Letters 166.18–166.28

I for my part said something, not about talents but at least about the punishments of little ones which they suffer in this life, in those books on free will. What it is, and why it does not satisfy me in this question which we have in hand, I shall explain, and I shall insert in this letter that very passage excerpted from the third book. For it runs thus: "As for the bodily torments by which little ones are afflicted, who because of their age have no sins, if the souls by which they are animated did not exist before they themselves began to be human beings, a greater and as it were merciful complaint is usually made, when it is said: 'What evil have they done, to suffer these things?' As if there could be a merit of innocence before anyone could do any harm! But when God works some good in the correction of adults, when they are scourged by the pains and deaths of their little ones who are dear to them, why should these things not happen, since, when they have passed, they will be as if they had not happened for those in whom they happened, while those for whose sake they happened will either be better, if, corrected by temporal troubles, they choose to live more rightly, or will have no excuse in the punishment of the judgment to come, if they refuse to turn their desire to eternal life from the anguish of this life? And who knows what God reserves, in the secret of his judgments, by way of good compensation for the little ones themselves, by whose torments the hardness of adults is crushed, or faith exercised, or mercy tested; who, then, knows what he reserves for the little ones themselves, since, although they have done nothing rightly, neither have they suffered these things for any sin? For not in vain does the church commend as received into the honor of martyrs even those infants who were killed when the Lord Jesus Christ was sought by Herod to be put to death."

I said these things then when I wished to fortify this very opinion which is now in question. For, as I mentioned a little before, I was striving to show that, whichever of those four opinions about the incarnation of the soul was true, the substance of the Creator is blameless and most remote from any share in our sins. And therefore it did not concern the purpose I then had which of them could be refuted by the truth and rejected, since, when all had been examined by more careful discussion, whichever of them rightly prevailed over the rest, it would happen with me fully secure, as I was showing that what I was arguing remained unconquered according to all of them. But now I wish, if I can, to choose the one right account out of all of them; and therefore, looking more attentively at my words which I have quoted from that book, I do not see that the defense of this very opinion which we are now discussing is strong and firm.

For its main support, as it were, is what I said there: "And who knows what God reserves, in the secret of his judgments, by way of good compensation for the little ones themselves, by whose torments the hardness of adults is crushed, or faith exercised, or mercy tested?" But I see that this is not unreasonably said of those who either suffer something of the kind for Christ's name and the true religion, even without knowing it, or have already been initiated in the sacrament of Christ; because without fellowship with the one mediator they cannot be freed from condemnation, so that that compensation can be given to them even for the evils which they have endured here in various afflictions. But now, since this question cannot be settled unless an answer is given also concerning those little ones who, after the most grievous torments, expire without the sacrament of Christian fellowship, what compensation is to be thought of for them, for whom, besides, condemnation too is prepared? For in the same book I also answered somehow about the baptism of little ones, not sufficiently, but as much as seemed enough for that work, that it benefits them even though they do not know it and do not yet have faith of their own; but about the condemnation of those little ones who depart this life without it I did not then think anything needed to be said, because what is now in question was not then in question.

But let us pass over and disregard what they suffer for a short time and what, once past, is not recalled: can we likewise disregard that "through one man came death, and through one man the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive"? For through this apostolic, divine, and clear statement it shines out quite evidently that no one goes into death except through Adam, no one into eternal life except through Christ. For this is what "all" and "all" mean: that as all human beings belong to Adam by the first, that is, the fleshly generation, so all human beings who come to Christ come to the second, that is, the spiritual generation. Therefore "all" was said both here and there, because, as all who die die only in Adam, so all who will be made alive will be made alive only in Christ. And therefore whoever tells us that anyone is made alive in the resurrection of the dead except in Christ must be detested as a plague on the common faith. Likewise, whoever says that little ones too, who depart this life without participation in his sacrament, will be made alive in Christ, certainly both opposes the apostle's preaching and condemns the whole church, where people hasten and run with little ones to be baptized precisely because it is believed without doubt that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ at all. And those who are not made alive in Christ must remain in that condemnation of which the apostle says: "Through the offense of one upon all men to condemnation." That little ones are born liable to this offense the whole church believes, and you yourself, disputing against Jovinian and expounding the prophet Jonah, as I mentioned a little before, have defined it with most truthful faith, and I believe also in other places of your works which I have either not read or do not recall at present. I seek, then, the cause of this condemnation in little ones, because, if souls are made new, each for each, I see no sin in them at that age, nor do I believe that God condemns any soul which he sees has no sin.

Or should it perhaps be said that in a little one only the flesh is of sin, but a new soul is made for it, so that, if the soul lives according to God's commands with the help of the grace of Christ, the merit of incorruption can be obtained even for the flesh, tamed and subjugated? But since in a little one the soul cannot yet do this, if it receives the sacrament of Christ, then by this grace there is acquired for its flesh what could not yet be acquired by its conduct; but if the little one's soul departs without that sacrament, it will itself be in eternal life, from which no sin could separate it, but its flesh will not rise in Christ, since it did not receive his sacrament before death?

