ThePelagianControversy

byWilliamCunningham

TableofContents

IntroductionHistoricalStatement.Depravity—OriginalSin.Conversion—SovereignandEfficaciousGrace.PerseveranceoftheSaints.

Introduction

ThePelagiancontroversyrespectschieflytopicswhichareusuallyclassedbycontinentalwritersundertheheadofAnthropology,orthedoctrineofwhatmanis,andofhowheisinfluencedinthosematterswhichconcernhis salvation. They stand connected with the views which Scriptureunfoldstousoftheactualstateandconditionofhumannature,and,ofcourse,ofeachmanwhopossessesit,andofthekindandcausesofthosechanges, if such there be, which are necessary to prepare men for theenjoymentofheaven.Thediscussionofthesetopics,indeed,runsupintothe investigationof the divine sovereignty and fore-ordination; but stillthebasisandstarting-pointmaybesaidtobe inthequestions,What isman?hischaracterandcapacities?andwhatthenatureandthesourceofthosechangeswhichmustbeproduceduponhiminordertopreparehimfor the enjoyment of God's presence? The Pelagian controversy thusincludesall thosemost important anddifficult topicswhichareusuallydiscussedinworksonsystematictheology,undertheheads,Depeccato,De gratia, De vocatione, and De prcedestinatione. No subjects cansurpass in intrinsic importance those which treat directly of God and

Christ;butthosewehavenowtoadverttoarenotinferiorinimportance,beingjustasintimatelyconnectedwiththesalvationofmen'ssouls,andtherefore as truly necessary to be known, and known correctly, and asfundamental in their character. The history of the church seems toindicate that somehow the prosperity of vital personal religion ismorecloselyconnectedwithcorrectviewsofthepointsinvolvedinthePelagiancontroversy,thanevenwithcorrectviewsuponthesubjectoftheTrinityand of the person of Christ. There never, indeed, has been muchappearanceoftruepersonalreligionwherethedivinityoftheSonofGodhasbeendenied;buttherehasbeenoftenaprofessionofsounddoctrineupon this subject, long maintained, where there has been little realreligion. Whereas, not only has there never been much real religionwhere there was not a profession of substantially sound doctrine inregardtothepointsinvolvedinthePelagiancontroversy,butalso—andthisisthepointofcontrast—thedecayoftruereligionhasalwaysbeenaccompaniedbyalargemeasureoferrorindoctrineuponthesesubjects;the action and reaction of the two upon each other being speedy andmanifest. The apostate Church of Rome has preserved throughout anorthodoxprofessionon thesubjectof theTrinity;but thoughprecludedbyheravowedprinciplesfromprofessingPelagiandoctrines,whichhavebeenfrequentlyanathematizedbypopesandcouncils,shehasalways,inher practical teaching, exhibited a large amount of Pelagian error, andmay be said to have become formally liable to the charge of teachingPelagianism,inconsequenceofthegeneraladoptionbythechurchofthefamous Bull Unigenitus, against the Jansenists, published in the earlypartoflastcentury.

There is one consideration which makes the Pelagian controversysomewhatmoreintricateandperplexingthantheTrinitarian;andthatis,that there is room for a greater diversity of sentiment, and a greaterindefiniteness or latitude of statement, even among those who may,perhaps,beregardedasagreeinginthemainsubstanceofthedoctrine,intheonecasethanintheother.Fewpersonswhohavebeenclassedunderthe general designation of Pelagians— except Pelagius himself, and hisimmediatefollowers,Coelestius, andJulian, andmodernSociniansandRationalists— have denied altogether that man's nature suffered somemoraltaintorcorruptionfromthefall,orthatthegraciousagencyofGod

isinsomewaynecessaryinpreparingmenforheaven.Whenmengosofar as to deny these things, the grounds of controversy are abundantlyclearanddefinite:but therehavebeenmanywho,withoutgoingnearlyso far, and without therefore having opened up nearly so clear anddefinitea fieldfor controversial discussion, have yet been charged, andjustly,withgreatly underrating the effects of the fall uponman'smoralnature;andwithsuperseding, tosomeextentat least, theagencyof theSpirit in his conversion and sanctification. Pelagianism, in its originalhistorical sense, is thus a pretty definite heresy, striking at the root ofalmostallthatismostpeculiaranddistinctiveinthesystemofrevealedtruth; but what has been called semi-Pelagianism — which may beregarded as describing, in general, views that make some approach toPelagianism,butdonot goquite so far— is of amuchmore vague andindefinite character. Pelagianism, and other words of a similardescription, are often used in theological literaturewith a considerablemeasure of vagueness, —not to describe the precise sentiments of himfromwhom the name is derived, but rather as a convenient, though ofcoursesomewhatloose,modeofindicatingageneralclassofopinions,ofwhich theremay be no one very definite standard, andwhichmay nothavebeenfullydevelopedbytheoriginalbroacherofthedoctrines,whohas given name to the system, but only by those who have afterwardsfollowed in the same general track. There has been, perhaps, moreindefinitenessintheuseofthewordPelagianismthaninthatofalmostanyotherwordofasimilarkind;forthis,amongotherreasons,thattherehas never been any distinct and separate community of professingChristianstowhichthisdesignationhasbeengenerallyattachedastheirordinarydistinctiveappellation.

The Socinians, indeed, have fully adopted the views of the originalPelagiansinregardtothecharacterandcapacitiesofman'smoralnature,and the agency of divine grace; but these are not the features ofSocinianismwhichhaveattractedthelargestmeasureofpublicattention.Arminians have been commonly charged with holding Pelagian errors;andnodoubtallArminiansholdsomeprincipleswhichweremaintainedbyPelagiusandhisfollowers,andopposedbyAugustineandthechurchingeneralinhisday;butthentherehavebeensomeofthebetterclassofArminians,—especiallyArminiusandtheWesleyanMethodists,—who,

however inconsistently, fully adopt Augustine's views upon what areusuallyregardedasthemaindistinctivefeaturesofthePelagiansystem,—viz.,theentiredepravityofhumannature,andtheabsolutenecessityofthespecialgraciousagencyofGodinthewholeprocessoftheconversionandsanctificationofsinners,—andare thusmuchmoreorthodoxuponthese points than even the semi-Pelagians were. In ordinary usage,Pelagianismiscommonlyemployedasageneraldesignationofdefectiveanderroneousviewsinregardtotheextentandconsequencesofhumandepravity,andofthenecessityofspecialdivineagencyinconversionandsanctification; and it is obvious that there is room for considerablelatitude in the extent to which the deviation from sound scripturaldoctrineuponthispointmaybecarried.

Therearestrongandpowerfultendenciesofvariouskindsthatleadmentounderratetheinjuriouseffectsofthefallupontheirmoralnature,andtheconsequentnecessityofdivinegracefortheirrenovation;andonthisaccount,Pelagianviews,moreorlessfullydeveloped,haveprevailedveryextensively in almost every age of the church. Generally, they haveassumed somewhat of a philosophic dress, and have prevailed mostamong thosewho have thought themselves entitled to the character ofrationalChristians,andprofessed tobeveryzealous for the interestsofmoralityandvirtue.Sometimes,however,asweseeintheMorisonianismof our own day, they have assumed a more apparently scriptural andsanctimoniousgarb,andhavebeenaccompaniedwithgreatprofessionsofaneagerdesire fortheconversionofsinners,andananxiouswishtoremoveeveryobstructiontomen's coming toChrist, and layingholdoftheofferedblessingsofthegospel.Inthislatterclassofcases,therehasusually been mixed up with the Pelagian error a larger amount ofscriptural truth than has been maintained by the more rational andphilosophical Pelagians, —so much of scriptural truth, indeed, as thatGodmayhave, to someextent,blessed the laboursof thesepersons fortheconversionofsouls,—notofcoursebecauseoftheerrortheyhold,butinspiteofit,andbecauseofthetruththeyholdalongwithit.But,insofarasthisparticularpoint isconcerned,they, justasmuchastheotherclass,obscure thedivine sovereignty in the salvationof sinners, anddowhattheycantorobGodoftheglorywhichHehasdeclaredthatHewillnotgivetoanother.

I.HistoricalStatement

Informerlydirectingattentiontothetestimonyof theprimitivechurch,—i.e., the church of the three first centuries,—upon the subject of thedoctrines of grace,we had occasion to show that itwas of a somewhatdubiousanduncertainkind;thatthesetopicshadnotduringthatperiodbeen, at least in all their length and breadth, subjects of controversialdiscussion;andthatinconsequence,asisusuallythecase,therehadbeenconsiderable vagueness and inaccuracy in the language sometimesemployed regarding them. The discussions in which the early fatherswereengagedhadatendencytoleadthemrathertomagnifythepowerofman'sfree-will,sincefatalism,orsomething like it,deeplypervadedtheOrientalandGnosticsystems;anditischieflyonwhatsomeofthemhavesaid inmagnifyingman's freewill, in opposition to fatalism, that thosewho have maintained that Pelagian views prevailed in the primitivechurchhavetakentheirstand.Statements,however,uponthispointdonotaffordthebestormostcertaintestofmen'sviewsuponthesubjectofthedoctrinesofgraceingeneral.Augustinecertainlydidnotdenyman'sfree-willaltogether,andineverysenseoftheword;andthemostzealousdefenders of the doctrines of grace and of Calvinistic principles haveadmitted that there is a free-will, or free-agency, in some sense,whichman has, and which is necessary to his being responsible for histransgressionsofGod's law. It is laiddown inourownConfession, that'God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it isneither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, togoodorevilanditwouldnotbeeasytoprove,inregardtothegeneralityof the fathers of the first three centuries, that they believed, or reallyintended todeclare,more in regard to the free-will ofman, evenwhenthey were contending against fatalism, than may be fairly regarded asinvolved in this position, especially as they have given us no reason tobelievethattheyeverdeliberatelyconsidered thedistinctionswhichareof fundamental importance in regard to this whole question, —viz.,betweenman's liberty ofwill before and after the fall, and betweenhisfree-agency in regard to things spiritual, and things merely civil andmoral.ItisverycertainthattheywerenotingeneralPelagians,sincetheyalmostallheldinsomesensethedoctrineoforiginalsin,—i.e.,believed-

thatman'smoralnaturewastosomeextentcorruptedinconsequenceofthe fall, and that all that was truly good inmanwas to be ascribed toGod's special agency, and not to the exercise of his own powers andcapacities. At the same time, it is plain that they had no very distinctconceptionofwhat these truths involved, especially in their connectionwitheachotherandtheotherdepartmentsofChristiandoctrine,anddidnotalwaysspeakregardingtheminaverydefiniteorconsistentway.

