On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.20–1.37

“But the law came in, so that the offense might abound.” This men added to the original sin by their own will now, not through Adam; but this too is loosed and healed through Christ, because “where sin abounded, grace superabounded, so that, as sin reigned unto death,” even that which men did not draw from Adam but added by their own will, “so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life.” Yet there is no righteousness apart from Christ, as there are some sins apart from Adam. That is why, when he had said, “as sin reigned unto death,” he did not add here “through one” or “through Adam,” because above he had spoken also of that sin which abounded when the law came in, and this certainly is not of origin but of one's own will. But when he had said, “so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life,” he added, “through Jesus Christ our Lord,” because by the flesh that generates only that is drawn which is original sin, but by the Spirit that regenerates there is forgiveness not only of original but also of voluntary sins.

It can therefore rightly be said that infants who leave the body without baptism will be in the mildest condemnation of all. But he greatly deceives and is deceived who proclaims that they will not be in condemnation, since the apostle says, “The judgment was from one offense to condemnation,” and a little later, “Through the offense of one to all men unto condemnation.” When, then, Adam sinned by not obeying God, his body, although it was natural and mortal, lost the grace by which it obeyed his soul in every part; then there arose that bestial motion, shameful to men, at which he blushed in his nakedness; then too, by a kind of disease contracted from a sudden and pestilent corruption, it came about in them that, having lost the stability of age in which they were created, they went through the changes of the ages to death. Although, then, they lived many years afterwards, yet they began to die on the day on which they received the law of death, by which they would grow old into decrepitude. For whatever runs gradually to an end by continual change, an end that does not perfect but consumes, does not stand still even for a moment of time, but slips away without pause. So was fulfilled what God had said: “On the day you eat, you shall die the death.” From this disobedience of the flesh, then, from this law of sin and death, whoever is generated carnally needs to be regenerated spiritually, not only so that he may be brought to the kingdom of God but also so that he may be freed from the condemnation of sin. So at one and the same time men are born in the flesh liable to the sin and death of the first man, and at one and the same time they are reborn in baptism joined to the righteousness and eternal life of the second man; so too it is written in Ecclesiasticus: “From a woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” Whether it is said “from a woman” or “from Adam,” both belong to the first man, since, as we know, the woman is from the man and both are one flesh. Hence also what is written: “And the two will be in one flesh. Therefore they are no longer two,” says the Lord, “but one flesh.”

Therefore those who say that infants are baptized so that what is forgiven them is what they contracted as their own in this life, not what they derived from Adam, need no great effort to refute. For when they reflect a little by themselves, without the zeal for disputing, how absurd and unworthy of discussion their claim is, they will at once change their view. But if they will not, we need not despair of human senses so far as to fear that they will persuade anyone of this. For they were driven to say this, unless I am mistaken, by the prejudgment of some other opinion of theirs. And so, since they were compelled to admit that sins are forgiven to the baptized, and would not admit that the sin which they admitted is forgiven to infants was derived from Adam, they were forced to accuse infancy itself; as though the accuser of infancy became the safer for this, that the accused could not answer him. But let us leave these men aside, as I have said; for no discourse or proofs are needed to prove the innocence of infants as regards the life which, newly born, they lead in themselves, if human sense, aided by no supports of any disputation, does not recognize it.

But those seem to raise something worthy of consideration and discussion who say that infants just brought forth from their mothers' wombs receive baptism not for the forgiveness of sin, but so that, having a spiritual procreation, they may be created in Christ and become partakers of the kingdom of heaven, in the same way sons and heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Yet when they are asked whether those not baptized and not made joint heirs of Christ and partakers of the kingdom of heaven have at least the benefit of eternal salvation in the resurrection of the dead, they struggle hard and find no way out. For what Christian would bear it when it is said that anyone can come to eternal salvation if he is not reborn in Christ, which he willed to be done through baptism, at the time when such a sacrament was to be instituted for those to be regenerated into the hope of eternal salvation? Hence the apostle says: “Not from works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration.” Yet he says that this salvation is in hope while we live here, where he says: “For in hope we have been saved. But hope that is seen is not hope; for what anyone sees, why does he hope for? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” Who, then, would dare to affirm that infants can be saved for eternity without this regeneration, as though Christ had not died for them? “For Christ died for the ungodly.” But these, who, as is plain, have committed nothing ungodly in their own lives, if they are not held by any bond of ungodliness by origin either, how did he die for them who died for the ungodly? If they are wounded by no sickness of original sin, how is it that they are carried to Christ the physician, that is, to receive the sacrament of eternal salvation, by the devout fear of those who care for them, and it is not said to them in the church: “Take these innocent ones away from here; the healthy have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; Christ did not come to call the righteous, but sinners”? Never has it been said, never is it said, never at all will such a fabrication be said in the church of Christ.