This opinion I have never heard, never read; but I have certainly heard and believed, and therefore I have spoken, that "the hour will come when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life"; this is the one of which it is said, "and through one man the resurrection of the dead"; this is the one in which all will be made alive in Christ; "but those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." What, then, is to be understood here about those infants who, before they could do either good or evil, were stripped of the body without baptism? Nothing is said here about such. But if their flesh will not rise because they did neither good nor evil, neither will the flesh of those rise who received the grace of baptism and died at an age at which they could do neither good nor evil. But if the latter will rise among the saints, that is, among those who did good, among whom will the former rise but among those who did evil, unless we are to believe that some human souls will not receive their bodies back, either to the resurrection of life or to the resurrection of judgment? This opinion, even before it is refuted, already displeases by its very novelty. Besides, who could bear it if those who run to baptism with their little ones believed that they are running for the sake of their flesh and not their souls? Blessed Cyprian, indeed, establishing no new decree but preserving the most firm faith of the church, in order to correct those who thought that a little one should not be baptized before the eighth day after birth, said that it is not the flesh but the soul that must not be lost, and with some of his fellow bishops judged that a child can rightly be baptized as soon as it is born.

But against some opinion of Cyprian's, where perhaps he did not see what should have been seen, let each think what he likes; only let no one think against the most manifest apostolic faith, which preaches that from the offense of one all are led into condemnation, from which condemnation nothing frees but the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, in whom alone all are made alive who are made alive; let no one think against the most firmly founded custom of the church, in which, if people ran to baptism only for the sake of the bodies of little ones, even the dead would be offered for baptism.

This being so, the cause must be sought and given why souls which are newly created for each person born are condemned, if the little ones die without the sacrament of Christ. For that they are condemned if they go out of the body in this way, both holy Scripture and the holy church are witnesses. Hence that opinion about the creation of new souls, if it does not attack this most firmly founded faith, let it be mine too; if it does attack it, let it not be yours either.

I do not want to be told that in support of this opinion we should take what is written: "Who formed the spirit of man within him," and "Who fashioned their hearts one by one." Something most strong and unconquerable must be sought, which does not compel us to believe that God condemns any souls without any fault. For to create is as much as, or perhaps more than, to form; and yet it is written, "Create a clean heart in me, O God"; and it cannot be thought on that account that the soul in this passage wishes to be made before it was anything at all. Just as, then, an already existing soul is created by the renewal of righteousness, so an already existing one is formed by the shaping of instruction. Nor does what is written in Ecclesiastes, "Then the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to the Lord who gave it," confirm this opinion which we wish to be ours; for it rather supports those who think that all souls come from one. For, they say, just as the dust returns to the earth as it was, and yet the flesh of which this was said does not return to the man from whom it was propagated but to the earth from which the first man was made, so too the spirit, propagated from the spirit of that one man, does not return to him but to the Lord, by whom it was given to him. But since this testimony sounds in favor of these people in such a way that it does not seem altogether contrary to this opinion which I wish defended, I thought I should only advise your Prudence not to try to rescue me from these straits with such testimonies. For although no one, by wishing, makes true what is not true, yet, if it were possible, I would wish this opinion to be true, as I wish that, if it is true, it may be defended by you most clearly and unanswerably.

This difficulty also follows those who think that souls already existing elsewhere and prepared from the beginning of the divine works are sent by God into bodies. For of them too the same is asked: if blameless souls come obediently where they are sent, why are they punished in little ones if these end this life unbaptized? The difficulty is exactly the same in both opinions. Those think they escape this question more easily who assert that souls are entangled, one in each body, according to the merits of a former life. For they think that this is what it is to die in Adam: to pay penalties in the flesh, namely, which was propagated from Adam; and from this guilt, they say, the grace of Christ frees the small with the great. This indeed is right, true, and excellent: that the grace of Christ frees the small with the great from the guilt of sins. But that souls sin in another, previous life and are thrown down from there into fleshly prisons I do not believe, I do not accept, I do not agree: first, because these people bring it about, by I know not what cycles, that after I know not how many ages one must return again to this burden of corruptible flesh and to pay penalties, than which opinion I do not know what more horrible could be thought; next, what righteous person, after all, has died about whom, if these people speak the truth, we ought not to be anxious that, sinning in Abraham's bosom, he may be cast into the flames of that rich man? For why could one not sin after this body, if one could before it? Finally, it is one thing to have sinned in Adam (whence the apostle says, "in whom all sinned"), and another to have sinned outside Adam, I know not where, and therefore to be thrust into Adam, that is, into the flesh propagated from Adam, as into a prison. As for that opinion that all souls are made from one, I do not wish even to discuss it unless it is necessary; and I wish that the one we are now discussing, if it is true, may be so defended by you that this is no longer necessary.

But although I desire, ask, long for with ardent prayers, and await that the Lord may take away my ignorance of this matter through you, yet if (God forbid) I do not deserve it, I shall ask patience from the Lord our God, in whom we so believe that, if some things are not opened to us even when we knock, we ought in no way to murmur against him. Let us remember that it was said to the apostles themselves: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Among these, as far as I am concerned, let me count this too, and not be indignant that I am unworthy to know it, lest by this very fact I be shown still more unworthy. For there are many other things which I likewise do not know, which I cannot mention or count; and I would bear my ignorance of this patiently, did I not fear that one of these opinions might creep into incautious minds against what we hold with most firm faith. But before I know which of them should rather be chosen, I profess that I hold this not rashly: that the one which is true does not oppose the most robust and most firmly founded faith, by which the church of Christ believes that not even newborn human infants can be freed from condemnation except through the grace of the name of Christ, which he has commended in his sacraments.