viously described the condition of the man who was living in a legal spirit; so he now describes and points out the condition of him who is endued with the evangelical Spirit.-On Romans 8.

The mutual and unanimous agreement of the witnesses whom I have here produced, will, according to my judgment, very easily liberate my opinion from all surmise and suspicion of novelty.

THIRD PART.

I. THIS OPINION IS NEITHER HERETICAL NOR ALLIED TO ANY HERESY.

1. In this Third Part, two things are contained: The FIRST is a Negative, that this my Interpretation of Romans vii is not favourable to the Pelagian Heresy. The principal Dogmas of the Pelagian Heresy are recounted from St. Augustine.—2. It is proved by Induction and by Comparison, that this Interpretation agrees with none of these Dogmas. -3. Two Rejoinders to the contrary. An Answer to the First of them, -that every good Thing must not be taken away from the unregenerate. -4. An Answer to the Second,-the Truth must be confirmed and Falsehood refuted, by solid Arguments.-5. It is proved from St. Augustine, that the doctrine which relates to the Necessity of the Grace of Christ, and to the Impossibility of the Law for the Conquest of Sin, was accounted by the Ancients to be of far more Importance, than that which proves the perpetual Imperfection of the Regenerate in this Life. -6. To this the Fathers of the Council of Carthage seem to give their Assent, in their Epistle to Pope Innocent.

THESIS. NO Heresy, neither that of Pelagius nor any other, can be derived or confirmed from this Opinion. But this Opinion is in the most obvious manner adverse to Pelagianism, and affords a signal and professed Confutation of its grand and leading Falsehood.

1. THIS Thesis contains two parts. The FIRST is, that this opinion is neither heretical, nor allied to heresy. The SECOND, that it is directly contrary to the Pelagian heresy, and professedly refutes it.

With regard to the FIRST of these parts, because it consists of a negation, those who maintain the affirmative of it must destroy it by the proof of the contrary. I am desirous, therefore, to hear from them what heresy it is which this opinion advocates and

favours. They will undoubtedly announce it to be that of Pelagius. But I require a proof of the particular point in which there is the least agreement between this opinion and Pelagianism. Let us shew, however, ex abundanti, that this opinion is not favourable to Pelagianism.

The following heads of doctrine are those which St. Augustine has laid down, in his Book On Heresies, and his Hypognosticon, as belonging to Pelagianism :

(i.) Whether Adam had sinned, or had not sinned, he would have died.

(ii.) The sin of Adam was injurious to no one except to himself: And, therefore,

(iii.) Little children do not contract original sin from Adam; neither will they perish from life eternal, if they depart out of the present life without the sacrament of baptism.

(iv.) Lust or concupiscence in man is a natural good; neither is there any thing in it of which man may be ashamed.

(v.) Through his free will, as per se, man is sufficient for himself, and is able to will what is good, and to fulfil or perfect that which he wills. Or even, For the merits of works, God bestows grace on every one.

(vi.) The life of the just or the righteous in this life has in it no sin whatsoever; and from these persons the church of Christ in this state of mortality are completed, that it may be altogether without spot or wrinkle.

(vii.) Pelagius, being compelled to confess grace, says, that it is a gift conferred in creation, is the preaching of the law, and the illumination of the mind, to know those things which are good and those which are evil, as well as the remission of sins if any one has sinned: Excluding from this [definition of grace] love, and the gift and assistance of the Holy Spirit, without which, he says, the good which is known may be performed; though he acknowledges that this grace has also been given for this purpose, -that the thing may be the more easily done; which can indeed be otherwise done by the powers of nature, but yet with greater difficulty.

2. THESE are the principal dogmas of the Pelagian heresy, to which others, if any such there be, may be referred. But none of these dogmas are patronized by the opinion which explains Romans vii, as applicable to a man placed under the law, and in the manner in which we have explained it, and as St. Augustine has declared it in his Book, entitled, "The Exposition of certain Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans," and in his first

Book to Simplicianus. This will be proved thus by induction :— (i.) Our opinion openly professes, that sin is the only and sole meritorious cause of death; and that man would not have died, had he not sinned.

(ii.) By the commission of sin, Adam corrupted himself and all his posterity, and rendered them obnoxious to the wrath of God. (iii.) All who are born in the ordinary way from Adam, contract from him original sin and the guilt of death eternal. Our opinion lays this down as the foundation of further explanation: For this original sin is called in Romans vii, "the sin,” “the sin exceedingly sinful," "the indwelling sin," "the sin which is adjacent to a man, or present with him," or "the evil which is present with a man," and "the law in the members."

(iv.) Our opinion openly declares, that concupiscence, under which is also comprehended lust, is an evil.

(v.) The Fifth of the enumerated Pelagian dogmas is professedly refuted by our opinion. For in Romans vii, the apostle teaches, according to our opinion, that the natural man cannot will what is good, except he be under the law, and unless the legal spirit have produced this willing in him by the law: And though he wills what is good, yet it is by no means through free will, even though it be impelled and assisted by the law to be capable of performing that very thing. But it also teaches, that the grace of Christ, that is, the gift of the Holy Spirit and of love, is absolutely necessary for this purpose; which grace is not bestowed according to merits, which are nothing at all, but is purely gra

tuitous.

