that none enter into eternal life unless by Christ, For by the word all repeated in this verse, we are to understand in the first instance, all who are naturally descended from Adam, and in the second, all who are united to Christ by a spiritual regeneration so then it is declared that none die except by their connexion with Adam, and none are made alive but those who are quickened in Christ." The argument is simply this, as all are vivified in Christ, in like manner all die in Adam; but Christ vivifies those for whom he has merited the forgiveness of sin, and on whom he bestows a new life by regeneration: therefore Adam, in like manner, by his sin, has merited death for all his posterity, and transmitted to them a corrupt nature by ordinary generation.

The last text of Scripture which we will mention, as furnishing satisfactory proof to the fathers of the doctrine of original sin, is Ephes. ii. 3. "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." On this many ancient writers comment, and all agree in the opinion that it means, that when born we are under condemnation, from which Christ came to deliver us.

Four of the texts above cited, as teaching the doctrine of original sin, Jerome applies to the same purpose in a single paragraph of his commentary on Ezekiel. Of his remarks, however, we shall only cite that which relates to the famous text in the fifty-first Psalm. "David says, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother bring me forth: not in the iniquity of his mother, or his own personal sin, but in the sin of human nature. Whence, the apostle says, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."

From this remark we learn, not only what Jerome thought was the meaning of being conceived in sin, but also that he understood the apostle to mean infants, where he speaks of those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. And we believe that in regard to both these texts he speaks the language of all antiquity.

Among the reasons by which the doctrine of original sin, as held by the ancients, was supported, the sufferings and death of infants was believed to hold the first place, because it was considered that it would be altogether unjust that they should be thus punished, unless they were charged with the guilt of some sin. Hence Augustine, in his fourth book against the two letters of Pelagius, says, "But how is it that the Pelagians N

hold that death only is derived to us from Adam? According to them, we die because he died; but he died because he had sinned. They hold, therefore, that punishment passes upon us without any fault: innocent infants then are punished by an unjust sentence; suffering death without having merited this punishment." And again, in his sixth book against Julian, he says, "The sins of parents, in one respect, are not ours, but in another respect they are ours. They are not ours as it relates to the personal act, but they are ours by the contagion of our descent: which, if it were not true, a grievous yoke would be upon the children of Adam from the day of their birth, which could by no means be reconciled with justice." And in his last answer to Julian he says, "This judgment (viz. death) on infants would be altogether unjust if there were no original sin." And again, "Why are little children so grievously afflicted if they have no sin at all. Could not an omnipotent and just God prevent these unjust punishments from falling on infants."

The writer of the book entitled Hypognosticon argues in a similar manner. "If the sin of our first parents hurt no one but themselves, how does it happen that the punishment of their fault falls upon us? unless you maintain that God is unjust, who suffers those who are free from all sin to be held bound under the chain of punishment."

Prosper reasons in the same manner. In his book against Collator he says, "Unless you choose to affirm what is evidently false, that punishment, not sin, has been transmitted to the posterity of Adam; for it is too impious to think this of the justice of God, that it is his will to condemn those who are free from sin to the same punishment as the guilty. But wherever punishment is manifest, there is complete evidence of the existence of sin; for sin and punishment are indissolubly united; therefore human misery is not from the constitution of the Creator, but from the retribution of the Judge."

It must be confessed, however, that some among the orthodox of that age held that God, as a sovereign, might punish his creatures, and even doom them to eternal death, although they had never sinned. Of this opinion was Macarius the Egyptian. The opinion of Augustine and Prosper, however, has commonly been entertained by sound theologians in all ages. Some indeed think that the two opinions may be reconciled, by supposing that the one party speak of the pun

jshment of loss merely; while the others speak of the punishment of sense. But this is not very satisfactory; and the opinion of Macarius, which has been received by some since the reformation, is dishonourable to God. And so it was esteemed by the council of Arausicanum; for in their second canon they declare, "That to say that God inflicts death, which is the punishment of sin, where no sin exists, is to charge him with injustice." The same opinion is given by Anselm, who says, "It is repugnant both to wisdom and justice, that they whom God hath fitted for eternal happiness should, without being chargeable with sin, be forced to suffer punishment."

The fathers also relied on this argument, "That if infants were not involved in the guilt of sin, Christ cannot be their Saviour. On this subject Augustine says, in his first book. against the two letters of Pelagius, "They contend that infants are in a safe state already, so that they dare deny that they owe their salvation to the Saviour." And again, in book second, "The Pelagians assert that God is not the Purifier, Saviour, and Deliverer of men of all ages." And in his answer to Julian, ch. xxxi, "The multitude whom you despise, that acknowledge the catholic faith, confess that infants are redeemed by the Saviour; and therefore they detest the error of the Pelagians who deny this." The same sentiments are found in many other passages of the writings of this father.