And let no one think that infants ought to be brought to baptism because, just as they are not sinners, so neither are they righteous. How then do some recall that the merit of this age was praised by the Lord when he says, “Let the little children come to me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven”? For if this was said not because of the likeness of humility, since humility makes men little children, but because of the praiseworthy life of children, then surely they are righteous too. For it could not rightly be said otherwise, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” since it can belong only to the righteous. But perhaps it is not fittingly said that the Lord praised the life of little children when he said that of such is the kingdom of heaven, since the true understanding is that he set up the likeness of humility in that small age. Yet perhaps what I said is to be held, that infants ought to be baptized because, just as they are not sinners, so neither are they righteous. But when he had said, “I did not come to call the righteous,” as if someone answered him, “Whom then did you come to call?”, he at once added: “but sinners to repentance.” And therefore, just as if they are righteous, so also if they are not sinners, he did not come to call them who said, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” And so they seem to rush not only in vain but even wrongfully to the baptism of him who does not call them; which God forbid we should think. He calls them therefore, the physician, who is not needed by the healthy but by the sick, and who did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. And therefore, since they are not yet held liable for any sins of their own life, the sickness of origin is healed in them by the grace of him who saves through the washing of regeneration.

Someone will say: How then are they too called to repentance? Can such little ones repent of anything? The answer to him is: if they are not to be called penitents because they do not yet have the sense of repenting, neither are they to be called faithful, because likewise they do not yet have the sense of believing. But if they are rightly called faithful because in a certain way they profess the faith through the words of those who carry them, why should they not first also be held to be penitents, when through the words of the same people who carry them they are shown to renounce the devil and this world? All this is done in hope, by the power of the sacrament and of the divine grace which the Lord has given to the church. For the rest, who does not know that if a baptized infant, on coming to the years of reason, does not believe and does not abstain from unlawful desires, what he received as a little one will profit him nothing? Yet if, having received baptism, he departs from this life, the guilt to which he was liable by origin being loosed, he will be perfected in that light of truth which, remaining unchangeably for ever, enlightens the justified by the presence of the Creator. For sins alone separate between men and God, and they are loosed by the grace of him through whom as mediator we are reconciled, when he justifies the ungodly.

These men, however, are alarmed by the Lord's statement, “Unless one is born anew, he will not see the kingdom of God,” which, when he explained it, he said: “Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven”; and for this reason they try to attribute salvation and eternal life to unbaptized infants by the merit of innocence, but, because they are not baptized, to make them strangers to the kingdom of heaven, by a certain new and astonishing presumption: as though the salvation of eternal life could be eternal apart from the inheritance of Christ, apart from the kingdom of heaven. For they have, you see, somewhere to flee and hide, because the Lord did not say, “If one is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not have life,” but said, “he will not enter the kingdom of God.” For if he had said the former, no doubt could arise from this. Let the doubt be taken away, then; let us hear the Lord, not the suspicions and conjectures of mortals; let us hear the Lord, I say, speaking not indeed of the sacrament of the holy washing, but of the sacrament of his holy table, which no one rightly approaches unless baptized: “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you.” What more do we seek? What can be answered to this, unless obstinacy strains its combative sinews against the steadfastness of plain truth?

