Letters 131.9–131.28

You have sent disciples to me, that I may teach them a thing that I myself have not yet learned. Teach me, then, what I may teach. For many demand of me that I teach it, and to them I confess that I am ignorant of this, as of many other things. And perhaps, though they are shy to say it to my face, they say among themselves, 'Are you a teacher in Israel and do not know these things?' The Lord said this to one who was one of those who liked to be called Rabbi, which is why he came to the true Teacher by night, because perhaps he was ashamed to learn who was accustomed to teach. But it delights me more to hear the Teacher than to be heard as a teacher. For I recall what he said to those whom he chose above the rest: 'But you,' he said, 'do not be called Rabbi by men; for one is your teacher, Christ.' It was no other who taught Moses, even through Jethro; no other who taught Cornelius, even through Peter who came before; no other who taught Peter, even through Paul who came after. By whomever the truth is spoken, it is spoken by the gift of him who is the Truth itself. What if we still do not know these things, and have been unable to find them by praying, reading, thinking, and reasoning, precisely so that we may be tested, not only with how much charity we teach the unlearned, but also with how much humility we learn from the learned?

Teach me, then, I beg, what I may teach; teach me what I may hold; and tell me: if souls are made one by one for each individual even today as they are born, where do they sin in little children, so that they need remission of sin in the sacrament of Christ, as sinning in Adam, from whom the flesh of sin has been propagated? Or, if they do not sin, by what justice of the Creator are they so bound by another's sin, when they are inserted into mortal members propagated from him, that condemnation follows them unless the church comes to their aid, when it is not in their power that the grace of baptism can aid them? So many thousands of souls, then, which in the deaths of little children leave their bodies without the pardon of the Christian sacrament: with what equity are they condemned, if, newly created, with no sin of their own preceding, but by the will of the Creator, they were joined one by one to each one born, for whose animating he created and gave them, he who certainly knew that each of them, through no fault of its own, would leave the body without Christ's baptism? Since, therefore, we can neither say of God that he either forces souls to become sinners or punishes the innocent, nor may we deny that those which have left their bodies without the sacrament of Christ, even those of little children, are drawn only into condemnation, I beg you: how is this opinion defended, by which it is believed that souls are not all made from that one soul of the first man, but that as that one was made for one, so one each is made for each?

The other things said against this opinion I think I can easily refute. Such is the argument by which some think they press it hard: how did God complete all his works on the sixth day and rest on the seventh, if he still creates new souls? If we answer them with what you set down from the Gospel in the letter mentioned above, 'My Father works until now,' they reply: 'He works' was said of administering natures already established, not of establishing new ones, so as not to contradict the Scripture of Genesis, where we read most plainly that God completed all his works. For that he is written to have rested must certainly be understood of creating new creatures, not of governing them; because at that time he made things that did not exist, and from making them he rested, since he had completed everything that, before it existed, he saw was to be made; so that thereafter he created and made whatever he made not from things that did not exist but from those that already existed. So both are shown to be true, both what was said, 'He rested from his works,' and what was said, 'He works until now,' since the Gospel cannot be contrary to Genesis.

But those who say this so that it may not be believed that God now makes new souls that did not exist, as he made that one, but either creates them from that one which already existed, or sends them from some fountain or treasury which he made then, can easily be answered: even in those six days God created many things from natures he had already created, such as birds and fish from the waters, and trees, grass, and animals from the earth. Yet it is plain that he then made things that did not exist. For there was no bird, no fish, no tree, no animal; and it is rightly understood that he rested from creating these things which did not exist and were created, that is, that he ceased, so that no more things that did not exist should be created. But now, when it is said that he does not send souls already existing in some fountain or other, nor sprinkle them from himself as particles of himself, nor draw them by origin from that one soul, nor shackle them in fleshly bonds for sins committed before the flesh, but creates new ones, one each for each person born, he is not said to do something he had not done before. For already on the sixth day he had made man in his own image, which is certainly understood to have been done with respect to the rational soul. This he does now too, not by establishing what did not exist, but by multiplying what existed. Hence it is true both that he rested from establishing things that did not exist, and that he works until now, not only by governing what he made but also by creating more numerously something not new but already created. In this way, then, or in any other, we escape the objection made to us about God's rest from his works, so that we need not for that reason refuse to believe that new souls are still being made, not from that one, but like that one.