"The

But scarcely any argument was more frequently resorted to by the advocates of the doctrine of original sin, than that derived from the baptism of infants. This argument is handled by Augustine in the following manner: church borrows for them (infants) the feet of others that they may come, the heart of others that they may believe, the tongue of others that they may confess. For being sick, they are oppressed with the sin of another; so, when made whole, they are saved through the confession of another for them. This practice the church always had; always held. Let no one, therefore, whisper in your ears a contrary doctrine. The church received it from the faith of our ancestors, and perseveringly holds it fast, even to the end. For where there are none sick, there is no need of a physician. What need, therefore, can infants have of Christ if they are not sick. If they are well, why seek a physician to take care of them? If they are infected with no sin

6

when they are brought to Christ, why is it not said to those who bring them into the church, carry these innocents hence; they that be whole need not a physician, but the sick.' Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

So also the council of Milevum, or rather of Carthage, denounced such as denied that infants should be baptized for the remission of original sin. Can. 17. "For in no other sense can that be understood which was spoken by the apostle-that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death hath passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned-than in that adopted by the universal church, every where diffused. For by reason of this rule of faith, even infants, who were never capable of committing any sin themselves, are nevertheless baptized according to truth for the remission of sins: so that the pollution contracted by them in their birth might be cleansed by their regeneration."

But that which was thought to give peculiar force to this argument was, that Coelestius himself, in a book which he edited at Rome, was constrained to confess "That infants are baptized for the remission of sins, according to the rule of the universal church, and according to the doctrine of the gospel." It seems, then, that from this argument the Pelagians were never able to extricate themselves; but of this more hereafter.

The view which has been given of the opinions of the universal church, on the subject of original sin, relate only to the age of the Pelagian controversy. It may still be a matter of proper and important inquiry, what opinions were commonly entertained on this point before the commencement of the fifth century? From the almost universal concurrence of theologians in Africa, Asia and Europe, in the belief of this doctrine, we may infer that it did not originate in this age. We may be sure, from this consideration, that the doctrine of original sin was not invented by Augustine, as some have pretended. Jerome was more learned, and at this time much more known than Augustine, and he held the same doctrine, and commenced writing against the heresy of Pelagius before Augustine took up his pen; and these distinguished fathers lived in parts of the church widely separated from each other; the one in Africa, the other in Palestine. But in every council, except the little one of Diospolis, the doctrine of Pelagius was condemned, and the

doctrine of original sin affirmed; and commonly without a dissenting voice. And at some of these councils there were present several hundreds of theologians; and in the council of Diospolis, which acquitted Pelagius, there was nothing determined inconsistent with the catholic doctrines; but the case was, that Pelagius, by artfully concealing his true opinions under plausible but ambiguous terms, deceived the fathers who sat in that council, as Augustine has shown. Then, if it be a fact that at the commencement of the fifth century all the theologians in the world, except a few who were soon rejected as heretics, agreed in maintaining the doctrine of original sin, how shall we account for the universal prevalence of such a doctrine, but by supposing that it was handed down from the first planting of the christian church? For if it had been an error introduced by some particular doctor, or by some section of the church, it would not have been universal in its diffusion, nor would it have united the suffrages of all the faithful ministers of the gospel, as we see it did. And again, supposing that by extraordinary efforts this doctrine, so repugnant to the natural feelings of men, could have been every where propagated by the commencement of the fifth century, would there be no trace of such an universal change of opinion, and no record of the extraordinary efforts necessary to bring it about? Among all the writers who have touched on this subject, is it not strange that not one is found who gives the least hint of any such thing? Surely a change in relation to a doctrine so radical must have occasioned controversy. All would not have adopted a new and distasteful doctrine upon its first proposal, These are things which never can be cleared up on the hypothesis that the doctrine of original sin was not the doctrine of the apostolic churches.

Here we might gather up, from the writings of almost all the fathers who preceded Augustine, testimonies incidentally given, which would serve to show that they all believed in the same doctrine of original sin, which was so strenuously defended by the whole christian church in the beginning of the fifth century: and it would be easy to pursue this course, because Augustine has travelled over the same ground before us, and has adduced testimonies on this subject from Ignatius, from the work under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, from Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Origen, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and others, who, although they do