Chapter 10 [IX.]—He Could Not Be Justified, Who Had Not Heard of the Name of Christ; Rendering the Cross of Christ of None Effect.

But they say: “He is not condemned; because the statement that all sinned in Adam, was not made because of the sin which is derived from one’s birth, but because of imitation of him.” If, therefore, Adam is said to be the author of all the sins which followed his own, because he was the first sinner of the human race, then how is it that Abel, rather than Christ, is not placed at the head of all the righteous, because he was the first righteous man? But I am not speaking of the case of an infant. I take the instance of a young man, or an old man, who has died in a region where he could not hear of the name of Christ. Well, could such a man have become righteous by nature and free will; or could he not? If they contend that he could, then see what it is to render the cross of Christ of none effect,27    1 Cor. i. 1. to contend that any man without it, can be justified by the law of nature and the power of his will. We may here also say, then is Christ dead in vain28    Gal. ii. 21. forasmuch as all might accomplish so much as this, even if He had never died; and if they should be unrighteous, they would be so because they wished to be, not because they were unable to be righteous. But even though a man could not be justified at all without the grace of Christ, he would absolve him, if he dared, in accordance with his words, to the effect that, “if a man were of such a character, because he could not possibly have been of any other, he would be free from all blame.”

CAPUT IX.

10. Justificari non potuit qui Christi nomen non audivit. Crucem Christi evacuare. Sed, Non damnatur, inquiunt: quia in Adam peccasse omnes, non propter peccatum nascendi origine attractum, sed propter imitationem, dictum est. Si ergo ideo dicitur Adam auctor omnium, qui subsecuti sunt, peccatorum, quia primus peccator in hominibus fuit; cur non potius Abel, quam Christus, ponitur caput omnium justorum, quia primus in hominibus justus fuit? Sed de infante non loquor: juvenis vel senex 0252 in ea regione defunctus est, ubi non potuit Christi nomen audire; potuit fieri justus per naturam et liberum arbitrium, an non potuit? Si potuisse dicunt; ecce quod est, crucem Christi evacuare, sine illa quemquam per naturalem legem et voluntatis arbitrium justificari posse contendere. Dicamus et hic, Ergo Christus gratis mortuus est: hoc enim omnes possent, etiamsi mortuus ille non esset; et si injusti essent, quia vellent, essent, non quia justi esse non possent. Si autem sine Christi gratia justificari omnino non potuit, etiam istum si audet absolvat secundum verba sua: quia si idcirco talis fuit, quod aliud esse omnino non potuit, culpa caruit.