Or will anyone dare to say even this, that this statement does not apply to infants, and that they can have life in themselves without partaking of this body and blood, because he does not say “he who does not eat,” as he said of baptism, “he who is not reborn,” but says “unless you eat,” as though addressing those who could hear and understand, which infants certainly cannot? But whoever says this does not notice that, unless this statement binds all, so that without the body and blood of the Son of Man they cannot have life, it is in vain that even those of older age are concerned about it. For if you attend not to the intention but to the words of the speaker, it can seem to have been said only to those to whom the Lord was then speaking, because he does not say “he who does not eat” but “unless you eat.” And where is what he says in the same place about this very matter: “The bread which I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world”? For according to this we understand that that sacrament applies to us too, who did not yet exist when he said these things, because we cannot say that we do not belong to the world, for whose life Christ gave his flesh. And who would doubt that by the word “world” he meant men, who come into this world by being born? For, as he says elsewhere: “The children of this world beget and are begotten.” And for this reason the flesh which was given for the life of the world was given also for the life of infants; and if they do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, neither will they have life.

Hence also this: “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not believe the Son will not have life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” In which of these classes, then, shall we place infants? Among those who believe in the Son, or among those who do not believe the Son? In neither, someone will say, because, since they cannot yet believe, neither are they to be reckoned unbelievers. The rule of the church does not indicate this, for it adds baptized infants to the number of the faithful. Further, if those who are baptized, by the power and celebration of so great a sacrament, are counted in the number of believers, although they do not do with their own heart and mouth what belongs to believing and confessing, surely those who have lacked the sacrament are to be held among those who do not believe the Son; and therefore, if they leave the body empty of this grace, what was said will follow them: “They will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on them.” And whence is this, since it is plain that they have no sins of their own, if they are not liable to original sin either?

And it is well that he does not say, “The wrath of God will come upon him,” but “remains on him.” For from this wrath, under which all are under sin, of which the apostle says, “For we too were once by nature children of wrath, like the rest,” nothing frees but the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Why this grace comes to one and does not come to another, the reason can be hidden; unjust it cannot be. “Is there injustice with God? By no means.” But first our necks must be bowed to the authority of the holy Scriptures, so that each may come through faith to understanding. For not in vain was it said, “Your judgments are like a great deep.” As though terrified at the height of this deep, the apostle exclaims: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” For he had first set down a statement of wonderful profundity, saying: “For God has shut up all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.” As though struck with awe at its profundity, he says: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to him, and it will be repaid him? For from him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory for ages of ages. Amen.” Very small, then, is the understanding we have for examining the justice of God's judgments, for examining the grace that is free, not unjust though no merits precede it, which does not so much disturb us when it is given to the unworthy as when it is denied to others equally unworthy.

For those too to whom it seems unjust that infants who leave the body without the grace of Christ should be deprived not only of the kingdom of God, which they themselves admit none can enter unless reborn through baptism, but also of eternal life and salvation, and who ask how it is just that one is loosed from original ungodliness and another is not, when the condition of both is the same, let them answer according to their own view how it is likewise just that baptism, by which he may enter the kingdom of God, is granted to this one and not granted to that one, when the case of both is equal. For if it disturbs them why, of these two, when both are equally sinners by origin, one is loosed from this bond, to whom baptism is granted, and the other is not loosed, to whom such grace is not granted, why does it not equally disturb them that of two who are innocent by origin, one has received baptism, by which he can enter the kingdom of God, and the other has not, so that he cannot approach the kingdom of God? Surely in both cases we return to that exclamation: “O the depth of the riches!” Next, of baptized infants themselves let someone tell me why one is snatched away, lest wickedness change his understanding, and another lives on to become ungodly? Would not both, if both were snatched away, enter the kingdom of heaven? And yet there is no injustice with God. What then? Whom does it not disturb, whom does it not compel to cry out at so great a depth, that some infants are troubled by an unclean spirit, others suffer nothing of the kind, and others are even sanctified in their mothers' wombs, like Jeremiah, although all, if there is original sin, are equally guilty, and if there is not, are equally innocent? Whence this great diversity, unless because his judgments are unsearchable and his ways past tracing out?