There does not appear to have been any very material change in thegeneralstrainoftheteachingofthechurchuponthissubjectinthefourthcentury, from what it had been during the three preceding centuries.Chrysostom'sworkscontainmanystatementstowhichthePelagians,oratleastthesemi-Pelagians,appealed,andnotwithoutreason,insupportofthesedoctrines;whileAugustine, indefendingthedoctrinesofgrace,appealedsometimes toAmbrose,whohadbeen the chief instrument inthe hand of God of leading him to the knowledge of the truth, thoughthere is good reason to doubt whether Ambrose's teaching upon thesesubjectswasperfectlyuniformandconsistent.Itwasintheearlypartofthe fifth century that the doctrines of grace were, for the first time,subjected to a full investigation, error being then more openly andexplicitly taught, and truth being more satisfactorily defended andillustrated,developed,andsystematizedthaneverbefore.ItisthiswhichstampssospecialanimportanceuponthePelagiancontroversy.ItisthiswhichshedssopeculiaragloryaroundthenameofAugustine,—aglorywhichattaches in the samedegree tonomanwhomChrist gave toHischurch,fromtheageoftheapostlestilltheReformationofthesixteenthcentury.

We see in Augustine what has not unfrequently been noticed in menwhomGodhasmadesignalblessingstoHischurch,thatevenbeforehisconversion hewas subjected to a course of discipline and training thatwasnotwithout itsuse, inpreparinghimfor theworktowhichhewasafterwards to be called: I refer especially tohishaving been for a goodmanyyearsinvolvedintheheresyofManichaeism,—afactwhichIhaveno doubtwas overruled byGod for preserving him from the danger towhichmenwhoarecalledupontoengage inarduouscontroversyupondifficultandperplexedsubjectsaresovery liable,—that,viz.,of leaning

toanextremeoppositetothatagainstwhichtheymayfeel ittobetheirdutyat the timetocontend.Manichaeismmaybe regardedas, in somerespects, an opposite extreme to Pelagianism, as the former implied asortoffatalism,andthelatterexaltedunwarrantablythenaturalpowersofman.Ithas,indeed,beenallegedbyPelagians,bothinancientandinmodern times, that Augustinianism, or Calvinism, —for they are insubstancethesame,—istaintedbysome infusionofManichaeanerror;andithasbeenasserted, thatthis is tobetracedtoAugustineretainingsomeleavenofhisoldManichaeanprinciples:butthegeneralexperienceofmankindshowsthatthistheoryismostimprobable,andprovesthatitis much more likely that a man who had, deliberately and from fullconviction, renounced a system of error, pervaded throughout by oneuniform and peculiar character, should, in place of retaining andcherishinganyof itsdistinctiveprinciples,beratherapt to run intotheopposite extreme. Augustine, assuredly, did not run into the oppositeextremetoManichaeism—elsehewouldnothavemadesuchstrenuousoppositiontoPelagianism;butneither, inopposingPelagianism,washetempted to go to the opposite extreme of Manichaeism, as he mightprobably,—accordingtothetendencieswhichcontroversialiststoooftenmanifest, —have been led to do, had he not previously sounded thedepths and subtleties of Manichaeism, and been led decidedly anddeliberately to reject it. There would probably have been some betterground for the charge of Manichaeism, which has often, withoutfoundation,beenadducedagainstAugustine,hadhenotbothembracedand renounced this heresy before he was called upon to engage in thePelagian controversy; but as matters stand, it can be fully establishedthat,inopposingthePelagianheresy,hehasavoidedalltendencytorunintotheManichaeanextreme,andbeenenabledtokeep,withwonderfulaccuracy, in regard to all the essential features of the controversy, thegoldenmeanofscripturaltruth.

The founders of Pelagianism—menwho have had few followers in theextent to which they carried their views, except the Socinians andnationalistsofmoderntimes—werePelagius,Coelestius,andJulian.Thetwoformerweremonks,but,aswasusuallythecasewithmonksat thisperiod, they were laymen and not clergymen. Julian was Bishop ofEclanum,asmallvillageinItaly,nearCapua;foreveninthefifthcentury

many villages still had bishops. Pelagius was a native of Britain; andCoelestius, too, is supposed to have been a countryman of our own,thoughtheevidenceinregardtohimisnotveryconclusive.Jerome,whowas always remarkable for the virulence with which he assailed hisopponents,neverbeingabletoseeanygoodqualityinthem,speakswiththeutmostcontemptofPelagiusandCoelestius;butAugustine,whowas,afterhisconversion,ashighlyexaltedabovethegeneralityofthefathersofhisageinthepersonalexcellenceofhischaracter,ashewasinabilityand knowledge of divine truth, speaks very respectfully both of theirtalentandofthegeneralcharacterwhichtheyhadsustained.Theyseemto.

have broached their errors at Rome about the year 411, and to haveafterwardsvisitedAfricaandtheEast.TheymetwithnocountenanceinAfrica, where Augustine's influence was very powerful, and theirdoctrineswere condemned in severalAfricancouncils,whichwereheldmost of them at Carthage. Pelagiusmet withmore favour in the East,chiefly in consequence of the prevalence ofOrigen's views, whichwereakin in some respects tohis own; and at a council held to examinehisdoctrines at Diospolis, or Lydda, in Palestine, he was acquitted of thecharge of heresy, though there is reason to believe that this resultwasbroughtaboutchieflybyhisconcealingandexplainingawayhisopinions,andbyhis renouncingandanathematizing some statementswhich hadbeenmadebyCoelestius, and inwhich there is good ground to believethatPelagiushimselfreallyconcurred,thoughtherewasnotatthattimeany evidence to bring them home to him. Innocent, Bishop of Rome,condemned the new doctrines; but Coelestius afterwards, by skill andcunning in explaining and glossing over his statements, managed toimposeupontheignoranceandsimplicityofhissuccessorZosimus,whopubliclypronouncedhimorthodox,—ajudgment,however,whichhewasafterwardsinducedtoretractbytheexpostulationsofAugustineandtheAfrican bishops. These different transactions have occasioned muchdifficultytothedefendersofPapalinfallibility,whousuallyallegeincasesofthissort,—as,forexample,inthatofPopeLiberius,whosubscribedanAriancreed,andPopeHonorius,whoadvocatedMonothelitism,andwasanathematized in consequence as a heretic by the sixth oecumenicalcouncil,—thattheyneverreallybelievedtheheresieswhichtheytaught,

butonlyprofessedthem,eitherfromsomemisapprehension,orthroughtheforceoftemptation,inordertoavoidpersecution,which,itseems,arenotinconsistentwiththeirbeingfullyqualifiedtobeinfallibleguidesandrulersof theChurch.ThePelagiancontroversywasconductedchiefly inAfrica and the West, and did not attract much attention in the East,where the bishops generally were engaged in discussing the errorsbroached by Apollinaris, Nestorius, and Eutyches. The third generalcouncil,heldatEphesusin431,whichcondemnedNestorius,condemnedalsoSocrates,Sozomen,andTheodoret,thoughwritingthehistoryoftheperiod,donotevenmentionit.

Pelagius, Coelestius, and Julian; and thus the church in general at thistime may be said to have condemned Pelagianism, and to havesanctionedtheviewsofAugustine,thoughitisdeservingofremark,that,in theproceedings of theCouncil ofEphesus, there ismerely a generalcondemnationofthedoctrinestaughtbyPelagius,Coelestius,andJulian,withoutanyformaldeclarationoftheorthodoxdoctrineuponthesubjectin opposition to their errors, or even a statement of what the specificerrorswerewhichtheyhadtaught.Augustinelabouredforabouttwentyyears, with all the powers of his mind, and with unwearied zeal andassiduity, in opposition to the errors of Pelagius; writing many booksuponthesubject,mostofwhichhavecomedowntous,andexertinghisinfluence in every otherway toprevent the spread of heresy. The Lordwaspleasedtocallhimtohisrestintheyear430,whilehewasengagedin writing a book against Julian, which has come down to us in animperfectstate,asheleftit,andwithoutaffordinghimthesatisfactionofwitnessing the triumphof sounddoctrine, and the condemnation of itsopponentsintheGeneralCouncilofEphesus.

Pelagius, and his immediate followers, Coelestius and Julian, taughtopenlyandexplicitly thatman'smoralcharacterhadreceivedno injuryfromthefall,andthatmenwerebornnowwithasmuchabilitytodothewillofGod,andtodischargealltheobligationsincumbentuponthem,asAdam;and,inconsequence,theydeniedthenecessityofdivinegrace,orofanyspecialdivineagencyorinfluenceuponmen,unlessitmightbeforthepurposeofenablingthemtodomoreeasilythatwhich,however,theywere able to do, though less easily, without it, and which, in their

estimation,was nothing less than attaining to perfection in holiness inthislife.Thesedoctrinesaresopalpablyinconsistent,notonlywithmanyparticular statements, but with the whole scope and substance ofScripture, that theydidnotgainmuchsupport in thechurch;andafterthe-decisionoftheCouncilofEphesus,theyseemtohavealmostwhollydisappeared.

Pelagius and his immediate followers do not seem to have called inquestion the doctrine of the Trinity, or any of the scriptural doctrinesmore immediately connected with it; and yet it is very manifest thatmodern Socinians and Rationalists are the only consistent Pelagians.WhenmenrejectwhatPelagiusrejected,theyareboundinconsistencytorejecteverything that ispeculiaranddistinctive in theChristian systemasaremedialscheme.UponPelagianprinciples,thereisnooccasionfor,andreallynomeaningin,aSaviour,anatonement,aHolySpirit.Noevilhasbefallenourrace,andthereisnooccasionforaremedy,especiallyforsuch a remedy as the Bible has been generally regarded as unfolding.Augustine, through God's blessing, put down this unscriptural,inconsistent,andcowardlyschemeofheresy;anditwasnotreviveduntilafter the Reformation, when it appeared in i the bolder and moreconsistent form of Socinianism. There are, however, as we have said,powerfultendenciesinhumannature,leadingmentoover-estimatetheirownmoralpowersandcapacities,andtothinklightlyofthenecessityandimportanceofdivinegrace,—ofGod'sspecialagency;andwhile,ontheonehand,Pelagius'viewsmetwithlittlecountenance,Augustine's,ontheother,metwithagooddealofopposition.An intermediate schemewasdevised, which has passed under the name of semi-Pelagianism, andwhich,whetherbearingthatnameornot,hasalmostalwaysprevailedtoaconsiderableextentintheprofessedlyChristianchurch,especiallywhentruepietywasinafeebleordecliningcondition;andhascomprehendedmenofverydifferentcharacters,andbeenheldinconjunctionwithotherdoctrines, approaching more or less nearly to the scriptural standard.Semi, Pelagianism, from its very nature, bears a character of greatindefiniteness. It admits original sin in some sense; i.e., it admits thatman'smoralnatureismoreorlesscorruptedinconsequenceofthefall,andthatspecialdivineassistancewasmoreorlessnecessary,inordertothe attainment of those things which accompany salvation. These

intermediate and indefinite views, resembling verymuch the doctrineswhich have been held generally by Arminians in modern times, werebroached during Augustine's lifetime, and thus afforded him anopportunityofdirectingagainst them the samegreatdefinite scripturaldoctrineswhichhehadwieldedwithsomuchabilityandsuccessagainstPelagianism. The contestwas carried on after his death, on the side oftruth,byProsperandFulgentius;butthoughsemi-Pelagianismwasneverformallyapprovedofbythechurch,andwasveryexplicitlyandformallycondemned by a Provincial Council of France, the second Council ofOrange, Concilium Arausicanum, in 529, it prevailed practically to aconsiderableextenttilltheperiodoftheReformation.

