For they made themselves girdles of fig leaves, not garments; these girdles are called in Greek perizomata. But what the perizomata cover is known to all—which some Latins have interpreted as 'aprons' (campestria). And who is ignorant what parts of the body those who wear campestria conceal? For these the young Romans used to cover when they exercised naked on the field (campus), whence this kind of covering received such a name. 'Those marriages, then,' says he, 'which could have existed without concupiscence, without movement of the bodies, without the necessity of the sexes, as thou sayest, are pronounced by thee to be praiseworthy; but these unions which are now enacted thou definest to have been invented by the devil.
Those marriages, then,' says he, 'which thou dreamest could have been instituted, thou judgest good; but these, concerning which divine Scripture says: A man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh, thou professest to be diabolical evils, and declarest that they ought at last to be called a disease, not a marriage.' It is no wonder if the Pelagians attempt to twist our sayings into whatever senses they wish, since they are wont to do this even with the holy Scriptures—not where something is obscurely said, but where the testimonies are clear and plain—in the manner indeed of the other heretics also. For who would say that marriages could have existed without movement of the bodies, without the necessity of the sexes?
For God made the sexes, since he made them male and female, as it is written. But how could it come to pass that those who were to be joined and by that very joining to beget should not move their bodies, since no bodily approach of one human to another comes about if bodily movement be lacking? The question here, then, is not about the movement of the bodies, without which they could not be joined at all, but about the shameful movement of the genitals, which assuredly would not exist—and yet the seminal union would not be lacking—if the genitals served not lust but the will, as do the other members. Or is it not the case that even now, in the body of this death, the foot, the arm, the finger, the lip, the tongue are commanded, and at our nod are forthwith put forth?
Finally—what is more marvelous—the fluid placed within in the bladder, even when we are not pressed by its abundance, is commanded to flow forth and it obeys. Nay rather, the very hidden inner organs and sinews, by which that same fluid is contained, are commanded to drive it forward, to press it out, to expel it, and, if health is present, without difficulty they serve the will. How much more easily, then, and more tranquilly, if the genital parts of the body were obedient, would the member itself be put forth and man be sown, had not, for those disobedient first men, the disobedience of these members been repaid as a just punishment! Which punishment the chaste feel, who without doubt would prefer, if they could, to sow children at the bidding of the will rather than by itching pleasure.
But the unclean, who on account of this disease love not only harlots but even their own wives, exult in this graver disease of the mind over that disease of the flesh. Far be it from us, then, to say what this man fabricates that we say. These unions which are now enacted, invented—as he alleges—by the devil, are utterly the very marriages which God instituted from the beginning. For this good of his, instituted for the generation of men, he did not take away even from condemned men—from whom he did not take away even the sense of the flesh and the members, undoubtedly his own gifts, though now destined to die by a debt already due to condemnation. These, I say, are the marriages of which it was said—apart from what is here prefigured, that great sacrament of Christ and the Church—:
'Therefore shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.' For this was said before sin, and, had no one sinned, it could have come about without shameful lust. And now, although it does not come about in the body of this death without that lust, it is nevertheless the same thing that does not cease to come about, namely that a man cleaves to his wife and they are two in one flesh. Wherefore, although it is now said that there are marriages of one kind, but that, had no one sinned, there could have been marriages of another kind, this is said not according to their nature, but according to a certain quality changed for the worse.
Just as a man is called 'another,' although he is the very same man, who has changed his life either for the better or for the worse—for the just man is one thing, the sinner another, although he is the very same man—so there are marriages of one kind without shameful lust, and of another kind with shameful lust; yet, provided that according to their own constitution, by which a woman is lawfully joined to a man and the faith of carnal debt is preserved immune from the sin of adulteries, and children are sown in this lawful manner, these are the very same marriages which God instituted—although the devil wounded, not the marriages themselves, but the men from whom marriages come, by the ancient persuasion of sin, persuading them to the sin of disobedience, to which by the divine judgment the reciprocal disobedience of the members was repaid, in which the wedded—
—although they blushed at their nakedness, nevertheless could not in every way lose the goodness of marriage instituted by God. From here this man proceeds from those who are joined to those who are begotten, on whose account in this question we labor with such great disputations against the new heretics; and, compelled by a hidden instinct of God, he says something whereby he dissolves this whole knot by his own confession. For wishing to stir up greater ill-will against us, because we say that even from lawful marriages infants are born under sin, 'those, then,' says he, 'who were never born, thou sayest could have been good; but these, who have filled the world, for whom Christ died, thou definest to be the work of the devil, and born of a disease, and guilty from their origin.
