Photius recites his words) in that restoration which is to be after the resurrection; for the obtaining of which both we, and also new-born infants, are baptized." He gave himself a great latitude in the use of words, to call that forgiveness. I mention this man only to shew that he, as well as the Pelagians of the west, took it for granted that infants are to be baptized, though he thought they have no sin; and even as for that opinion against original sin (whatever he thought or kept in writing by him) he found it necessary for him to join with the neighbouring bishops, in a synod held there, to condemn Julian and his opinions, as we understand by Mercator *. After this time, the Pelagian opinions being so universally condemned, none but some very few and very desperate persons did venture to declare for them, or against original sin; but a considerable number did still oppose another opinion that St. Austin held, about particular predestination. These were called by their adversaries Semi-Pelagians, though they expressly renounced Pelagius as a heretic; and they called their adversaries Predestinarians; but as to the matter we are treating of they all agreed, That there is original sin in infants that all baptized infants dying in infancy are saved; and, that no infant dying without baptism goes to Heaven. The difference between them, as to the case of infants that die in infancy, was this: - St. Austin and his followers held, That God, by his mere gratuitous pleasure, does ordain that such or such infants shall come to have baptism, and so be saved; and others shall miss of it, without any regard had to the qualifications which they would have had if they had lived, But the Semi-Pelagians, so called, said, That such infants as God foresaw would have been faithful Christians if they had lived, those he, by his providence, Præfat. in Symbolum Theodori. procured to be baptized, and suffered others to miss. of it. So both agreed that, in both cases, salvation attends baptism. This appears at large in the works of Prosper [344], Fulgentius [407], Cassian [324], and others of each party; and in the latter works of St. Austin himself, wherein he labours to expose his adversaries opinion as absurd, since God, who, in Scripture, is said to judge every one according to what they have done, is brought in by these men, as judging infants by what they did not do, but would have done, if they had lived; and they answered, That this is more reasonable than to judge without any consideration at all. He objects, that, according to their hypothesis, it is to little purpose which is said in the Book of Wisdom*; of one that died young, He was taken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding, &c. if God will judge him according to what he would have done. To which they answer, That that is not canonical Scripture; and he does not go about to maintain that it is. I shall have occasion to produce some of their sayings hereafter † (where I give some account of the opinion of the antients concerning the future state of infants dying unbaptized) and, therefore, omit them here. In this dispute the Popes and clergy of Rome were generally zealous for the Predestinarian side; as Celestin [323], Sixtus [332], Leo [340], Hormisdas [414], The other side found most abettors in France, especially about Marseilles. &c. Chap. vi. 5, 11. + Part 2, ch. 6. CHAPTER XX. QUOTATIONS OUT OF ST. AUSTIN AND [In the Year after the Apostles 319.] THERE were no need of quoting any more out of St, Austin, either of the doctrine that he held, or of the testimony that he gives of the Churches practice in this time or before, were it not that this Vincentius, saying some new things about the case of infants that had never been said before, gave occasion to St. Austin also, who answered him, to insist on some new proofs and defences of the Catholic doctrine, Vincentius seems to have been so inconsiderable a person, that his name would not have been remembered to the next generation, if he had not ventured to write against St. Austin; which now, by the books which that father vouchsafed to write in answer to him, which are four books, entitled Of the Soul and its Origin, is likely to be spoken of as long as the world lasts. He was a young layman, remarkable for two things, malapertness in judging and determining of controversial points; and a certain bombast in his style, which St. Austin*, out of his wonted civility and condescension, allows to be cloquent; and would make him believe, he might, if he would use his parts well, do God much service. He was lately come off from the schism of the Donatists, which, about this time, mouldered away; but being of a restless head, could scarce keep clear of the heresy of the Pelagians, which had been (at the time when St. Austin wrote his first book against him) newly_condemned; for so are St. Austin's words, † Juxta Pela gianam hæresin, olim damnabilem, nuperrimeque dam * Lib. 1, de Anima et ejus Origine, c, 2, 3. natam: According to the Pelagian heresy, which always deserved condemnation, and is just now condemned.' I take notice of this last circumstance, to set the time of this dispute right; for inasmuch as the year 418 was (as Bishop Usher expresses it) the fatal year for the Pelagian heresy (for it was in that year that the canons of the forementioned great Council of Carthage were published on May the 1st [318]; and the imperial edicts on April 30, [319]; and Pope Zosimus's circular letter a little after) this book of St. Austin's must probably have been written the latter end of that year, or the beginning of the next. I shall by and by make some use of this observation about the year, in explaining a passage which will give some light to this observation, and receive some from it. Vincentius wrote two books, chiefly against that opinion (to which St. Austin inclined) that the soul is by propagation. He owned original sin, which was the most material point in which he differed from the Pelagians. The soul, he said, is a corporeal substance † ; and so is the spirit (which he took to be different from the soul); on which St. Austin observes, That, according to him, a man consists of three bodies; but he granted that God is of an incorporeal nature; on which St. Austin says, "I am I am glad that in that point, however, he keeps free from the dotages of Tertullian." It is to be noted that Tertullian said That God also is a body, or else he would be nothing at all. When he came to speak of that question, Whether the soul be propagated from the parent to the child, or be by immediate creation?he determined, that it is. immediately created; and withal expressed a great contempt of the dulness and ignorance of those that did at all doubt or demur on that question; and he reflected on St. Austin particularly and by name, as one that had confessed his inability to resolve it, because of that ob * Lib. 1, de Anima et ejus Origine, c. 9. jection, How it could consist with God's justice to put a soul that is not derived from Adam, but is created pure, into the body of an infant, where it immediately contracts guilt and defilement? We saw before* how much St. Austin was puzzled with this objection, and how St. Hierom, being desired by him, had refused to meddle with the solution of it; but. now here Vincentius undertakes easily to answer it; but St. Austin shews that, unless he could have brought a more skilful answer, he had better have demurred too; and "were better have confessed his ignorance than betrayed his folly." The answer he had given was this :— First, In respect to such infants as do by God's providence come to have baptism, that "they being by God's prescience predestinated to eternal life, it does them no hurt to continue a little while under the guilt of another's sin: that as the soul contracts a disease by sinful flesh, so sanctification [viz. that of baptism] is likewise conveyed to it by means of the flesh, so that as by it the soul lost its merit [or innocence], by it also it recovers its state; for shall we think that because it is the body that is washed in baptism, that [benefit] which is believed to be given by baptism, is not conveyed to the soul or spirit? Fitly, therefore, it does by the flesh recover its former disposition, which, by the flesh, it had seemed for a while to have lost, that it may begin to be regenerated by that by which it had been defiled; so § that though the soul, which could have no sin of its own, did deserve [or had the fate] to be made sinful, yet it did not continue in a state of of sin," &c. Against this answer St. Austin objects, That if we examine it strictly, it makes God first do an ill thing in bringing an innocent soul into a sinful condition; and * Chap. 15. + Apud Augustin. lib. 1, de Anima et ejus Origin. c. 8. |