Augustine has had the peculiar honour assigned to him, by the greatHeadof thechurch,ofhavingbeen the first todevelop, ina systematicorder,andintheirrightconnectionwitheachother, thegreatdoctrinestaughtinthewordofGodconcerningman'slostandruinedconditionbynature;thegraciousagencyofGodintheconversionandsanctificationofsinners; and the true cause or source of all the effects thus produced,wherever they are produced, in His own sovereign good pleasure andeternal purpose,— havingmercy onwhomHewould havemercy, andhaving compassion on whomHe would have compassion; and he wasthusenabledtorendermostimportantservicestothecauseoftruthandrighteousnessinallsucceedinggenerations.Thereisindeedmuchreasontobelievethatno inconsiderableportionof thepiety thatexisted in thechurchfromthetimewhenheflourishedtilltheReformation,—aperiodof above one thousand years,—was instrumentally connected,more orless directly, with his influence and writings. We may apply the samestatement to almost everything like piety that has ever been found inconnectionwith theChurchofRome, includingwhat is certainly to theeyeofaChristianbyfarthebrightestspotinthehistoryofthatapostatecommunion,—viz.,thePort-Royalists,andtheotherJansenistsofFranceintheseventeenthcentury.

Augustine, indeed, eminently ashewas furnishedby the greatHeadoftheChurchbothwithgiftsandgracesfordefendingandpromotingdivinetruth, isnotbyanymeansan infallible judge, towhomwecansecurelytrust.Godhasnevergiventoanyuninspiredmanorbodyofmen,torise

thoroughly and in all respects above the reach of the circumstances inwhichtheyhavebeenplaced,andtheinfluencestowhichtheyhavebeensubjected;andAugustinewascertainlyinvolvedtoaconsiderableextentin someof the corrupt and erroneous views and practiceswhich in histimewerealreadyprevailingwidely inthechurch.Thereare, itmustbeadmitted,someofthecorruptionsofPopery,thegermsofwhichatleast,thoughnotfullydeveloped,aretobefoundinhiswritings.Butthegreatdefectwithwhichheischargeableis,thatheseemstohavehadnoveryclearoraccurateviewsof thegreatdoctrineof justificationby faith.Hedidnotaccuratelyunderstandthemeaningofjustificationasaforensicorjudicialterm,asdistinguishedfromsanctification;andheseemstohaveto some extent confounded them together, as theChurch ofRome stilldoes.Itcouldnotbe, indeed, thatamanofAugustine'sundoubtedandeminentpiety, andwith sodeep a sense ashehadof humandepravityandofGod'ssovereignty indeterminingman'scharacterandcondition,could have been resting upon any works or merits of his own forsalvation, and therefore he must practically and in heart have beenresting upon Christ alone; and this general statement must have beentrueofmanyothersbesideshim in theearlyandmiddleages,whohadobscureor erroneous viewsupon this subject.But he had certainly notattainedtoanysuchknowledgeofGod'swordinregardtothismatter,aswouldhaveenabledhimtogiveaveryaccurateorconsistentexpositionofthereasonorgroundofhishope.I formerlyhadoccasiontoexplain,that at a very early period in the history of the church, the scripturaldoctrineofjustificationbecameobscuredandlostsightof,andwasneveragainrevivedinallitsfulnessandpurityuntiltheLordraisedupLutheras His instrument in effecting that important result. The early fatherssoonbegantotalkinanunscripturalandmysticalwayabouttheobjectsandeffectsofthesacraments;andatlengththeycametotalkofbaptismas if it not only signified and represented, but actually conferred, andconferred invariably, both the forgiveness of sinsand the renovation ofmen'smoralnatures.AugustineknewtoomuchofthewordofGod,andoftheschemeofdivinetruth,togothoroughlyintosuchviewsasthese;but he certainly had suchnotions of the nature and effects of baptism,andofitsconnectionwiththeforgivenessofsins,astoleadhimtosomeextent tooverlookandthrow intothebackground, ifnot topervert, thescripturaldoctrineofjustificationbyfaithalone.Thesubjectofbaptism

enteredlargelyintohiscontroversywiththePelagians,—headducingthebaptismofinfantsfortheremissionofsinsasaproofoforiginalsin,andtheyregardingit,likethemodernSocinians,merelyastheappointedriteor ceremony of outward admission into the communion of the visiblechurch;andthoughhewasrightinthemainintheuseandapplicationhemadeofbaptisminoppositiontothePelagiandenialoforiginalsin,yetheshowedverystrikinglyhowmuchhewaspervertedbyerroneousandexaggerated views of the nature, objects, and importance of externalordinances,bybroadlyandunequivocally layingdownthedoctrinethatall infants dying unbaptized are consigned to everlasting misery, —adoctrine which is still generally taught in the Church of Rome. ThePelagiancontroversy,asconductedinAugustine'stime,embracedagreatvariety of topics, —taking in, indeed, more or less fully nearly all theleadingdoctrinesofChristianity, except theTrinityand theatonement;and these were not comprehended, just because the original Pelagianshadnot theboldness and consistencyofmodernSocinians in followingout or developing their own principles. Forbes, in his InstructionesHistoriae-Theologicae, has enumerated twenty-six topics which werecontroverted between Augustine and his opponents; but they are allreducible, as to their main features, to a few general heads, —such asOriginal Sin, and Free-will; Grace, or Divine Agency in the conversionand sanctification of sinners; Predestination, and the Perseverance ofSaints, —and under these heads we propose very briefly to advert tothem.

Letmeagainremark,beforeproceedingtoadverttothesetopics,thatthepermanentvalueofthelaboursandwritingsofAugustineinthePelagiancontroversy,liesnotmainlyorchieflyinhishavingexposed,andthroughGod'sblessingputdown,Pelagianisminthegrossforminwhichitwasatfirst propounded, and in which it is now held by Socinians andRationalists, but in his having brought out the clear and definitedoctrines ofGod'sword, so as at one and the same time to refute andexcludenot onlyPelagianism,but alsowhat has been designated semi-Pelagianism; and thus to furnish an antidote to all the numerousattemptswhichhavesincebeenmadetoexaltundulythepowerofmanin spiritual things, without wholly superseding the necessity of divinegrace, and in this way to share the glory of the salvation of sinners

between the saved and the Saviour. This consideration obviouslysuggests,thatinthebriefandimperfectnoticewhichalonewecangiveofthis important controversy, we must confine ourselves chiefly to thestatement of those great scriptural truths which Augustine so fullyunfolded and so ably defended, and which strike at the root of all theerrorswhichhavebeenhelduponthesesubjects,either inancientor inmoderntimes,andwhetherinagrosserorinamoremitigatedform.

II.Depravity—OriginalSin

That branch of Christian doctrine, which is now frequently calledAnthropology,proposestoanswerthequestion,Whatismaninhismoraland spiritual character and capacities; in his relations to God and toeternity?So far as thequestion respectsmerely the actual features andconstituentelementsofman'smoralnature,thereisnoincompetencyorimpropriety inmen looking into their own hearts, and surveying theirown lives, in order to obtain materials for answering it; but, as Godknows what is in men better than they do themselves, it is also quitereasonablethattheyshouldreceivewithimplicitsubmissionwhateverHemayhavebeenpleased to reveal to them inHisword regarding it.Thequestion then is,What does God in His wordmake known to us withrespect to men's actual moral character, and spiritual relations andcapacities? This, like every other question in Christian theology, takingthewordinitswidestsense,shouldbeansweredbyanexactinvestigationofthetruemeaningofthevariousstatementsofGod'swordwhichbearuponit.

It is surelyabundantlyevident ingeneral, that the representationgivenus in Scripture of the actualmoral character and spiritual capacities ofmen,astheycomeintotheworld,andgrowupinit,—oftheirrelationtoGod, and of the tendency of all this, in its bearing upon their eternaldestiny,—isnotsuchasisfittedtoleadustoentertainanyveryexaltedconceptions of our own worth and our own powers. The word of Godsurely represents men— all men— as not only actual transgressors ofGod's laws, and therefore justly liable to all the consequences oftransgression,whateverthesemaybe,butashavingalsoadecidedbias

orpronenesstotransgressGod's lawasanactual featureof theirmoralnature, from which they cannot by their own strength emancipatethemselves, and which renders necessary some special interposition ofGod, if they are ever to be delivered from it. Those who are, fromwhatevercause,aversetoreceivethisviewoftheactualmoralcharacterand condition of man, have been accustomed, besides attempting toexplain away the statements of Scripture, inwhich it seems to be veryplainly taught, to have recourse to » the considerations universallyconceded,thatmandidnotpossess thismoral characterwhenhecameforth at first from the hand of his Creator— that this was not thecharacterofourfirstparentswhentheywerecreated;andthentoassertthat there isno evidence thatman's character has been changed— thatourmoralcharacterandcapacitiesaredifferentfromwhatthoseofAdamwere. Their opponents, though wishing to rest mainly, in the firstinstance, —as the proper ground of their cause, —upon the directScriptureproofofuniversalnativemoralcorruption,havenoobjectiontofollow them in that direction; being confident that the scripturalrepresentationof the effects ofAdam's first sinuponhimself anduponhis posterity, —the scriptural evidence that in connection with Adam'sfirst sin, and in some way as a consequence of it, an importantmoraldeterioration has been introduced into the human race, —onlycorroborates and illustrates the views theyhavebeen led to takeof theimport of those scriptural statements which speak directly andimmediately of the actual character of all men as they come into theworld,andarefoundthere.ThatAdamsinnedagainstGod—thattherebyhenotonly incurredtheguiltof transgression,butbecamedeterioratedin his ownmoral character, and that, in consequence, all his posterityhave also become to some extent deteriorated in theirmoral characterandcapacities,sothattheydonotnow,infact,bringwiththemintotheworldamoralcharacter,acapacityofobeyingGod's law,equal towhatAdam originally possessed, or to what, so far as we know, they wouldhavehadhadhenotfallen—hasbeen,asageneralposition,admittedbyalmost allwho have professed to believe in the authority of the sacredScriptures,excepttheoriginalPelagians and themodernSocinians.Weneednotdwelluponthis,butproceedtoadverttowhatisthewholetruthuponthissubject,assetforthinScriptureandmaintainedbyAugustine.