Or perhaps we should hold that opinion, already exploded and rejected, that souls, having first sinned in a heavenly dwelling, come step by step and little by little into bodies suited to their merits, and are afflicted more or less with bodily plagues according to the life they led before? Although holy Scripture most openly contradicts this opinion, for in commending grace it says, “When they were not yet born, nor had done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to election might stand, not from works but from him who calls, it was said that the elder will serve the younger,” yet not even those who hold this view escape the straits of this question; but, hemmed in and stuck fast in them, they are likewise forced to cry out “O the depth!” For how does it come about that a man from early boyhood more modest, more gifted, more temperate, in great part a conqueror of his lusts, who hates avarice, detests luxury, and rises more advanced and more fitted for the other virtues, is nevertheless in a place where Christian grace cannot be preached to him (“For how will they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how will they believe him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?”), while another, slow of mind, given to lusts, covered with crimes and misdeeds, is so guided that he hears, believes, is baptized, is snatched away, or, if he is kept here, lives in a praiseworthy way? Where did these two contract such different merits, I do not say that this one believes and that one does not believe, which belongs to one's own will, but that this one hears what he may believe and that one does not hear (for this is not in man's power); where, I say, did they contract such different merits? If they led some life in heaven, so that for their deeds they were driven or slipped down to earth and held in bodily receptacles fitted to their former life, surely he must be believed to have lived better before this mortal body who did not deserve to be much weighed down by it, so that he had both a good mind and was pressed by milder desires, which he could easily overcome; and yet he did not deserve to have preached to him that grace by which alone he could be freed from the ruin of the second death; while the other, for worse merits, as they think, entangled in a heavier body and therefore dull of heart, though he was overcome by the enticements of the flesh with most burning desire, and by a most wicked life added worse earthly sins to the former sins for which he had deserved to come here, yet either heard on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” or joined himself to some apostle, by whose preaching he was changed and saved through the washing of regeneration, so that where sin abounded grace might superabound. I do not see at all what answer can be made to this by those who, wishing to defend the justice of God by human conjectures and not knowing the depth of grace, have woven improbable fables.

For many things could be said about the wonderful callings of men, whether those we read of or those we have experienced, by which the opinion of those would be overturned who believe that the souls of men led certain lives of their own before these bodies, by which they came to these bodies, to experience here different goods or evils according to the difference of their merits. But concern to finish this work does not allow me to dwell longer on these things. One thing, however, which I found wonderful among many, I will not pass over in silence. According to those who think that souls are weighed down more or less by earthly bodies in consequence of the merits of a former life led in heavenly places before this body, who would not affirm that those sinned more wickedly and monstrously before this life who deserved so to lose the light of the mind that they were born with a sense close to that of cattle; I do not mean very slow of mind (for this is said of others), but so witless that, with their hair in curls, they even display the delights of folly to raise a laugh among people of sense; the common people call them “morons,” a name derived from Greek? Yet there was one of these who was such a Christian that, although he bore all injuries to himself with a wonderfully foolish patience, he could not bear injury to the name of Christ, or in himself to the religion with which he was imbued, so that he would not stop pelting with stones the blasphemers, sensible men, as you see, from whom he used to hear these things so that he would be provoked; nor in that cause did he spare even his masters. Such people, then, I think, are predestined and created so that those who are able may understand that the grace of God and the Spirit, which blows where it wills, for this reason does not pass over any kind of mind among the children of mercy, and likewise passes over every kind of mind among the children of Gehenna, so that he who boasts may boast in the Lord. But those who affirm that souls receive different earthly bodies according to the merits of a higher life, by which some are weighed down more and others less, and that human minds vary according to the same merits, so that some are sharper and others duller, and that divine grace too is dispensed to free men according to the merits of that higher life, what will they be able to answer about this man? How will they ascribe to him both a most foul former life, so that he was born a fool because of it, and one so well deserving that because of it he was preferred in the grace of Christ to many of the sharpest minds?