I have therefore proved,' says he, 'that thou art doing nothing else than denying God to be the Creator of these men who exist.' I indeed do not call anyone but God the Creator of all men, although all are born under sin and perish unless they be reborn; for the fault has been sown in by the persuasion of the devil, through which they are born under sin—not the nature established, by which they are men. But let shameful lust not move the members except when we will, and it is not a disease; let not even the licit and honorable intercourse of the wedded blush at it, avoiding sight and seeking secrecy, and it is not a disease; let not the Apostle forbid wives to be possessed in this disease, and it is not a disease. For what the Greek has:
—in some Latin versions has been interpreted 'in the disease of desire' or 'of concupiscence,' but in others: 'in the passion of concupiscence,' or however else it is found in various codices. But 'passion' in the Latin tongue, especially in ecclesiastical usage of speech, is not wont to be understood in a sense of reproach. But whatever this man may feel about the shameful concupiscence of the flesh, attend to what he has said concerning the infants for whom we labor, that they may be believed to need a Savior, lest they die without salvation. I repeat his words:
'Those, then,' says he, 'who were never born, thou sayest could have been good; but these, who have filled the world, for whom Christ died, thou definest to be the work of the devil, and born of a disease, and guilty from their origin.' Oh, if only he would loose the knot of contention as well, as he looses the knot of this question! For will he now say that he was speaking of these things concerning adults? The matter concerns infants, it concerns those being born, it concerns those about whom—because they are defined by us as guilty from their origin—ill-will is stirred up by him against us, because we call those guilty for whom Christ died. Why then did Christ die for them, if they are not guilty? From that very point, indeed, from that very point we shall win our case, whence he thought ill-will should be aroused. He himself says:
'How are the infants guilty, for whom Christ died?' We answer: nay, how are the infants not guilty, for whom Christ died? Let this controversy seek a judge. Let Christ therefore judge, and let him himself say for whom his death profited as guilty. 'This,' he says, 'is my blood, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.' Let the Apostle also judge with him, since in the Apostle Christ himself speaks. He cries out and says of God the Father, that 'he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.' I think that he thus says Christ was delivered up for us all, so that in this cause the infants may not be separated from us.
But what need is there to trouble ourselves further about this point, about which not even this man now contends, seeing that he not only confesses that Christ died even for the infants, but even reproaches us from this very fact, that we call those same infants guilty for whom Christ died? Now therefore let the Apostle, who said that Christ was delivered up for us all, also say why Christ was delivered up for us. 'He was delivered up,' says he, 'for our offences, and rose again for our justification.'
If therefore, as this man both confesses and professes and says and objects, among those for whom Christ was delivered up there are also the infants, and Christ was delivered up on account of our offences, then assuredly the infants also have original offences on account of which Christ was delivered up; he has what he may heal in them, who, as he himself says, 'the whole need not a physician, but they that are sick'; he has why he may make them safe, who came into the world, as the Apostle Paul says, 'to save sinners'; he has what he may remit in them, who testifies that he shed his blood 'unto the remission of sins'; he has on account of what he may seek them, who came, as he says, 'to seek and to save that which was lost';
the Son of God has what he may loose in them, who came for this purpose, as the Apostle John says, 'that he might loose the works of the devil.' To this salvation of the infants, then, he is an enemy who so asserts their innocence that he denies the necessary medicine to those wounded and injured. Now attend to what follows and what he adds. 'If before sin,' says he, 'that from which men are born was created by God, but that by which the parents are moved was created by the devil, holiness will without doubt be ascribed to those being born, and guilt to those begetting. Since this most manifestly condemns marriages, remove this notion, I pray, from the midst of the churches, and truly believe that through Jesus Christ all things were made, and without him was made nothing.'
He says this as though we were saying that something of substance was created in men by the devil. The devil persuaded to evil as to a sin; he did not create it as a nature. But plainly he persuaded a nature, since man is a nature, and therefore by persuading he corrupted it. For he who wounds does not create the members, but injures them. But wounds which are inflicted on bodies make the members limp or move painfully, but not that virtue by which a man is just; whereas the wound which is called sin wounds the very life by which one lived rightly. But this the devil then inflicted far more greatly and more deeply than are those sins known to men.
Hence, by that great sin of the first man, our nature there, changed for the worse, was not only made a sinner, but even begat sinners. And yet that very languor itself, by which the virtue of living well perished, is by no means a nature, but a fault—just as certainly bad health in the body is not any substance or nature, but a fault; and although not always, yet very often the bad states of health of parents are in a certain manner engendered and appear in the bodies of their children.