Inconsideringwhatisman'sactualmoralcharacterandcapacity,weareinvestigatingamatterof fact;weareseeking,directlyandprimarily,ananswertothequestion,Whatman,intheserespects,is?Andwearenotcalledupon,inthefirstinstance,totakeintoaccountanyquestionsthatmayberaisedastotheoriginorsource, thecauseorrationale,ofwhatmaybe found toattach tomen,or tobe trulypredicableof themall intheir present actual condition. We might be able to ascertain, withaccuracyandprecision,whatistheactualmoralconditionandcapacityofmen, even thoughwewere unable to give any very definite account orexplanationofhowthisstateofthingshadbeenbroughtabout;anditisdesirable that, in seeking to understand this whole subject, and toestimate the amount and validity of the evidence bearing upon it, weshoulddistinguishbetweenthesetwoquestions.Thedifficultiesattachingtoaninvestigationoftheoriginandthereasonoftheactualungodlinessanddepravityofhumannature,havebeenperhapstoomuchallowedtoaffecttheproofandtheimpressionofitsactualexistenceasafeatureofmen'smoralcondition.

There isdistinctandabundantscripturalevidence,bearingdirectlyandimmediatelyuponthequestionofwhatmanis,andiscapableofdoingina moral point of view, independently of any information given us inScriptureconcerning theoriginorcauseof the sad realitiesof thecase.Weremenreallyconvinced,uponscripturalgrounds,thattheydoall,inpointoffact,bringwiththemtotheworldheartswhich,whenestimatedinthelightofGod'slawandofourobligations,areindeeddeceitfulaboveallthingsanddesperatelywicked—thatinus,i.e.,inourfleshornaturalcharacter, there dwelleth no good thing— that until men become thesubjects of renewing and sanctifying grace, the imaginations of thethoughtsof theirheartsareonlyeviland thatcontinually,—theywouldfeel that they are not called upon in right reason to attach, in the firstinstance, somuchweight, as is oftendone, to thedetermination of thequestions that may be started as to the manner and circumstances inwhichthisconditionofthingsmayhavebeenbroughtabout,andthewayinwhich it is to be explained and vindicated. Itwould then stand verymuch upon the same footing as many other things, the existence andreality ofwhich are establishedby competent and satisfactory evidenceappropriatetothecase,butthecausesorreasonsofwhichareinvolvedin

darknessanddifficulty;whereasitistoomuchthepractice,indiscussingthissubject, toburden the considerationof the greatprimary question,Whatisthetruecharacterofman'smoralnature,asamatteroffact,oran actual feature of what man is? with all the additional difficultiesattachingtothequestionsofhowhecametobesoungodlyanddepravedas he appears to be, and of how the fact that he comes into theworldpossessedofsuchamoralcharacter,canbevindicatedfromthechargeofmakingGod theauthorof sin,anddestroyingman's responsibility.Thequestions as to the original moral character of our first parents, —theeffectsoftheirfirstsinupontheirownmoralcharacter,—theidentityofthemoral character which all men now have, with that which becametheirs after theyhad sinned,—and the connection between theirmoralcharacter,asfallen,andthatoftheirposterity;—allthesequestionsstandtothequestion,ofwhatisnowtheactualmoralcharacterofmen,merelyin thepositionofexplanationsof the actual fact or state of the case,—accountsofthewayinwhichitoriginated,andmaybedefended.Anditisof some importance, in order to rightly appreciating the evidence— therationesdecidendi—thatthisdistinctionshouldbekeptinview.

Withrespecttothesubjectofguilt,asdistinguishedfromdepravity,thebearingof the firstsinofAdamhasasomewhatcloserandmoredirectconnectionwiththeactualconditionofman;for,accordingtothegeneraldoctrine of orthodox Calvinistic divines, the guilt of Adam's first sin,imputed to his posterity, is directly a part of the guilt which actuallyattaches to them, and forms a constituent element of one importantfeatureoftheiractualcondition,—viz.,theirguilt,theirreatus,theirjustliabilitytopunishment,includingofcourse,fromthenatureofthecase,the grounds on which that liability rests. But, as we have alreadyexplained,neitherguilt,initspropersense(reatus),ontheonehand,norjustification in its proper sense, as simply deliverance from guilt orliability to punishment, and acceptance, on the other, entered directlyintotheoriginalPelagiancontroversy,as itwasmanaged in the timeofAugustine. Itwasungodlinessordepravity, and itsbearinguponmen'sactualcapacity todothewillofGod,andtodischargetheirobligations,thatwasthenmainlydiscussed;anditiswiththat,therefore,atpresentthatwehavechieflytodo.ThebearingofthefirstsinofAdamuponhisposterity, and generally the connectionsubsisting between him and his

descendants, was indeed discussed between Augustine and hisopponents; but, in accordance with the distinction which we have justexplained,itwasnotdirectly,asiftheguiltofhisfirstsinwasaportionoftheguiltactuallyattaching to them,but only indirectly, in so far ashisfirst sin and its immediate consequences afforded some explanation ofthe origin or ground of the deep-seated and pervading depravity orungodliness,whichScriptureandexperienceunite in proclaiming to beanactualfeatureofthemoralcharacterofallmen.

Augustine was enabled to see and unfold, with a very considerablemeasureofclearnessandaccuracy,thegreattruthwhichhassincebeenmorefullydevelopedandillustratedindefenceofCalvinistic principles,—viz., thatAdamwasconstitutedbyGodtherepresentativeand federalheadofhisposterity, so thathis trial orprobationwas virtually and inGod's estimation, according to the wise and just constitution orarrangementwhichHehadmade,—andwhichcertainly,tosaytheleast,cannotbeprovedtohavebeenunjustorunfavourabletohisposterity,—thetrialorprobationofthehumanrace;andthatthusthetransgressionofAdambecame,inalegalandjudicialsense,andwithoutanyinjusticeto them, theirs, so that they were justly involved in its properconsequences.Ifitbeindeedtheactualfactthatmencomeintotheworldwithungodlyanddepravednatures,whichcertainlyandinvariably,untiltheyarechanged,producetransgressionsandshortcomingsofGod'slaw—actual violationsofmoral obligations— then, assuredly, theprinciplethatAdamwasconstituted,andthereafterwasheldandregardedbyGod,astherepresentativeandfederalheadofhisposterity,sothattheysinnedinhimandfellwithhiminhisfirsttransgression,istheonlyonethathaseverbeenpropoundedwhichmakesevenanapproachtowardsaffordinganexplanationof this important fact,—viz., thatmendocome into theworld with their whole moral nature corrupted, and thoroughlyperverted, so far as God and His law are concerned. If men are notsatisfied with this explanation, so far as it goes, it is their business todevise or suggest a better. But, in place of impartially considering thisexplanation,which the statements of Scriptureplainly enough indicate,andinplaceofattemptingtogiveanyothermoresatisfactoryexplanationofafactwhichappearsinitselftobewellestablished,themorecommonprocessistodenythefactaltogether,ortoexplainitaway,—i.e.,eitherto

denythatmenbringwiththemintotheworldanungodlyanddepravedmoralnature,ortorepresenttheungodlinessanddepravity,whichmaybe admitted in some sense to attach to it, to be insufficient to affectmateriallytheir relation toGod,and,withoutdivine interposition, theirfuturedestiny;andtobethusscarcelyimportantenoughtostandmuchinneedofexplanation,asnotpresentinganyveryseriousdifficultyeitherinspeculationorinreality.

Allthiscontributestoillustratetheobservationwehavemade,astotheproprietyandimportanceoffirstofallascertaining,ifpossible,howtheactualmatteroffactstands,thatmenwhoareopposedtoorthodoxviewsmaybedeprivedoftheunfairadvantageofshufflingbetweenthefactanditscause,—thething itself,anditsoriginorreason.Letthequestionbedistinctly put, and let it be fairly investigated, until, if possible, adeliberate and decided conclusion is come to:Domen, or do they not,bring with them into the world ungodly and depraved natures? And iftheydo,haveweanypractical testorstandardof thestrength,efficacy,andconsequencesofthisungodlinessordepravity,whichactually,andinfact, attaches to them as a feature of theirmoral character?When thematteroffactisonceascertained,itwillthenbepropertoconsider,ifitseemnecessary,both,ontheonehand,howitoriginatedandhowitmaybe explained; and, on the other, to what conclusions, theoretical andpractical,itmaylead.Whenthematterisviewedinthislight—whenthequestion is thus considered by itself, and in the light of its direct andappropriate evidence— there seems to be no very great difficulty incomingtoadecideddeterminationregardingit.

There are surelymany sufficiently plain statements in Scripture whichassureus thatmenhaveallbynature,—i.e., as theyactually come intotheworld, anduntil some important change is effectedupon them,—abias,proneness,ortendencytodisregardGod,toneglectthedutieswhichHe has imposed upon them, and to breakHis laws. Experience, or anactual survey of the history and condition of the human race, fullyconfirms this doctrine of Scripture, and shows that this tendency isuniversal, —extending to all men, —and is so strong and powerful asnever in any instance to be overcome by the unaided efforts of menthemselves,orbyanycombinationofexternalcircumstances;or,toadopt

the language of Jonathan Edwards, in his great work on Original Sin,'thatallmankindconstantlyinallages,withoutfail inanyoneinstance,run intomoral evil' and 'that, consequently, allmankind are under theinfluence of a prevailing effectual tendency in their nature to sin andwickedness.'Thereare, indeed,manymenwhodonotseemtobeatallawareofthistendencytosinasafeatureintheircharacter,andnotafeweven who openly deny it, and appeal to their own consciousness todisprove it. This, however, is no sufficient argument against the realityanduniversalityoftheallegedtendency;foritmaybe,andtheScriptureplainly enough indicates that it is, one feature or result of this verytendencyitself,andofitsimmediateconsequences,torendermenblindandinsensibletoitsownexistence.Manymen,whooncedisbelievedandopposed this doctrine, have come to be firmly persuaded of its truth;whilenonewho ever really and intelligently believed it, have ever beenbrought to reject it; and there are few men whose consciousness, ifallowed fulland fairscope,andsubjected toaskilfulcross-examinationupon some materials which the word of God furnishes, would not bebrought torendersometestimony,moreor lessexplicit, to its truth. Intheverynatureofthisdoctrine,orratherofthefactwhichitannounces,it is very manifest that men are imperatively called upon to ascertainwhether it be true, and to be familiarwith the grounds onwhich theirconvictionofitstruthisbased.Andwhenthisconvictionisoncereached,thenisthepropertimetoinvestigatebothitsoriginanditsresults—itscauses and its consequences— taking care, however, that neither thedifficultiesandperplexitiesthatmayattendaninvestigationofitsoriginor cause, nor the alarming consequences that may flow from it, whenpractically applied and followed out, shall be allowed to shake theconviction in regard to theactualmatterof fact,—this featureofman'smoralcharacter,whichhasbeensatisfactorilyestablishedbycompetentandappropriateevidence.

