Chapter 43.—The Good Tree in the Gospel that Cannot Bring Forth Evil Fruit, Does Not Mean Marriage.

What, then, does he mean by saying, “A tree is known by its fruits,” on the ground of our reading that the Lord spake thus in the Gospel? Was, then, the Lord speaking of this question in these words, and not rather of men’s two wills, the good and the evil, calling one of these the good tree, and the other the corrupt tree, inasmuch as good works spring out of a good will, and evil ones out of an evil will—the converse being impossible, good works out of an evil will, and evil ones out of a good will? If, however, we were to suppose marriage to be the good tree, according to the Gospel simile which he has mentioned, then, of course, we must on the other hand assume fornication to be the corrupt tree. Wherefore, if a human being is said to be the fruit of marriage, in the sense of the good fruit of a good tree, then undoubtedly a human being could never have been born in fornication. “For a corrupt tree bringeth not forth good fruit.” 229    Matt. vii. 18. Once more, if he were to say that not adultery must be supposed to occupy the place of the tree, but rather human nature, of which man is born, then in this way not even marriage can stand for the tree, but only the human nature of which man is born. His simile, therefore, taken from the Gospel avails him nothing in elucidating this question, because marriage is not the cause of the sin which is transmitted in the natural birth, and atoned for in the new birth; but the voluntary transgression of the first man is the cause of original sin. “You repeat,” says he, “your allegation, ‘Just as sin, from whatever source it is derived to infants, is the work of the devil, so man, howsoever he be born, is the work of God.’” Yes, I said this, and most truly too; and if this man were not a Pelagian, but a catholic, he too would have nothing else to avow in the catholic faith.

43. Quid est ergo quod ait, «Ex fructibus suis arbor agnoscitur,» quia hoc in Evangelio dixisse Dominum legimus? Numquid inde Dominus loquebatur, et non potius de duabus voluntatibus hominum, bona scilicet et mala, istam bonam, illam malam arborem dicens; quia de bona voluntate opera bona nascuntur, et mala de mala, nec possunt bona de mala, et mala de bona? Quod si nuptias tanquam arborem bonam, secundum istam quam commemoravit evangelicam similitudinem posuerimus; profecto e contrario fornicationem posituri sumus arborem malam. Quamobrem si homo ita dicitur fructus nuptiarum, tanquam bonus ex arbore bona, procul dubio nasci homo de fornicatione non debuit. Mala quippe arbor bonos fructus non facit (Matth. VII, 18). Porro si dixerit, non illic arboris loco ponendum esse adulterium, sed naturam potius humanam, de qua nascitur homo: ita etiam hic non erit arbor connubium, sed natura humana, de qua nascitur homo. Nihil proinde valet ad istam quaestionem similitudo illa evangelica: quia non sunt nuptiae causa peccati, quod trahitur a nascente, et expiatur in renascente; sed voluntarium peccatum hominis primi, originalis est causa peccati. «Dicis iterum,» inquit, «Nam sicut peccatum, sive hinc, sive inde a parvulis trahatur, opus est diaboli: sic homo, sive hinc, sive inde nascatur, opus est Dei.» Et dixi hoc, et verissime dixi: et si non Pelagianus, sed Catholicus esset, nihil aliud et ipse in Catholica diceret .