Christ, concerning which it is most manifestly declared, that it was shed for the remission of sins?" But Pelagius put another meaning on the word redemption, concerning which Augustine speaks in another place. Hilary expresses their opinion thus: "That an infant dying unbaptized, cannot justly perish, since it is born without sin." And Augustine describes it in these words, "Nor do little children need the grace of the Saviour, by which, through baptism, they may be delivered from perdition, because they have contracted no guilt from their connection with Adam." The Pelagians, however inconsistent it may appear, not only retained the baptism of infants, but also the very form which had been long in use, according to which it was said to be for the remission of sins. On which subject Augustine remarks, "Of what advantage is it that you make use of the same words in the baptism of infants as adults, when you take away the thing signified in this sacrament?" And the author of the Hypognosticon addresses them with severity respecting the same thing; "Who is not shocked at the mere naming of your practice, in which you make the faithful word of God in part true and in part a lie; that is, true as it relates to adults, for you admit that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins: but false as it relates to infants, who are not, according to you, baptized for the remission of sins, although you use in their baptism, this very form of words." To these things the Pelagians had nothing to reply, except that although infants were free from sin, they were the subjects of the same sacrament, which, when applied to adults, was for the remission of sins. But when urged to state why they were at all baptized, they offered two reasons; the one was, that by baptism they were adopted into the number of sons; the other, that by it they received the promise of the kingdom of heaven. This made it necessary for Pelagius to feign some intermediate place between heaven and hell, to which unbaptized infants might be sent after death. But he was cautious about what he said on this point. We learn from Augustine that he was wont to say, "Whither infants do not go I know, but whither they do go, I know not." This same father, therefore, in writing against Julian, adverts to this opinion in the following words: "You make two places of everlasting happiness; the one within, and the other without the kingdom of God." From what has been said, it is evident what were the opinions of the Pelagians respecting the future state of infants, and the reasons of their baptism. The opinions of the orthodox on these points were far different, for although they disputed among themselves what kind of punishment was due to infants, on account of original sin, whether of loss or of sense, yet there was an almost universal consent among them, that in consequence of original sin, we are children of wrath, and obnoxious to eternal punishment; and, moreover, that baptism was for the remission of sins; and that by baptism infants were regenerated, and thus made partakers of life and eternal felicity.

Augustine often brings up this subject, and may be considered as

speaking the sentiments of the whole church in his time. "I do not affirm," says he, " that infants dying without baptism will be in a worse condition than if they had never been born, for our Lord uses this expression respecting sinners of the most abandoned character: for from what he says about Sodom, and does not restrict to the wicked inhabitants of that city, that it will be more tolerable for them than some others in the day of judgment, the inference is clear that there will be a difference in the future punishment of men; who then can doubt but that unbaptized infants, who are chargeable with the guilt of original sin only, which has not been aggravated by any actual transgressions of their own, will fall under the lightest punishment of all? But what will be the nature or the degree of their punishment, although we cannot define, yet I should not dare say, that it would have been better for them never to have been born, than to exist in the state which will be allotted to them." Again, "It may be truly said, that unbaptized infants, leaving the body without baptism, will suffer the very mildest punishment; yet he who says that they will fall under no degree of condemnation, both deceives others and is deceived himself; for the apostle has said that the condemnation is of one sin; and that by one offence condemnation hath come upon all men." We say that little children should be baptized; and of this no one doubts, for even they who differ from us in other points, all concur in this; we maintain, however, that this is that they may be saved, and may inherit eternal life, which they cannot possess unless they are baptized in Christ; but they say, it is not for salvation, not for eternal life, but for the kingdom of God."

66

Jerome also, in book iii. against the Pelagians, says, "This one thing I say, and will then conclude: either you should have another creed, which after the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, should contain a clause, that ye shall baptize infants for the kingdom of heaven; or if you use the same baptism for infants and adults, you should confess that the former as well as the latter are baptized for the remission of sins."

Paullinus, in his book addressed to Zosimus, after the condemnation of Pelagius and Cœlestius, says, "They strive against the apostolical doctrine of original sin, which hath passed on all men, for our race will possess that inheritance received from Adam, even unto the end of the world, and which is only by the sacrament of baptism removed from infants; who cannot inherit eternal life nor obtain the kingdom of God by any other means." A multitude of testimonies might be adduced of the same import, but it is unnecessary. The reader will perceive from those above cited, what is exceedingly evident to every one in the least conversant with ecclesiastical history, that the fathers of this period seem universally to have fallen into the mistake of confounding baptism with regeneration. From an erroneous interpretation of John iii. 5, they concluded that there was no salvation without external baptism; and the next step was that the internal grace of regeneration uniformly

accompanied the external rite; and this notion had taken such full possession of their minds, that they commonly gave the name regeneration to baptism. We have not kept back the evidence of this fact, whatever may be its operation; for we now have to act the part of faithful historians, and to exhibit fairly to the view of our readers the opinions of the ancient church on an important point of doctrine, which may be considered as lying at the foundation of the Christian system.