NowtheScripture,aswehavementioned,doesgiveussomeexplanationconcerningitsoriginandsource,thoughcertainlynotsuchastoremoveeverydifficulty,andtorenderthesubjectinitsprinciplesperfectly levelto our comprehension; and the substance ofwhat the ScripturemakesknowntousuponthispointwasmuchmorefullyandaccuratelybroughtoutbyAugustine inhiscontroversywiththePelagians, thanever ithad

beenbefore,andhasbeenalreadybrieflyexplained.Nootherreasonableexplanationofthefacthaseverbeengiven,—wemightsay,haseverbeenattempted. Men have attempted to explain the fact of the universalprevalence of actual sin among mankind, without referring it to apronenessor tendency tosin,whichmennowbringwith them into theworld,andwhichconstitutesanactual feature in theirmoralcharacter;but for this proneness or tendency itself operating universally andcertainly,whenonceadmittedor foundtobeanactualreality,nootherexplanation has ever been proposed. Somemen, indeed, have stoppedshort with the fact itself, received upon scriptural authority, withoutseeking,orevenadmitting,anyexplanationofitsoriginorcause;inotherwords, they have held the fact of the actual and entire corruption anddepravityofhumannature,withoutreceivingortaking intoaccountthefederalheadshipofourfirstparent—theimputationofAdam'ssintohisposterity—oritsderivationinanypropersensefromAdamandhis firsttransgression.Thisraisesthequestion,whetherornottheScripturegivesanycountenance to thedoctrineof the imputationofAdam's sin tohisposterity; andwhether, if it does, this principle does anything towardsexplaining the fact of the universal corruption and depravity of humannature.AugustinemaintainedandprovedthatAdam'ssininvolvedallhisposterity in thismoral corruption anddepravity, anddid so,because itwasheldorreckonedastheirs;although,ashasbeenalreadyexplained,hedidnotapplytheimputationofAdam'sfirstsininthetwofoldaspectinwhichithasbeencommonlypresentedbyCalvinisticdivines,—asthegroundatonceofaportionoftheguiltorreatuswhichattachestothem,andas, at the same time, affording someexplanationof theiruniversalactualmoraldepravity,—butonlyinthelatteroftheseaspects.Goddidnotcreatemanwiththisprevailingpronenessortendencytosin.Itmusthavebeen insomeway theresultof transgressionordisobedience.Theonlyactofdisobedienceortransgressiontowhichitcanbeascribed,orwith which it can be supposed to be penally connected— and theconnection must have been of a penal character— is that of our firstparents;andtheonlywayinwhichthattransgressioncouldoperateuponus,soas toaffectourmoralcharacter, isby itsbeing imputed tous,orheldandaccountedasours.This,again,receivesitsexplanationfromtheprinciplethatGodconstitutedAdamtherepresentativeorfederalheadofmankind,sothathistrialwasactually,andinajudicialsense,thetrialof

thehumanrace,—andhisfallandsinthefallandsinofallhisposterity.

HadnothingfurtherbeenrevealedtousinScripturethanthemerefactthat all men have, and bring with them into the world, ungodly anddepravednatures,itwouldhavebeenourdutytohavereceivedthisuponGod'sauthority,thoughHemighthavegivenusnoexplanationwhateverof it, and thoughwemighthavebeenutterlyunable todeviseany; andevenasmattersstand,ourfirstandmostimportantdutyinregardtothissubjectisjusttoascertainwhetherthisbeso,inpointoffact,ornot.ButtheScripturedoesplainlytracethefactwhichitassertsof theuniversalcorruptionanddepravityofman'snature,toourconnectionwithAdam,and to the first sin of our first parent, and does contain plain enoughindications that this connection is based upon a constitution,arrangement,orcovenant,whichGodmade,—whichisinitselfperfectlyequitable,—andinvirtueofwhichAdam'strialorprobationwastobethetrialorprobationofthewholehumanrace.Thisisinformationgivenusin Scripture, in addition to the making known the mere fact of theuniversalprevalenceofactualungodlinessanddepravityasa featureofhumannature, and is to be received and submitted to simply as beingrevealed;while,atthesametime,thereisnogreatdifficultyinseeingthatthis additional information does throw some light upon the importantfact with which it is connected, or does contribute something towardsexplainingit.Thesubjectis,indeed,stillamysteriousone,andwehavenorighttoexpectthatweshouldfullycomprehendit;butthestatementswhichwehavebriefly explained, can,we think, be all established,withmoreorlessclearnessorcertainty, fromthewordofGod.Theyexhausttheinformationwhichisgivenusthereuponthedifferentpointsinvolvedin thismatter, and they forma compact and intelligible scheme,whichunfoldsthewholesubjectinsuchawaythateachpartcorroboratesandillustratestheother.

ThedifficultiesconnectedwithwhatseemstobetaughtinScripture,astothebearingofAdam'sfirstsinuponhisownmoralcharacter,andthatofall his descendants, and with the alleged imputation of that sin to hisposterity,shouldnotinreasonaffectourinvestigationofthequestion,astowhattheactualmoralcharacterofmankindis,orthedecisiontowhichwemaycomeregardingit.Theviewoftheoriginandcauseofthemoral

depravityofman'snature,which isplainly intimated inScripture,doesassuredlynotmakethegreatfactitselfmoreincredibleorimprobable,orweakentheforceoftheevidenceonwhichitrests.Anditisonlywhenthefact is fully established, that men are warranted to investigate into itsoriginorcause.It isthenonlythattheywillbe likelytoenteruponthisinvestigationwithaduemeasureofimpartialityanddiligence;andwhendueimpartialityanddiligenceareemployed,mennotonlywillnotfind,indifficultiesthatmaybeconnectedwiththescripturalrepresentationoftheoriginandcauseofthisgreatfact,anygroundfordoubtingtherealityofthefactitself,establisheduponitsownproperevidence;buttheywillseethatthescripturalexplanationofthefact,thoughitmaynotremoveeverydifficulty,doestendinnoinconsiderabledegreetothrowlightuponit,—that,whenthewholeofwhattheScriptureteachesuponthesubjectis viewed in combination, it is all fitly framed together, and that thedifferent branches of the great general doctrine upon this point affordmutualstrengthandsupporttoeachother.

Somuchfortheretrospect,orlookingbackfromthefactestablished,orassumedtobeso,ofthemoralcorruptionordepravityofhumannature,toitssourceorcause.Letusnowbrieflyadverttotheprospect,orlookingforward to the consequences that result from it. In the Pelagiancontroversy,asunderstoodinAugustine'stime,theconsequencesofthefallwereviewedchiefly,not in theirconnectionwithguilt,asrenderingnecessary, ifmenwere tobesaved,someprovision forsecuringpardonand acceptance; but in their connection with depravity, as renderingnecessary some provision for changing men's natures, and as in somemeasuredeterminingthenatureandcharacteroftheprovisionthatwasneedful. And here the principal and primary question amounts insubstancetothis:Isthiscorruptionordepravity,attachingtoallmenasanactualfeatureofthemoralnaturewhichtheybringwiththemintothisworld,totalorpartial?

If it be only partial, thenman still has bynature something about himthat is reallygood, in thepropersenseof theword,—something that isreallyinaccordancewiththerequirementsofGod'slaw,thatenableshimtodosomethinginthewayofreallydischargingtheobligationswhichheuponhimasacreatureofGod,andofeffecting,oratleastaidingtoeffect,

by his own strength and efforts, his own entire deliverance from itsinfluence. If, on ' the other hand, the corruption or depravity whichattachestoman'smoralnaturebetotal,thenitfollowsthatthepositionsnowreferred toarewhollyunfounded, and that statementsdirectly thereversemayjustlybemadewithregardtomen'squalitiesandcapacities,so far as concerns their relation to God and His laws, their fitness todischargetheobligationswhichheuponthem,andtheirabilitytoexertthemselvesanyrealinfluenceupontheirdeliverancefromdepravity,andtheirmeetnessforheaven.

OurConfessionofFaithsays,—andthewordofGodfullyprovesit,—thatin virtue of this corruption or depravity, which attaches to all men bynature, they are 'dead in sin, andwhollydefiled in all the faculties andparts of soul and body,' and that they are 'thereby utterly indisposed,disabled,andmadeoppositetoallgood,andwholly inclinedtoallevil.'This,andnothingless,Scriptureandexperienceconcurinshowingtobetherealimportandamountof thecorruptionwhich, infact,attachestoman'smoral nature; and while the direct and immediate result of thistruth,provedoradmitted,is,thatmenshould,inthebeliefofit,befullyaware of, and should constantly realize, their own utter worthlessnessandhelplessnessinregardtoallspiritualandeternalthings,andcherisha frame of mind and heart corresponding to this awful reality, whicheithernowattaches,ordidonceattach,toeveryoneofthem,—itsmoregeneralandextendedimportance,boththeoreticallyandpractically,istobeseeninitsbearinguponthequestionofwhatisthenature,character,and source of the provision that may be adequate and needful forremoving it. It is here, of course, that the subject of original sin andhuman depravity connects with that of divine grace, or the specialgracious agency ofGod, in converting and sanctifyingmen,—a subjectwhich formed, perhaps, themost prominent topic of discussion in thecontroversy between Augustine and the Pelagians. Here, too, comes intheimportantanddifficultsubjectoffree-will;abouttheprecisemodeofstating, defending, and applying which, there has been considerablediversityofsentiment,evenamongthosewhointhemainagreedinthewhole substance of what they believed regarding themoral nature andspiritual capacity of fallen man. Indeed, the subject of the freedom orbondage,thelibertyorservitude,ofthehumanwill,—i.e.,ofthewillof

men as they are, as they come into the world, with a corrupt anddepravedmoralnature,—mayberegardedasforming,insomesense,theconnecting link between the doctrine of original sin, and that of God'sgraceintheconversionofsinners.Thedoctrineofman'stotaldepravityimplies,orimmediatelyleadsto,thatoftheactualservitudeorbondageofthehumanwill.Andthis,again,whenonceproved,wouldbesufficientof itself toestablishthedoctrineofGod'sspecialgraciousagencyastheultimatesource,andonlyrealcauseof,allthatistrulygoodinman,evenalthoughthislatterdoctrinehadnotbeensoclearlyandfullyestablishedby theexpressdeclarationsofScripture. It is in this connection, and inthis connection alone, that the servitude or bondage of the humanwillwasassertedbyAugustine,andwhatismuchmoreimportant,isassertedinourConfessionofFaith.TheConfession,afterlayingdownthegeneralprincipleaboutthenaturallibertyofthewillofmanalreadyquoted,andassertingthat'man,inhisstateofinnocency,hadfreedomandpowertowill and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God, but yetmutably,sothathemightfallfromit,'proceedsinthesewords:'Man,byhisfallintoastateofsin,hathwhollylostallabilityofwilltoanyspiritualgood accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogetheraversefromthatgood,anddeadinsin,isnotable,byhisownstrength,toconverthimself,ortopreparehimselfthereunto.'

