Chapter 39 [XXV.]—An Objection of Pelagians.

The answer, which we have already given,394    See above, c. 11. to those who say, “If a sinner has begotten a sinner, a righteous man ought also to have begotten a righteous man,” we now advance in reply to such as argue that one who is born of a baptized man ought himself to be regarded as already baptized. “For why,” they ask, “could he not have been baptized in the loins of his father, when, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Levi,395    The allusion is to Heb. vii. 9. was able to pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?” They who propose this argument ought to observe that Levi did not on this account subsequently not pay tithes, because he had paid tithes already in the loins of Abraham, but because he was ordained to the office of the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not to pay them; otherwise neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him, have been tithed—because they too, whilst in the loins of Abraham, had already paid tithes to Melchisedec.

CAPUT XXV.

39. Objectio Pelagianorum. Quod autem supra respondimus adversus eos qui dicunt, Si peccator genuit peccatorem, justus quoque justum gignere debuit (Supra, n. 11): hoc etiam his respondemus, qui dicunt, de homine baptizato natum jam velut baptizatum haberi debuisse. Cur enim non, inquiunt, in lumbis patris sui potuit baptizari, si secundum Epistolam quae ad Hebraeos scripta est, in lumbis Abrahae Levi potuit decimari (Hebr. VII, 9, 10)? Hoc qui dicunt, attendant non propterea Levi postea non fuisse decimatum, quia jam fuerat decimatus in lumbis Abrahae; sed quia sic ordinatus est honore sacerdotii, ut acciperet decimas, non praeberet: alioquin nec caeteri fratres ejus, qui ei praebebant, decimarentur, quia et ipsi in lumbis Abrahae a Melchisedech jam fuerant decimati.