to avoid saying nothing, he
boldly affirmed that "the soul deserved to be polluted by the flesh,"
and that "the soul deserved to become sinful;" though previous to its
incarnation he was unable to discover any merit in it, whether good or
evil. Moreover, that "in infants departing from the body without
baptism original sin may be remitted, and that the sacrifice of
Christ's body must be offered for them," who have not been
incorporated into Christ through His sacraments in His Church, and
that "they, quitting this present life without the laver of
regeneration, not only can go to rest, but can even attain to the
kingdom of heaven." He has propounded a good many other absurdities,
which it would be evidently tedious to collect together, and to
consider in this treatise. If the doctrine of the propagation of souls
is false, may its refutation not be the work of such disputants; and
may the defence of the rival principle of the insufflation of new
souls in every creative act, proceed from better hands.
Chapter 34.--The Mistakes Which Must Be Avoided by Those Who Say that
Men's Souls are Not Derived from Their Parents, But are Afresh
Inbreathed by God in Every Instance.
All, therefore, who wish to maintain that new souls are rightly said
to be breathed into persons at their birth, and not derived from their
parents, must by all means be cautious on each of the four points
which I have already mentioned. That is to say, do not let them affirm
that souls become sinful by another's original sin; do not let them
affirm that infants who died unbaptized can possibly reach eternal
life and the kingdom of heaven by the remission of original sin in any
other way whatever; do not let them affirm that souls had sinned in
some other place previous to their incarnation, and that on this
account they were forcibly introduced into sinful flesh; nor let them
affirm that the sins which were not actually found in them were,
because they were foreknown, deservedly punished, although they were
never permitted to reach that life where they could be committed.
Provided that they affirm none of these points, because each of them
is simply false and impious, they may, if they can, produce any
conclusive testimonies of the Holy Scriptures on this question; and
they may maintain their own opinion, not only without any prohibition
from me, but even with my approbation and best thanks. If, however,
they fail to discover any very decided authority on the point in the
divine oracles, and are obliged to propound any one of the four
opinions by reason of their failure, let them restrain their
imagination, lest they should be driven in their difficulty to
enunciate the now damnable and very recently condemned heresy of
Pelagius, to the effect that the souls of infants have not original
sin. It is, indeed, better for a man to confess his ignorance of what
he knows nothing about, than either to run into heresy which has been
already condemned, or to found some new heresy, while recklessly
daring to defend over and over again opinions which only display his
ignorance. This man has made some other absurd mistakes, indeed many,
in which he has wandered out of the beaten track of truth, without
going, however, to dangerous lengths; and I would like, if the Lord be
willing, to write even to himself something on the subject of his
books; and probably I shall point them all out to him, or a good many
of them if I should be unable to notice all.
Chapter 35 [XX.]--Conclusion.
As for this present treatise, which I have thought it proper to
address to no other person in preference to yourself, who have taken a
kindly and true interest both in our common faith and my character, as
a true catholic and a good friend, you will give it to be read or
copied by any persons you may be able to find interested in the
subject, or may deem worthy to be trusted. In it I have thought proper
to repress and confute the presumption of this young man, in such a
way, however, as to show that I love him, wishing him to be amended
rather than condemned, and to make such progress in the great house
which is the catholic Church, whither the divine compassion has
conducted him, that he may be therein "a vessel unto honour,
sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every
good work," [2396] both by holy living and sound teaching. But I have
this further to say: if it behoves me to bestow my love upon him, as I
sincerely do, how much more ought I to love you, my brother, whose
affection towards me and whose catholic faith I have found by the best
of proofs to be cautious and sober! The result of your loyalty has
been, that you have, with a brother's real love and duty, taken care
to have the books, which displeased you, and wherein you found my name
treated in a way which ran counter to your liking, copied out and
forwarded to me. Now, I am so far from feeling offended at this
charitable act of yours, because you did it, that I think I should
have had a right, on the true claims of friendship, to have been angry
with you if you had not done it. I therefore give you my most earnest
thanks. Moreover, I have afforded a still plainer indication of the
spirit in which I have accepted your service, by instantly composing
this treatise for your consideration, as soon as I had read those
books of his.
Footnotes
[2396] 2 Tim. ii. 21.
Also, see links to 600+ other Augustine Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlyche.htm
/believe/txv/earlychf.htm
/believe/txv/earlychg.htm
/believe/txv/earlychh.htm
/believe/txv/earlychi.htm
/believe/txv/earlychj.htm
/believe/txv/earlychk.htm
/believe/txv/earlychl.htm
/believe/txv/earlychm.htm
/believe/txv/earlychn.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html