§ 155. DOCIKINE OF OrJGINAL SEST AND HEKEDITARY GUILT. S35
ncss of origiiia] sin and guilt. This was a very importaul point from the beginning of the controversy, and one to wbict Angustine frequently reverted.
Here lie liad unquestionably a logical advantage ovcf tiie Pelagians, who retained the traditional usage of infant baptism, Dut divested it of its proper import, made it signify a mere ennobling of a nature already good, and, to be consistent, should have limited baptism to adults for the forgiveness of actual sins.
The Pelagians, however, were justly offended by the revolting inference of^he damnation of unbaptized infants, which is nowliere taught in the Holy Scriptures, and is repugnant to every unperverted religious instinct. Pelagius inclined to assign to unbaptized infants a middle state of half-blessed ness^ between the kingdo?n of heaven appointed to the baptized and the hell of the ungodly ; though on this point he is not positive.^ He evidently makes salvation depend, not so much upon the ('hristian redemption, as upon the natural moral character of individuals. Hence also baptism had no such importance in his view as in that of his antagonist.
Augustine, on the authority of Matt. xxv. 34, 46, and other Scriptures, justly denies a neutral middle state, and meets the difficulty by supposing different degrees of blessedness and damnation (which, in fact, must be admitted), corresponding to the different degrees of holiness and wickedness. But, con-
' Comp. De nuptiis et concup. i. c. 26 (torn. x. f. 291 sq.); De peccat. mer. et remiss, i. c. 26 (§ 39, torn. x. fol. 22) ; De gratia Christi, c. 32, 33 (x. 245 sq.), and other passages. The relation of the doctrine of original sin to the practice of infant baptism came very distinctly into view from the beginning of the controversy Some have even concluded from a passage of Augustine (De pecc. mer. iii. 6), thai the controversy began with infant baptism and not with original sin. Comp. Wiggers, i. p. 59.
- "Quo non eant scio, quo eant nescio," says he of unbaptized children. He ascribed to them, it is true, salus or vita ieterna, but not the regnura coelorum. Aug. Be pecc. mer. et remissione, i. 18 ; iii. 3. In the latter place Augustine says, that it is absurd to affirm a " vita aeterna extra regnum Dei." In his book. Dp baeresibus, cap. 88, Augustine says of the Pelagians that they assign to unbaptized children " setern am et beatam quandam vitam extra regnum Dei," and teach tba* children being born vithout or'ginal sin, are baptized for the purpose of being admitted " ad regnum Dei," and transferred " de bono in melius."
6S0 THIED PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
strained by the idea of original sin, and by the supposed neceft sity of baptism to salvation, he does not shrinlc from consigning unba|itizod children to damnation itself,' though he softens tc the utmost this frightful dogma, and reduces the damnation to the mmimiim of punishment or the privation of blessedness.' He might have avoided the difficulty, without prejudice to his premises, by his doctrine of the election of grace, or by assuming an extraordinary application of the merits of Christ in death or in Hades. But the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of outward baptism to regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God, forbade him a more liberal view respecting the endless destiny of that half of the human race which die in childhood.
We may recall, however, the noteworthy fact, that the third canon of the North- African council at Carthage in 418, which condemns the opinion that unbaptized children are saved, is in many manuscripts wanting, and is therefore of doubtful authenticity. The sternness of the Augustinian system here gave way before the greater power of Cliristian love. Even Augustine, De civitate Dei, speaking of the example of Melchisedec, ventures the conjecture, that God may have also among the heathen an elect people, true Israelites according to the spirit, whom He draws to Himself through the secret power of His spirit. Why, we may ask, is not this thought applicable above all to children, to whom we know the Saviour
' De pecc. orig. c. 81 (§ 36, torn. x. f. 269): "Uncle ergo recte in/ans ilia perdi- Hone punitur, nisi quia pertinet ad massam perditionis ? " De mipt. et coucup. c. 22 (x. 292): "Remanet originale peccatum, per quod [parvuli] sub diaboli potestate captivi sunt, nisi inde lavacro rogenerationis et Christi sanguine redimantur et tran- Bcant in regnum redemtoris sui." De peccat. merit, et remissionc, iii. cap. 4 (x. 74): " Manifcstum est, cos [parvulos] ad daninalionem, nisi hoc [incorporation with Christ through baptism] eis coUatum fuerit, pertiuere. Non autem damnari poaocat, bi peccatum utique non haberent."
* Contra Julianum, 1. v. c. 11 (§44, torn. x. f. 651): "Si enim quod de Sodomis ait [Matt. x. \6; xi. 24] et utique non solis iutelligi voluit, alius alio tolenibilius in die judicii punietur: quia dubitaverit parvulos non baptizatox, qui solum habent originale peccatum, nee ullis propriis aggravantur, in danmaiione omnium levissimn futuros?" Corap. De pecc. nieritis et remissione, 1 i. c. 16 (or §21, tom. x. 12) " I'u*,l^<t proiiidc recte dici, parvulos sine ba| tismo do corpore exeuntea in damna tiuoe ouiriiiia mitinsmia futuros."