vision.  The Revelations of St. Birgitta (as they are called), much esteemed in Rome, also uphold this dogma.  Salmeron and Molina, and before them Ambrose Catharin and [174] others, grant them a certain natural bliss; and Cardinal Sfondrati, a man of learning and piety, who approves this, latterly went so far as to prefer in a sense their state, which is the state of happy innocence, to that of a sinner saved, as we may see in his Nodus Praedestinationis Solutus.  That, however, seems to go too far.  Certainly a soul truly enlightened would not wish to sin, even though it could by this means obtain all imaginable pleasures.  But the case of choosing between sin and true bliss is simply chimerical, and it is better to obtain bliss (even after repentance) than to be deprived of it for ever.

93.  Many prelates and theologians of France who are well pleased to differ from Molina, and to join with St. Augustine, seem to incline towards the opinion of this great doctor, who condemns to eternal flames children that die in the age of innocence before having received baptism.  This is what appears from the letter mentioned above, written by five distinguished prelates of France to Pope Innocent XII, against that posthumous book by Cardinal Sfondrati.  But therein they did not venture to condemn the doctrine of the purely privative punishment of children dying without baptism, seeing it approved by the venerable Thomas Aquinas, and by other great men.  I do not speak of those who are called on one side Jansenists and on the other disciples of St. Augustine, for they declare themselves entirely and firmly for the opinion of this Father.  But it must be confessed that this opinion has not sufficient foundation either in reason or in Scripture, and that it is outrageously harsh.  M. Nicole makes rather a poor apology for it in his book on the Unity of the Church, written to oppose M. Jurieu, although M. Bayle takes his side in chapter 178 of the Reply to the Questions of a Provincial, vol.  III.  M. Nicole makes use of this pretext, that there are also other dogmas in the Christian religion which appear harsh.  On the one hand, however, that does not lead to the conclusion that these instances of harshness may be multiplied without proof; and on the other we must take into account that the other dogmas mentioned by M. Nicole, namely original sin and eternity of punishment, are only harsh and unjust to outward appearance, while the damnation of children dying without actual sin and without regeneration would in truth be harsh, since it would be in effect the damning of innocents.  For that reason I believe that the party which advocates this opinion will never altogether have the upper hand in the Roman Church itself.  Evangelical[175] theologians are accustomed to speak with fair moderation on this question, and to surrender these souls to the judgement and the clemency of their Creator.  Nor do we know all the wonderful ways that God may choose to employ for the illumination of souls.