The cardinal point of the Pelagian system was the denial of original sin; this was their prov codos, their radical error, from which all the rest naturally germinated. The controversy did, however, include many other distinct points of no small interest, concerning which our limits do not permit us to say anything at present. Probably, in some future number we shall resume the subject, and exhibit a view of other controversies which have arisen in the church respecting original sin. It is attended with many advantages to bring into view ancient heresies; for often what modern innovators consider a new discovery, and wish to pass off as a scheme suited to remove all difficulties, is found upon examination to be nothing else than some ancient heresy clothed in a new dress. That the doctrine of original sin is involved in many difficulties, which no mortal has the wisdom to explain, we are ready to admit : but the question with us is, is it taught in the Bible? And if any one choose to move a previous question, it will be,-can that book be divinely inspired which contains such a doctrine? And here, if we could get clear of the thing by rejecting the scriptures, something would be gained; but the evidence of original sin is deeply recorded in the acknowledged depravity of our race, and in the dispensations of God towards us. To account for the facts which experience teaches beyond all possibility of contradiction, we need the testimony which the Bible contains, which if we reject we may escape one set of difficulties, but shall assuredly plunge into others more formidable and unmanageable, although they may be more out of sight.

It is our opinion, therefore, after looking on all sides, and contemplating the bearing and consequences of all theories on this subject, that no one is on the whole so consistent with facts, with the scriptures, and with itself, as the old doctrine of the ancient church, which traces all the sins and evils in the world to the IMPUTATION of the first sin of Adam; and that no other theory of original sin is capable of standing the test of an impartial scrutiny.

ESSAY V

ORIGINAL SIN.

PUBLISHED IN 1830.

ALTHOUGH, as has been shown in the former Essay, the Pelagian doctrines respecting original sin were condemned by councils and by popes, the heresy was not soon extinguished; but was in whole or in part adopted by many learned and ingenious men. To many, the opinions of Augustine appeared harsh, and hardly reconcilable with moral agency and human accountableness. They, therefore, endeavoured to strike out a middle course between the rigid doctrines of Augustine and the unscriptural opinions of Pelagius. This led to the adoption of an intermediate system, which obtained the denomination of Semi-Pelagianism; and as these views seem to have been generally received about Marseilles, in the south of France, the abettors of this theory were very commonly called Massilienses. Augustine entered also into this controversy, and carried on a correspondence on the subject with Prosper and Hilary, two learned men of that region; the former of whom ardently opposed the Semi-Pelagians, while the latter was inclined to favour them. By degrees, however, the public attention was called off from this subject. The darkness and confusion produced by the incursion of the northern barbarians took away all opportunity and disposition to discuss those abstruse matters. Ages of ignorance succeeded, which have emphatically been called "the dark ages." Superstition advanced, indeed, with rapid strides, but doctrinal investigation was neglected; or degenerated into mere logomachies, or useless thorny disputations.

We shall therefore pass over this long dark period with this slight notice, and will proceed to take a survey of the period antecedent to the Reformation; and endeavour to ascertain the opinions of some of those acute and metaphysical men, denominated schoolmen. It has become customary for almost all classes of modern writers to treat the scholastic theology with sovereign contempt; and this often without any adequate knowledge of the system which they contemn. It is true, these ingenious men often exhausted their energies and lost their labour by a vain attempt to fathom an abyss: but it would surprise some modern metaphysicians and theologians to learn how exactly they themselves are running in the track, and pursuing the very footsteps of these despised schoolmen.

Our first object, therefore, will be to lay before the reader a brief abstract of the discussions of the angelical doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, on the subject of original sin. The subject is treated in the eighty-second question of his second book.

On this subject he starts four queries. 1. "Whether original sin is a habit? 2. Whether original sin is one, in man? 3. Whether it consists in concupiscence? 4. Whether it exists in an equal degree in all ?"

This author, in his vast work, entitled SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, invariably commences his discussion by briefly stating some arguments on each side of the question.

On the first question proposed above, he brings forward the following objections to the affirmative. 1. "Original sin consists in the privation of original righteousness, as is declared by Anselm; but a privation is not a habit, therefore original sin is not a habit." 2. "Actual sin is more deserving of blame than original sin, because it possesses more of a voluntary nature; but a mere habit of actual sin is not chargeable with guilt; for if it were, then a man would be guilty of sin all the time he was asleep. Original sin therefore is not a habit." 3. "Besides, in evil, the act always precedes the habit; for no evil habit is ever infused, but always acquired but no act precedes original sin; therefore original sin is not a habit.

"But, on the other hand, Augustine declares that infants are the subjects of concupiscence; but they are not so in regard to the act; therefore original sin in them must be a habit."

The conclusion which he draws from a view of both sides of the question, is the following: "Original sin is a habit, but not in the same way as knowledge is a habit; but it is a certain inordinate condition of nature, and a debility consequent on the privation of original righteousness," which proposition he proceeds to explain as follows: "The word habit is taken in a two-fold sense; in the first, it signifies a power by which one is inclined to act; in this sense, knowledge and virtue are called habits: but in the other sense, habit is a disposition or state of nature composed of many particulars, according to which nature is in a condition favourable or unfavourable for any given exercise. Now, according to the first sense of the word, original sin is not a habit, but according to the second it is; just as we speak of health as a good habit or state of the body; and sickness as the contrary. Original sin, may, therefore, be described to be a certain inordinate condition or disposition proceeding from the loss of harmony in the exercise of the moral powers, in which harmony original righteousness consisted just as sickness is a certain disordered state of the body and its functions, arising from the loss of that equal temperament in which health consists. On account of this analogy, original sin is often called a disease of the mind.' And as in bodily sickness, there is not a mere privation of that regular state and action in which health consists, but also an inordinate disposition, so also,