As for the question, 'Why does he make souls for those whom he knows will soon die?', we can answer that by this the sins of the parents are either exposed or scourged. We can also rightly leave these things to the ordering of him who, we know, gives a most beautiful and orderly course to all things that pass in time, including the births and deaths of living creatures, though we cannot perceive these things; if we perceived them, we would be soothed by an inexpressible delight. For not in vain was it said of God through the prophet, who had learned these things by divine inspiration, 'who brings forth the age in measure.' Hence music, that is, the science or sense of modulation, has been granted by God's generosity even to mortals who have rational souls, as a reminder of a great truth. So if a man skilled in making a song knows what lengths to give to which sounds, so that what is sung may run and pass most beautifully as the notes depart and follow, how much more does God, whose wisdom, through which he made all things, is to be preferred far above all arts, allow no spans of time in natures that are born and die, which are like the syllables and words belonging to the small parts of this age, to pass in this wonderful song, as it were, of passing things either more briefly or more lengthily than the foreknown and predetermined modulation requires! Since I would say this even of the leaf of a tree and of the number of our hairs, how much more of the birth and death of a man, whose life in time is extended neither more briefly nor more lengthily than God, the disposer of times, knows to be in harmony with the government of the universe!

Nor does it move our faith when they say that everything that began to exist in time cannot be immortal, because all things that rise set and all things that grow grow old, so as to force us in this way to believe that the human mind is immortal because it was created before all times. For, to say nothing of other things, the immortality of Christ's flesh began to exist in time; yet it no longer dies, and death will no longer have dominion over it.

As for what you set down in your book against Rufinus, that some slander this opinion because it seems unworthy that God should give souls to adulterous conceptions (from which they try to argue that souls can justly be brought into such prisons as it were by the merits of a life lived before the flesh), it does not move me, since I can think of many ways in which this slander can be refuted. And your own answer, that the fault is not in the seed of wheat said to have been stolen, but in him who stole the grain, and that the earth ought not therefore to have refused to cherish the seeds in its lap because the sower cast them with an unclean hand, is a most elegant comparison. Even before I read it, this objection about adulterous offspring caused me no difficulty in this question, since I considered generally that God makes many good things even out of our evils and our sins. The creation of any animal whatever, if it has a wise and devout observer, rouses inexpressible praise of the Creator; how much more the creation not of any animal but of a man! If the reason for creating is asked, no answer is given more quickly or better than that every creature of God is good; and what is more fitting than that the good God should make good things which no one but God can make?

These and other things that I can, as well as I can, I say against those who try to undermine this opinion by which it is believed that souls are made for individuals as that one was. But when we come to the sufferings of little children, believe me, I am hemmed in by great difficulties and find nothing at all to answer. I mean not only those punishments which that condemnation holds after this life, into which they must be dragged if they leave the body without the sacrament of Christian grace, but those very sufferings which in this life are before our eyes, to our grief; if I wished to list them, time would fail me before examples. They waste away with sicknesses, they are racked with pains, tormented by hunger and thirst, weakened in their limbs, deprived of their senses, troubled by unclean spirits. It must surely be shown how they justly suffer these things without any evil cause of their own. For it is not lawful to say either that these things happen without God's knowledge, or that he cannot resist those who do them, or that he does or permits them unjustly. Can we rightly say of man what we rightly say of irrational animals, that they are given for the use of more excellent natures, even vicious ones, as we see most plainly in the Gospel that the pigs were granted to the demons for the use they desired? For man is an animal, but rational, though mortal. It is a rational soul in those limbs that pays penalties by such great afflictions. God is good, God is just, God is almighty; to doubt this is altogether mad. Let a just cause, then, be stated for such great evils as happen to little children. When adults suffer these things, we are accustomed to say either that their merits are being tested, as in Job, or that their sins are being punished, as in Herod; and from certain examples which God willed to be plain, other things that are obscure are left to men's conjecture. But this is in adults. What shall we answer about little children? Explain it, if in such great punishments there are no sins in them to be punished; for certainly at that age there is no righteousness to be tested.