But this sin, which changed the man himself in paradise for the worse—because it is far greater than we can judge—is drawn down by everyone being born, and is not remitted except in one being reborn; so that even from parents already reborn, in whom it has been remitted and covered, it is drawn into the guilt of the children being born, unless the second, spiritual birth absolve also those very ones whom the first, carnal nativity has bound. Of this marvelous matter the marvelous Creator has produced an example in the olive and the wild olive, where not only from the seed of the wild olive, but even from the seed of the cultivated olive, nothing but a wild olive springs up.
Wherefore, although even in men generated by nature, regenerated by grace, this carnal concupiscence, fighting against the law of the mind, is present, nevertheless, because it has been remitted in the remission of sins, it is no longer reckoned to them as sin, nor does it harm anything, unless consent be given to its motions toward unlawful things. But their offspring, because it is sown not through spiritual but through carnal concupiscence, like a wild olive from that cultivated olive of our race, so draws down guilt by being born, that it cannot be freed from that plague except by being reborn.
How then does this man affirm that we ascribe holiness to those being born and guilt to those begetting, when rather the truth shows that, even though there be holiness in those begetting, original guilt is present in those being born, which is not abolished except in those being reborn? Since these things are so, let this man feel whatever he pleases about this concupiscence of the flesh and about that imperious lust—to be tamed in the chaste, but shameful even to the chaste as well as the unchaste—for it much pleases him, as I see; let him not hesitate to praise that which he is ashamed to name; let him call it, as he has called it, 'the vigor of the members,' and not fear the horror of chaste ears; let him call it 'the power of the members' and not beware of its shamelessness;
let him say, if he does not blush, that in paradise, had no one sinned, this vigor could there have flourished like a flower, and there would have been no need for it to be covered—since it would be so moved that no one would be confounded thereby, but with the wife ready at hand it would always be exercised, never restrained—lest at any time the will should be denied so great a felicity.
For far be it that that blessedness could either not have in that place what it willed, or feel in its body or mind what it willed not; and on this account, if the motion of lust should anticipate the will of men, the will would immediately follow, and the wife—who on this account ought never to be absent—whether about to conceive or already pregnant, would forthwith be brought near, and either offspring would be sown, or the natural and praiseworthy pleasure would be fulfilled and the seed of man would perish, lest the appetite of so good a concupiscence be defrauded: only let not the wedded turn themselves to that use which is against nature, but as often as it delighted, let them use the members created for this and the genitals.
Nevertheless, what if that use against nature also should perchance delight, what if that praiseworthy lust should whinny after this pleasure too? Would they follow it, because it was sweet, or resist it, because it was base? If they should follow it, where is any consideration of honor whatsoever? If they should resist it, where is the peace of so great a felicity?
Hence, if perhaps he should blush and say that so great a peace of that felicity and so great an order in these matters could have existed, that the concupiscence of the flesh would never anticipate the will of those men, but, when they themselves willed, then it would rise up, and they would then will when there was need for sowing children, so that no casting of seed would be in vain, no intercourse would take place that was not followed by conception and birth, the flesh serving at their nod, lust serving at their nod: if he says this, let him at least consider that now, in men, that which he says does not exist.
And if he is unwilling to concede that lust is a fault, let him at least say that through the disobedience of those men the very concupiscence of the flesh has also been made faulty, so that that which was moved obediently and orderly is now moved disobediently and disorderly, so that it does not obey even the chaste wedded at their nod, but both is moved when it is not necessary, and, when it is necessary, sometimes more quickly, sometimes more slowly, follows their nod, but exerts its own motions. This disobedience of it, then, those disobedient men then received, and transfused it into us by propagation. For not at their nod, but assuredly in a disorderly manner it was moved, when they covered the members, before to be gloried in, then already to be ashamed of.
But, as I have said, let this man feel whatever he pleases about this lust, let him preach it however he pleases, let him praise it however much he pleases—for as he signifies in many places, it much pleases him—so that, if not by its uses, at least by its praises the Pelagians may be delighted, whoever of them by their profession of continence do not enjoy the flesh of spouses: only let him spare the infants, so that he may not praise them uselessly and defend them cruelly, may not say they are safe, may permit them to come not to Pelagius the praiser, but to Christ the Savior. For that this book may now be closed—since his discourse, which was written in the little sheet that thou didst send, was so ended that he said: 'truly believe that through Jesus all things were made, and without him was made nothing'—
let him grant that Jesus is Jesus even to the infants, and, as he confesses that all things were made through him according to that which is the Word, God, so let him also confess that the infants are made safe by him according to that which is Jesus, if he wishes to be a Catholic Christian. For thus it is written in the Gospel: 'And they shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.' Therefore Jesus, since Jesus in Latin means Savior; for 'he shall save his people'—in which people are assuredly also the infants—'and he shall save them from their sins.' There are therefore in the infants also original sins, on account of which Jesus, that is the Savior, can be theirs also.