Icannotenteruponanydetaileddiscussionofthissubject,thoughIwillafterwardsreturnto it;butIwould justremark, thatIambynomeanssatisfied that any other doctrine of necessity— any other view of thebondageorservitudeofthehumanwill—thanthatwhichrepresentsitasimplied in, or deduced from, themoral depravity which attaches to allmen, as an actual feature of their character, can be fully established,eitherfromScriptureorreason.Theactual inabilityofmentowillortodowhatisreallygood,—andthisistheonlynecessityunderwhichtheyhethatisofanymaterialpracticalimportance,—seemsinScripturetobealwaysconnectedwith,ordeduced from,not theirmerepositionas thecreatures ofGod's hand, and the subjects ofHismoral government,—although, of course, they are in these characters wholly subject at alltimes, and in all circumstances, toHis guidance and control,—not anygeneral lawswhichHehas impresseduponHis intelligentcreatures, orupon the human mind as such, or on its power of volition, or other

faculties or operations; but it seems to be connected with, or deducedfrom, that thorough ungodliness, or entire moral corruption, whichattaches to the nature of man, as fallen. That the ungodliness orcorruption which attaches to man's nature, as fallen, does produce orimply a bondage or servitude of the will, by which men are, in fact,'unable by their own strength to convert themselves, or to preparethemselvesthereunto,'isevidentinthenatureofthecase,andisclearlytaught in Scripture. That any other kind or species of servitude, ornecessity,attachestothehumanwill,isnotbyanymeanssocertain.Theonly ground on which it can be alleged to rest is a metaphysicalspeculation, which, whether true or false, ought to be carefullydistinguishedfromtruthsactuallytaught inScripture;andwhich,whilenotitselfpositivelysanctionedbyScripture,cannot,Ithink,beshowntobe indispensablynecessaryfortheexposition, illustration,ordefenceofanyofthosegreatdoctrines,thebeliefofwhichisrequiredinthewordofGod, and the knowledge of which is necessary in order to an accurateacquaintancewiththewayofsalvation.

III.Conversion—SovereignandEfficaciousGrace

The controversy between Augustine and his opponents turned, as wehave said, to a large extent, upon thenature and import, thenecessity,grounds, and results of that grace of God, which, in some sense, wasuniversallyadmittedtobemanifestedinpreparingmenforheaven.Thatacertaincharacter,andacertainmodeofacting, inobedience toGod'slaw,were in factnecessary, inorder tomen's attaining final happiness,and thatmenwere insomesense indebted toGod'sgraceor favour forrealizingthis,wasuniversallyconceded.ItwasconcededbyPelagiusandhis immediate followers, and it is conceded by modern Socinians; butthentheexplanationwhichthesepartiesgaveofthisgraceofGod,whichtheyprofessedtoadmit,madegracetobenograce,andpracticallymademen, and not God, the authors of their own salvation, which theSocinians,consistentlyenough,guaranteeat lengthtoallmen.Withthe

originalPelagiansandthemodernSocinians,thegraceofGod,bywhichmen are, in this life, led to that mode of acting which, in fact, standsconnectedwiththeirwelfareinthenext,—(forevenSocinianscommonlyadmitsomepunishmentofwickedmeninthefutureworld,thoughtheyregard it as only temporary), —consists in these two things: First, thepowers and capacities with which He has endowed man's nature, andwhicharepossessedbyallmenastheycomeintotheworld,alongwiththat general assistance which He gives in His ordinary providence, inupholding and aiding them in their own exercise and improvement ofthese powers and capacities; and, secondly, in the revelationwhichHehas given them to guide and direct them, and in the providentialcircumstancesinwhichHemayhaveplacedthem.Thisviewofthegraceof God, of course, assumes the non-existence of any such moralcorruptionattachingtomen,asimpliesanyinabilityontheirpart,inanysense,toobeythewillofGod,ortodowhatHerequiresofthem;and,inaccordancewiththisviewofwhatmanisandcando,ascribes tohim apower of doing by his own strength, and without any special,supernatural, divine assistance, all that is necessary for his ultimatewelfare. This view is too flatly contradictory to the plain statements ofScripture,andespeciallytowhatwearetoldthereconcerningtheagencyoftheHolyGhost,tohavebeeneververygenerallyadmittedbymenwhoprofessedtoreceivetheBibleasthewordofGod;and,accordingly,therehas been a pretty general recognition of the necessity, in addition towhateverpowersorcapacitiesGodmayhavegiventomen,andwhateveraids or facilities of an external or objective kindHemayhave affordedthem, of a subjective work upon them through special supernaturalagency;andthequestion,whetherparticularindividualsorbodiesofmenwere involvedmoreor less in theerrorsof semi-Pelagianism,or taughtthetruedoctrineofScripture, is, inpart, tobedeterminedbytheviewswhichtheyhavemaintainedconcerningthenature,character,andresultsof this special supernatural agency of God, in fitting men for theenjoymentofHisownpresence.

Even the original Pelagians admitted the existence of supernaturalgraciousinfluencesexertedbyGoduponmen;butthentheydeniedthatthey were necessary in order to the production of any of those thingswhich accompany salvation, and held that when bestowed theymerely

enabled men to attain them more easily than they could have donewithoutthem;whiletheyalsoexplicitlytaughtthatmenmeritedthem,orreceivedthemas themeritoriousrewardof theirprevious improvementof their own natural powers. An assertion of the necessity of asupernaturalgraciousworkofGoduponmen'smoralnature,inordertothe production of what is, in point of fact, indispensable to theirsalvation, has been usually regarded as necessary to entitlemen to thedesignation of semi-Pelagians, —a designation which comprehends allwho,whileadmittingthenecessityofasupernaturalworkofGod,comeshortof thefullscripturalviewsof thegroundsof thisnecessity,andofthesource,character,andresultsoftheworkitself.TheoriginalPelagiansystemuponthispointisintelligibleanddefinite,andsoisthescripturalsystemofAugustine;whileanyintermediateview,whetheritmayormaynotbewhatcan,withhistoricalcorrectness,becalledsemi-Pelagianism,ismarked by obscurity and confusion. Leaving out of view the properPelagian or Socinian doctrine upon this subject, and confining ourattentiontothescripturalsystemofAugustineontheonehand,and,ontheotherhand,tothoseconfusedandindefinitenotionswhichfallshortof it, thoughnottosuchanextentasthedoctrinesofthePelagiansandtheSocinians,wewouldremarkthatitisconcededuponbothsides:First,thatbeforemenareadmittedintoheaventheymustrepentandbelieveintheLordJesusChrist, and lead thereaftera lifeofnewobedience; and,secondly,thatmenhaveamoralnaturesofartaintedbydepravity,thatthis indispensable process cannot in any instance be carried throughwithoutasupernaturalgraciousworkofGod'sSpirituponthem.

Thesetwopropositionsembodymostimportantandfundamentaltruths,clearly and fully taught in Scripture, and essential to a rightcomprehensionofthewayofsalvation.Menwhodenythemmaybejustlyregarded as refusing to submit to the authority of God's word, and asrejectingthecounselofGodagainstthemselves;while,ontheotherhand,menwhohonestlyandintelligentlyreceivethem,thoughcomingshortofthe whole scriptural truth in expounding and applying them, may beregarded as maintaining all that is fundamental upon this subject; bywhich Imean,—inaccordancewith thecommonProtestantdoctrine offundamentalsasbroughtoutinthecontroversywiththeChurchofRome,—that somemenwho have held nothingmore than this have afforded

satisfactoryevidencethattheythemselveswerebornagainofthewordofGod, and have been honoured as the instruments of converting othersthroughthepreachingofthegospel.Butwhilethisistrue,andoughtnottobe forgotten, it is of at least equal importance toobserve, thatmanywhohaveprofessedtoreceivethesetwopropositionsinthegeneraltermsinwhichwehavestatedthem,havegiventoogoodgroundtobelievethatthis professed reception of them was decidedly defective either inintegrityorinintelligence,—havesoexplainedthem,orratherexplainedthem away, as to deprive them of all real meaning and efficacy, andpracticallytoestablishthepowerofmantosavehimself,andtoprepareforheaven,upontheruinsofthefreegraceofGod,whichismanifestedjust as fully in the sanctification as in the justification of sinners. Andhence the importance and necessity of clearly and definitelyunderstandingwhat is the scriptural truth upon these subjects, lestweshouldbedeceivedbyvagueandindefiniteplausibilities,whichseemtoestablish the grace of God, while they in fact destroy it. Defective anderroneous views upon this subject are usually connectedwith defectiveand erroneous views in regard to the totality of the moral corruptionwhichattachestomenbynature,andoftheirconsequentinabilitytodoanything that is really spiritually good. It ismanifest that any error ordefectinmen'sviewsuponthissubjectwillnaturallyandnecessarilyleadtoerroneousanddefectiveviewsof thenature,character,andresultsofthatgraciousworkofGod,bywhichmanisledtowillandtodowhatisgoodandwell-pleasinginHissight.

