his answer to it, which is his epist. 153, ad Paulinum, recites out of it what I have here set down. He makes his answer very short; and that for two reasons, which he gives. One was, That by every ship that sailed for the west, he had so many letters of this nature to send, that he could not bestow pains on any one; but was forced to write whatever came extempore into his mind. The other was, That to so great a critic as Paulinus, he did not dare write a long letter, in which the more faults would be found. It shews us, by the way, how diligent people were at that time in seeking to have the true sense of Scripture; and of how great repute St. Hierom's learning was, when Paulinus and so many others, sent letters a thousand miles to him to desire his opinion. St. Hierom refers him, for an answer to his first question, to Origen's book, repi doxov, which he had then newly translated into Latin, and whereof he might have a copy in Pammachius's hands, to whom he had dedicated and sent it; and for the second, his answer is this, "Of your second question Tertullian has discoursed in his book de Monogamia [leg. de Anima] holding that the children of Christians are styled holy, as being candidates [or expectants] of the faith, and not polluted with any idolatrous filth or trumpery. "Also you may mind that we read of the vessels of the tabernacle being called holy, and many other utensils of the ceremonies; whereas nothing can be properly holy but what has sense, and fears God. It is, there fore, a phrase of Scripture sometimes to call those holy that are clean and purified, or expiated from uncleanness, as Bathsheba is said to be sanctified [or made holy] from her uncleanness. "I entreat you not to impute to me either trifling or wrong interpretation; for God is witness to my consci ence, that the hurry I have mentioned to you has hindered me from so much as setting on, or attempting the interpretation of the place; and you know nothing is done to any purpose in a hurry.". St. Hierom had some reason to make an apology for so slight and perfunctory an explication; yet, as it is, it shews that he, as well as Paulinus, thought that such children could not be called holy in any such sense as should entitle them to salvation, unless they were baptized. If he had thought they could, the ready way to take off Paulinus's doubt, had been to answer so, the doubt being this, How they are holy from their birth, since, without baptism, they cannot be saved? But he an swers, 1. By referring him to Tertullian's account of this place in his book de Anima, which I recited before *, where he paraphrases the text in this sense, "They are holy, that is, they are designed for holiness; for, as for any other meaning, our Lord has determined, that without baptism none shall enter into the kingdom of God†; which is as much as to say None shall be holy. 2. By giving some instances where the word holy is applied to some things that are not capable of salvation, or of moral good or evil, Calvin, and many that have followed him, have boldly ventured on that explication which Paulinus durst not embrace, nor St. Hierom advise, and which Tertullian disproves. They have determined that a believer's child is holy, i. c. is born to salvation (or as a certain late commentator, supposed to be Mr. Lock, has absurdly paraphrased that place, "born a member of the Christian church") whether it be baptized or not; that baptism is to be given it indeed, but only as a seal of that holiness, which it has by covenant before it be baptized; and to this purpose they expound that text (John iii. 5) of any thing rather than of baptism; and many of them have determined that the authority of baptizing infants is grounded only on that birth-privilege which they have 7 before and that no other infants than such as are so ; holy by their birth, may, or ought to be baptized; which doctrine involves the baptizer in endless scruples which infants he may baptize, and which not; as Bishop Stillingfleet has largely shewn in the book to which I referred before*. He that has read the foregoing chapters, is by this time satisfied that all the antients understood our Saviour's words (John iii. 5) of baptism, or will be, by what I shall produce t; and that they never refused to baptize a child on account of the parents wickedness, or even Heathenism or infidelity, if the child were offered to baptism by such as were the then owners of the child. Much less do the explications given by the antients of the holiness here spoken of, fit or square to that jejune one given by some Antipædobaptists, that St. Paul should mean no more but that the children of believers, though one of the parents do continue in unbelief, are legitimate, and not bastards; which looks as made merely to serve a turn. On the contrary, the general vein of ancient interpretation is, to understand by this holiness baptismal holiness, either as given or designed to be given; as has appeared partly by this quotation, and by some others given before § and will more fully hereafter, where I mean to confer together all the ancient expositions of this text that I know of . Paulinus in Vita Ambrosii. [Year after the Apostles 297.] The other Paulinus was a deacon of the Church of Milan, that ministered to St. Ambrose in his lifetime, and, after he was dead, wrote the history of his life, which is commonly printed with his works. Erasmus takes this piece for a forgery ¶ of later years, because many of the * Ch. 9. See Part 2, ch. 6. + See Part 2, ch. 6. Ch. 4, 11, and 12. passages he relates looks so like the fabulous stories of the monks; and I am almost of his opinion, partly for his reason, and partly for another which I mention hereafter*. It must either be so, or else this Paulinus must have been a very, vain and credulous man. Neither would I set down the passage here following, which seems as fabulous and idle as any of them, were it not that most of the critics and learned men have an opinion of the authenticity of the tract, and do commonly quote it. -He relates a great many different occasions, on which St. Ambrose's ghost or shape appeared to several persons, after he was dead; and, among the rest, how, he having departed this life on Easter- eve [297], his body was carried and laid in the great church. "Ibique eadem fuit nocte, quam vigilamus in Pascha, Quem plurimi infantes baptizati, quum a fonte venirent, viderunt; ita ut aliqui sedentem in cathedra tribunali dicerint, alii vero ascendentem suis parentibus digito ostenderent. Sed illi videntes videre non poterant, quia mundatos oculos non habebant," And there it was that night which we spend in 'watching at Easter [this was the night before Easterday, on which, in the primitive times, the whole body of the people did always sit up all night in the church at their prayers]; and a great many of the infants "that were then baptized saw him as they came back 'from the font; some of them saying There he sits in 'the bishop's chair; others of them shewed him to their parents, pointing with their hands, that he was going "there up the steps; but the parents looking could not see him, because they had not their eyes' cleansed [or enlightened. There you have the story, such as it is, grounded, probably, on the superstitious conceits of women and boys; but yet it shews that there were children among those that were baptized on that day. He calls them * Part 2, ch. 3. Infants; but some of them could not be absolute in fants, for he mentions their speaking: they seem to have been little boys carried in their parents' arms, or led in their hands. These infants, according to this story, being by their baptism, just then received, clear from all sin, had their eyes enlightened to see this miracle; but their parents having been, since their baptism, stained with many sins, were not capable of it. They called baptism, both in the Scripture times, as appears from Heb. vi. 4, and also in these times, puriouds, the Illumination, or Enlightening of a person. A CHAPTER XIX. FROM ST, HIEROM AND ST. AUSTIN, AFTER THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY; FROM PELAGIUS, CELESTIUS, INNOCENT THE FIRST, ZOSIMUS, JULIANUS, &c.; AND FROM THE COUNCILS OF CARTHAGE, DIOSPOLIS, MILEVIS, &c. [Year after the Apostles 810.J A New heresy happening in the church at this time, gave more occasion to speak of infant baptism than ever had been before, not that any of the parties disapproved of it; but one of them held that there is no original sin in infants; and that brought in much discourse about their baptism. Pelagius, a monk, living at Rome, was the author of this heresy, at least, the first promoter of it in the west; and one Celestius, another monk, was his chief abettor; and afterward, Julianus a bishop, and Anianus a deacon. It was not started till the year of Christ 4-10. But most of the managers on each side were men of note before the year 400. The men that I named were the only writers of the Pelagian side; but a considerable number of the people was brought over to incline to their opinions. They argued, That the doctrine of original sin and natural |