And what shall I say of the diversity of talents? It is hidden in little children, but appears in adults, drawn from the very beginnings of nature. Some of them are so slow and forgetful that they could not learn even the first elements of letters, and some are so foolish that they differ little from cattle; people commonly call them morons. Perhaps the answer is: bodies do this. But according to this opinion, which we wish to be defended, did the soul choose a body for itself, and, being deceived in choosing, go wrong? Or, when it was forced to enter a body by the necessity of being born, and crowds of souls had taken the other bodies first, did it find no other, and, as with a seat at a show, take not the flesh it wanted but the flesh it could get? Can we say such things, or ought we to think them? Teach us, then, what we ought to think and say, so that the account of new souls made singly for individual bodies may hold good for us.

I did say something in those books on free will, not about talents, but at least about the sufferings of little children which they endure in this life. What it is, and why it is not enough for me in the question we have in hand, I will explain, and I will insert in this letter the passage itself, taken from the third book. It runs as follows: 'As for the bodily torments by which little children are afflicted, who at 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, compassionate 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 correcting 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 coming judgment, if they have refused to turn their desire to eternal life through the anguish of this life? And who knows what good compensation God reserves in the secret of his judgments for the little children themselves, by whose torments the hardness of adults is broken, or their faith exercised, or their compassion proved; who then knows, since, although they have done nothing rightly, yet they have not suffered these things for any sin? For not in vain does the church commend as received into the honour 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 that is now in question. For, as I mentioned a little earlier, whichever of those four opinions about the incarnation of the soul was true, I was striving to show that the substance of the Creator is blameless and far removed from any share in our sins. And so it did not concern the purpose I then had which of them could be proved true or rejected, since, when all had been examined by more careful discussion, whichever of them rightly prevailed over the others, it would leave me quite secure, since I showed that what I was maintaining stood unconquered on all of them. But now I wish, if I can, to choose the one right account out of them all; and therefore, looking more carefully at my words that I have quoted from that book, I do not see in them a strong and firm defence of this very opinion which we are now discussing.

For the chief support of that argument, as it were, is what I said there: 'Who knows what good compensation God reserves in the secret of his judgments for the little children themselves, by whose torments the hardness of adults is broken, or their faith exercised, or their compassion proved?' But I see that this is not unfittingly said of those who suffer something of the kind, even without knowing it, for the name of Christ and true religion, or who have already been initiated in Christ's sacrament; because without fellowship with the one Mediator they cannot be freed from condemnation, so that that compensation may be given them even for the evils they have endured here in various afflictions. But now, since this question cannot be resolved unless an answer is also given about those little children who die after the most grievous torments without the sacrament of Christian fellowship, what compensation is to be thought of for them, for whom condemnation is prepared besides? For in the same book I did answer in some fashion about the baptism of little children, not sufficiently, but as far 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 I did not then think I should say anything about the condemnation of little children who depart this life without it, because what is now in question was not then in question.

But suppose we pass over and disregard what they suffer for a short time, which once over is not recalled: can we likewise disregard that 'by one man came death, and by one man the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive'? By this apostolic, divine, and clear sentence it shines out plainly enough that no one goes into death except through Adam, and no one into eternal life except through Christ. This is the meaning of 'all' and 'all': as all men belong to Adam by the first, that is, fleshly, generation, so all men, whoever come to Christ, come to the second, that is, spiritual, generation. That is why 'all' is said here and 'all' 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 even little children who leave this life without sharing in his sacrament will be made alive in Christ certainly goes against the apostle's preaching and condemns the whole church, where people hasten and run with little children to have them baptized precisely because it is believed without doubt that otherwise they cannot possibly be made alive in Christ. And those who are not made alive in Christ must remain in that condemnation of which the apostle says, 'Through the offence of one, upon all men to condemnation.' That little children are born liable to this offence the whole church believes, and you yourself, disputing against Jovinian and expounding the prophet Jonah, as I mentioned a little earlier, have defined it with most true faith. I believe also in other places of your works, which I have either not read or …