When those who admit in general the necessity of a gracious work ofGod's Spirit upon men, in order to their repenting and believing thegospel,haveyeterroneousanddefectiveviewsuponthesubjectofdivinegrace,theyusuallymanifestthisbymagnifyingthepowerorinfluenceofthetruthorwordofGod,—byunderratingthedifficultyofrepentingandbelieving, —by ascribing to men some remains of moral power foreffecting theseresults,andsomerealandproperactivity in theworkofturning to God, —and by representing the work of God's Spirit asconsistingchiefly,ifnotexclusively,inhelpingtoimpressthetruthuponmen'sminds,or,moregenerally,renderingsomeaidorassistancetotheoriginalpowersofman,andtotheeffortswhichhemakes.It isbysuchnotions as these, though often very obscurely developed, insinuated

rather than asserted, and sometimes mixed up with much that seemssoundandscriptural,thatthetimedoctrineofthegraciousworkofGodin the conversionof sinnershasbeen often undermined and altogetheroverthrown. These men have, more or less distinctly, confounded thewordorthetruth—whichismerelythedeadinstrument—withtheSpirit,whoistherealagent,orefficientcauseof thewholeprocess.Theyhaverestricted the gracious work of the Spirit to the illumination of men'sunderstandings through the instrumentality of the truth, as if theirwilldidnotrequiretoberenewed,andasifallthatwasneedfulwasthatmenshouldbe aided intellectually to perceivewhatwas their true state andcondition by nature, and what provision had been made for theirsalvationinChrist,andthentheywouldcertainlyrepentandbelieveasamatter of course,without needing specially to have the enmity of theirheartstoGodandHistruthsubdued.Theyhaverepresentedthegraciouswork of the Spirit chiefly, if not exclusively, as co-operatingwithmen,andaidingthemintheworkforwhichtheyhavesomenaturalcapacity,though not enough to produce of themselves the necessary result, as ifthere was little or no need of preventing or prevenient grace, or gracegoingbefore, inorderthatmanmayworkor act at all inbelievingandturningtoGod.ThesemenareusuallyveryanxioustorepresentfaithinJesusChristastosomeextenttheworkofmen'sownpowers,theresultoftheirownprinciples;andAugustineadmitsthathehadsomedifficultyinsatisfyinghimselfforatimethatfaithwasreallyandproperlythegiftofGod,andwaswrought inmenby theoperationofHisSpirit, thoughthisdoctrineisveryplainlyandexplicitlytaughtinScripture.Muchpainshavebeentakentoexplainhownaturalandeasysavingfaithis,toreduceittogreatsimplicity,tobringitdownasitweretothelevelofthelowestcapacity, —sometimes with better and more worthy motives, butsometimes also, we fear, in order to diminish, if not to exclude, thenecessityofasupernaturalpreventingworkofGod'sSpiritinproducingit.Andthen,asrepentanceandconversion,aswellasthewholeprocessof sanctification, are beyond all doubt inseparably connected with thebelief of the gospel, theway is thuspaved for ascribing tomanhimselfsome share in the work of his deliverance from depravity, and hispreparationforheaven.

One of themost subtle forms of the various attemptswhich have been

made to obscure the work of God's Spirit in thismatter, is that whichrepresents faith as being antecedent— in the order of nature at least,thoughnotoftime—totheintroductionorimplantationofspirituallifeintothesoulofman,deadinsinsandtrespasses.Thisnotionisfoundeduponthesetwogrounds:first,uponamisapprehensionofthefullimportofthescripturaldoctrine,thatmanisdeadinsin,—asifthisdeathinsin,while implying a moral inability directly to love God, and to give truespiritualobediencetoHislaw,didnotequallyimplyamoralinabilitytoapprehend aright divine truth, and to believe in the Lord JesusChrist;and, secondly, upon a misapplication or perversion of the scripturalprinciple,thatmenarebornagainofthewordofGodthroughthebeliefofthetruth,—asifthis,whilenodoubtimplyingthatthetruthhasbeeneffectually brought to bear upon the mind before the process of beingbornagainhasbeencompleted,sothatthemanisinthefullexerciseofnewspirituallife,implied,moreover,thatthisefficaciousoperationofthetruthmustprecede,intheorderofnature,thewholeworkbywhichtheSpiritoriginatestheprocessofvivification;andtheobjectandtendencyof this notion, based upon these two grounds, are to produce theimpression that men, through believing, are able to do somethingtowards making themselves, or at least towards becoming, spirituallyalive, and thereby superseding to some extent the necessity of asupernatural work of God's Spirit in a point of primary and vitalimportance,intimatelyconnectedwiththesalvationofmen.Manisdeadinsin; themakinghimalive, therestoringhimto life, is represented inScriptureas, ineverypartoftheprocess,fromitscommencementto itsconclusion,theworkofGod'sSpirit.Theinstrumentalityof thetruthorthe word is, indeed, employed in the process; but in the nature of thecase, and in accordance with what is clearly taught in Scripture, theremust,antecedently—atleastintheorderofnature,thoughnotoftime—to the truth being so brought to bear uponmen'sminds as to produceinstrumentally any of its appropriate effects, be awork ofGod's Spirit,whereby spiritual life is implanted, and a capacity of perceiving andsubmitting to the truth, which had been hitherto rejected, iscommunicated,—a capacitywhich, indeed,previously existed, so far asconcernsthemereintellectualframeworkofman'smentalconstitution—themerepsychologicalfacultieswhichhepossessesasbeingstillaman,though fallen— but whichwas practically useless because of the entire

bondageorservitudeofhiswill,whichrequiredtoberenewed,andcouldberenewedonlybytheimmediateagencyofGod'sSpirit.ThedoctrineofGod'sworduponthissubjectisfullymaintainedonlywhenmanisreallyregarded as being in his natural condition, morally dead to all that isreallygood,andwhenthefirstimplantationofspirituallife,andallthatresultsfromit,includingfaithaswellasrepentance,turningtoGodandembracing the Lord Jesus Christ, is honestly, and without reserve orequivocation,tracedtothesupernaturalagencyofGod'sSpiritasitsonlyefficientcause.

Oneother importantpointconnectedwith thissubject,which, fromthetimeofAugustinetillthepresentday,hasbeenlargelydiscussed,iswhathas been called the efficacy, or invincibility, or irresistibility of grace.Pelagiansandsemi-Pelagianshaveallunitedindenyingtheirresistibilityof grace, and have virtually maintained— for it really comes to this insubstance—thatwhateverpowertheHolySpiritmayputforthuponmeninordertoconvertandrenewthem,itisintheirpowertoresistitall,andto escape, so to speak, unconverted and unrenewed; while Augustinemaintained that thegraceofGod, thepowerof theSpirit in i theElect,always prevailed or overcame, and certainly took effect, whateverresistancemenmightmaketoit.Thisdoctrinehasbeenheldinsubstanceeversincebyorthodoxdivines,thoughtherehasbeensomedifferenceofopinionamongthemastowhatwerethetermsinwhichthesubstanceofthescripturalviewsupon thesubjectcouldbemost fitlyand accuratelyexpressed.

Augustine,inassertingtheinvincibilityorirresistibilityofgrace,didnotmean,—and thosewho in subsequent timeshaveembracedhisgeneralsystemofdoctrineasscriptural,didnotintendtoconveytheidea,—thatmanwascompelledtodothatwhichwasgood,orthathewasforcedtorepent and believe against his will, whether he would or not, as thedoctrine is commonlymisrepresented;butmerely that hewas certainlyand effectuallymadewilling, by the renovation of his will through thepowerofGod,wheneverthatpowerwasputforthinameasuresufficientor adequate to produce the result. Augustine, and those who haveadoptedhissystem,didnotmeantodenythatmenmay, insomesenseand to some extent, resist the Spirit, the possibility of which is clearly

indicatedinScripture;inasmuchastheyhavemostcommonlyheldthat,tousethelanguageofourConfession,'personswhoarenotelected,andwho finally perish, may have some common operations of the Spirit,'which,ofcourse,theyresistandthrowoff.Thetruthis,thatthisdoctrineofthecertainefficacyor irresistibilityofgrace iscloselyandnecessarilyconnected with the doctrine of God's purposes or decrees, —the greatdoctrineofpredestinationorelection,whichconstitutesanessentialpartof thePelagiancontroversy;and, indeed, itmayberegardedasformingthe connecting link between the doctrine of converting and renewinggrace,asthetrue causeof all that is good inman,and thatofpersonalelection to everlasting life, as the source to which God's effectualoperationinworkingfaithinmen,andtherebyunitingthemtoChrist,istobe traced. It is theSpirit ofGodwhose supernatural agency restoresmen to life, and effects in them all that is indeed spiritually good.Whenever this agency is put forth in strength sufficient to effect theobject of converting a sinner and uniting him to Christ by faith, itcertainlydoeseffectit,justbecauseGodhadresolvedtoeffectit,andhasin consequence put forth the power necessary for doing so.WhatGoddoesintime,Hefrometernitydecreedtodo,becauseintheInfiniteMindthere is no succession of time, —all things are at once and eternallypresent to it.When God exercises power, He is carrying into effect aneternal purpose; when He converts a sinner, He is executing a decreewhichHeformedbeforetheworldbegan—beforeallages.

The main questions connected with this important subject are these—First, Is God, when He sends forth His almighty Spirit, — when HeconvertsasinneranduniteshimtoChrist,—influenced,indoingso,byaregardtoanythingexistingintheman,bywhichTieisdistinguishedfromothers,orbyanythingpresentinhim?orisHeinfluencedsolelybyHisownpurpose,previouslyformed,—formedfrometernity,—ofconvertingand saving thatman? And, secondly, Does this general principle of aneternalpurposetosavesomemenandtopassbytheothers,ortoleavethem in their natural condition of guilt and depravity, apply to andregulateGod'sdealingswithall the individualsof thehumanrace?It isadmittedbymostoftheopponentsofpredestination,properlysocalled,thatGodforeseesfrometernitywhatsoevercomestopass;andthatsinceHehasforeseenallevents,eventhosewhichembodytheeternal fateof

Hisintelligentcreatures,andthushadthempresenttoHismind,Hemaybesaidinacertainsensetohaveforeordainedorforeappointedthem;sothat the question virtually and practically comes to this— Does Godpredestinate men to eternal life because He foresees that they willexercisefaithandrepentance?ordoesHeforeseethisbecauseHehas,ofHis own good pleasure, chosen them to faith and repentance, andresolvedtobestowthesegiftsupontheminorderthattheymaybesavedin thewaywhichHe has appointed? If faith and repentance aremen'sacts, in such a sense that they can exercise themby their ownunaidedefforts, without God's agency, and can abstain from exercising them,whatever influence He may exert upon them; in other words, if thepreventingandinvinciblegraceofGodbenottherealsourceandefficientcauseofall that isgood inmen, thenthe formerviewmaybe true, andelection to life may rest upon the ground of faith and repentanceforeseen; but if not, then the latter viewmust be true, and it must becertain that God has, of His own good pleasure, of His own sovereignpurpose,electedsomementoeverlastinglife,andinthemereexecutionof this purpose, has, inHis own good time, given them, orwrought inthem,faithandrepentance.

