Chapter 12 [VI.]—The Universal Consensus Respecting Original Sin.

And now, again, with a strange boldness in new controversy, certain persons are endeavouring to make us uncertain on a point which our forefathers used to bring forward as most certainly fixed, whenever they would solve such questions as seemed uncertain to some. When this controversy, indeed, first began, I am unable to say; but one thing I know, that even the holy Jerome, who is in our own day renowned for great industry and learning in ecclesiastical literature, for the solution of sundry questions treated in his writings, makes use of the same most certain assumption without exhibition of proofs. For instance, in his commentary on the prophet Jonah, when he comes to the passage where the infants were mentioned as chastened by the fast, he says:465    St. Jerome, on Jon. iii. “The greatest age comes first, and then all the rest is pervaded down to the least.466    Ver. 3. For there is no man without sin, whether the span of his age be but that of a single day, or he reckon many years to his life. For if the very stars are unclean in the sight of God,467    Job xxv. 4. how much more is a worm and corruption, such as are they who are held subject to the sin of the offending Adam?” If, indeed, we could readily interrogate this most learned man, how many authors who have treated of the divine Scriptures. in both languages,468    Or “who have treated of both languages of the divine Scriptures.” and have written on Christian controversies, would he mention to us, who have never held any other opinion since the Church of Christ was founded,—who neither received any other from their forefathers, nor handed down any other to their posterity? My own reading, indeed, has been far more limited, but yet I do not recollect ever having heard of any other doctrine on this point from Christians, who accept the two Testaments, whether established in the Catholic Church, or in any heretical or schismatic body whatever. I do not remember, I say, that I have at any time found any other doctrine in such writers as have contributed anything to literature of this kind, whether they have followed the canonical Scriptures, or have supposed that they have followed them, or had wished to be so supposed. From what quarter this question has suddenly come upon us I know not. A short time ago,469    Probably in the year 411, when a conference was held at Carthage with the Donatists. Augustin says that he then saw Pelagius; see his work, De Gestis Pelagii, c. 46. in a passing conversation with certain persons while we were at Carthage, my ears were suddenly offended with such a proposition as this: “That infants are not baptized for the purpose of receiving remission of sin, but that they may be sanctified in Christ.” Although I was much disturbed by so novel an opinion, still, as there was no opportunity afforded me for gainsaying it, and as its propounders were not persons whose influence gave me anxiety, I readily let the subject slip into neglect and oblivion. And lo! it is now maintained with burning zeal against the Church; lo! it is committed to our permanent notice by writing; nay, the matter is brought to such a pitch of distracting influence, that we are even consulted on it by our brethren; and we are actually obliged to oppose its progress both by disputation and by writing.

CAPUT VI.

12. Consensus omnium circa peccatum originale. Et nunc nescio cujus novae disputationis audacia quidam nobis facere conantur incertum, quod majores nostri ad dissolvenda quaedam quae nonnullis videbantur incerta, tanquam certissimum proferebant. Quando enim primitus hoc disputari coeperit, nescio. Illud tamen scio, quod etiam sanctus Hieronymus, qui hodieque in litteris ecclesiasticis tam excellentis doctrinae fama ac labore versatur, ad quasdam solvendas in suis libris quaestiones, etiam hoc certissimum adhibet sine ulla disceptatione documentum. Nam in eo quod in Jonam prophetam scripsit, cum ad eum venisset locum, ubi commemorantur etiam parvuli jejunio castigati: Major, inquit, aetas incipit, et usque ad minorem pervenit. Nullus enim absque peccato, nec si unius quidem diei fuerit vita ejus, et numerabiles annivitae illius (Job XIV, 5). Si enim stellae mundae non sunt in conspectu Dei, quanto magis vermis et putredo (Id. XXV, 5, 6), et ii qui peccato offendentis Adam tenentur obnoxii (Hieron. super cap. 3 Jonae)? Hunc doctissimum virum si facile interrogare possemus, quam multos utriusque linguae divinarum Scripturarum tractatores et christianarum disputationum scriptores commemoraret, qui non aliud, ex quo Christi Ecclesia est constituta, senserunt, non aliud a majoribus acceperunt, non aliud posteris tradiderunt? Ego quidem quamvis longe pauciora legerim, non memini me aliud audivisse a Christianis, qui utrumque accipiunt Testamentum, non solum in catholica Ecclesia, verum etiam in qualibet haeresi vel schismate constitutis; non memini me aliud legisse apud eos, quos de his rebus aliquid scribentes legere potui, 0193 qui Scripturas canonicas sequerentur, vel sequi se crederent, credive voluissent. Unde nobis hoc negotium repente emerserit nescio. Nam ante parvum tempus a quibusdam transitorie colloquentibus, cursim mihi aures perstrictae sunt, cum illic apud Carthaginem essemus, non ideo parvulos baptizari, ut remissionem accipiant peccatorum, sed ut sanctificentur in Christo. Qua novitate permotus, et quia opportunum non fuit ut contra aliquid dicerem, et non tales homines erant de quorum essem auctoritate sollicitus, facile hoc in transactis atque abolitis habui. Et ecce contra Ecclesiam jam studio flammante defenditur, ecce scribendo etiam memoriae commendatur, ecce res in hoc discriminis adducitur, ut hinc etiam a fratribus consulamur, ecce contra disputare atque scribere cogimur.