(vi.) The Sixth of the enumerated dogmas of Pelagius is neither taught nor refuted by our opinion, because it maintains that Romans vii. does not treat about the regenerate. But, in the mean time, the patrons and advocates of our opinion do not deny that what is said respecting the imperfection of believers in the present life, is true.

(vii.) The Seventh of the enumerated dogmas of Pelagius is refuted by our opinion; for it not only grants, that good can with difficulty be done by the man who is under the law, and who is not yet placed under grace; but it also [simpliciter] unreservedly denies, that it is possible for such a man by any means to resist sin and to perform what is good.

66

3. But some one will perhaps rejoin, and say:-" Your inter pretation of this chapter is favourable to Pelagianism on two "accounts. FIRST, Because it attributes something of good to "a man who is not yet regenerated and placed under grace.

"SECONDLY, Because it takes away from the church a passage "of Scripture, by which she is accustomed to prove the imper"fection of the regenerate in the present life, and the conflict "which is maintained between the flesh and the Spirit as long as "man lives upon earth."

With regard to the FIRST of these objections I reply, that we

must see,

FIRST, What kind of good it is that our interpretation attributes to a man who is unregenerate. For it is certain, that every good, of what kind soever it may be, must not be entirely taken away from an unregenerate man and one who is not yet placed under grace. Because the knowledge of the truth, (Romans i, 18, 19,) the work of the law written in his heart, his thoughts accusing or else excusing one another, the discernment of what is just and unjust, (ii, 15, 18,) the knowledge of sin, grief on account of sin, anxiety of conscience, desire of deliverance, &c. (vii, 7, 9, 13, 24,)-are all good things, and yet they are attributed to a man who is unregenerate.

SECONDLY. We must know, that this our opinion, which explains Romans vii. as relating to a man under the law, does not bring forth these good things from the store-house of nature, but it deduces them from the operation of the Spirit, who employs the preaching of the law and blesses it.

THIRDLY. We must also consider, that this was not a subject of controversy between the Church and the Pelagians, “ May something of good be attributed to an unregenerate man who is not yet under grace, but who is placed under the law; or may it not?" But the question between them was, "Can something of good be attributed to man, without grace and its operation?” He who receives some operation of grace is not instantly under grace or regenerate; for grace prepares the will of man for itself, that it may dwell in it. Grace knocks at the door of our hearts; but that which has occasion to knock does not yet reside in the heart nor has it the dominion,—though it may knock so as to cause the door to be opened to it by its persuasion. But we have frequently treated on topics similar to this in the First Part of this our Treatise.

4. WITH respect to the SECOND of these objections, I reply, FIRST. This passage of Holy Writ was not produced by the Church, in her earliest days, for establishing the imperfection of the regenerate in this life, and the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit such as that which is maintained in regenerate persons. For we have already shewn, (pp. 552, 601,) that the most ancient

of the Christian Fathers did not explain Romans vii, in reference to the regenerate, or those who are placed under grace; though it subsequently began to be employed, by some divines, to establish this dogma.

SECONDLY. It is inconsequent argumentation to say, that "the opinion by which some passage is otherwise explained than it is by the many, nay which has been quoted by the Church herself to destroy some heresy, is therefore or can be judged to be allied to heresy, because it takes away from the Church a passage which has been usually employed to prove a true doctrine, and to refute a heresy." For if this be not inconsequent reasoning, there will scarcely be one of our divines who will not thus be deservedly judged to be allied to some heresy or other, and sometimes indeed to a very enormous one. By such a law [of criticism] as this, Calvin is called "an Arian" by the Lutherans, because he openly avows in his writings, that "many passages of Scripture, which have been adduced by the Ancient Church (both Greek and Latin) to establish the doctrine of the Trinity, do not contribute in the least to that purpose," and because he gives to them such a previously unusual interpretation.

THIRDLY. No detriment will accrue to the Church by the removal of this passage, [from the support of the imperfection of the regenerate in this life,] as she is furnished with a number, which is sufficiently copious, of other passages to prove the same doctrine, and to weaken the contrary one. This is abundantly demonstrated by St. Augustine, when he professedly treats Upon the Perfection of Righteousness in this Life in opposition to Calestius.

FOURTHLY. We must well and carefully examine by what passages of Scripture, and by what arguments, the truth may be proved, and falsehood refuted; lest, if weak and less valid, and in some degree doubtful, passages and arguments be adduced, the hopes of Heretics should be elevated, after they have demolished such weak bulwarks as those, and they should suppose it possible to disprove and confute the remaining [more suitable and valid] arguments on the same subject. For that man inflicts no slight injury on the truth who props it up by weak arguments; and the rules of art teach us, that a necessary Conclusion must be verified or proved by necessary Arguments: For the Conclusion follows that part [of a syllogism] which is the weakest. But it has been already shewn, that this portion of Scripture has not been devoid of controversy even among the catholic commentators on the Holy Scriptures.