ItisnotdisputedthatGodusuallygivesmenspiritualblessings—takingthatexpressioninitswidestsense—inacertainorder,onebeinginsomesensedeterminedbywhathaspreceded it;but thequestion is,whetherthecommencementofspirituallifewroughtbyGod,andthewholeseriesof spiritual blessings conferred by Him, viewed collectively and in themass, can be really traced to any other cause or source than just thiseternal purpose, founded on the counsel ofHis ownwill, to save somemen,andHisactuallyexecutingthispurposeintime,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheschemewhichHehasestablishedforthesalvationofsinners.Thereisreallynomediumbetweenanelectiontolife,restingasits foundation upon the faith, repentance, and holiness of individualsforeseen,—whichisreallynoelection,but amereactof recognition,—andachoiceorselectionofindividualsoriginatinginthegoodpleasureofGod,withoutanyothercauseknownto,orknowableby,us,—achoiceorselectionfollowedupinduetime,asitscertainandnecessaryresult,bythe actual bestowal by God upon the individuals elected of all that isnecessaryforsecuringtheirsalvation.Thelatteroftheseviews,wethink,

it canbe proved, is clearly taught in Scripture; and though itno doubtinvolves much that is mysterious and inexplicable— much that mayeither call forth presumptuous objections, or profitably exercise men'sfaith and humility,—yet it certainly accordsmost fully with the actualphenomenaofthemoralandspiritualworld,anditsurelypresents-Godin His true character and real position as the rightful and omnipotentgovernor of the world, the arbiter of the eternal destinies of Hisintelligentcreatures.Theformerview—theonlyonewhichcanbetakenif that of unconditional election be rejected, —besides that it isinconsistentwiththestatementsofScripture,whichplainlysupportstheoppositedoctrine,isliabletothefatalandunanswerableobjection,thatitleaveseverythingbearinguponthecharacterandeternalconditionofalltheindividualsofourraceundetermined,and, indeed,uninfluenced,bytheir Creator and Governor, and virtually beyond His control; anddegradesHimtotheconditionofamerespectator,whoonlyseeswhatisgoingonamongHiscreatures,or foreseeswhat is totakeplacewithoutHimselfdeterminingit,orexertinganyrealefficiency intheproductionofit,andwhomustbeguidedbywhatHethusseesorforeseesinallHisdealings with them. There is really no medium between these twopositions. God either really governs the world, and determines thecharacter and destinies of His intelligent creatures; or else thesecreaturesarepractically independentofHim, theabsolute regulatorsoftheir own conduct, and the omnipotent arbiters of their own destinies.Anditissurelymuchmorebecomingourconditionandcapacities,eventhough there was less clear scriptural evidence upon the subject thanthereis,toleantothesideofmaintainingfullythedivinesupremacy,—ofrelying implicitly upon the divine justice, holiness, and faithfulness, —and resolving all difficulties, which we cannot solve, into our ownignorance and incapacity; than to that of replying against God, —arraigning theprinciples ofHismoral administration,—and practicallyexcludingHimfrom thegovernmentof themost importantdepartmentoftheworldwhichHehascreated,andeversustains.

IV.PerseveranceoftheSaints

Another topic of primary importance, which was treated of fully andformally by Augustine in his controversywith the Pelagians, is what iscommonly called theperseveranceof the saints;— or thedoctrine thatmenwhohave once been really enabled to believe in JesusChrist, andhavebeenbornagainofthewordofGod,donevertotallyandfinallyfallawayfromastateofgrace,butarecertainlyenabledt0persevere,andarepreserveduntoeternalsalvation.

ThisdoctrineofperseveranceismanifestlyanecessarypartofthegeneralschemeofChristiandoctrine,whichAugustinedidsomuchtoexpoundanddefend;andwhatisstillmoreimportant,—foritisnotverysafeformentoplacemuchrelianceupontheirownmereperceptionofthelogicalconnection of doctrines in regard to divine things, —it is, we arepersuaded,clearlytaughtinthestatementsofScripture.Ifthedoctrinestowhichwehavealreadyadvertedare,indeed,containedinthewordofGod,themenofwhomitisassertedthattheywillcertainlypersevereandbesaved,areplacedinthiscondition,—viz., thatGodhasfrometernitychosenthemtoeverlastinglife;andthatintheexecutionofthispurposeordecree,Hehasgiventhemfaithandrepentance,HehasunitedthemtoChrist,andrenewedtheirnatures.Allthis,whichcouldbeeffectedbynopowerbutHisown,Hehasdone,anddone for theexpresspurpose ofsavingthemwithaneternalsalvation.Ofmensoplaced—treatedbyGodinsuchawayforsuchapurpose—itmaysurelybeassertedwithperfectconfidence, that He will certainly enable them to persevere, and willtherebysecuretheireternalwelfare.HadGodformednodefinitepurposeofmercy in regard to individuals of our fallen race, we could not havebeencertainthatanywouldhavebeensaved.Weremenabletoconvertthemselves, and to prepare for heaven, in the exercise of their ownnatural powers and capacities, while it is possible that they mightsucceed, it is equallypossibleofanyof them,apart fromGod's electingpurpose, that theymight fall off and ultimately fail.Were divine graceexertedinsuchawayandinsuchameasure,thatitwasstillinthepowerofanyman,intheexerciseofhisownnaturalandinherentcapacities,toresist it,or toremainunaffectedby it, thenneitherGodnormancouldspeak with anything like certainty in any case of the ultimate result;whereas the verydifferent andopposite state of things, in regard to alltheseimportantsubjects,whichthewordofGodunfoldstous,andwhich

wehavealreadyexplainedintreatingofthesubjectsofefficaciousgraceand predestination, makes the final perseverance of all who are thusplacedandtreated,notonlypracticable,butascertainableandcertain.

The connection which subsists among these different doctrines, —original and totaldepravity; converting, efficacious, or invincible grace;eternal election, and finalperseverance,—the relation inwhich theyallstandtoeachother,—thefull,compact,andcomprehensiveviewwhich,in combination, they exhibit of the leading departments and wholesubstanceofdivinerevelation,ofwhatGodhasunfoldedtousconcerningHimselfandconcerningour race, concerningHisplansandoperations,and our capacities and destinies, —all this greatly confirms their truthand reality, as it exhibits them all as affording to each other mutualstrengthandsupport.

It is right, however, to mention, that in regard to the subject ofperseverance there is a certain amount of error and apparentinconsistency tobe found inAugustine'sworks.Heheld,decidedly andconsistently,thatallwhoarepredestinated,orelectedtoeverlastinglife,arecertainlyandinfalliblyenabledtopersevere,anddoallinfactattaintosalvation;buthesometimeswrites,asifhethoughtthatmenwhohadbeenthesubjectsofconvertingandrenewinggracemightfallawayandfinallyperish.

Heheld,indeed,thatthisfallingawaywasofitselfaconclusiveproofthatthey had not been elected, and so far he was perfectly orthodox andconsistent; but he does not seem to have been quite so certain that,thoughnotelected,andthereforefinallyperishing,somemenmightnothave been brought for a time by God's grace under the influence ofsanctified principles or real holiness, — and yet totally and finally fallaway. This notion was inconsistent with the general principles of hissystem,andiscertainlynotsanctionedorrequiredbyanythingcontainedinScripture.TheScripture,bywhatittellsusofthedeceitfulnessoftheheart,andofsin,oftheimpossibilityofmenknowingwithanythinglikeabsolutecertaintythetruestateofthe'characterofother',—byreservingthepowerofsearchingthehearttoGodalone,—andbysanctioningtheprincipleobviouslyinvolvedinthedeclarationoftheapostle,'Theywentoutfromus,becausetheywerenotofus;foriftheyhadbeenofus,they

would have continued with us,'— affords us abundant materials forexplainingoraccountingforallanomalouscases,allapparent instancesof apostasy. And it is not, after all, quite certain that Augustine'sstatements upon this subject necessarily implymore than that cases ofapostasyoccurredinindividualswho,sofarasmancanjudge,hadfairlyentered upon the path that leads to heaven,—a positionwhich no onedisputes.

Ifhiserrorreallywasmoreseriousthanthis,itisnotverydifficulttoseewhattemptedhimtoadoptit:itwasthenotionwhichwasheldinagrossand utterly anti-evangelical formbymany of the fathers, and from thetaint of which Augustine was not altogether free, of making baptismstand in somemeasure both for justification and regeneration. Amanwho rightly understands the nature of justification as a judicial orforensic art, and the true connection both of justification andregenerationwith faith inJesusChrist,bywhichweareunited toHim,andwhoalongwiththisbelievesinpersonalelectiontolife,willnoteasilyfall into the error which Augustine seems in some measure to haveimbibed.Themanwhohasthoroughlyclearandscripturalviewsofwhatis involved in the change that takes place, both as respectsmen's stateand character, when they are united by faith to Christ, will not readilybelieve thatany inwhomthis changehasbeeneffectedbyGod,willbeallowedtofallawayandtoperish,eventhoughheshouldnothaveveryclear and distinct views— which, however, Augustine had— upon thesubject of personal election. Augustine's error and inconsistency, orrather perhaps his obscurity and confusion, upon this point, is thusclearly enough traceable to what has been called the sacramentalprinciple,asimplyinganexaggeratedsenseofthenecessityandefficacyof.outwardordinances,—fromwhichscarcelyanyofthefathers,exceptthose who had personally associated with the apostles, are altogetherfree,andwhichstillcontinuestobeoneofSatan'schiefcontrivancesforpervertingthegospelofthegraceofGod,andruiningthesoulsofmen.

Wemaymention,asasortofset-offtothisdefectorerrorofAugustine's,that Arminius and his immediate followers before the Synod of Dort,while rejecting the other leading doctrines of the Augustinian orCalvinistic system, did not venture at first to-deny the doctrine of

perseverance, butprofessed for a time that theyhadnot fullymadeuptheir mind regarding it. In the Conference at the Hague— CollatioHagiensis— held in the year 1611, after the death of Arminius, theRemonstrants, or Arminians, after stating fully the provisionsmade inthe gospel for enabling believers to grow in knowledge and in grace,proceed to say: 'Sed an illi ipsi negligentia sua, principium illud, quosustentantur in Christo, deserere non possint, et prsesentemmundumiterum amplecti, a sancta doctrina ipsis semel tradita deficere,conscientiae naufragium facere, a gratia excidere; penitius ex sacraScriptura esset expendendum, antequam illud cum plena animitranquillitateetplerophoriadocerepossimus.BeforetheSynodofDortin1618, however, they had made up their mind on this question, anddecidedlyrejectedthedoctrineofperseverance.SomethingsimilartothisoccurredinthecaseofJohnWesley,whosetheologicalviewswerealmostwhollyidenticalwiththoseofArminius.Intheearlierpartofhis life, in1743,hewas,hesays,'inclinedtobelievethatthereisastateattainableinthis life fromwhich aman cannot finally fall.'But thisdoctrinehewasafterwardsledtorenounce.

MONERGISMBOOKS

ThePelagianControversybyWilliamCunningham,Copyright©2018

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions.Bypaymentoftherequiredfees,youhavebeengrantedthenon-exclusive,non-transferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverseengineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofMonergismBooks.

ePub and .mobi Editions September 2016 Requests for informationshouldbeaddressedto:MonergismBooks,POBox491,WestLinn,OR97068