Or should it perhaps be said that in a little child 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 Christ's grace, the merit of incorruption can be won for the flesh too, once tamed and subdued? And since in a little child the soul cannot yet do this, if it receives Christ's sacrament, that is gained for its flesh by this grace which it could not yet gain by its own conduct; but if the little child'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 plainly 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 by one man the resurrection of the dead'; this is the one by 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 were stripped of the body without baptism before they could do good or evil? Nothing is said here about such. But if their flesh will not rise because they have done neither good nor evil, then neither will the flesh of those rise who died after receiving the grace of baptism at that age in which they could do nothing good or evil. But if those rise among the saints, that is, among those who have done good, among whom will these others rise, if not among those who have done 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? That view, even before it is refuted, displeases by its very novelty. Then, who would tolerate it if those who run to baptism with their little ones believed that they run for the sake of their flesh and not their souls? Blessed Cyprian, not framing some new decree but keeping the most firm faith of the church, in order to correct those who thought that a little child should not be baptized before the eighth day from birth, said that it is not the flesh but the soul that must not be lost, and with some of his fellow bishops decided that a child may 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 as he likes; only let no one think against the most manifest apostolic faith, which proclaims that from the offence of one all are led into condemnation, from which nothing frees except 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 well-founded custom of the church, in which, if people ran to baptism only for the sake of little children's bodies, the dead too would be offered to be baptized.

This being so, the reason must be sought and given why souls newly created for each person born are condemned if little children die without Christ's sacrament. For that they are condemned if they leave the body in this way, both holy Scripture and holy church are witnesses. So that opinion about the creation of new souls, if it does not attack this well-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 what is written should be taken in favour of this opinion: 'who formed the spirit of man within him,' and, 'who formed their hearts one by one.' Something very strong and quite unconquerable must be sought, which does not compel us to believe that God condemns any souls without some fault. For to create means as much as to form, or perhaps more; and yet it is written, 'Create a clean heart in me, O God'; and it cannot therefore be thought that the soul in this place prays to be made before it was anything. So as a soul already existing is created by the renewal of righteousness, so a soul already existing is formed by the shaping of teaching. Nor does what is written in Ecclesiastes, 'Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to the Lord who gave it,' confirm that opinion which we wish to be ours; it supports rather those who think that all souls come from one. For, they say, as the dust returns to the earth as it was, and yet the flesh of which this is said does not return to the man from whom it was propagated but to the earth from which the first man was made, so the spirit too, propagated from the spirit of that one man, yet does not return to him but to the Lord, by whom it was given to him. But since this testimony sounds for them in such a way that it does not seem altogether contrary to the opinion I wish to defend, I thought I should only warn your wisdom not to try to rescue me from these difficulties with such testimonies. For although no one makes true by wishing 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 pursues those who hold that souls already existing elsewhere and prepared from the beginning of God's works are sent by God into bodies. For the same question is put to them: if blameless souls come obediently where they are sent, why are they punished in little children 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 by one in bodies according to the merits of a former life. For they think that this is 'dying in Adam': paying penalties in the flesh, which was propagated from Adam; and from this guilt, they say, the grace of Christ frees the small with the great. This indeed is rightly, truly, and excellently said, that the grace of Christ frees the small with the great from the guilt of sins. But that souls sin in another, earlier life and are cast down from there into prisons of flesh, I do not believe, I do not accept, I do not agree. First, because I do not know through what cycles these people say this happens, so that after I know not how many ages they must return again to this burden of corruptible flesh and to paying penalties; I do not know what could be thought more horrible than this opinion. Then, what righteous man at last has died about whom, if these people speak the truth, we would not have to be anxious lest, sinning in Abraham's bosom, he be cast into the flames of that rich man? For why could one not sin after this body too, if one could before it? Finally, it is one thing to have sinned in Adam (hence the apostle says, 'in whom all sinned'), and quite 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 the opinion that all souls are made from one, I do not wish even to discuss it unless it is necessary; and would that the one we are now considering, if it is true, may be so defended by you that this is no longer necessary.

But although I desire, ask, long with ardent prayers, and wait for the Lord to take away my ignorance of this matter through you, yet if, which God forbid, I do not deserve it at all, I will ask patience for myself from the Lord our God, in whom we so believe that, if some things are not opened to us even when we knock, we must in no way murmur against him. Let us remember what 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 at being unworthy to know it, lest by that very thing I be proved still more unworthy. For there are many other things I likewise do not know, which I could mention or count; and I could bear to be ignorant of this, did I not fear that one of these opinions might creep into unwary minds against what we hold with the firmest faith. But before I know which of them is rather to be chosen, I profess that I hold this not rashly: that the one that is true does not oppose the most robust and well-founded faith by which the church of Christ believes that not even human infants most recently born can be freed from condemnation except through the grace of the name of Christ, which he has commended in his sacraments.