Let us therefore yield and consent to the authority of holy Scripture, which knows neither how to be deceived nor how to deceive; and just as we do not believe that those not yet born did anything good or bad by which their merits could be distinguished, so let us not doubt at all that all are under sin, which entered into the world through one man and passed through all men, from which nothing frees but the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ; whose healing coming is not needed by the healthy but by the sick, because he did not come to call the righteous but sinners; into whose kingdom no one will enter unless he has been reborn of water and the Spirit; nor will anyone possess salvation and eternal life apart from his kingdom, since he who does not eat his flesh, and he who does not believe the Son, will not have life, but the wrath of God remains on him. From this sin, from this sickness, from this wrath of God, of which they are by nature children who, even if by reason of age they have no sin of their own, yet draw original sin, nothing frees except the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world; no one except the physician who came not for the healthy but for the sick; no one except the Savior, of whom it was said to the human race, “To you is born this day a Savior”; no one except the Redeemer, by whose blood our debt is blotted out. For who would dare to say that Christ is not the Savior nor the Redeemer of infants? But from what does he save them, if there is no sickness of original sin in them? From what does he redeem them, if they have not been sold under sin through their origin from the first man? Let no eternal salvation, then, be promised to infants by our own judgment apart from the baptism of Christ, since the divine Scripture, which is to be preferred to all human minds, does not promise it.

The Punic Christians do excellently in calling baptism itself nothing other than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing other than “life.” Whence does this come, unless, as I think, from an ancient and apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold it as ingrained that apart from baptism and participation in the Lord's table no man can come not only to the kingdom of God but not even to salvation and eternal life? For Scripture too bears witness to this, according to what we said above. For what else do those hold who call baptism by the name of salvation than what was said, “He saved us through the washing of regeneration,” and what Peter says, “So baptism in a like figure saves you too”? And what else do those hold who call the sacrament of the Lord's table “life” than what was said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven”; and “The bread which I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world”; and “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you”? If then, as so many and such great divine testimonies agree, neither salvation nor eternal life is to be hoped for by anyone without baptism and the body and blood of the Lord, it is in vain promised to infants without them. Further, if nothing but sins separates a man from salvation and eternal life, then through these sacraments nothing but the guilt of sin is loosed in infants; of which guilt it is written that no one is clean, not even if his life is of one day. Hence also that in the Psalms: “For I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins my mother nourished me in the womb”; for either it is said in the person of man in general, or, if David says this properly of himself, he was certainly born not of sexual immorality but of lawful wedlock. Let us not doubt, then, that the blood was shed also for infants to be baptized, the blood which, before it was shed, was so given and commended in the sacrament that it was said, “This is my blood, which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.” For those deny that they are set free who will not confess that they are under sin. For from what are they set free, if they are held bound by no slavery of sin?

“I have come,” he says, “as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me may not remain in darkness.” By this saying what does he show except that everyone who does not believe in him is in darkness, and that by believing he brings it about that he does not remain in darkness? What do we understand by this darkness except sins? But whatever else this darkness may be understood to be, certainly he who does not believe in Christ will remain in it; and it is certainly penal, not like the darkness of night, necessary for the rest of living creatures. Accordingly, infants, if they do not pass into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will certainly remain in this darkness.

Some, however, believe that they are enlightened as soon as they are born, understanding in this way what is written: “He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world.” If this is so, it is much to be wondered at how those enlightened by the only Son, who was in the beginning the Word, God with God, are not admitted to the kingdom of God, nor are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. For even those who hold this view confess that this is not granted them except through baptism. Then, being already enlightened, if they are not yet fit to obtain the kingdom of God, they ought at least to receive gladly the baptism itself by which they are made fit for it; yet we see them struggling against it with loud wailing, and we disregard that ignorance at that age, so that we complete in them the sacraments which we know will profit them, even when they struggle against them. And why does the apostle also say, “Do not be children in your minds,” if their minds have already been enlightened by that true light which is the Word of God?

So what is set down in the gospel, “He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world,” was said because no man is enlightened except by that light of truth which is God, lest anyone should think that he is enlightened by the one from whom he hears something so as to learn it, I do not say if he happens to have some great man as his teacher, but not even if he has an angel. For the word of truth is applied from outside by the ministry of the bodily voice; yet “neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth.” For a man hears either a man or an angel speaking; but in order that he may perceive and know that what is said is true, his mind is sprinkled within by that light which remains eternal, which also shines in darkness. But just as this sun is not comprehended by the blind, although it in a way clothes them with its rays, so that light is not comprehended by the darkness of folly.